|
|
This is where the hardcore heads tune in to see how much of what I have been talking about is real and how much of it is bullshit. I have agonized for quite sometime on what I wanted to say here and what was appropriate. I’d like to confess first and foremost that I actually have no formal training in film theory, or critical studies for that matter. I have just been a curious child who has audited classes and stolen books in the quest for knowledge.
Below you see a collection of books that I find pertinent and necessary. It is by no means an exhaustive list nor is it representative of the major schools of thought in this or the related disciplines. |
|
| I have also included two theses for your edification and reading pleasure, which explore my musings on the plight of Generation X. | |||||
| |||||
|
In my humble opinion, film theory is greatly misunderstood and mischaracterized by the non-theory audience. Film theory is not the answer, nor is it the solution. I state these things because all too often I am approached by persons who mistakenly think that I substitute film theory for human interaction and an open mind... nothing could be further from the truth. Due to the popularity of critical studies as a discipline and the renewed activity of critical theory book sales, there is much misunderstanding. Film theory does not seek to reduce film to a strictly academic pursuit where only those with prerequisite understandings of sociology, linguistics and semiotics can participate. These are merely the tools of the theoretician. Film theory does not seek to destroy popular film and reduce everything to a warning or a lesson. Film theory is a system of evaluating and attempting to understand the process of shooting and screening a film that is collectively known as the cinema.
Reading a film: Those who are aware of this area of study do not watch films as much as read them; and by that I mean theoreticians are looking for correlations and occurrences that the average viewer doesn’t notice because they are unaware of the “trends” of the cinema. Yes I know it is already becoming confusing... so I will clarify. If you were to shoot a film about two guys driving in a car, you are immediately presented with some narratoligcal constraints. Initially, they are either driving to someplace or from someplace. The characters have either recently met and decided to go on this journey together, or they have known each other for some time. Now you are well within your right to object to that assertion but you will quickly find that the type of narrative you are thinking about (to prove me wrong) is leaning closer to one of the two that I have already mentioned. The point here is that almost all roads have been traveled. Consequently, a theoretician has a point of reference for most narrative that he will encounter. Please keep in mind that we are not keeping score in the traditional sense. There is nothing that is correct, or incorrect for that matter – and I haven’t met any theoreticians that will tell you that such and such’s film is just wrong. What lures us to theory is that nothing that appears on the screen is an accident. Things don’t wander into a shot when you are spending tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars. Therefore, for the theoretician there is a logic afoot, that is many times an unconscious process but is still a logic nonetheless. Take the final scene in the Matrix trilogy, where we find out that an old white man is behind all of the Matrix. The fact that the character is a white male who by historical occurrence is the opiate of knowledge and culture is not really of consequence to the theoretician - the fact that his appearance in such a role makes the narrative seem much more sincere for most viewers - is of consequence. To put it simply, filmmakers are judged on what they show and what they don’t show. Violence in the cinema is not an issue, if it is to be portrayed as true violence – which is most difficult to watch. Stylized violence that has characters cheering their own evil deeds and often times doing so to a booming soundtrack is very much an issue – because there is an agenda (no matter how innocent or justified) to change the popular perception of and reaction to a very specific set of circumstances that the viewer has some familiarity with (either through viewing other films in that genre or personal experience). The issue for me is that when a filmmaker has no real reason for capturing such images other than “it’s hot” or “dude, it’s fuckin’ money” then it becomes extremely problematic. The theoretician is concerned with the unconscious process with which filmmakers pick images and design scenes and the manner in which audiences react to them. There are no accidents; I don’t care what the DVD extras-commentary says. Someone has to make certain that the lips are red and the clothing is tight. Someone made a decision and communicated it to the cast and crew... and it is that process that theoreticians find irresistible. I’ll put it to you like this... I talk a lot of shit when it comes to film and film theory and this is where I do a fair amount of my studying. So enjoy and don’t be afraid to buy a copy. It might take you several months to read the thicker volumes, but you will develop a viewpoint that is essential if you wish to truly understand the new media and the cinema that it has created. OK... there you have it. Now you can write and direct trippy shit and put me and Scott out of business... yeah, you fuckin’ wish! Peace M |