Home First Paper Midterm Review Second Paper Final Review BACK TO TOP  Last Updated: 01/24/06	Film Theory: Critical Concepts Comparative Literature 302 Winter 2006
	Guidelines for Paper #1 Procedure: The overall purpose of this assignment is to give you an opportunity to view a film through the lens provided by one or more theoretical approaches introduced in class. The following question is designed to facilitate and encourage that dialogue between film and theory. The paper should be 4 pages, typed and double-spaced. The due date is Friday, February 17, and the paper should be delivered over email to jtweedie@u.washington.edu. The paper should have an evocative and informative title, a thesis (not a general topic, but a specific position that must be argued and supported), and the necessary evidence to back up that thesis. Film studies is a field with a number of different methodologies and approaches to its subject matter, so that evidence can take many forms, ranging from information about various moments in film history, to biographical information about the people involved in the making of the film you’re analyzing, from critical responses to the film to the theoretical concepts introduced in the reading. But most of all the evidence will be drawn from the film itself. Although this assignment does not call for a sequence analysis or shot-by-shot breakdown, you may want to identify a crucial segment from the film and discuss it in depth. This will ensure that your analysis remains rooted in the specifics of what you see and hear on screen. Paper Topic: Guy Maddin’s The Heart of the World returns to and invokes a series of important moments in the history of film, from early Soviet cinema to classical Hollywood melodramas and many others. Analyze the relationship between Maddin’s film and one or more of these precursors. Your essay should pay particular attention to the nature of Maddin’s return to these sources. Is he parodying Soviet propaganda films or melodramas or any other cinematic formula? Or is he approaching them with enthusiasm and wonder? Or something in between? Does his editing pattern display a connection to any of the film or theoretical traditions introduced in this (or any other) course? The narrative structure? The use of sound? Your essay should refer to at least one theoretical source from the course reading so far or to the Dziga Vertov manifestoes contained in a pdf file at this link (same username and password as pages with class notes). The Heart of the World is on reserve at Odegaard as part of a DVD called The Triumph of the Ice Nymphs. Scarecrow Video also has a copy of the DVD. You can view a streaming version of the film at this link (UW netid required): https://depts.washington.edu/llc/olr/cinema_studies/. Resources for Writing about Film: Barsam, Richard. Looking at Movies: An Introduction to Film. New York: Norton, 2004. Bordwell, David and Thompson, Kristin. Film Art: An Introduction. Seventh edition, New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003. Corrigan, Timothy. A Short Guide to Writing about Film. Fourth Edition. New York: Longman, 2000. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~writing/materials/student/humanities/film.shtml http://classes.yale.edu/film-analysis/
	Midterm Review Benjamin and Hansen Both Benjamin and Hansen are interested in the relationship between cinema and modernity, and both attempt to describe and understand the precise nature of that relationship. Benjamin, the “aura” of art, and mechanical reproduction According to Benjamin, what changes when traditional art is replaced by mechanically reproducible images? What is the “aura” of art? What causes it to “wither” in the age of mechanical reproduction? Does Benjamin seem enthusiastic about the decline of traditional, auratic art in this modern era? What political and cultural factors would cause him to welcome the decline of auratic art? Which film or films screened this quarter seem to share Benjamin’s belief in the revolutionary potential of cinema? Hansen and vernacular modernism What does Hansen mean by “vernacular modernism”? Why does she need to modify the term “modernism” with “vernacular”? Is all modernism vernacular? Are all popular films modernist? Which films belong in this particular category, and how are they different from the films more commonly characterized as modernist? Cinema can be considered an art like painting or sculpture, or a business like auto manufacturing, or a form of technology like computers or MRI machines. In what category does Hansen put film? What other cultural products is cinema related to? If cinema is primarily a phenomenon of urban areas in Hansen’s writing, what is the relationship between cinema and cities? What film most closely embodies the kind of vernacular modernism discussed in the Hansen reading? Why? Eisenstein and Bazin Both Eisenstein and Bazin address the most fundamental questions about film in their writing, and those questions can be summed up in the title of a collection of Bazin’s essays: “What is cinema?” Midterm questions on Eisenstein and Bazin will ask you to outline their answers to that question and discuss those theories in relation to films we’ve seen in class this quarter. Eisenstein and montage What does Eisenstein consider the basic unit of a film, and what is the fundamental act of filmmaking? What are the various kinds of montage identified by Eisentein? If montage occurs through the collision of two shots and the production of a third meaning in the process, is it possible for a similar kind of conflict or collision to occur within a single shot? How? Outside of film history and theory, what analogies does Eisenstein use for the process of montage? What theory of history underlies and supports Eisenstein’s theory of montage? Which theorists does Eisenstein argue against? What is the Kuleshov effect? Although they worked in different eras, how would the Eisenstein who wrote the essays in our course reader have responded to Bazin’s writing and Italian neorealism? Which films or film clips screened this quarter best exemplify his theory of montage? Bazin and Realist Cinema How does Bazin define “realism”? What does he believe to be the fundamental characteristic of the photographic image? How does Bazinian realism differ from other modes of realism (e.g., socialist realism, or the realism of classical Hollywood cinema and continuity editing, or the documentary aesthetic of The Battle of Algiers)? Which filmmaking techniques does Bazin advocate? What is his basic attitude toward montage? Which theorists does he argue against? Or if he doesn’t argue with them specifically, which theorists seem like the most natural antagonists for Bazin? Why? Which filmmaking styles are consistent with his philosophy of film? Which approaches to filmmaking does he criticize? Why? Which films screened this quarter are most “Bazinian”? Which aspects of their narratives or formal styles would seem most “realist,” according to his definition of the term? Which specific scenes from those films would cause Bazin to leap out of his seat? Does the digital revolution pose a challenge to a Bazinian definition of realism? How? Deleuze and the Time-Image What are the main differences between the movement-image and the time-image in Deleuze’s theory? Why would filmmakers in the early years of cinema be so fascinated with movement captured on film? What historical moment marks the break between these two conceptions of the image? What is an “any-space-whatever”? Why would the habits of perception and action from the first half century of cinema no longer apply? Why are so many post-WWII European art films so difficult to watch, and how does Deleuze help us understand that difficulty? Which film or films seem to exemplify Deleuze’s idea of either the movement-image or the time-image? Guidelines for Paper #2 Procedure: As with the midterm paper, the overall purpose of this assignment is to give you an opportunity to view films through the lens provided by one or more theoretical approaches introduced in class. The following questions are designed to facilitate and encourage that dialogue between film and theory. Regardless of the topic, your discussion should refer to at least one of the theoretical texts on the syllabus for this class, though you should also feel free to incorporate relevant material from other classes or your own outside reading. The paper should be at least 4 pages, typed and double-spaced. Although the due date listed on the syllabus is Tuesday, March 7, you may turn in the papers without penalty until Friday, March 10. All essays must be delivered to the Comp. Lit. office or my office (B-519 Padelford) by 4:00 p.m. on Friday. Any paper arriving after that time will be considered late. During regular business hours (approximately 8:30 to 4:30), there will be a box with the course number on a table outside B-531 in Padelford. The following guidelines from the previous paper still apply: The paper should have an evocative and informative title, a thesis (not a general topic, but a specific position that must be argued and supported), and the necessary evidence to back up that thesis. Film studies is a field with a number of different methodologies and approaches to its subject matter, so that evidence can take many forms, ranging from information about various moments in film history, to biographical information about the people involved in the making of the film you’re analyzing, from critical responses to the film to the theoretical concepts introduced in the reading. But most of all the evidence will be drawn from the film itself. Although this assignment does not call for a sequence analysis or shot-by-shot breakdown, you may want to identify a crucial segment from the film and discuss it in depth. This will ensure that your analysis remains rooted in the specifics of what you see and hear on screen. Topics: 1) Both Safe and Strange Days explore the power and privilege of the gaze (for example, in the many scenes that involve a dominant male viewer and/or the dynamics of visual pleasure as theorized by Mulvey; in the relationship between the idiosyncratic visual style of Safe and its overarching thematic questions of security from vague but seemingly omnipresent threats; and in those moments in Strange Days when characters wear the squid and perceive the visual experience of someone from another gender or race, someone with different physical capabilities, or someone who confronts extremes of danger, pleasure, and pain). Examine the way that either film exemplifies or tests the limits of the theories of the gaze and/or spectatorship presented in the course readings or other films. You may also compare and contrast the representations of the gaze in both Safe and Strange Days. 2) Both Safe and Strange Days are set in Southern California, though the spaces represented in the films appear to be worlds apart (at least at first glance). Compare and contrast the vision of the Los Angeles area on display in these films. You can also relate those texts to other films set in the Los Angeles area (e.g., John Singleton’s Boyz N the Hood and Robert Altman’s The Player), but those diversions should be very brief, and the paper should focus on the films viewed in class. To what extent does either film aspire to a “realistic” vision of this expansive urban area? Does the setting serve merely as a backdrop for the narrative, or does the Southern California location help accentuate and develop some of the other thematic concerns in the films (e.g., safety, voyeurism, and the politics of the gaze)? How does the style of representation change as we move from the edge of the San Fernando Valley to the core of downtown L.A. at the turn of the millennium? Resources for Writing about Film: Barsam, Richard. Looking at Movies: An Introduction to Film. New York: Norton, 2004. Bordwell, David and Thompson, Kristin. Film Art: An Introduction. Seventh edition, New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003. Corrigan, Timothy. A Short Guide to Writing about Film. Fourth Edition. New York: Longman, 2000. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~writing/materials/student/humanities/film.shtml http://classes.yale.edu/film-analysis/ Final Review Spectators, Audiences, Genres Think about the categories used in film studies to differentiate among different spectators and audiences (e.g., the ideal spectator, audiences divided by various sociological or demographic categories, individual spectators). How do the authors from the reading in this unit and the material from lecture approach the difficult problem of audiences and their diversity? Focus especially on Mulvey, Baudry, Diawara, and Gunning. What are the characteristics of the spectator of classical Hollywood cinema in Mulvey’s model? Who has the power of the gaze? Who is the object of the gaze? How does gender figure into this equation? What kinds of interaction does the spectator have with the object on the screen? What pleasure does the audience derive from watching films? What are the psychological foundations of that pleasure? Which films best exemplify Mulvey’s model of the cinematic gaze? Why would the destruction of visual pleasure be a political act, according to Mulvey? If Mulvey is critical of the kind of filmmaking associated with Hollywood, what alternative modes of cinema would she support? What are the limitations of Mulvey’s conception of spectatorship? What other ways of approaching spectatorship do the other readings introduce? How does Manthia Diawara distinguish between different categories of spectator in his essay, and what do those categories allow him to discover and understand? What does Tom Gunning mean by the “cinema of attractions”? In what era did this kind of film and spectatorship thrive? In what forms of entertainment and film genres does it survive? Authors, Studios, Stars What are the basic principles of “auteur theory” as described by Truffaut or Sarris? How should a critic or viewer approach and analyze a film according to the tenets of auteur theory? How would you perform an auteurist reading of a film or group of films? Which films or directors would be the clearest examples for this kind of analysis? What challenges to auteur theory have been raised since the 1950s and 1960, when auteur theory was in its heyday? What other models of authorship have been proposed, either by film or literary critics? How do those models undermine or at least offer an alternative to auteur theory? What are the basic principles of star discourse in film studies? How does a star differ from an actor or a character? In addition to the films themselves, where is a star persona produced? What are the social and cultural functions of the movie star? Which films or stars best exemplify this star-based approach to film studies? Who in your opinion is the true author of a film? Is there a true author? If not, how would suggest that audiences and critics think about this issue of authorship in film? New Directions in Film Studies Complete answers to many of these questions should refer to some of the material on Bazin and Eisenstein from the first half of the quarter. Please refer to the review questions on Bazin and Eisenstein reprinted below. Does the digital revolution pose a challenge to a Bazinian definition of realism? How? What does Anne Friedberg mean by the “end of cinema”? What forces are bringing about its demise? What challenges to newer media like television and new screen cultures like the cell phone present for approaches to cinema studies based on traditional conceptions of film (film stock, audiences in a theater, etc.). From Midterm: Eisenstein and montage What does Eisenstein consider the basic unit of a film, and what is the fundamental act of filmmaking? What are the various kinds of montage identified by Eisentein? If montage occurs through the collision of two shots and the production of a third meaning in the process, is it possible for a similar kind of conflict or collision to occur within a single shot? How? Outside of film history and theory, what analogies does Eisenstein use for the process of montage? What theory of history underlies and supports Eisenstein’s theory of montage? Which theorists does Eisenstein argue against? What is the Kuleshov effect? Although they worked in different eras, how would the Eisenstein who wrote the essays in our course reader have responded to Bazin’s writing and Italian neorealism? Which films or film clips screened this quarter best exemplify his theory of montage? Bazin and Realist Cinema How does Bazin define “realism”? What does he believe to be the fundamental characteristic of the photographic image? How does Bazinian realism differ from other modes of realism (e.g., socialist realism, or the realism of classical Hollywood cinema and continuity editing, or the documentary aesthetic of The Battle of Algiers)? Which filmmaking techniques does Bazin advocate? What is his basic attitude toward montage? Which theorists does he argue against? Or if he doesn’t argue with them specifically, which theorists seem like the most natural antagonists for Bazin? Why? Which filmmaking styles are consistent with his philosophy of film? Which approaches to filmmaking does he criticize? Why? Which films screened this quarter are most “Bazinian”? Which aspects of their narratives or formal styles would seem most “realist,” according to his definition of the term? Which specific scenes from those films would cause Bazin to leap out of his seat? jtweedie@u.washington.edu