Favoring Formalism (For Now?)

In the realm of film studies, there are many ways to examine and analyze film. Of course, every individual in the world is entitled to choose what he or she wishes to focus on upon seeing a film. However, there are some methods of film study that are clearly defined. In the 1960s two seemingly competing methods emerged—Formalist Film Criticism and Ideological Film Theory—thus creating a divide between the US and the UK.

In order to determine which of those theories is most effective when it comes to analyzing film, it is of first and foremost importance to define and understand the characteristics of each.

Formalist Film Criticism is focused on “the formal, or technical, elements of a film: i.e., the lighting, scoring, sound and set design, use of color, shot composition, and editing” (Wikipedia). Formalism considers the “synthesis” of various internal elements of a film, using them to extract meaning and understand how they give a sense of understanding to the audience. Overall, Formalist theory takes a very direct look at the film. Ideological Film Theory on the other hand, is more focused on the overall content of the film and what the film is trying to do, rather than the miniscule details. The ideological approach is very concerned with “how socio-economic pressures create a particular style, and auteurists on how auteurs put their own stamp on the material.” (Wikipedia)

·      Supports/sources for this are Wikipedia and an article found here-- http://www.und.edu/instruct/cjacobs/FilmTheory&Analysis.htm

Based on my understanding of these theories, it is my belief that the Formalist Approach is the most effective method of studying film. My claims for this:

Claim #1: People go to see a film as an escape from reality. As we watch a movie, we become immersed in the film’s reality. Therefore, it’s not necessarily important to focus on what external things are going on in the world (as we would using the Ideological approach). Rather, we should focus on the internal elements of the film—the very elements that have the ability to transport us, and make us believe in the story we are being told. These elements—lighting, angles, use of montage, etc.—are what constitute the magic, and the attraction.

·      (Planning to support this using Tom Gunning’s “The Cinema of Attraction,” Sergei Eisenstein’s “Montage of Attraction” and “The Dramaturgy of Film Form,” as well as any other sources I come across next week at the library!)

Claim #2: When studying film we are so often asked—what can film do that other mediums can’t? If this is so important, shouldn’t we study film with a theory that emphasizes film’s unique qualities? By looking at film in terms of cinematic inclusions such as music, lighting, angles, acting, etc.—we are actually examining it in a way that we cannot with any other form of media. You can’t analyze the lighting in a novel! You could use the ideological approach to look at just about any type of medium—easily seeing how political climate affects a book, or a painting, as well as a film.  There is nothing about that approach that is unique to film.

·      (Planning to support this using “Basic Concepts” by Kraucauer and other texts that I will find at the library! I want to find articles that go into depth on how film differs from other mediums)

Claim #3: Though the auteur theory sometimes is seen as part of ideology, it often goes against it and falls under the realm of the formalist theory. “By privileging the auteur it erases context (that is, history) and therefore side-steps ideology. Equally, because film is being looked at for its formalistic, stylistic and thematic structures, unconscious structure (such as the unspoken dynamics between film-maker and actor, the economic pressures connected with the industry) is precluded.)” (Hayward). What I’m trying to get at here is the fact that the auteur theory wants to focus on the director—his decisions, the ways in which he subtly personalizes a film. When it comes down to it, this falls is a part of the Formalist theory. When we look at what specific angle a director chose, we are focused on him, not the rest of the world. These were his choices, not choices made by society. Yes, we could also look at the film as a whole and try to understand the its overall purpose—but it’s far more interesting to try and pick up on little secret cinematic inclusions placed there by the director.

·      (Planning on using Cinema Studies: The Key Concepts by Susan Hayward, “A Certain Tendency of the French Cinema” by Truffaut, “On the politique des auteurs” by André Bazin, and “Notes on the Auteur Theory in 1962” by Andrew Sarris to support this claim.”

As far as the film analysis, I’m going to analyze Godard’s film “Masculin Féminin” using the formalist approach. By doing this, I can prove that the formalist approach is more effective than ideological. I want to focus on scenes such as the one where Catherine was eating the apple. This was an artistic decision and clearly had significant. What does the apple represent? [I want to possibly try to relate this to Adam and Eve and the apple. The apple represents temptation just as Catherine tempted Robert?] I also want to go into detail on Godard’s breaking of the shot/reverse/shot rule throughout the film. and why this was significant.