I like Godard's phrase, taken from some old interview, that he makes films
so that philosophers 'like Monsieur Foucault' must assert more slowly. Film
brings friction to theory. I do believe it does and that it does at least
partly due to its still mechanical, bazinic, relation to reality. In how
much the tension between the fields of film and theory reflects the age old
tension between philosophy and literature, in how much it might be the
same, I'd rather not venture, but think that in terms of precisely this
sort of friction, friction against any sort of idealism in a very broad
sense, any other artistic/narrative medium/method, whether theatre or
literary fiction, could be seen as merely a precursor to cinema or the
semi-automatically produced moving image.
Even at his most maoist, Godard never managed to make an un-ironic film
about political radicalism. Once brought into the life of actual
characters, represented through particular bodies, there was always, as it
seems by necessity, a strong element of comedy, satire, involved. Nevermind
Godard's own exclaimed intentions.
H.
On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 1:51 AM, Frank, Michael <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> *though i’m reluctant to grant anything to barthes – my own blindness no
> doubt – i’ll provisionally grant that we can read the universe in a fava
> bean, but what this means is that EVERYTHING that one knows increases one’s
> awareness/perspective/insight, usw . . . it doesn’t mean that
> understanding lenses, specifically, as opposed to, say, understanding norse
> mythology, will make my contemplation of bazin richer*
>
> * *
>
> *and i’ll leave it at that, hoping that others will weigh in*
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Film-Philosophy [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On
> Behalf Of *William Brown
> *Sent:* Monday, January 30, 2012 7:18 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: [FILM-PHILOSOPHY] Theory vs Practice****
>
> ** **
>
> I'm sorry that you're sorry, Mike. It makes me feel bad for responding in
> such an unthinking manner.
>
> I have an astrophysicist friend who has spent the last 18 months designing
> a lens for NASA at their JPL among other things.
>
> I say to him things like: "But you know that the designer of a lens cannot
> know in advance what the lens will show or what things will look like
> through it, since you are hoping to visualise something that has never
> before been seen. As a result, you kind of have to design the lens
> teleologically - that is, you have to know in advance what the thing that
> you hope to visualise actually looks like, otherwise how would you know how
> to analyse the information that you are receiving?"
>
> Provided he is not lying, and provided I am not lying and am explaining
> myself clearly enough, he agrees with me. In fact, he says this is one of
> the key issues in lens design for physicists, and that probabilities are at
> the core of everything: he can only get the lens to offer a probabilistic
> rendition of the information that the lens receives. Inaccuracy
> ("scratches") are part of the measurements that must be factored in, as
> must the capacities of the lens designer and operator.
>
> Given that unknown elements/probabilities need to be taken into account,
> then this for me is evidence that theory informs practice in a fundamental
> manner - and directly with lenses in this case, even if my friend has not
> read Bazin specifically.
>
> Now, of course filmmakers don't *need* to think about such things. But I'd
> hold that those worth their salt do think about such things, even if in
> their own way and even if they do not write about it or have not
> specifically read Bazin.
>
> I think it about it thus (at present): I could just learn how to use a
> lens, what it does, and the kind of image it achieves. I can make a
> lucrative if not particularly "artistic" career just doing by rote what the
> hardware - or, as an editor in the digital environment, what the software -
> allows me to do (and perhaps with ease).
>
> Not as a matter of course, but such a mode of practice is what I would
> term derivative and unthinking. I make things to look like things that
> other people have made. And plenty of people get rich underestimating the
> tastes of the general populace.
>
> However, if I am interested in what lenses are, what lenses can do, how I
> can modify lenses to achieve new effects, or put together novel types of
> lenses, etc - then I am already somewhere in the realm of the theoretical,
> since in trying to expand the lexicon (as it were) of images and
> image-types, then I am - be it consciously or unconsciously - not accepting
> what lenses are, but posing questions about what lenses can do. An
> elaborate theoretical treatise is not necessary to legitimate this for me,
> though it perhaps helps to crystalise the theoretical elements that can
> inform practice (and vice versa).
>
> Personally I am of the belief that because we are in a universe of
> becoming (broadly speaking, everything changes, even if slowly, such that
> there is no repetition) and a universe of difference (no two
> lens-human-assemblages are ever the same, even if they involve the same
> material lens and the same material human, because both will have changed
> because time carries on) that any and all uses of lenses involve unthinking
> "theoretical" elements. How I use the lens depends on how I have been
> trained to use it and/for, like my physicist friend at NASA, the user and
> designer are part of the equation and modify the results obtained.
>
> However, some lens users can be less unthinking and more thinking
> ("critical"?) in their lens usage, and here theory (thought-through theory)
> really does inform practice.
>
> So in conclusion (?!) 'mastery' of one of course 'requires' knowledge of
> the other, but that knowledge may only be implicit. I suspect that 'true'
> mastery only begins when that knowledge becomes conscious/explicit.
>
> Now, I may be changing the terms of your question, Mike, since you go on
> to ask if guerrilla filmmaking can enhance your understanding of
> narratology in Hitchcock. Sometimes you can't say that an orange is a pear
> and/or vice versa.
>
> But aside from my querying the seeming need for one to have use-value with
> regard to the other (can or should one apply the telos 'useful = that which
> helps me to understand Hitchcock'? who knows what will help us to
> understand Hitchcock; I have found looking at ice melt very useful in
> helping me to understand how societies function - though I was not
> expecting it), I'd still say that of course they can influence each other.
> I think they will and do influence each other - if one lets them...
>
> I hope my definition of "theory" is not too loose here (though suspect
> that it is).
>
> Maybe I'm somewhere here with Barthes: one can read all the texts of the
> world in a fava bean.
>
>
> ****
>
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Frank, Michael <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:****
>
> i’m sorry that what i thought was a [relatively] innocent question has led
> to rants, poignant moments, lamentations, and sundry other discursive
> genres and tropes . . . but i’m afraid my question remains so let me try to
> cut it to its core . . .****
>
> ****
>
> i obviously realize that one can be both a theorist [whatever the hell
> that might mean] and a practitioner [whatever that is] and perhaps even
> excel at both . . . and equally obviously i realize that there are
> dimensions of film analysis that benefit from familiarity with the
> machinery [human and mechanical] that makes films****
>
> ****
>
> still, if what i care about is – let’s say – bazin’s idea that photography
> matters because it provides a kid of immortality, and i want to explore
> that claim about the ontology of mechanically reproduced images, does it
> help me to know something about lenses? . . . if i want to understand the
> semiotic differences between an icon and an index, will a course in
> screenwriting throw light on my exploration? . . . and, if i care about
> the narratology of hitchcock’s films [which i do], will exercises in
> guerilla filmmaking make those structures clearer?****
>
> ****
>
> obviously [again!] caring about one does not preclude caring about the
> other . . . the question is whether mastery of one *requires* knowledge
> of the other . . . and this is a question that i don’t think has yet been
> addressed****
>
> ****
>
> mike****
>
> ****
>
> *From:* Film-Philosophy [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On
> Behalf Of *Henry M. Taylor
> *Sent:* Monday, January 30, 2012 4:50 PM****
>
>
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* [FILM-PHILOSOPHY] Theory vs Practice****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
>
> Thanks William****
>
> Is there a term for when a rant becomes a poignant essay?****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> Which just goes to show how dialectically productive an originally
> dogmatic and somewhat narrow-minded statement can have (about having to
> choose) … ;-)****
>
> ****
>
> H****
>
> ****
>
> Oops, that should read 'can be' rather than 'can have'****
>
> -- Film-Philosophy After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of
> the message you are replying to To leave, send the message: leave
> film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask] Or visit:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html For technical help
> email: [log in to unmask], not the list -- Film-Philosophy Journal:
> http://www.film-philosophy.com/ Film-Philosophy Conference:
> http://www.film-philosophy.com/conference/ Contact:
> [log in to unmask] -- ****
>
> -- Film-Philosophy After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of
> the message you are replying to To leave, send the message: leave
> film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask] Or visit:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html For technical help
> email: [log in to unmask], not the list -- Film-Philosophy Journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com/
> Film-Philosophy <http://www.film-philosophy.com/Film-Philosophy>Conference:
> http://www.film-philosophy.com/conference/ Contact:
> [log in to unmask] -- ****
>
>
> -- Film-Philosophy After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of
> the message you are replying to To leave, send the message: leave
> film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask] Or visit:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html For technical help
> email: [log in to unmask], not the list -- Film-Philosophy Journal:
> http://www.film-philosophy.com/ Film-Philosophy Conference:
> http://www.film-philosophy.com/conference/ Contact:
> [log in to unmask] -- ****
> -- Film-Philosophy After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of
> the message you are replying to To leave, send the message: leave
> film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask] Or visit:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html For technical help
> email: [log in to unmask], not the list -- Film-Philosophy Journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com/
> Film-Philosophy <http://www.film-philosophy.com/Film-Philosophy>Conference:
> http://www.film-philosophy.com/conference/ Contact:
> [log in to unmask] --
>
--
Film-Philosophy
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
For technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the list
--
Film-Philosophy Journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com/
Film-Philosophy Conference: http://www.film-philosophy.com/conference/
Contact: [log in to unmask]
--
