What is cinema?

If I were to view The Prestige with an ideological perspective, then I would probably try to look at the similarities and differences between magic and cinema. To do this, I would consider The Apparatus theory or perhaps any theory having to do with spectatorship.

As we discussed in class, the viewer of the film is most closely related to the audience of a magic show. This is done through camera placement, but also through the narration at the beginning and the end of the movie. At the end, Cutter addresses a viewer of a magic trick as well as the viewers of the film, saying, “Now you're looking for the secret. But you won't find it because of course, you're not really looking. You don't really want to work it out. You want to be fooled.”

Magic and film are similar in one huge way. The viewer suspends their disbelief in order to be entertained by the show. We try to forget the fact that the illusions we are seeing are not real. However, in movies we are only willing to suspend our disbelief so far. If the effects are bad or the story is implausible, we cannot enjoy a movie as much because we cannot forget the fact that a movie is all it is. So where magicians are never supposed to reveal their secret and try to maintain the illusionistic quality, filmmakers often must wrap up their film in a way that makes sense and is pleasing to an audience.

I feel like the reason we demand explanations at the end of movies, especially today, is because we know what film as a medium is capable. We know that through the use of editing, both traditional and digital, the image can be altered significantly, and we want the plot to be able to account for it. It is not enough to make something that wows and entertains the audience; film must also provide us with a plausible explanation within the narrative to give the experience some meaning, some relevance.

CAUTION: Extremely Rough Outline Ahead

OUTLINE

(1) Following the background portion of my essay outlining both the formalist film criticism and ideological film theory, I will argue that the most effective method is formalist film criticism because it takes less liberty in analysis, is more accessible to a general audience, and is less based on literary theory. (I have not yet decided what film to analyze, which is why it is not included in my argument at this point. I have written several papers on Psycho already, so I'm leaning away from that. To me, the most cinematic film we have watched is The Grapes of Wrath, so I am leaning towards that at this point. However, I really enjoyed Masculin, Feminin, and Midnight in Paris may be easier for me to access.)

(2)Claim #1: In comparison to the ideological perspective, which applies hidden symbolism to various structures within film, the formalist approach takes into account what actually appears on screen and the effect that it has on the audience. Though the critics then attempt to read some additional meaning into the content, the claims they make require less extrapolation than those of the ideological theorists.

(3) Film analysis, further research on the different approaches to try to find support.

(4) Claim #2: Ideological film theory can be complex, incredibly symbolic, and ultimately inaccessible to the general public. By focusing more on one scene and placing little emphasis on things occurring outside of the formal aspects of the film, the analysis of formal criticism can be understood easily as long as technical terms are made clear to the audience.

(5) Possibly film analysis. Research on the different interpretations of The Wizard of Oz, or some other film, discussed in class. This example is what gave me the understanding I have of the two perspectives. I found the Ideological Film Theory interpretation to be incredibly difficult to understand and somewhat irrelevant to my experience of the film. (For example: I would be more interested to know if the film was good and how it would make me feel.) On the other hand, I found the formalist analysis discussed to be not only enlightening, but also fascinating. It made me want to watch the film again.

(6) Claim #3: Literary theory is wonderful in many ways. It can help us understand and appreciate a novel through analysis of various subtexts and "hidden meanings." However, literary theory and plot-based analyses, like ideological film theory, are just that, plot-based. They do not take into account the main aspect of film which is first and foremost a visual medium.

(7) Research on the different theories may help here. Also, analysis of mise-en-scene and the way it contributes significantly to a film. Possibly writing on early film or the nature of cinema. Maybe references to early development of film- before narrative.

Adaptations and Auteurs

From what I can tell, John Ford's The Grapes of Wrath is a great adaptation of Steinbeck’s famous novel. I feel I must qualify this statement because, unfortunately, I have not read the book. However, from what was said about it in class, it seems as though the changes that were made when changing the book to the movie were done for good reason, because the film had a different purpose than the book.

Though it may seem the most obvious choice, the portion of the film that I feel most capable of comparing to the book would have to be the scene when the children are waiting outside the Joad family’s tent, trying to get food. As we discussed in class, the scene is very similar to the way it happened in the book, making it true to the letter of the book. However, because of the omission of the inter-chapters, the message is altered. When watching the film, this was not one of the scenes that stood out to me as particularly cinematic, which may be due to the fact that it mirrors the book so well. The changes made when adapting the novel to film (mainly the changes to the ending) were made because the film was meant to entertain, not incite people to act. While a film that followed the novel exactly would be striking, raw, and honest, it would also be incredibly depressing, disturbing to watch and difficult to make.

Auteur theory is a useful tool. Historically, it provided an interesting way of evaluating directors. The problem arises when auteur theory is the only system utilized for analyzing a film. Though the ability to produce an amazing film does make later success more likely, it is possible for great directors to make bad films. Conversely, terrible directors can get things right every once in a while. The best thing about auteur theory, in my opinion, is the way it recognizes directors for the specific style that they develop. Obviously technical abilities are extremely important, but a great personal style links the directors that I admire. Watching a film and being able to identify a director’s signature is a wonderful feeling. Evaluations based on a body of work are important; however, each individual film should be viewed on its own as well, and the offerings of the various people who contribute to the film ought to be recognized.

Sprawling Conversations, Sprawling Narrative

Jean-Luc Godard’s films are distinguishable by their unconventional techniques, or at least unconventional when compared to a standard like Hollywood film or the Institutional Mode of Representation. One scene in Masculin, Feminin that partially exemplifies Godard’s style is the sequence containing the extended conversation between Robert and Catherine. During their discussion, Robert keeps asking Catherine questions about her personal life, and she continually responds with vague non-answers.

This sequence departs from shot/reverse shot as much as the rest of the film. Instead of following the speaker back and forth, it focuses on one for a time and then switches to the other. This develops each character separately leading the film to focus more on individual characters rather than the relationships between them, something that is especially interesting when one considers the complexity of the relationships depicted within the film.

Catherine and Robert’s conversation contains an extremely long conversation that seems out of place. It drags on for a long time, hardly advances the plot, and has little direction. This coincides with the overall narrative structure of the film, which did not have a definitive climax. Masculin, Feminin could almost be considered plot-less when compared to Hollywood film, because none of the characters seem to have definitive goals that they are working towards, events just seem to happen with little reason or resolution, and much of the actual action occurs off-screen.

One of the most interesting things about this film is the way Godard characterizes men and women through the main characters. In this scene, while Robert is telling Catherine that he loves her, she is telling him that her personal life is none of his business. The men in this film seem to constantly be stating their feelings directly, while the women are vague or ambivalent about it.

Much more can be said about this film, especially on the topics of gender roles, narrative structure, and formal elements. An extremely fascinating film from one of the most thought-provoking directors in recent history, Masculin, Feminin had many striking moments, but the prolonged conversations were the element that stuck out the most to me.

Trying to use Masculin, Feminin to deduce what Godard thinks cinema should be seems like it would simply be a ridiculous extrapolation. However, I think it is clear that Godard expects something from his viewers. He supplies us with the pieces and intends for us to put them together ourselves. Godard's films construct complex characters, relationships, and situations that lead the audience to be more active because of the many opportunities they provide for discussion.

Undeniably, Godard is also a social critic. He depicts people and puts their actions on display for study. However, I think that if we are to follow Tom Gunning's line of thinking (that the spectator is the definitive aspect of film), then Godard believes cinema is a means to make people think, discuss, act, and perhaps change. The expectation of active spectator-ship is the quality that makes his films so memorable.