Average shot lengths (ASLs) throughout American cinema:
In the 1920's, the average shot length was about 4 to 6 seconds per shot. From 1930-1960, that average lengthened to about 8 to 11 seconds per shot. In the mid 1960's, a new trend took place that significantly cut that length, to about 6 to 8 seconds, although certain movies ASLs were considerably shorter: 4 seconds, 3.8 seconds, and even 2.7 seconds. The pace accelerated over time, hitting 5 to 8 seconds in the 1970's, and continued to quicken, with double-digit ASLs all but vanishing in the 1980's, and averaging about 5 to 7 seconds, although many films averaged only 3 to 4. Keeping with the trend, this pace quickened over time, and by the end of the century, 3 to 4 seconds was common, although many still reached to 6.
Here, only Woody Allen and M. Night Shyamalan are credited with not jumping on that bandwagon, and sticking with their long-shot editing styles.
Why did filmmakers start mixing long and short lenses within scenes?
According to Bordwell, some filmmakers started mixing long and short lenses within scenes because they "appreciated the advantages of long lenses but also wanted to maintain the 1940s tradition of deep-space shooting." To force perspectivism and gain the advantage of free-range style, there was no other way.
Why have filmmakers moved away from plan americain staging and lengthy two-shots?
More recently (1960s and beyond) filmmakers have moved away from the plan americain
style staging in accordance with quicker editing styles. With 'singles' shots, and plenty of close-ups, editing was more heavily relied on, as scenes tend to rely more on over-the-shoulder shots and more medium shots. This allows the director to more greatly vary the pace during editing, as well as pick the best bits of each actor's performance, as opposed to relying on a longer two-shot with less variation.
Describe three moving camera techniques that have become common in intensified continuity.
The prolonged following shot: where the camera tracks a character[s] moving along a lengthy path. Often times accomplished with technology such as the Steadicam and lighter cameras, these shots are impressive and often lend itself to filmmaker envy, and the attempt to out do each other.
Inching track forward or sideways: often used as an orienting shot, this creates a "moving master."
The crane shot: previously used as a stylish addition, this is now a "casual embellishment," made possible by a new generation of aerial cameras mounted on mini remote-controlled helicopters.
also, the "creeping-zoom" and the "push-in"
How is the prowling camera related to other stylistic shifts in intensified continuity?
The prowling camera is seen to "boost the energy" of the scene, much like other stylistic shifts in intensified continuity, including rapid editing, bipolar extremes of lens lengths, and a reliance on tight singles shots. Each of these techniques serves the other: "Tighter framings permit faster cutting. Long lenses pick out figures for one-on-one editing," etc...
Monday, November 3, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
research question and annotated bibliography
On Todd Haynes' "I'm Not There":
question I pose: seeing as how (according to Variety) there are so many Foreign Theatrical Distribution companies versus Domestic Distributors, I wonder how I'm Not There did overseas as compared to domestically (concerning Box Office Gross), and which factors led to this difference.
annotated bibliography: I've been having a hard time finding sources based around the distinction of foreign distribution versus domestic distribution. no bites from either EBSCOhost or JSTOR, and little to no articles elsewhere concerning the subject. the best i can find is strictly numbers concerning box office grosses:
Box Office MoJo. I'm Not There. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=imnotthere.htm. 29 October 2008.
domestic and foreign lifetime grosses.
The Internet Movie Database. I'm Not There. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368794/business. 29 October 2008.
box office business, domestic and foreign.
Day, Wendy. RapCoIntelPro. "Foreign Distribution Deals." http://www.rapcointelpro.com/Foreign%20Distribution%20Deals.htm. 29 October 2008.
has nothing to do with the film, but just discusses dealing with international distribution.
question I pose: seeing as how (according to Variety) there are so many Foreign Theatrical Distribution companies versus Domestic Distributors, I wonder how I'm Not There did overseas as compared to domestically (concerning Box Office Gross), and which factors led to this difference.
annotated bibliography: I've been having a hard time finding sources based around the distinction of foreign distribution versus domestic distribution. no bites from either EBSCOhost or JSTOR, and little to no articles elsewhere concerning the subject. the best i can find is strictly numbers concerning box office grosses:
Box Office MoJo. I'm Not There. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=imnotthere.htm. 29 October 2008.
domestic and foreign lifetime grosses.
The Internet Movie Database. I'm Not There. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368794/business. 29 October 2008.
box office business, domestic and foreign.
Day, Wendy. RapCoIntelPro. "Foreign Distribution Deals." http://www.rapcointelpro.com/Foreign%20Distribution%20Deals.htm. 29 October 2008.
has nothing to do with the film, but just discusses dealing with international distribution.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
week eleven - plot and premises
(from pages 104-114)
Summarize the answers Bordwell gives to the question, “Why do filmmakers bother with classical construction if ardent viewers consider it dispensable, even distracting?”
The first reason is that when "plot sinks to a level of minimal awareness" it becomes quietly unnoticeable and viewers are able to concentrate on different things (unlike a twisted, convoluted plot, wherein it takes almost all of your energy to even begin to understand it.) Classical construction also allows you to hit all audiences with one film (like a movie like Shrek) that has plenty of elements that will suit all of the audience, children and adults alike. To further this (the action) the components of the story can be blended up with other ingredients to create an interesting and appealing story. And since "spectacle" is very expensive, and would actually get a bit boring after a while on its own, goals, obstacles, conflicts, resolutions, deadlines, motifs, and closure are all necessary to keep attention. Finally, as with any craft, there is an expected level of "professionalism" that should be respected, so by acting within these parameters, in addition to a personalized and unique flair, filmmakers will garner more respect from their colleagues.
(from pages 51-72)
What does Bordwell mean by “genre ecology,” and how does he characterize the current range of genres in Hollywood.
By "genre ecology" Bordwell means the waxing and waning of lesser-popular (often times, popularly thought of as B-movie) genres of film, including crime films, horror films, science-fiction, fantasy, and comic-book movies. He characterizes the current range of genres as becoming almost all equals, sharing in success over the past years due to the "younger" generations of Hollywood filmmakers (i.e. the film brats).
What does Bordwell mean by “worldmaking,” and how does it affect the narrative design of individual films?
"Worldmaking" means the making of universality throughout the film, by controlling the mise-en-scene to a degree that it is realistic by all audiences. For example, in Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, even real astronauts should look at that movie and agree that from top to bottom, the film portrays world-view realism. This kind of attention to detail affects every aspect of the narrative design, including but not limited to: lighting, set dressing/props, costumes, locations, etc...
What do Bordwell and Thompson mean by the claim that some films are “maximally classical”? What films do they have in mind?
By calling some films "maximally classical," Bordwell and Thompson mean that it is possible for a film to be so classically constructed, that it lacks in flair, and becomes internally damaging to itself (although they didn't explain it quite to that degree, as some of the films they consider "maximally classical" are superb films) Some of these films are: Groundhog Day, Tootsie, Back to the Future, and The Hunt for Red October.
Summarize the answers Bordwell gives to the question, “Why do filmmakers bother with classical construction if ardent viewers consider it dispensable, even distracting?”
The first reason is that when "plot sinks to a level of minimal awareness" it becomes quietly unnoticeable and viewers are able to concentrate on different things (unlike a twisted, convoluted plot, wherein it takes almost all of your energy to even begin to understand it.) Classical construction also allows you to hit all audiences with one film (like a movie like Shrek) that has plenty of elements that will suit all of the audience, children and adults alike. To further this (the action) the components of the story can be blended up with other ingredients to create an interesting and appealing story. And since "spectacle" is very expensive, and would actually get a bit boring after a while on its own, goals, obstacles, conflicts, resolutions, deadlines, motifs, and closure are all necessary to keep attention. Finally, as with any craft, there is an expected level of "professionalism" that should be respected, so by acting within these parameters, in addition to a personalized and unique flair, filmmakers will garner more respect from their colleagues.
(from pages 51-72)
What does Bordwell mean by “genre ecology,” and how does he characterize the current range of genres in Hollywood.
By "genre ecology" Bordwell means the waxing and waning of lesser-popular (often times, popularly thought of as B-movie) genres of film, including crime films, horror films, science-fiction, fantasy, and comic-book movies. He characterizes the current range of genres as becoming almost all equals, sharing in success over the past years due to the "younger" generations of Hollywood filmmakers (i.e. the film brats).
What does Bordwell mean by “worldmaking,” and how does it affect the narrative design of individual films?
"Worldmaking" means the making of universality throughout the film, by controlling the mise-en-scene to a degree that it is realistic by all audiences. For example, in Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, even real astronauts should look at that movie and agree that from top to bottom, the film portrays world-view realism. This kind of attention to detail affects every aspect of the narrative design, including but not limited to: lighting, set dressing/props, costumes, locations, etc...
What do Bordwell and Thompson mean by the claim that some films are “maximally classical”? What films do they have in mind?
By calling some films "maximally classical," Bordwell and Thompson mean that it is possible for a film to be so classically constructed, that it lacks in flair, and becomes internally damaging to itself (although they didn't explain it quite to that degree, as some of the films they consider "maximally classical" are superb films) Some of these films are: Groundhog Day, Tootsie, Back to the Future, and The Hunt for Red October.
Monday, October 20, 2008
week ten - coppola's vampire
#1: What are the five conditions that gave rise to the New Hollywood (here defined as post-1975)?
Elsaesser says that the five conditions that gave rise to the "New Hollywood" were: 1) a new generation of directors - the Movie Brats, as they are frequently called, being those who studied film in college, among other things; 2) new marketing strategies - High Concept films, which Elsaesser dubs as the most crucial, using the blockbuster film to market, distribute, exhibit, etc,; 3) new media ownership and management - which i'm assuming means corporate conglomerations; 4) new technologies of sound and image - special effects, digitization, dolby sound, etc.; 5) new delivery systems - how the films are marketed?
#2: What does Elsaesser mean by New Hollywood being defined either as “the different as same” or “the same as different.”
Here, Elsaesser is asking about Hollywood's films in relation to itself, as opposed to the European films that either model it or rival it. Within the [Hollywood] system, is it being considered new in opposition to the old (the different as same) meaning using Hollywood classicism (old) to further the evolution of it's movies (new), or is it "assimilating its own opposite (the same as different)" by modeling and borrowing and being influenced by European art cinema and elsewhere, therefore breaking out of it's own internal self-reliance.
#3: Elsaesser argues that unlike in Europe, where ruptures in realism were found in art-cinema, in Hollywood ruptures in realism were found in “minor genres and debased modes.” What genre in particular is he talking about? In what ways do you find ruptures in realism in this genre?
He is talking about the horror film. You find ruptures in realism through all aspects of the film, majorly the plot, the camerawork, and the editing. Since the 'monster' is the "causal agent," all of these aspects work to hide it until the last second, in order to build suspense. the audience is not afforded as much knowledge as with many typical (non-horror?) films, because again, there is an aspect of suspense building. for the same reason, the direction (in an action sense) of the camera is used covertly, as well as being edited to create a heightened sense of mystery.
#4: How is the sound/image relationship in horror films fundamentally different than other classical genres?
in most other classical genres, the image tends to precede (or at least, determine) the sound. in horror films, on the other hand, the sound is often times used as a precursor to the action, and to build up the suspense of what might be about to happen. Elsaesser says that haunting music paired with vacant space can be like a fastasm of the mind, where the individual viewer is responsible for imagining the fate of the poor protagonist.
#8: Elsaesser argues that post-classical cinema introduced two major changes to classical narration (p. 200). Identify and define those two changes, and give examples.
The two major changes: narrative progression and character consistency. Narrative progression means 1) the way in which the the plot is presented, and 2) the complexity with which it is presented, and Elsaesser says that concerning post-classical cinema, they have both become much more complex over time, often dealing with major time shifts and/or non-conventional linear structure. For instance, Back to the Future follows a fairly linear model (i.e. plot-how it's portrayed in the film- and story-the events- match up) but includes a thirty year time jump, both forwards and backwards, whereas in Pulp Fiction the plot and the story do not match, because the plot is portrayed in a non-linear fashion. The second major change is character consistency, and Elsaesser says that before post-classical cinema, characters more or less remained static, and "themselves," whereas afterwards, many characters change or morph to become dual figures, or something entirely new. For example, Blade Runner, and the ambiguity of who is a replicant and who is a human, or, as we will see, Bram Stoker's Dracula, where the phantom takes on multiple personas throughout the film (which probably both hurt and helped its critical reviews).
Elsaesser says that the five conditions that gave rise to the "New Hollywood" were: 1) a new generation of directors - the Movie Brats, as they are frequently called, being those who studied film in college, among other things; 2) new marketing strategies - High Concept films, which Elsaesser dubs as the most crucial, using the blockbuster film to market, distribute, exhibit, etc,; 3) new media ownership and management - which i'm assuming means corporate conglomerations; 4) new technologies of sound and image - special effects, digitization, dolby sound, etc.; 5) new delivery systems - how the films are marketed?
#2: What does Elsaesser mean by New Hollywood being defined either as “the different as same” or “the same as different.”
Here, Elsaesser is asking about Hollywood's films in relation to itself, as opposed to the European films that either model it or rival it. Within the [Hollywood] system, is it being considered new in opposition to the old (the different as same) meaning using Hollywood classicism (old) to further the evolution of it's movies (new), or is it "assimilating its own opposite (the same as different)" by modeling and borrowing and being influenced by European art cinema and elsewhere, therefore breaking out of it's own internal self-reliance.
#3: Elsaesser argues that unlike in Europe, where ruptures in realism were found in art-cinema, in Hollywood ruptures in realism were found in “minor genres and debased modes.” What genre in particular is he talking about? In what ways do you find ruptures in realism in this genre?
He is talking about the horror film. You find ruptures in realism through all aspects of the film, majorly the plot, the camerawork, and the editing. Since the 'monster' is the "causal agent," all of these aspects work to hide it until the last second, in order to build suspense. the audience is not afforded as much knowledge as with many typical (non-horror?) films, because again, there is an aspect of suspense building. for the same reason, the direction (in an action sense) of the camera is used covertly, as well as being edited to create a heightened sense of mystery.
#4: How is the sound/image relationship in horror films fundamentally different than other classical genres?
in most other classical genres, the image tends to precede (or at least, determine) the sound. in horror films, on the other hand, the sound is often times used as a precursor to the action, and to build up the suspense of what might be about to happen. Elsaesser says that haunting music paired with vacant space can be like a fastasm of the mind, where the individual viewer is responsible for imagining the fate of the poor protagonist.
#8: Elsaesser argues that post-classical cinema introduced two major changes to classical narration (p. 200). Identify and define those two changes, and give examples.
The two major changes: narrative progression and character consistency. Narrative progression means 1) the way in which the the plot is presented, and 2) the complexity with which it is presented, and Elsaesser says that concerning post-classical cinema, they have both become much more complex over time, often dealing with major time shifts and/or non-conventional linear structure. For instance, Back to the Future follows a fairly linear model (i.e. plot-how it's portrayed in the film- and story-the events- match up) but includes a thirty year time jump, both forwards and backwards, whereas in Pulp Fiction the plot and the story do not match, because the plot is portrayed in a non-linear fashion. The second major change is character consistency, and Elsaesser says that before post-classical cinema, characters more or less remained static, and "themselves," whereas afterwards, many characters change or morph to become dual figures, or something entirely new. For example, Blade Runner, and the ambiguity of who is a replicant and who is a human, or, as we will see, Bram Stoker's Dracula, where the phantom takes on multiple personas throughout the film (which probably both hurt and helped its critical reviews).
Sunday, October 19, 2008
brazil
whoa... that film just blew my mind... unfortunately, my notes were scribbled so fast, and in such darkness, that i can barely read them to re-cap... but what i do know is that i thought that movie was freakin' awesome. and actually, if i ever end up doing narratives, i hope that this is sort of thing i will capable of producing (essentially, my vision of documentary, turned into narrative with a dashes of humor and bits of (overloaded) sarcasm). so essentially, i didn't know what i was in for. i watched the preview on the blog, and could tell that it was going to be fantastic, but i didn't know just how closely it resided to my opinions. for instance, this orwellian world overtly (yet somehow, amazingly subtle) exploits the day when have relinquished but all of our freedoms, and live in a much "safer" (read: police state) society. yay, can't wait. kidding. i found myself laughing at parts that no one else seemed to think was funny, and vice versa. perhaps because these issues affect me so deeply, and i spend a majority of my time, money and energy invested in their opposition (conferences, rallies, protests, research, passing out of literature, etc...) that i was actually a bit unnerved at the truth of the situation, and was laughing instead of being scared witless. but still, that one part where they've got that woman's face stretched out so far... so hilarious. and jill, in the ministry of information, with the little robot machine thing poking around her face... it makes me so uncomfortable and scared and excited that someone is showing the truth (of what COULD eventually happen if WE continue to let it) that i didn't know what to do. "mind that parcel. it could save lives!" (or, it could be a gross annihiliation of human freedom). consumers for christ! (probably my favorite fleeting and small background detail of the film). and also, of course, the overwhelming idea that we were "afforded" all of this luxury and convenience, and yet none of it works... your toast is still burnt (and/or covered in coffee) in the morning. poor sam lowry. my new favorite protagonist. i can only hope that he and winston can just reside forever in the glories of the golden places in their minds, instead of the bleak, harsh, and desperate reality that is ascending upon us silently and invisibly, faster that we can even speak out change against it. the revolution is now!
Monday, October 13, 2008
week nine - the way hollywood tells it, 19-50
How do films with multiple protagonists work within the model?
films with multiple protagonists can work within the guidelines of thompson's four stage model, although typically, one or two protagonists end up being favored. the most simple method is to have all of the protagonists sharing the same goal. other times, their plot lines are similar, but less influenced by each other, as in the movie where the boys are, the example chosen by bordwell to explain. the four stages still existing: the setup, the complicating action, the development and the climax, it just tends to exist in four different realms and with four different feelings and/or morals.
List and briefly describe the narrational tactics discussed in the section “Tightening the Plot” (starting on p. 43).
-two plot lines, one almost always being the development of a heterosexual romance: more than classic, almost all movies center around a hero, facing some personal crisis, and falling in love at the same, and in many cases, the two stories are highly intertwined.
-the "ticking clock" time deadlines: a time crunch leads to a more desperate need for the conflict to be solved, as well as heightening suspense to keep the audience involved. (why care if they have forever?)
-foreshadowing and clue planting: again, necessary to add suspense, and keep the audience guessing whats next and clued into whats going on, if not subtlely.
-repetition of dialogue and motifs: to reiterate important points, keep a feeling of comfortable familiarity, and to make "the point" well known.
-touchstones and twitches: "recurring objects that remind us of the story world before it was plunged into disorder... and objects that symbolize the character's internal conflict," respectively.
-crosscutting and parallel action: multiple plot lines, keep the audience on their toes, add suspense to any story. can limit or increase the knowledge of the audience.
-written titles and credits: can be used to set the stage, start it off with the intended feeling, and create and set the tone of the film.
-montage sequences: use to span large amounts of time and portray long periods, including lots of character expose.
"appointments, deadlines, causally dense scene construction, a balance of narrow and wider ranges of knowledge, passages of overtness balanced with less self-conscious ones - these narrational techniques work together to create the distinctive texture of the Hollywood film."
What does Bordwell mean by his claim that Hollywood narratives have “passages of overtness balanced with less self-conscious ones” (p. 50)?
by this, bordwell means that in many cases, filmmakers follow a more or less strict set of guidelines that creates the bankable and solid "classical hollywood film," but in many cases, alot of underlying and unconscious techniques and decisions come into play, that add the flare and uniqueness that make a movie really, truly good.
films with multiple protagonists can work within the guidelines of thompson's four stage model, although typically, one or two protagonists end up being favored. the most simple method is to have all of the protagonists sharing the same goal. other times, their plot lines are similar, but less influenced by each other, as in the movie where the boys are, the example chosen by bordwell to explain. the four stages still existing: the setup, the complicating action, the development and the climax, it just tends to exist in four different realms and with four different feelings and/or morals.
List and briefly describe the narrational tactics discussed in the section “Tightening the Plot” (starting on p. 43).
-two plot lines, one almost always being the development of a heterosexual romance: more than classic, almost all movies center around a hero, facing some personal crisis, and falling in love at the same, and in many cases, the two stories are highly intertwined.
-the "ticking clock" time deadlines: a time crunch leads to a more desperate need for the conflict to be solved, as well as heightening suspense to keep the audience involved. (why care if they have forever?)
-foreshadowing and clue planting: again, necessary to add suspense, and keep the audience guessing whats next and clued into whats going on, if not subtlely.
-repetition of dialogue and motifs: to reiterate important points, keep a feeling of comfortable familiarity, and to make "the point" well known.
-touchstones and twitches: "recurring objects that remind us of the story world before it was plunged into disorder... and objects that symbolize the character's internal conflict," respectively.
-crosscutting and parallel action: multiple plot lines, keep the audience on their toes, add suspense to any story. can limit or increase the knowledge of the audience.
-written titles and credits: can be used to set the stage, start it off with the intended feeling, and create and set the tone of the film.
-montage sequences: use to span large amounts of time and portray long periods, including lots of character expose.
"appointments, deadlines, causally dense scene construction, a balance of narrow and wider ranges of knowledge, passages of overtness balanced with less self-conscious ones - these narrational techniques work together to create the distinctive texture of the Hollywood film."
What does Bordwell mean by his claim that Hollywood narratives have “passages of overtness balanced with less self-conscious ones” (p. 50)?
by this, bordwell means that in many cases, filmmakers follow a more or less strict set of guidelines that creates the bankable and solid "classical hollywood film," but in many cases, alot of underlying and unconscious techniques and decisions come into play, that add the flare and uniqueness that make a movie really, truly good.
week eight - questions
it was not until just now, when i got on to post week nine, did i realize that the blog i (thought i had) posted from week eight was not there.
presumably having to do with the fact that throughout the wedding weekend, my mom's wireless internet service was in and out (therefore unable to save my drafts), and her computer kept recognizing me as spam, regardless of the fact that i was signed in....
oh well.
anyhow, the first time around, my questions centered on bordwell's "the way hollywood tells it" pages 1-18. but now, since our most recent post has to do with the same book, later pages, i'm going to re-do week eight, focusing instead on peter kramers article "post-classical hollywood."
question 1: despite all of these readings, i'm still a bit confused on the amount of views based around these theories. for instance, how many "accepted" theories are there that define and explain the shifts in cinema eras, namely classicism, modernism, and post-moderism (and, is modernism the same thing as "new american cinema"?)
question 2: what type of role does personal interpretation play in defining these eras, and how much credibility does it lend to the explanation, i.e. who is david bordwell, and why does he know so much about movies, and who gave him the final say? and what about pauline kael, and her ability to determine that bonnie and clyde marked the beginning of the new renaissance of american film?
question 3: how much credit should we lend europe and beyond to shaping and re-defining hollywood as we now know it?
proposed answers:
1 - as far as i can tell, there are approximately three different models that kramer notes: the bazinian model, the bordwell/thompson model, and everything else. the bazinian model has classicism running up thru the early 1940s, modernism from then until 1975, and post-modernism starting with the first huge blockbusters and continuing until today. the "everything else" model is similar, except for the fact that the classics period does not end until much later, around 1965 or so. the bordwell model is the least clear to me, although i think that it defines classicism thru about 1960, modernism from 1960-1975, and then post-modernism from 1975 onward. but honestly, i have no idea, and i wish that i had been able to attend class last thursday. oh, and no, i don't think that modernism is the same thing as "new american cinema," although i would have a very hard time distinguishing between the two.
2 - this is a very broad question, and one that i ponder more philosophically than the others. on one hand, we are dealing with subjectivity, based on the opinions of any given critic or theorist or scholar. therefore, unlike other areas of study, such as mathematics or science, there is no "absolute" answer, but only interpretation. at this point, i'm assuming that david bordwell is just who he appears to be, a very knowledgeable and informed man (albeit on his own time frame) who happens to be a writer very capable of educating his audience on a huge range of topics. but like any media source, all of this information is filtered through a person's brain and therefore is limited to a degree. i'm not discrediting bordwell or saying that he isn't good at what he does, but i am saying that for one man (although it is true, he is among many others) to be able to think, then process, then write a timeline of information, which is then read by critics and either accepted or rejected as the "history" of film, is a huge undertaking and responsibility. much like kael saying that bonnie and clyde marked the new renaissance of american film, and in december of 1967, this was reiterated again when Time magazine "officially announced" it as such. it seems a bit dependent, no? also, just a side note, kael's explanation of "audience expectations" and "a TV span of attention" is incredibly interesting to me, and i agree.
perhaps all of this is subjectivity, that you can read, process, and then either decide to agree or to disagree. but doesn't, more often than not, it lead to many people reading it and accepting it as truth, regardless of what they think? (or don't think, in most cases where this happens)
3 - this one i really don't know the answer to, or even have a proposed answer for... although it does seem like the artistic style, and focus on decentralized events, a "loosening of causal connections between narrative events," per se, etc... are all things that were borrowed, if not stolen from the european cinema.
presumably having to do with the fact that throughout the wedding weekend, my mom's wireless internet service was in and out (therefore unable to save my drafts), and her computer kept recognizing me as spam, regardless of the fact that i was signed in....
oh well.
anyhow, the first time around, my questions centered on bordwell's "the way hollywood tells it" pages 1-18. but now, since our most recent post has to do with the same book, later pages, i'm going to re-do week eight, focusing instead on peter kramers article "post-classical hollywood."
question 1: despite all of these readings, i'm still a bit confused on the amount of views based around these theories. for instance, how many "accepted" theories are there that define and explain the shifts in cinema eras, namely classicism, modernism, and post-moderism (and, is modernism the same thing as "new american cinema"?)
question 2: what type of role does personal interpretation play in defining these eras, and how much credibility does it lend to the explanation, i.e. who is david bordwell, and why does he know so much about movies, and who gave him the final say? and what about pauline kael, and her ability to determine that bonnie and clyde marked the beginning of the new renaissance of american film?
question 3: how much credit should we lend europe and beyond to shaping and re-defining hollywood as we now know it?
proposed answers:
1 - as far as i can tell, there are approximately three different models that kramer notes: the bazinian model, the bordwell/thompson model, and everything else. the bazinian model has classicism running up thru the early 1940s, modernism from then until 1975, and post-modernism starting with the first huge blockbusters and continuing until today. the "everything else" model is similar, except for the fact that the classics period does not end until much later, around 1965 or so. the bordwell model is the least clear to me, although i think that it defines classicism thru about 1960, modernism from 1960-1975, and then post-modernism from 1975 onward. but honestly, i have no idea, and i wish that i had been able to attend class last thursday. oh, and no, i don't think that modernism is the same thing as "new american cinema," although i would have a very hard time distinguishing between the two.
2 - this is a very broad question, and one that i ponder more philosophically than the others. on one hand, we are dealing with subjectivity, based on the opinions of any given critic or theorist or scholar. therefore, unlike other areas of study, such as mathematics or science, there is no "absolute" answer, but only interpretation. at this point, i'm assuming that david bordwell is just who he appears to be, a very knowledgeable and informed man (albeit on his own time frame) who happens to be a writer very capable of educating his audience on a huge range of topics. but like any media source, all of this information is filtered through a person's brain and therefore is limited to a degree. i'm not discrediting bordwell or saying that he isn't good at what he does, but i am saying that for one man (although it is true, he is among many others) to be able to think, then process, then write a timeline of information, which is then read by critics and either accepted or rejected as the "history" of film, is a huge undertaking and responsibility. much like kael saying that bonnie and clyde marked the new renaissance of american film, and in december of 1967, this was reiterated again when Time magazine "officially announced" it as such. it seems a bit dependent, no? also, just a side note, kael's explanation of "audience expectations" and "a TV span of attention" is incredibly interesting to me, and i agree.
perhaps all of this is subjectivity, that you can read, process, and then either decide to agree or to disagree. but doesn't, more often than not, it lead to many people reading it and accepting it as truth, regardless of what they think? (or don't think, in most cases where this happens)
3 - this one i really don't know the answer to, or even have a proposed answer for... although it does seem like the artistic style, and focus on decentralized events, a "loosening of causal connections between narrative events," per se, etc... are all things that were borrowed, if not stolen from the european cinema.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
