Chapter 3 and 4 Questions

 Chapter 3

1. How does cinema reinforce the dominant ideology? What are the most important theoretical tools for analyzing cinema's ideological function? 

Cinema--more so in Hollywood than other parts--plays to the enjoyment of the audience. What is dominant among its target, such as ideologies, attractions, cultural references, have a greater likelihood of movie production. Hence, sequels and series, remakes of classic movies, and merchandising. Even shock cinema can provide the same things--speak against the status quo, and curiosity will bring customers in. Historical materialism and psychoanalysis are great theoretical tools for the analysis of cinema's ideological function. Film is intertwined with capitalism and "bourgeois subjectivity." To understand what's happening globally and culturally in people, but also what's happened prior is necessary to understand the ideological function. It shows evolution in film, but also patterns. 

2. Why do so many theorists stress the importance of developing a counter-cinema? What are some examples of counter-cinema and how does it engage viewers differently? 

Counter-cinema opposes the Hollywood narrative. It challenges the traditional societal conventions and asks audiences to think on a broader scale, maybe even think for themselves (sometimes, the displays of Hollywood seem like a 90-minute advertisement more than thinking, moving art piece). Godard displays counter-cinema, especially with the French New Wave already challenging mainstream cinema. Fourth wall breaks, first person pov camera angles, peculiar camera shots all seek to revamp a film narrative. The message of a film is then directed towards the audience, essentially turning the mirror to them (and sometimes, calling them a voyeuristic creep; it just depends on what you're watching). 

3. Why do theorists draw attention to how specific groups are represented on film? How do viewers relate to these representations? How do some viewers challenge these images? 

In cases such as feminist film theory, its meant to connect to the "broader social and political insights," sometimes acting as a manifesto and a call-to-action--here's what's actively happening in the world; here is our story; do better (in very, very general and less eloquent terms). Women in cinema have frequently been dismembered--bodies sliced by camera shots to accentuate the sexy parts of their figure. There is a relation between the male audience and the screen--they gain pleasure from looking. There is no relation for women; it's objectification. The feminist movement seeks to actively challenge this male gaze and femme exploitation. 

4. Why did Laura Mulvey's essay, "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema," have such an immense impact? What were some of the specific debates that followed it? 

Many discredited psychoanalytic theory, calling the use of it "overly sexist." It was regarded, especially by American feminists, as highly pessimistic, too. Mulvey's call for a negation of the entire cinematic system was also incredibly radical. She called upon a new language of desire, but how does one go about that? How is someone--and society being this someone--relearn to walk? 

5. There are several brief references in this chapter to issues related to sound and voice. If film is an audio-visual medium, why is sound so often overlooked? How does sound relate to the theoretical issues that developed during this period? 

Sound almost acts like an afterthought. Because it's something we don't immediately see/pick up on--the audio experience acting as second nature; it's special, but because it's so common, it's hard to catch that--it's in the background. It's only really noticed in moments of terror or fright--jump scares, eerie music that clues you in on something leering just around the corner. 

Chapter 4

1. Why were film scholars wary of the influence that French Theory and Screen Theory had held over the discipline? Why were subsequent debates about this sometimes contentious? 

French Theory was difficult to scrutinize--with such "general or abstract. . .terms and concepts" it was impossible to articulate an intelligent argument against the line of work. There wasn't a concrete, defining trait scholars could point at and say "I don't like this because. . ." The criticism then lied in conceptual foundations, such as ideological interpellation and subject formation from psychoanalysis. The folly was assumptions--that conceptual foundations in cinema were just speculation, not anything truly scholarly (in other words, pure bull).

2. Why did early cinema emerge as an important topic for film studies? How did the study of early cinema intersect with both historical poets and media archaeology?

It became a new form of research. With new theories in place/evolving, there could begin "historical reconfigurations." The modern film era could discuss "thematics, large-scale form, and stylistics." Though there was some caution, theme was considered a thing of "old criticism," too basic for the whole scholarly scale of film theory. But the analysis of film techniques allowed for firstly, a basis of understanding, and then the same mode of application to other films. How does conventional imagery effect what's presented, such as basic subjects of theme, motif, and style? How can they be used in modern media? They explain the broad scale, and how they work in specific contexts. 

3. How do cognitive film theorists conceptualize the spectator? How is this approach different from other, earlier assumptions about spectatorship? 

Bordwell had a central argument that viewers "are engaged in constant inference or deductive thinking, furnishing additional information that complements or enhances what is on screen." The difficulty here being that viewers aren't necessarily able to "interject any meaning whatsoever." He then goes on to say that some films with deductive reasoning may require a smarter audience. Those who have good deductive skills can pick up on the message; those who can't are left behind. The story, then, though told on screen, is left in the audience's hands. It just depends on what their brain can do, or what they choose to do with it. 

4. Identify and discuss three different philosophical figures introduced into film studies during the Post Theory period. What do they add? How are they different from one another? 

Stanley Cavell was "out of sync" with film because of a greater dedication to philosophy. However, he was interested in realism produced by cinema. His version of realism didn't deal with the movie itself--the cinematography or structural relationship--it dealt with "the relationship it produces, both between itself and its viewers," claiming there to be an "ontological restlessness." Vivian Sobchack addresses phenomenology, wanting to "radically recast the relationship between consciousness and experience." He wanted to eliminate the notion that film was a "strictly rational activity." She argues that film can transcend the bodily experience. Her ideas are mostly utopian. Jacques Derrida considered poststructuralism, arguing that philosophy is "designed to leave in the domain of the unthinkable the very thing that makes this conceptualization possible." Something that is "overlooked is constitutive, yet laden with traces of something else." He has not gained much favor from film theorists. 

5. Does film theory have a future? Why or why not? 

I believe it's easy to lament the idea that film theory doesn't have a future. I think in the grand scheme of things--not just in terms of cinema, but life as a whole--humanity tends to jump to the most doomed outcome, and though gloomy, the acceptance of a dire fate seems to act as a safety net (if I know I am to be doomed, then I will not be disappointed). The beginning of the section titled "To Sleep or Dream: Film Theory's Future" presents readers and film enthusiasts with an immediate sense of dread using a reference to Hamlet's ill-fated, most iconic soliloquy. Film theory--to be or not to be, that is the question. Though the immediate fear on film theory's future arose after the "burgeoning as Post Theory proclaimed its departure from the field's earlier ethos" (188).  

This may be naive and ignorant of me, but I can't help but feel the ill-fated mentality directed towards film theory stems from ignorance. Maybe a reluctancy to change things as they are, to veer away from the traditional. To quote Shakespeare once again, "what's in a name?" Post theory doesn't actually refer to After theory, now what? The intention of post theory is to shift the paradigm and style. Theory--in both film and literature--has been predominantly white and hetero. Post Theory, along with feminist theory, queer theory, postcolonial theory, etc.--allows us to look at film from a different perspective, to write and direct new stories that counter what have already been done, and create a new. With that new, more film theory can emerge. Everything evolves, so why can't film theory be included as well?