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.