 |
 |
Film theorists are not misguided by their own madness, and more importantly, nor is the theory they are "inventing". Why am I saying this -- of course film theory has to be an invention of some kind, it is not only a relatively new mode of thinking film, it is in itself a relatively new mode of thought. (Especially to think that film studies has only been taught in institutions in Australia since the 70s, in comparison to say philosophy, which is over 2000 years or the study of Fine Arts or Literature). Films can be understood on very many levels, technically; historically, as part of a national cinema, culturally and politically; or narratively; and also theorectically, through concepts that is yielded by its cinematic form or medium, or through its images and the way they are presented (through technical devices, as well as depending on our individual makeup and knowledge or understanding of images -- say in their manipulation of our perception of time, for example). It is important thus, to have undergraduates who are studying film to be exposed to all these different levels of understanding film -- so that, hopefully, their overall view of film is rich, multi-layered, passionate and not merely formalistic. Although I hold Roger Egbert's film criticisms in high esteem (usually), I balked at the way he dismissed film theories involvement and more so, their potential and vital contributions to our understanding of film. This leaves me more shocked then Weddle's personal views -- for they are coloured by his memory of his love of film when he was an undergraduate, and also, by his lack of knowledge of film theory since that time -- and why should he have followed its developments? But to openly criticise an area in which he has no expertise, is rather like having someone read the latest Neuroscience exam paper and rant and rave about why it is necessary to have all these specific terms in relation to the brain, why not merely call it the left top half of the brain or the bit of the brain that sits on top the spine? Film theory is a scholarly study of film. It seems that it is perfectly normal to have a scholarly study on say Renaissance paintings, and yet, film, as a mass entertainment, and a medium that has penetrated our every day, is not 'fit' for scholarly activity of this sort. But we can't forget that film and its larger embodiment, cinema, is already a composite industry as well as discipline. The very terms that are used by the technical side are borrowed from architecture, and other forms of a modernist cityscape. Just think of words like 'pan', 'tracking shot' or 'dolly'. So, it is in that same vein that film theory should borrow from other disciplines like philosophy, where the study of images already has a 'history'. And from words that are developed from other cultures, I mean, no one bats an eyelid when they are talking about a 'noir' film, or say that a David Lynch film is "so surreal!", so why all the fuss over a word like 'mise-en-scene'? And why attack Constance Penley? or indeed was it an attack? she'd written the Introduction to a book called "Speaking About Godard" a few year back. This book, I feel, is innovative and refreshing and offers pretty significant insights to Godard's films. And I remember how her words in the introduction haunted me as much, if not more, than the chapters of the book (which is constructed in the manner of a dialogue and an almost scene by scene analysis on a number of films -- like Heidegger's "On the Way to Language", but much less ambiguous and without the conceit -- between filmmaker Harun Farocki and theorist Kaja Silverman). In the intro, Penley said that this book tried to capture the essence of film as moving images, by talking about it, rather than reducing it to still images, which is what happens if the theory becomes too prescriptive. I think this element is perhaps the most important one -- the methodology of teaching film theory. How to keep the film alive, so that it is the film that works to open up your ideas, rather than the other way round. The latter, more often than not, reduces the film to mere footnotes of someone's grand theory. (Perhaps that is what happened to feminist film theory in the 70's, when everything was seen through a psycho-analytical frame). Just to end on personal anecdotes. I have benefited enormously in the past couple of years, having tutored 2nd and 3rd year undergraduate students in film theory. The semester just gone, there was a group of about 120 to 150 students -- I'd say 95% of them were film buffs. They were passionate about films. This was a core course for our Film Studies major. The course was called "From Silent to Sound Cinema" and covers the birth of cinema to Chaplin, Keaton and Griffith, to Eisenstein to German Expressionism and ends with a return to Hollywood with "Sunset Boulevard". Instead of tute groups, where you'd have to do the readings each week and then a presentation on them, (which can be quite dry). We'd devised these workshops called Image Movement Workshops. We'd show a segment or two of the film they had seen that week after the lecture, ( the segment is about 2 to 5 minutes long and up to 2 to 3 times) and provide them with a series of questions or prompts, then the assigned group will discuss this for 10 minutes and do an oral presentation, starting with a description of the scene. We stress that this description is not one about narrative, but about the images -- the shot eg one shot, long-take, close-ups etc, its composition, what kind of editing was deployed, the gestures of the characters, their positions, the mise-en-scene, the texture or colour of film, and sound if any etc etc. They move swiftly onto an analysis of it, using their own intuitions and being as creative as possible and then they have to introduce concepts from either the reading or the lecture and I always open up the discussion further to relations you can draw from more contemporary works. what is so surprising is how much the students loved it. In fact, sometimes all of them would start talking at once -- which, almost never happens, at least not to the tute groups I've been in when I was an undergraduate student. And yes, certain aspects of film theory, as with any discipline that you are serious about, requires intense reading and quiet thought and reflection. But it is up to the institutions still, to at least point students in the right direction, to Metz and Baudry, or Benjamin and Kristeva or Deleuze and Bergson or Gerbauer and Wulf or Bataille or Virilio and Baudrillard; and, of course many others. To do this would be to provide the students with a chance of picking up these interesting pieces of writing and to read them -- should they be seized momentaryily by an irrational fit of passion. Janice -- Janice Tong Cinema Studies Department of Art History and Theory University of Sydney Sydney NSW 2006 Australia Tel: 61 2 9351 7324 Fx: 61 2 9351 7323