Description
Essays are to be 4 double-spaced pages with 1-inch margins and 12 point Times New Roman font. Please include a title, your name and page numbers. As we have discussed in class, the goal of the final paper assignment is to have you analyze passages from two texts we have read this term. As in the past, please formulate an argument and demonstrate your claims through specific evidence drawn directly from the close analysis of cited passages.
Final Essay Topics: The following topics (from which you choose one) are meant to prompt your formulation of an argument—please note that they do not offer you the argument.
1. Deep Focus/Montage: Bazin and Eisenstein Where authors such as Benjamin and Eisenstein deal with the signifying properties of film and the manipulation of the spectator (through montage), Bazin focuses on the capacity of the film to reveal the ambiguity of reality through the use of deep focus (35-7). Looking at Bazin’s “Evolution of the Language of Cinema,” how do you understand the differences between Eisenstein’s theory of montage and Bazin’s theory of realism? In your essay, be sure to note what Bazin’s critique of montage is, but also pay attention to the competing conceptions of the relationship between film and reality at play in the works of the two authors.
2. Pleasure: Barthes and Mulvey When Mulvey writes that “the unconscious of patriarchal society has structured film form,” she describes psychological and social conditions that inform the spectator’s relationship to the image onscreen (833). When Barthes discusses photography, he notes that a general theory of Photography makes him furious: “Each time I would read something about Photography, I would think of some photograph I loved, and this made me furious” (7). How do you understand the differing relationships to pleasure in these two essays—Mulvey, on the one hand, who seeks to destroy the patriarchal pleasure of looking at women in cinema, and Barthes, on the other, who undertakes a study to understand his pleasure at looking? Is Barthes naïve in overlooking the social conditions of his pleasure? Or is Mulvey overlooking the possibility of a personal relationship to the image?
google the sources
Explanation & Answer
Hello there, here is the complete paper. Go through it and in case of anything, feel free to alert me.Regards
Running head: THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON THE ART OF FILMMAKING
Theoretical Perspectives of the Art of Filmmaking
Student Name
Institution Affiliation
1
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES OF THE ART OF FILMMAKING
2
The signifying properties of film and the manipulation of the spectator through montage
I.
Introduction
Sergei Eisenstein and André Bazin developed film theories that contributed greatly to the
film industry. Bazin a French film critic and theorist believed in the depiction of the aspects of
reality via the use of deep focus, sound, and invisible editing was crucial in making a quality
film. According to Bazin Montages could be easily overused and in effect deny the film the
realism that it deserves instead of putting too much faith in the image instead of reality. On the
contrary, Sergei Eisenstein viewed the use of montage as crucial for film making and thus he
believed that quality films should portray shorter shots, silent and creatively edited. Eisenstein
thus focused on using a montage to elicit an emotional response from the audience, unlike Bazin.
In order to elicit emotions, Eisenstein relied on the Marxist dialectic that suggests a state of
perpetual conflict where the thesis collides with an antithesis (Antoine-Dunne, 2019). Through
the use of camera angles, lighting, more sophisticated image movements and thus the main use
of montage was to depict the passage of the time factor while eliciting more emotion. In this
article, I argue that despite the two theorists presenting different approaches to the use of
montage in film development, both theories complement each other in improving the art of film
making.
II.
Bazin on realism in film
Based on the Bazin's "Evolution of language of Cinema", the difference between Bazin's
perception and that of Eisenstein is very clear as Bazin criticizes the use of montage in the
development of the film. As Bazin comments in the book, "the image is evaluated not according
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES OF THE ART OF FILMMAKING
3
to what it adds to reality but what it reveals of it" (Bazin, 2005).These means that Bazin
perceived the ambiguity of the images positively since the images could be translated in any way
and make sense as opposed to the subjective translation the audience was limited to in the use of
the Eisenstein theory in film making. This is because he perceives that focusing on the image
could create a series of logical manipulation of the different perceptions and thus become
subjective. Despite the position by Bazin, the use of montage is not entirely subjective as it
depends on who uses the information and for what purpose. The point of contention for Bazin is
the aspect of realism where he believed that Eisenstein theory was too subjective hence denying
the audience the freedom to view the images from their own independent perspectives. Therefore
he advocated for realism as it eliminated the ambiguity of reality.
The two theorists present different approaches in the use of mintage with Eisenstein
being a strong advocate of focusing on the image while Bazin being a strong advocate of realism
as a vital part of film making. Bazin strongly argues that film making should portray an aspect of
realism (Simpson, Utterson and Shepherdson, 2004). In a criticism of the montage technique as
emphasized by the Soviet film theorists, Bazin perceives the use of montage as a manipulative
strategy that can be misused to spread propaganda. As Bazin states, "In addition to affecting the
structure of film language, it also affects the relationships of the minds of the spectators to the
image, and in consequence, it influences the interpretation of the spectacle” (Bazin, 2005). This
shows that Bazin valued the original idea as opposed to the technical superio...
Review
Review
