marxism and the biki
I have a lot to say but, as a consequence, have no time to say it. Sorry for the delays in the updates - was up in Newwie for four days or so. Wow. Its like the Western suburbs were 10 years ago. Peroxide blondes and HSV Utes.
Word to Ben H.
Read an article over at the LA times called Lights, Camera, Action. Marxism, Semiotics, Narratology which was mentioned on CML-General. I posted a response to some of the responses posted in response to that (heh, how's that for obfuscation Mr Weddle?). For the sake of posterity I'm posting my message here:
I'm not sure if I see any difference between the jargon of contemporary film theory and the jargon used on a film set. (I've heard wooden pegs called C47s)
Show an American Cinematographer article (or a CML digest) to an uneducated layperson and they'll be just as confused as if they read an essay by Metz. I would also suggest that for many the jargon would seem unnecessary. Why not just say 'no sound' instead of 'mos'? Because it conjures the history and culture of our profession - and it excludes outsiders. And that's true of other pursuits and their terminology.
To give an example later offered by Dominic Case (Manager of Services & Technology at Atlab):
Jargon in any field is common for a number of reasons - its more efficient (DP vs Director of Photography), serves a historical/cultural purpose (MOS), and it serves a political purpose (Director of Photography vs Lighting Cameraman). It can also be used to cloud other purposes. This doesn't make it inherently bad.
Film theory and other academia is no different. For them abstract concepts are just as much tools of their work as lights and cameras are for filmmakers.
(Personally, I find terminology in any field relatively easy to pick up and use but that could just be me).
The real question is whether contemporary film theory as taught at places like UC Santa Barbara is relevant to filmmaking.
I'd say unequivocally yes. Its as relevant as history and politics and art and law and sociology and pscyhology and science and any other intellectual pursuit. Thats to say, a helluva lot. I'm tired of meeting young artists who know nothing else but art. They may knowhow to make a film or paint a portrait but they have nothing to say. Like most things in life, I think it comes down to balance. Our austere listmaster Geoff Boyle may remember conceptual art with distaste - but thats because the artists had something to say but no way of saying it well.
The problem is universties have gone too much the other way in reaction. Theory without practice is just as useless as practice
without theory imnsho.
The French New Wave was a revolution because of its ideas and what it tried to do and what it actually did do. Goddard is an icon as much for his theory as for his films. The FNW was dominated by theorists who were filmmakers as well.
The great directors - Tarkvosky, Eisenstein, Kubrick, Griffiths, Lang, Kurosoawa, Hithcock, Welles - all of them had theories and philosophies which they used in making their films. Kubrick's work has so much depth and so much meaning because he understood semiotics (whether consciously or unconsciously) which is exactly why he cast Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman in Eyes Wide Shut (for example). In Donnie Darko, Richard Kelley understood the form in which he was playing and produced a masterpiece of historical revisionism - albeit one set in the 1980s. (Just look at all the references Kelley made to 80s cinema.... they're all there for subtextual reasons and were very conscious)
The problem with much contemporary cinema is that it lacks ideas. If the Matrix can be praised as an intellectual piece of filmmaking then we're in serious trouble. I wonder what David Weddle has to say about that.
Word to Ben H.
Read an article over at the LA times called Lights, Camera, Action. Marxism, Semiotics, Narratology which was mentioned on CML-General. I posted a response to some of the responses posted in response to that (heh, how's that for obfuscation Mr Weddle?). For the sake of posterity I'm posting my message here:
I'm not sure if I see any difference between the jargon of contemporary film theory and the jargon used on a film set. (I've heard wooden pegs called C47s)
Show an American Cinematographer article (or a CML digest) to an uneducated layperson and they'll be just as confused as if they read an essay by Metz. I would also suggest that for many the jargon would seem unnecessary. Why not just say 'no sound' instead of 'mos'? Because it conjures the history and culture of our profession - and it excludes outsiders. And that's true of other pursuits and their terminology.
To give an example later offered by Dominic Case (Manager of Services & Technology at Atlab):
Good example from a day or two ago (with apologies and/or thanks to Gideon Furst who wrote it):-
=====
my dop is shooting with a t-rex for the first time.
we are shooting jewelery, close up and beauty lighting.
we are mounting the t-rex on sliding u-bangi.
=====
Jargon in any field is common for a number of reasons - its more efficient (DP vs Director of Photography), serves a historical/cultural purpose (MOS), and it serves a political purpose (Director of Photography vs Lighting Cameraman). It can also be used to cloud other purposes. This doesn't make it inherently bad.
Film theory and other academia is no different. For them abstract concepts are just as much tools of their work as lights and cameras are for filmmakers.
(Personally, I find terminology in any field relatively easy to pick up and use but that could just be me).
The real question is whether contemporary film theory as taught at places like UC Santa Barbara is relevant to filmmaking.
I'd say unequivocally yes. Its as relevant as history and politics and art and law and sociology and pscyhology and science and any other intellectual pursuit. Thats to say, a helluva lot. I'm tired of meeting young artists who know nothing else but art. They may knowhow to make a film or paint a portrait but they have nothing to say. Like most things in life, I think it comes down to balance. Our austere listmaster Geoff Boyle may remember conceptual art with distaste - but thats because the artists had something to say but no way of saying it well.
The problem is universties have gone too much the other way in reaction. Theory without practice is just as useless as practice
without theory imnsho.
The French New Wave was a revolution because of its ideas and what it tried to do and what it actually did do. Goddard is an icon as much for his theory as for his films. The FNW was dominated by theorists who were filmmakers as well.
The great directors - Tarkvosky, Eisenstein, Kubrick, Griffiths, Lang, Kurosoawa, Hithcock, Welles - all of them had theories and philosophies which they used in making their films. Kubrick's work has so much depth and so much meaning because he understood semiotics (whether consciously or unconsciously) which is exactly why he cast Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman in Eyes Wide Shut (for example). In Donnie Darko, Richard Kelley understood the form in which he was playing and produced a masterpiece of historical revisionism - albeit one set in the 1980s. (Just look at all the references Kelley made to 80s cinema.... they're all there for subtextual reasons and were very conscious)
The problem with much contemporary cinema is that it lacks ideas. If the Matrix can be praised as an intellectual piece of filmmaking then we're in serious trouble. I wonder what David Weddle has to say about that.
posted by stu willis at
2:43 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home