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

[squints]

i didnt go to university

ok. i'm not bashing you or talking down to you for not going to university but...
find another thread to bullshit in please. i don't know why i keep checking this

[The Sheriff]

i would still have appreciated that response GT, not because i want to be convinced of what acedemia is or what the purpose is, but because ive seen half of zabriskie point and i own blow out, so ive been waiting for your response on that to pete, antonioni is an interesting filmmaker. and i dont know what your hour long response was a response to exactly, if it was about any current theories you find interesting or that you think i would have found interesting, i wouldve appreciated that. im not gonna be convinced that an institution in this case is useful or that its about appreciating film. science is another thing.

i didnt go to university

ok. i'm not bashing you or talking down to you for not going to university but...
find another thread to bullshit in please. i don't know why i keep checking this

i went to cegep though, film theory was discussed there (but it wasnt a class, just part of film1, film2). i dunno if it makes a difference

[socketlevel]

i think the problem more lies in the person, schooling can be a crutch, and so could lack of it.

on one side of it, some people that really don't have any art to express, yet feel passionate about an artform, end up going to great degrees of schooling to understand it.  on one side that is a nice thing, they want to discover it as much as possible, yet on the other hand it can be an easy way for the person to never put his/her heart on the chopping block and make something themselves.  they become so obsessed with what "was" (history/techniques) that they become so inundate with those structures.  or it also fills the gap for the fact that they aren't making art on their own.

on the other hand, not going to school can free someone of the confinds that institutions set up.  because many directors/artist/writers did their art without any formal education.  they are self taught, and more importantly they adopt the "original things come from original places" school of thought; whether they know it or not.  however, people with this mentality also can fall victim to a crutch.  they can justify never doing anything with this mode of thought.  they keep telling themselves that they don't need conventions, when really that's just a facade for the fact they're lazy fucks themselves.  also, people telling them that learning certain fundamentals is beneficial, yet they are ignorant and feel superior.

i think herzog was self taught, and he's explaining why he is so while not getting that everyone works a little different then the next.  some people like tarantino, scorsese, kubrick etc get passion from studying art.  herzog is motivated and gets passion from different things, and more power to him.  some people feel passion from art, and talking about it, searching the semantics to find deeper meaning, something that a school, even though rarely, supplies people.  i've learned just as much going over film theory and conventions with my friends as much as any school could do.

i went to film school, and in my experience it was a great way to be able to make movies that fuck up.  you keep making them until you get better.  i did learn from teachers, but not as much as the average person would think.  it buys you 4 years to do w/e the hell you wanna do, and learn it.  you could do it on your own, but maybe it's a way to get your parents off your back at that time of your life.  either way, you are either creative or not, no one can teach you that.  they might be able to help bring it out, but i don't know if i even buy that, it all comes down the the person and their talent.

-sl-

[elpablo]

I'm disappointed I haven't seen this thread until now. I wish I could have followed the whole thing, because it's gotten too long to go back and read the whole thing. So I apologize if anything I say is redundant or irrelevant, probably both.

When I saw Herzog speak a couple of weeks ago, he was asked about his views on Academia. he clarified that he doesn't just outright denounce academia altogether, but moreso the aspect of it that is over analytical and deconstructive. He hates that so much time is spent in universities analyzing history, influence, structure, form, etc. that the inherent emotion often ends up being ignored.

So what he's basically trying to say to me is that he doesn't really car how a story is told, as long as it is a good story told by someone who passionately wants to share it with the world.

[Chest Rockwell]

I thought this passage from the introduction of Slavoj Zizek's Fright of Real Tears (which is a response to "Post-Theory") seems relevant. Pardon any typos.

"Kieslowski is often (mis)perceived as a director whose work is falsified the moment one translates its contents into the terms of a (social, religious, psychoanalytic) interpretation - one should simply immerse oneself in it and enjoy it intuitively, not talk about it, not apply to it the terms which irreparably reify its true content ... Such a resistance to Theory is often shared by artists who feel hurt or misunderstood by the theoretical explanations of their work, and who insist on the distinction between doing something and describing it, talking about it: the critic or theorist's discourse about the anxiety or pleasure discernible in a work of art just talks about them, it does not directly render them, and in this sense it is deeply irrelevant to the work itself. However, in all fairness, one should bear in mind that the same distinction holds also for Theory itself: in philosophy, it is one thing to talk about, to report on, say, the history of a notion of subject (accompanied by all the proper bibliographic footnotes), even to supplement it with comparative critical remarks; it is quite another thing to work in theory, to elaborate the notion of 'subject' itself. The aim of this book is to do the same apropos of Kieslowski: not to talk about his work, but to refer to his work in order to accomplish the work of Theory. In its very ruthless 'use' of its artistic pretext, such a procedure is much more faithful to the interpreted work than any superficial respect for the work's unfathomable autonomy."

[pete]

I'm ready for round two.  like mike tyson on keyboard, I'm only gonna take jabs.
before any jab though, I feel like my fundamental beef still hasn't been properly addressed: film theory/ academia differs from other theories because it is a world populated by folks ENTIRELY removed from the filmmaking process.  the theory of film theory is alright in theory.  but that's all anyone's been defending, is why in theory why a film theory can be useful today or 400 years down the line or two other film theorists.  they neglect the overwhelming dominance of ignorance that empowers their field today.  I bet most of them don't even agree with the majority of the works put out there, and consider as much percentage of theories they've come across as total bullshit as I do, which is 100%.

I have no problems with filmmakers like eisenstein or jon jost or von trier who spew truisms or accidental truths about filmmaking.  But film academia is much different from the other fields of academic literature because the folks are making assumptions about parts of the insane and complicated process that is completely off-limits to them.  At least theologians have the Bible or the Q'ran, these poor theorists have NOTHING.  they can't tell if a shot is composed one way due to any number of circumstances, or why it was chosen for editing, or why it looked the way it did when projected.  the process is so long, tedious, and involving, that even experienced filmmakers have to take blind stabs at the results, nevermind people who just grew up watching the images.  But an entire field is dedicated to this game of blind (mis)leading the blind, developing theories after theories on why things are, why things are not, and why things should go where.  I mean, they don't even hang out on sets, nevermind sit in during the pre- or post-production process, and have no clue how locations are determined, schedules are compiled, or new processes such as 2k/ 4k DIs are applied.  they have an okay handle on how films are distributed though, I'll give them that.  how dare they, then, give each other degrees and salaries, for a subject they are so ignorant about?  I'd leave the field alone if the folks change their names to film-watching academia.  its insulation also makes it incredibly useless for humanity in general--not because only few people benefit from it, but because it contains a distorted reality which can hold no truth.  Plato and his boys could hang out in the cave all day, even though there were only a handful of them, because they were close to the truth, and people seeking the truth is always noble, despite some ratty conclusions.  however, a group of people purposedly shunning themselves and each other from the truth, no matter how trivial, should always live in shame.

[Chest Rockwell]

I'm ready for round two.  like mike tyson on keyboard, I'm only gonna take jabs.
before any jab though, I feel like my fundamental beef still hasn't been properly addressed: film theory/ academia differs from other theories because it is a world populated by folks ENTIRELY removed from the filmmaking process.  the theory of film theory is alright in theory.  but that's all anyone's been defending, is why in theory why a film theory can be useful today or 400 years down the line or two other film theorists.  they neglect the overwhelming dominance of ignorance that empowers their field today.  I bet most of them don't even agree with the majority of the works put out there, and consider as much percentage of theories they've come across as total bullshit as I do, which is 100%.

I have no problems with filmmakers like eisenstein or jon jost or von trier who spew truisms or accidental truths about filmmaking.  But film academia is much different from the other fields of academic literature because the folks are making assumptions about parts of the insane and complicated process that is completely off-limits to them.  At least theologians have the Bible or the Q'ran, these poor theorists have NOTHING.  they can't tell if a shot is composed one way due to any number of circumstances, or why it was chosen for editing, or why it looked the way it did when projected.  the process is so long, tedious, and involving, that even experienced filmmakers have to take blind stabs at the results, nevermind people who just grew up watching the images.  But an entire field is dedicated to this game of blind (mis)leading the blind, developing theories after theories on why things are, why things are not, and why things should go where.  I mean, they don't even hang out on sets, nevermind sit in during the pre- or post-production process, and have no clue how locations are determined, schedules are compiled, or new processes such as 2k/ 4k DIs are applied.  they have an okay handle on how films are distributed though, I'll give them that.  how dare they, then, give each other degrees and salaries, for a subject they are so ignorant about?  I'd leave the field alone if the folks change their names to film-watching academia.  its insulation also makes it incredibly useless for humanity in general--not because only few people benefit from it, but because it contains a distorted reality which can hold no truth.  Plato and his boys could hang out in the cave all day, even though there were only a handful of them, because they were close to the truth, and people seeking the truth is always noble, despite some ratty conclusions.  however, a group of people purposedly shunning themselves and each other from the truth, no matter how trivial, should always live in shame.

The assumption of film theory since the advent of structuralism and semiotics is that a film is a text that can be "read," meaning that the genesis of the work is of lesser importance compared to what the work actually does. I don't think that idea really developed until the structuralists started becoming post-structuralists; namely Barthes who, like I wrote in an earlier post, contradicted the auteur theory (in the same year Andrew Sarris brought it to the U.S.) with the idea that meaning can never be inferred from the creation or biographical context of a work. Since then it's always been "what's in the text," allowing for multiple interpretations based on the specific reader. As Nelson, Treichler and Lawrence put it in "Cultural Studies," textual analysis in literary studies carries a history of convictions that texts are properly understood as wholly self-determined and independent objects."

Now what you seem to advocate is post-theory (or neoformalism), which I believe was first (or at least, most famously) discussed in detail by David Bordwell. This is a relatively modern outlook (late 80s), and basically he argued that one must study film style in historical context to understand it (so an example might be the shakiness of the camera New Wave films, where it could be understood in terms of technological advancements, i.e. lightweight camera equipment developed around the time, or in terms of contemporary philosophy of the time, or whatever). And I agree with this to an extent - it should be factored into the discussion. I also think that reading a film can be organic as time passes rather than being stuck in the particular history that resulted in its creation. Of course, the irony is that what you and Bordwell both argue for is just as much theory as anything else: it's all about how to interpret films.

[Gold Trumpet]

First, to the Sherriff,

Sorry I took so long. I really did stop looking at this thread until recently, but I couldn't find anything from Michelangelo Antonioni about Blow Up. I found theoretical essays by others about Blow Up, but nothing from Antonioni himself. While I believe something does exist, I can't continue on the position any longer. If you do want examples of a filmmaker dealing with academia in both print and film, the easy reference is Notes on the Cinematographer by Robert Bresson. Filmmakers like Bresson do exist but are in the minority.

Now onto the ridiculous....

I bet most of them don't even agree with the majority of the works put out there, and consider as much percentage of theories they've come across as total bullshit as I do, which is 100%.

No theorist believes their main idea explains all parts of cinema. They choose a subject that they believe highlights the most important realm of cinematic study or is just closest to their field of interest. Many commentators of fields outside of film have bridged their studies to incorporate comment on cinema.

They don't believe other theories are bullshit. In fact, they take large pride in all the different voices that are available about numerous subjects. I took what you said to my film professor who himself is a published scholar and he was very much outraged by your bad assumptions. 

At least theologians have the Bible or the Q'ran, these poor theorists have NOTHING.

What a silly argument. Theologians have the Bible and the Q'ran, but they have those texts after they've been written. They don't have close contact with their writers to ascertain the original context. Your points after are that film theorists are clueless to the filmmaking process. Considering Theologians are commenting on texts written hundreds to thousands of years ago, I kinda think film theorists have a better chance to make sense of the process of how films were made. Though that's not even important.

they can't tell if a shot is composed one way due to any number of circumstances, or why it was chosen for editing, or why it looked the way it did when projected.  the process is so long, tedious, and involving, that even experienced filmmakers have to take blind stabs at the results, nevermind people who just grew up watching the images.  But an entire field is dedicated to this game of blind (mis)leading the blind, developing theories after theories on why things are, why things are not, and why things should go where.  I mean, they don't even hang out on sets, nevermind sit in during the pre- or post-production process, and have no clue how locations are determined, schedules are compiled, or new processes such as 2k/ 4k DIs are applied.

Last time I checked film theorists weren't writing books about the filmmaking process, so don't get too worried. What they are doing is commenting on the art of a film. Umberto Eco, a theorist and novelist, said that the best thing for an author to do after he wrote a novel was to die. (refence notes after The Name of the Rose). He said that the life of a work of art was to get as much comment and study as possible. Doing so would extend its meaning.

Filmmakers aren't the sole commentators on their films. Their purpose after the film isn't to gage and control discussion about their work. In fact, it is the complete opposite. It is to step back and not lead the commentary in one direction or another.

insulation also makes it incredibly useless for humanity in general--not because only few people benefit from it, but because it contains a distorted reality which can hold no truth.  Plato and his boys could hang out in the cave all day, even though there were only a handful of them, because they were close to the truth, and people seeking the truth is always noble, despite some ratty conclusions. however, a group of people purposedly shunning themselves and each other from the truth, no matter how trivial, should always live in shame.

First, I hope you are joking about Plato hanging out in caves, but what are you talking about? What is the truth? Haven't you ever heard about the idea of multiple interpretations?

[Reinhold]

Pete, i agree with you that a lot of criticism can seem reductive and too far removed from the work to assert certain points... intentionality in particular tends to really turn me off. It has been a rare occurrence in my study of film, though, that I've come across anyone who has said this is THE way to read a given film or this is THE truth, or any theorist who would prefer that film study remain a culturally isolated field within the US. for the most part, I've encountered film theory as a means of unpacking processes of perception, thought, identity formation, and cultural systems.

your view of academic criticism is pretty clear, but i'm curious... how do you feel about theories of spectatorship? 

[Chest Rockwell]

PIt has been a rare occurrence in my study of film, though, that I've come across anyone who has said this is THE way to read a given film or this is THE truth, or any theorist who would prefer that film study remain a culturally isolated field within the US.

I agree with your (and GT's) post. I haven't seen that attitude at all, actually. I don't think film theory is at all insular, in the first place. Ideas are taken from as diverse fields as linguistics, architecture, literary criticism, and of course from previous film theorists. Theories are constantly evolving and replacing old ones/being replaced by new ones.

Also, what did you mean by "theory of spectatorship"? I thought most all of film theory was concerned with the spectator to some extent.

[pete]

ah reinhold, chesty, and GT--all people I like.

reinhold: I never said film theorists make points about filmmaking, or that they think they hold the ultimate truth.  the problem is that they shun themselves, almost on purpose, from the filmmaking world, thus making them far from the truth.  I am not a silly person who claims the truth to be something easily conveyed in a sentence, and there might even be different versions of it for everyone, but you should believe that you are pursuing the truth in your studies and your digging, and should do most of everything you can to get there sooner rather than later.

GT: first of all, theologians pray.  Do you pray?  You probably have to look at films the way you do right now, I've realized, because you're in school.  theories are probably like your jenkim and I understand it's useless to urge you to swear off of it right now.  so I'll just leave you with this little challenge: if you're so proud of the pieces of you've written on the things that you love, try putting in just a little bit more of yourself in there.  try projecting your fear, your pride, your beliefs, and most importantly your sense of humor, not only will your piece then stand out amongst the others, you'll also become a more honest person.  film watching should not be an escape, and writing about film watching should definitely not be an escape.  your life is too precious to run from it.

Chesty: you countered my anti-theory stance by throwing out two theories, one for you and one for me.  the one for me says deep down somewhere I'm a theorist, the one for you says embracing ignorance is okay because such and such says so.  don't enshroud yourself in theories man, talk to me like a real human being.  it's like trying to talk to a Mormon brother about life, and all he can do is quote scriptures.  Set yourself free, brother.  You've got a much longer life ahead of you than the rest of us.  Oh, come to think of it, you probably will.  You'll probably graduate, like me, and realize that your intuitions about academia were true, and that good grades mean nothing.

[children with angels]

First I just want to make one point clear: there are other areas of film studies other than film theory. I myself am not at all a fan of Theory (the capital T is actually how it refers to itself) in the sense of all-encompassing theories about filmmaking drawn from, say, psychoanalysis or philosophy. They are so often misconceived, hyperbolic, self-fulfilling prophesies that claim universality but are only relevant to a small percentage of films - if even then. Thankfully, Theory actually seems to be going out of style, in the UK at least (though there're still plenty who pratice it). What should, by all rights, be left in its place is intelligent academic film criticism, which may be informed by philosophy, psychoanalysis, sociology, politics, etc., but is not subservient to them. What's most important (to me at least, and to those in general who reject Theory) should be giving accurate, sensitive readings of films themselves, not the meaning-making structures that get applied to them like semantic hop-scotch by someone like, say, Zizek. (Then there's also film history, reception studies, etc.: more fact-based scholarship like that).

I also just wanted to address a couple of Pete's points. Some of this has been sort of said already in different ways...

film theory/ academia differs from other theories because it is a world populated by folks ENTIRELY removed from the filmmaking process.

I'd again point to literary studies: I would presume that you wouldn't dismiss those who study literature because they have never written a novel? Maybe you would. But I think that this might essentially come down to the fact that you're an artist yourself, working in this medium, and you don't like the thought of critics misunderstanding your work because they don't understand everything that went into making it. It's a fair enough fear, but I don't think it's a rational objection to the study of film by people who don't themselves make films, because...

they can't tell if a shot is composed one way due to any number of circumstances, or why it was chosen for editing, or why it looked the way it did when projected... But an entire field is dedicated to this game of blind (mis)leading the blind, developing theories after theories on why things are, why things are not, and why things should go where.

It doesn't usually really matter to someone watching a film what went into the making of it - what's important is what the finished product communicates. Besides, very little film studies (or, at least, that which I myself like) is concerned with hypothesising about why a film is the way it is or (as I said before) prescribing where it should go next. You make it sound like film studies makes guesses at how films are made, or comes up with elaborate theories about how films are made, and that's just not the case - or at least certainly not in the work I'm interested in. Or maybe you're just saying that it ignores how films are made: in some areas of films tudies that's true; whether this is actually a problem is another matter: as I said, film studies tends to be about the meaning the finished film makes, regardless of process or intention. But you're right in aligning film Theory more with this impulse, rather than film criticism (which is what I would call my work), but even here though, if you look at these theories in depth, I doubt hardly any of it is really doing what you're charicaturing it as doing. Plus, I'd reiterate what GT, Chest and Rheinhold all said already: multiple interpretation is just bound to be a fact in the making and experiencing of any art - to deny that would be futile (I don't actually think you are, but you almost may as well be through your emphatic stress on one 'truth' being the aim of analysis).

how dare they, then, give each other degrees and salaries, for a subject they are so ignorant about?

Even if many film academics are ignorant of the filmmaking process (and some, in fact, aren't), they are certainly not ignorant about the medium of film itself, i.e.: that which you can learn without needing to shoot a frame - its aesthetic properties, its history, its political implications, its philosophical implications, etc. These are different areas of expertise to what you're talking about. You don't need to know how or why a shot was filmed in order to talk about the effect it has on the viewer, which tends to be the focus of film studies.

I'd leave the field alone if the folks change their names to film-watching academia.

Haha - fair point, maybe it should. Although, to be fair, it does call itself film studies, as opposed to filmmaking studies: it's the study of finished films, not the processes by which the films came to be.

its insulation also makes it incredibly useless for humanity in general--not because only few people benefit from it, but because it contains a distorted reality which can hold no truth.  Plato and his boys could hang out in the cave all day, even though there were only a handful of them, because they were close to the truth, and people seeking the truth is always noble, despite some ratty conclusions.  however, a group of people purposedly shunning themselves and each other from the truth, no matter how trivial, should always live in shame.

What do you actually mean when you say truth? You bring it up again in your last post too. It sounds like you mean the truth of why a particular film is like it is, and that academics are invariably wrong about this because they don't know about filmmaking. But then you admit later to reinhold that there are in fact different truths about any given thing, and also that you don't think that theorists actually claim to hold the one ultimate truth at all. If you believe the former, then I'd just replay the multiple interpretations card (and the inconsequetiality of the whys of filmmaking), but if you believe the latter then I don't think you have any beef with film studies at all.

Lastly, on the point in your last post that "you should believe that you are pursuing the truth in your studies and your digging, and should do most of everything you can to get there sooner rather than later" - I think everyone in film studies, even those doing things I don't agree with, probably thinks this way too; the only thing is that there are so many different truths: first there is the truth as far as a filmmaker was concerned, but then the truth for all those who watch (and study) that film. Different people obviously have different understandings of a film, though some will be more convincing than others; objecting to individual interpretations makes total sense, but to object to the entire field dedicated to these interpretations, to me, doesn't.

[Gold Trumpet]

You did a bad thing, Children With Angels. You gave a logical, thought out argument. Pete will now respond by badly articulating what is inherently wrong with you.

[Stefen]

You did a bad thing, Children With Angels. You gave a logical, thought out argument. Pete will now respond by badly articulating what is inherently wrong with you.

You both are being pretty fucking dumb right now. You guys had a great friendship offline, it's not worth throwing it all away over some dumb comments. Bury the hatchet or at least arrange to meet in person and settle the score!

[Gold Trumpet]

You did a bad thing, Children With Angels. You gave a logical, thought out argument. Pete will now respond by badly articulating what is inherently wrong with you.

You both are being pretty fucking dumb right now. You guys had a great friendship offline, it's not worth throwing it all away over some dumb comments. Bury the hatchet or at least arrange to meet in person and settle the score!

I'm glad my dumb comments didn't stop you from proclaiming the other thread "the best ever". It was a personal disagreement that turned harsh. I have no remorse for anything said and no regret for anything left behind. I have little interest to make the subject a continous one so consider it over. Unless, of course, you or someone else has interest in an affair that is none of their business.