Theory of Film Developed before and after 1960 - Essay Example

Q) Robert Stam writes that 'theories do not usually fall into disuse like old automobiles relegated to a conceptual junkyard. They do not die; they transform themselves, leaving traces and reminiscences. 'Film theory: An introduction, p9. Select a theory of film developed before 1960 and a theory of film developed after 1960. Compare and contrast your selected theories with a particular focus on the ways in which the latter is shaped by the former. A) Life is an ongoing, evolutionary process--a transition of sorts through generations, unique in its every stage and reminiscent of the past. One cannot be condemned or belittled for saying that life often imitates art and vice versa. In fact, it's a statement of facts and contradictions that needs to be revered, understood and deconstructed in its entirety. Now really, it's not that premature to say that our past makes our future, and it's owing to this meticulous and oversensitive fashion that our life moves in that we are caught in this struggle of assessing the correlating what has happened and what is about to happen. Lights, camera, actionfrozen in time, and captured for time's keep! Sure enough, literature and informative articles and write ups give us an insight into the past events and the sands of time that have elapsed over centuries, but it's needless to say that while this past may seem suitably exciting owing to the proficient writings of our forefathers, the cinematic past too speaks clearly, indeed alternatively. Alternative Most will be baffled by the use of the term alternative used to describe cinema. However, if one sees this medium in isolation, it becomes apparent that the reason for this is because Cinema has always been an alternative to conventional wisdom and movement through the ages. If you are to pick up a particular decades cinematic record you are bound to be taken in by the enormity of information that it gives. It's a reflection of the time, the aspirations, and the realizations one makes in that period. Its history etched in frames, in dialogue, expressions and color. While the past seems magnificent in its appeal, it goes without saying that it reflects on the future. Cinema has seen a lot of transitions, and manifestations through the years, and its appeal remains unbeatable even now. It's got the power to stop us in our tracks, take note of the direction and the paths we have chosen for ourselves and then question possibilities for the future. While one can go on and on about cinematic brilliance, one thing that cannot escape prominence is its history and its beautiful transformation. And while we are gushing at the past it seems only right to pay tribute to the rich past that has inspired present day cinema. Robert Stam wrote, "Theories do not usually fall into disuse like old automobiles relegated to a conceptual junkyard. They do not die; they transform themselves, leaving traces and reminiscences." While Stam eloquently talks about the old giving way to the new and instigating room for experimentation in the process of this transition, what remains inspiring in all this is the cinema prior to the 1960's which raised the bar for filmmakers and technicians alike. It set the foundation from which great cinema emerged and found acceptance. The era prior to the 1960's gave us filmmakers and pioneering geniuses like John Ford, Sergio Leone, David Lean, Orson Welles, Akira Kurosowa, Stanley Kubrick, Alfred Joseph Hitchcock, and Isaac Julien. The list of filmmakers who have made a niche for themselves is long when you tread the boundaries of world cinema. These are the names of only a few who have paved the way for the new generation filmmakers to follow suit. Many theories developed from this school of thought. Isaac Julien's film, Battle of Algiers, not only thematizes the racialised and sexualized look but also provides audio visual illustrations that highlight the protagonist's angst. One can also further interpret it as a theorized orchestration of looks and glances, captured and analyzed in all their permutations and combinations. It seems that the movie also branches out into elucidating the rather rare, yet homosocial and reciprocal look. Even though one would not regard this as a theory of sorts, but each experimental movement led to a formulation of consensus as to what works cinematically and what doesn't. For instance, one can easily take reference of Hitchcock's pioneering work to comprehend the inception of a theory which was eventually used in a practiced module and is to some extent still used for the power and screen presence it managed to realize. The scene with the fragmented mirror image which literalizes into psychic splitting to evoke a crisis in identity still holds universal appeal across world cinema. Hitchcock is the reason behind audience manipulation by Spielberg, the controlled precision of Mann, the rather twisted sexual subtext of Lynch, the unabashed and shameless self-promotion of Tarantino and the distinct yet detached glee of the Coens brothers. Greatness comes through learning, receiving and soaking in what the world has to offer. Even Hitchcock was influenced by Russian horror merchant Val Lewton, Spanish surrealist Luis Bunuel, and German expressionist Fritz Lang. He drew a lot of parallels from his own imagination, experiences and life into cinema. His work was a piece of art where there were many artists at work trying to present the finest possible product with passion and pride. Kubrick on the other hand did not believe in playing by the rule book. He was a man of his own ingenious beliefs who was willing to experiment and go against the tide. He pushed the envelope with almost every movie he made. He shot by candlelight, he mastered the now overused steadicam in the spine chilling, The Shining, to his last film, Eyes Wide shut, where he decided to push-process the entire movie, so that it has a hallucinatory yet luminous effect, while knowing extremely well that this could put the movie at a potential risk, with the slightest miss-timing destroying the negative. He had a great understanding of color and movement which he beautifully brought to his craft and saturated it with in full degree and justice. While the US box office seems to go into frenzy whenever a beautifully depicted Oriental story or cinema finds acceptance in its tough territory, one name that doesn't escape sensibilities so unique to the west is Kurosawa. He knew how to keep things real and true to their natural form. He managed to leave behind a legacy of simple works that revolved and explored universal themes. He depicted the need for action against atrocities and word's need to put everything extraordinary behind the veil with astute perfection and simplicity. In fact, Kurosawa has been often credited with reflecting the image of his native culture that the Westerners could easily grasp. He made an effort to make films that seemed to be soaked in Japanese sensibilities but still held universal appeal. He was a master of his craft, almost like Satyajt Ray, who managed to charm the western audience with a very real, harsh, yet heartfelt depiction of India from behind the lens. Now who doesn't talk about Citizen Kane, the epic piece that left the audience spell bound and transfixed. It is regarded as the greatest American film ever made, thanks to Orson Welles, the man behind the magic. Welles, was willing to take a chance on the unknown and ride on his own convictions then listen to the crowd. His willful iconoclasm compelled him to punch he self-destruct button just to hear the sirens wail. The movie wows you with its cataclysmic brilliance. Movies are engaging because they manage to touch a chord, a part of our lives that we can instinctively relate to and revel in. The moments are magical and enrapture us with their reel time magic. While these nuances have been used extensively in today's cinema with charm and ease, it goes without saying that credit also needs to go to these men who dared to be different. Every thing is subject to change and interpretation. While the films and theories prior to 1960's were ingenious and ahead of their times they still influence 21st century cinema. Filmmakers like Spielberg, Tarantino, Oliver Stone, Ridley Scott, Martin Scorsese and Francis Ford Coppola, amongst others have fashioned these old gems in a fashion that it suits today's sensibilities and have managed to bring their own quirks to the craft. Oliver Stone's intrepid use of the camera and brilliant editing gimmicks has made him a name to reckon with. He seems to be driven by a furious passion to deliver the truth, owing to his military training and this can be felt in every frame of his every film with lan. It's rather intriguing and at the same time interesting how Alfred Hitchcock's work, especially his visual and psycho somatic ideas are still translated today so wonderfully that they hold our attention and make us gasp in collective disbelief. Now if we take Tarantino's work into careful analysis and attempt to demystify it, the reshuffled narratives, violence used as in heavy doses for a quick laugh, incidental dialogue scenes put quizzically centre stage with loud blaring music, are somehow yet again reminiscent of work influenced by Hitchcock and Kubrick. They brought in their own understanding to the world of cinema, which Tarantino and many others have done over the years. Each new narrative or new story is marketed keeping in mind that it will challenge you into thinking out of the boxit's a masterpiece in motion, one fact above all the others remains undeniable in all its collective self righteousness. What's omnipresent is, is that the new still has shades of the old, because that's where it gets its solid foundation and groundwork. The past is not so easy to let go off, especially when it makes you who you are. Bibliography: 1) Multiculturalism, Postcoloniality and Transnational Media. By Ella Shohat and Robert Stam 2) New York film School, Discussions and Debates. 3) Hitchcock by Francois Truffaut. 4) Google 5) The Stanley Kubrick Archives by Alison Castle. Read More