i am troubled by pete's signature (academia nuts)

Started by Pubrick, September 03, 2005, 01:03:33 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

The Sheriff

let me explain it this way: i dont have a problem with the concept of studying film. harry knowles "studies" cinema his way, you can have different approaches at studying cinema, and talking about it. it could be a bunch of fanatical geeks or fine wine admiring posh folks each sitting around in their different settings discussing film, some having access to huge libraries or original prints, others just renting shit out of the video store, thats just the company you keep. and anyone can publish anything anytime they want, without censorship. its called the internet. ideas just flow free

but you cant say theres no link between film academia and film school... where the fuck do you think these loser teachers get their "info" on how to make films? do film scholars take time to discredit the film school system? of course not. they dont care. it gives them more shit movies to "reject" over the "better" ones.
id fuck ayn rand

children with angels

Quote from: The Sheriff on November 01, 2007, 10:49:30 AMyou cant say theres no link between film academia and film school... where the fuck do you think these loser teachers get their "info" on how to make films?

Speaking from the film studies side, I'm not aware of any link between my field and film school. I don't know where these loser teachers get their "info" on how to make films, but I would guess it's probably not from film studies because film studies doesn't tend to write that sort of material. I'm sure there are "academic" articles and books written by film school teachers on filmmaking practices, but this is NOT film studies in the sense that I'm talking about and am involved in. I suppose it's possible that some misguided film school teachers might take academic film writing and try to turn it into a prescriptive formula about how to make cinema (I have no idea - someone who's gone to film school would have to confirm that), but that is generally not what the work is intended for at all.

Quote from: The Sheriff on November 01, 2007, 10:49:30 AMdo film scholars take time to discredit the film school system? of course not. they dont care. it gives them more shit movies to "reject" over the "better" ones.

That really is not the responsibility or the remit of film studies, though I'm sure you might find the odd academic who has taken it upon themselves to do so anyway. If you want to argue that, by some strange indirect means, this makes film studies guilty of ruining the film industry, so be it - but it sounds like your beef is really with film schools.
"Should I bring my own chains?"
"We always do..."

http://www.alternatetakes.co.uk/
http://thelesserfeat.blogspot.com/

pete

while in most schools, cinema studies never cross over to the productions department, almost all of the production kids have to take some kind of film studies requirement (unless you're in the schools with the year-long certificate programs), but in theory I agree: people who study about cinema can be as wrong as they choose to be and they will have no impact on filmmakers and the people they have to collaborate with.
perhaps arcs was a bad example, maybe I should've namedropped the gaze or whatever.
my beef, and my quote, had to do with film schools and its products that ultimately bondaged a lot of talented souls with attitudes and thoughts that don't matter/ apply in the physical world.
"Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot."
- Buster Keaton

Gold Trumpet

Quote from: pete on November 01, 2007, 04:43:55 AM
People then neglect the most exciting part of filmmaking, or creativity in general, which is its heavy reliance on accidents.
you cannot reach truth by criticisms and theories.

Children With Angels accurately said academia is its own literature, but I still believe filmmakers can deal with theories and criticisms in their films. I also believe they can make those films with as much creativity and inspiration as any other filmmaker.

See, any filmmaker who approaches a subject or story will have to do research before shooting. The research could be about a historical period or it could be about a character and place. It could be about numerous things. Research, though, is part of every process before shooting a film. It's just the physical making of a film is based on a mixture of planned management and creative inspiration. As Stanley Kubrick said, "I don't know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." Pre-production, filming, and editing is a process of trial and error to find the best elements to make a great final product.

A filmmaker dealing with theories or criticisms could go about it the same way. Their research before could be about theories, but when filmmaking begins, they take the same trial and error process to make the finished product. I suspect when you think of academic films, you think of examples like the remake of Psycho, but those films are rarities. Not many filmmakers who want to challenge theories are just replicating what they have read. The idea of challenging theories wouldn't allow it in the first place. You think the filmmaking is more regimented, but it's not necessarily the case at all. Filmmakers who were about emotional subjects like Ingmar Bergman believed in detailed planning, but other filmmakers like Oliver Stone who have critical subjects in mind, are much less planned and believe in the creative process.

Experimental jazz ensembles deal with all points of music history in one piece of music and call it "improvisation". Since they are dealing with the history of music in different structures and arrangements, they are asked what their idea of improvisation means. The responce isn't just randomly putting things together, but making music that takes from years of experience with the forms of music. A film of critical value could be made from similar a regard and be as inspired by any other filmmaker because of the similarities of the process. The focus of subject is what is different.

pete

you're going to have to
1) find me a good example of what you mean with a film that is bursting with creativity and inspiration that are direct results of academic theories.  good luck.
2) you're now making theories about theories.  you're theorizing that there could be one filmmaker who can make one great film that comes from all of his exciting academic research.
3) experimental jazz musicians are musicians.  I'm glad you've used them as an example over other types of experimental musicians because I actually respect jazz theorists.  I respect most of them for their solid musicianship that are lacking in other types of experimental musicians.  however, they are musicians who make music, so I don't know what business they have in serving as your defense for the film academia, which is also different from its peers in other fields, but in a bad way.
"Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot."
- Buster Keaton

The Sheriff

Quote from: children with angels on November 01, 2007, 01:35:27 PM
that is generally not what the work is intended for at all.

Quote from: children with angels on November 01, 2007, 01:35:27 PM
That really is not the responsibility or the remit of film studies

okay, so what is the work intended for?

Quote from: children with angels on November 01, 2007, 10:02:47 AM
The function of film studies is rather to respond to existing films and styles of filmmaking, interrogating their workings and meanings for audiences.

so why do you study film if it isnt because you love cinema? and if you love cinema wouldnt you feel obligated to defend it? what is the voice of film academia now? what do we, the ones on the outside, see coming out of this institution? thats why i pointed to criterion collection, because they do exactly thisrespond to existing films and styles of filmmaking, interrogating their workings and meanings for audiences. they even have micheal bay films. this form of "film preservation" or "film study" is much more beneficial to everyone involved. if the scholars are interested in the audience, arent they curious about what they want to put their money on?

the individual is lost in the bigger picture of the institution. clearly the corrupted are dominating these fields. youre saying 'the purpose of film studies is X Y Z and my job is only to perform task A B C, you have a beef with people who do D E F, thats not my department or concern.' thats not what im saying, we are all just consumers. so if the purpose of academia is to respond to existing films and styles of filmmaking, interrogating their workings and meanings for audiences... whats your conclusion? i mean YOU personally i dont know any of your particular views on film but whatever they are they count for one vote, one individual. what is the voice of film academia? what is it saying to the world and to cinema?
id fuck ayn rand

Gold Trumpet

Quote from: pete on November 01, 2007, 09:57:36 PM
1) find me a good example of what you mean with a film that is bursting with creativity and inspiration that are direct results of academic theories.  good luck.

When Michelangelo Antonioni made Blow Up, he didn't have a prepared script at all. He based the film off a short story from Julio Cortazar and all he would do is new give pages of the short story to actors each day, telling them "these are tomorrow's scenes". Antonioni made up the filming as he went along. The academic tie in is that he was continuing studies of spacial relations between people and their environment. Blow Up is one of the last films by him that is a direct relation to L'Avventura, L'Eclisse, La Notte and Red Desert. By the time his made this film, his writings on the topic were considered academic equivalent and all the films became used for study on both the subject of spacial relations and Antonioni's art.

pete

before a full rebuttal, please tell me more about his studies and their academic ties.
"Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot."
- Buster Keaton

Gold Trumpet

Quote from: pete on November 02, 2007, 01:50:39 AM
before a full rebuttal, please tell me more about his studies and their academic ties.

Somehow I doubt I'll ever convince you because this conversation is getting long winded, but give me a day. I have to look up a few books because I don't want to confuse or half ass the specifics.

children with angels

Quote from: The Sheriff on November 01, 2007, 11:31:15 PMokay, so what is the work intended for?

It's intended to help us understand the meanings and significance of existing films and filmic aesthetic practices more fully. It's not - as you were saying earlier - intended as a blueprint for filmmaking.

Quote from: The Sheriff on November 01, 2007, 11:31:15 PMthats why i pointed to criterion collection, because they do exactly thisrespond to existing films and styles of filmmaking, interrogating their workings and meanings for audiences.

Really? From what I've seen of the Criterion Collection (I'm from the UK, and poor, so I don't tend to buy them) there's nothing in the short essays, etc., included in their packages that comes anywere close to providing the kind of detail needed to convincingly interrogate much at all (except for maybe the occasional piece written by a film scholar). To do that takes much more precision and specificity, which is what film studies can provide through its essays, books, etc. I can see that Criterion is offering a valuable service as regards preservation, availability, and market research, but I don't see how it can help us understand cinema in a comparable sense to film studies. I'm not saying one is superior to the other - I'm saying it's nonsensical to compare them.

Quote from: The Sheriff on November 01, 2007, 11:31:15 PMclearly the corrupted are dominating these fields.

I don't understand what you're saying here - some kind of conspiracy? Yeah, film studies has economic and political imperatives like any other field, and often people will get funded who I don't agree should get funded. But "corrupted" implies something else.

Quote from: The Sheriff on November 01, 2007, 11:31:15 PMwhat is the voice of film academia? what is it saying to the world and to cinema?

Forgive me if I sidestep the question, but it's a ridiculous one. How can you honestly expect an entire worldwide field of study to have a coherent voice? It's a constantly evolving area - like any field: it has many, many different approaches, practices, methods, beliefs, and conclusions.

What you seem to be edging towards, however, is a more interesting question: what is the impact of film studies beyond those who study and teach it? This is something I am often troubled by myself, and is something I'm willing to debate. It's a similar problem for most fields of study without direct scientific/ industrial (etc.) applications: is it read by or benefitting anyone other than those involved in the field? For the most part, likely, no - or at least, not directly, or not outside people in other academic fields. Does that make it pointless? No, since we're still struggling to reach a deeper understanding about aspects of the medium than any other area is aiming for - when conclusions are reached, it thus makes it worth it. Is a film pointless if no one sees it? However, it is definitely a shame that it's not read and debated by a wider audienece, and I do object to the limited readership, which is sometimes caused by the isolationist tactics used by some writers and publishers. My ideal form of film criticism would lie somewhere between the academic and the journalistic: detailed, precise, informed by the best approaches and theories of film studies, but also relatively accessible, and read by an interested public. That's why I've set up my own site, which tries to practise this approach.

Basically, though, we've strayed far from the path that caused me to originally jump in. You were saying that film studies is ruining cinema - I hope I've proved that it isn't, and couldn't really be. Whether you think it's a pointless choice of career is really beside the point, and a very long way from the point you were trying to make first. It is a more interesting question though.
"Should I bring my own chains?"
"We always do..."

http://www.alternatetakes.co.uk/
http://thelesserfeat.blogspot.com/

Chest Rockwell

Quote from: pete on November 01, 2007, 09:57:36 PM
you're going to have to
1) find me a good example of what you mean with a film that is bursting with creativity and inspiration that are direct results of academic theories.  good luck.
First off that's a ridiculous thing to ask, because unless the director speaks directly of his intention we'll never know how he was conceptualizing the project. Secondly, there are plenty of examples of that. The classic example of a director working directly out of theory is Sergei Eisenstein. I'll even point you to the famous essay he wrote on montage as it relates to Marxist ideology. http://interactive.usc.edu/members/akratky/W6_Film_Form.pdf
Or what about anything from the French New Wave?

I've always found these arguments that theory kills the industry absurd. How could it, by creating new levels of meaning with which to read films other than gut reaction? Film and theory will always be inseparable, as with any other art form. Sure, it's been argued that film is the art for the masses (as opposed to the intellectual elite), but guess what: that's theory. Walter Benjamin wrote the same thing back in the twenties in one of the theoretical cornerstones for photography and film, "Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction." Film and theory, like with any other art medium, are inseparable, and reacting against theory is just as much engaging in the dialogue as is openly embracing it.

The Sheriff

Quote from: children with angels on November 02, 2007, 06:30:15 AM
Quote from: The Sheriff on November 01, 2007, 11:31:15 PMokay, so what is the work intended for?

It's intended to help us understand the meanings and significance of existing films and filmic aesthetic practices more fully. It's not - as you were saying earlier - intended as a blueprint for filmmaking.

my position isnt that the intention of film studies is to make a filmmaking blueprint, im saying the results of these studies are crudely used for marketing reasons. economics is everything, so marketing affects the entire industry. im not anti-capitalist, im not saying that the mechanics are wrong. but film studies influence filmmaking for sure. (criterion has essays written by scholars).

Quote from: children with angels on November 02, 2007, 06:30:15 AM
From what I've seen of the Criterion Collection (I'm from the UK, and poor, so I don't tend to buy them) there's nothing in the short essays, etc., included in their packages that comes anywere close to providing the kind of detail needed to convincingly interrogate much at all (except for maybe the occasional piece written by a film scholar). [...] I'm saying it's nonsensical to compare them.

they both influence humanity, by presenting/selling/being involved in cinema. thats what i meant by the voice of academia, what influence it has.

Quote from: children with angels on November 02, 2007, 06:30:15 AM
Quote from: The Sheriff on November 01, 2007, 11:31:15 PMclearly the corrupted are dominating these fields.

I don't understand what you're saying here - some kind of conspiracy? Yeah, film studies has economic and political imperatives like any other field, and often people will get funded who I don't agree should get funded. But "corrupted" implies something else.

exactly, but its not a conspiracy. this is the result of political involvement in economics. criterion is a company, they sell directly to the consumer. thats not how an institution works. but they both have an influence on society.

Quote from: children with angels on November 02, 2007, 06:30:15 AM
Quote from: The Sheriff on November 01, 2007, 11:31:15 PMwhat is the voice of film academia? what is it saying to the world and to cinema?

Forgive me if I sidestep the question, but it's a ridiculous one. How can you honestly expect an entire worldwide field of study to have a coherent voice? It's a constantly evolving area - like any field: it has many, many different approaches, practices, methods, beliefs, and conclusions.

same as something like christianity. but the different sub-sections have all the same thing to say: be like us or youre wrong. im not saying film studies is morally disgusting the way religion is, but that the results of film academia today, because of political involvement as opposed to free market non-descrimination methods of operation, influences cinema in a destructive way.

i live in montreal, i consider myself to be part of the americas, like its one big partnership, which it is, and it affects films and everyhting else as well. so the movies coming out are complete garbage that have nothing to do with the reality of the world, because the market today here in the americas ssays "we want to numb ourselves while brown people get blown up with equipment funded by our own money." it also says things like "im fuckin afraid of change, i have the self esteem of a hooker."

Quote from: children with angels on November 02, 2007, 06:30:15 AM
What you seem to be edging towards, however, is a more interesting question: what is the impact of film studies beyond those who study and teach it? This is something I am often troubled by myself, and is something I'm willing to debate. It's a similar problem for most fields of study without direct scientific/ industrial (etc.) applications: is it read by or benefitting anyone other than those involved in the field? For the most part, likely, no - or at least, not directly, or not outside people in other academic fields. Does that make it pointless? No, since we're still struggling to reach a deeper understanding about aspects of the medium than any other area is aiming for - when conclusions are reached, it thus makes it worth it. Is a film pointless if no one sees it? However, it is definitely a shame that it's not read and debated by a wider audienece, and I do object to the limited readership, which is sometimes caused by the isolationist tactics used by some writers and publishers. My ideal form of film criticism would lie somewhere between the academic and the journalistic: detailed, precise, informed by the best approaches and theories of film studies, but also relatively accessible, and read by an interested public. That's why I've set up my own site, which tries to practise this approach.

thats what i like to hear. whats your site? http://www.alternatetakes.co.uk/? ill check it out
id fuck ayn rand

Chest Rockwell

Sheriff, you seem to be talking about a very specific branch of film studies, that being the mainstream critic. While what they do is important for the business, it's also the least intellectual form of analysis there is. When I think of film theory/academia I think of essays written about the medium itself, the kind of stuff everyone interested in film should be reading if only to understand the theoretical models that make up film's history. Walter Benjamin, Laura Mulvey, Christian Metz, Roland Barthes, Slavoj Zizek, etc. It's also just interesting stuff to read.

The Sheriff

no.

heres something that only those with balls will answer: if im doing woman studies because i think that women are so beautiful and that i love them so much that i want to study every specific way they are beautiful and how they influence males, and then i see that all men out there think that loving women equals raping them, wouldnt i feel obligated to say 'hey you people are fucking crazy?' unless of course i was afraid for my life because if all men were crazy motherfuckers raping women constantly in the streets in daylight id WANT TO JUST HIDE IN MY QUATERS AND CONTINUE STUDYING THE BEAUTY OF WOMEN. but defending cinema in that sense is not the same as confronting a society of psychotic raping men, so if film academia is not objecting to the film school process, its because they either dont give a shit or are afraid of the political consequences. convince me otherwise.
id fuck ayn rand

The Sheriff

id fuck ayn rand