Nolan's Comments On Society: The Ideological Approach to "What is film?"

Cinema began as a vibrant recreation in which the spectator found value just in the production of the film itself. The audience was blown away at the ability to watch an event at a later time than it originally occurred. Cinema relied on this never-before-seen experience as the driving force behind its early success. This could obviously only last for so long because once you had experienced the never-before-seen experience you have fulfilled that desire. As the Cinema was forced to evolve from its early stages, the effects that Cinema had on its spectators too had to evolve. Now, the Cinema uses film as a venue to express "ideas about how the world is or should be seen" instead of just relying on the 'awe of the cinema'. Films express ideas and beliefs found throughout our society. To look at film in such a light is called the Ideological Theory.
Christopher Nolan uses his 2006 film, "The Prestige", as a venue to express his ideas about our society's obsession with getting to the top. The film portrays two magicians battling in a race to the top of the magician world. The two men try to win at any cost, losing loved ones and friends along the way. Nolan is commenting on our society's obsession with professional success, despite the repercussions that might come along with it. He uses their feud throughout the film as an example that could be found in our society. Nolan selects specific loses that the men must endure on their path to the top, such as loved ones and even their sanity at times. These loses represent things we highly value in our society. Nolan's film depicts many views of society and by analyzing this film with the Ideological Theory one can find commentary on ideas and beliefs.

Outline Essay 1

Main Argument
Using the Formalist Approach, I plan to analyze a specific scene from John Ford’s 1940 film “The Grapes of Wrath”. The scene where the entire family is eating at their Uncle’s house reveals a significant amount of information about the film as a whole.

Claim #1

The Formalist Approach yields greater value in the world of cinematic critique compared to the Ideological Approach.

Support for Claim #1

V.F. Perkins “Film as Film” – Tom Gunning “The Cinema of Attractions”

Claim #2

The scene where the family gathers to eat at their Uncle’s house in “The Grapes of Wrath” reveals how the director changed the concentration of the film from that of the novel’s author’s intensions.

Support for Claim #2

Andrew Sarris “Notes on the Auteur Theory in 1962”

Claim #3

The camera angles, editing, and other director and photographer’s choices in this scene control and reveal the meaning behind the overall film.

Support for Claim #3

Robin Wood “Pyscho” – V.F Perkins “Film as Film” – Tom Gunning “Primitive Cinema: A Frame Up? Or the Trick’s On Us?”

Betrayal is the only truth that sticks - "The Grapes of Wrath"

Unfortunately, I have never read the actual text of “The Grapes of Wrath”. In class we spent a good amount of time establishing what Steinbeck valued about his novel. From this conversation as well the others I have had about this book in the past, I have gathered an idea of what Steinbeck was looking to establish when he wrote this book. Director John Ford and his associate Gregg Toland were in charge of making the movie about this text. Although they looked to portray as much of Steinbeck’s ideas as possible in the film, Ford and Toland’s view and ideas were heavily influential in the end product. They did stay true to the text and spirit of the work in certain stretches of the movie but in overall themes, they author and director went separate ways. A scene that captures this alteration from book theme to move theme is the scene where the family has gathered to eat at their uncle’s house. The scene is intimate with the family. The viewer begins to understand the struggle and turmoil the family was personally dealing with. Steinbeck was writing this book in regards to the nation as a family. The lower class of our society could only rise up from the oppression of that time by uniting and fighting the losing battle of poverty together. Ford looked to concentrate of the family that was at the center of the film. The scene discussed displayed multiple cinematic qualities. Through the scene, the camera changes from view of one talker to the view of the others as if you were sitting across from the speaker. The camera angles allow the viewer to step into the room with the actors. These altercations that Ford and Toland made strayed away from the letter and spirit of the book. He changed the overall concentration of the book. Ford did put his on twist and signature on the film but at the cost of the original text. I would not agree that Ford was an auteur because he did not stay true enough to the spirit of the film.

I believe that when Truffaut initially thought the idea behind the Auteur Theory he had great reason and influence. The directors of his time motivated him to react to their “unfaithfulness” to the original text. Presently, I feel this theory still applies. We are seeing Hollywood not only push out a lot of movies based on books but also remakes of old movies. These categories apply because the author is looking to put his own signature on the work without losing faithfulness to the letter or spirit of the original. Most authors have their signature and their films can be identified by it. I had watched book series made into film that were directed by multiple directors and each film showed you where some authors strayed from the letter and spirit, diminishing the quality of the film, or those who were able to adapt the film to their liking while staying true.

Godard - Masculin, Feminin

       A lot about a film can be understood through analyze of just a single moment in the film. Directors use subtle moments to illustrate themes they wish to convey throughout the film. Analyze of these moments is a technique film critiques use called “Moment” approach. Jean-Luc Godard’s film, “Masculin, feminine”, shows particular moments that allow the viewer to comprehend what Godard believes film is should be.

       One moment in the film, Godard films Paul leaving a building and walking out into the street. In modern Hollywood film, I would assume the shot would be filmed with Paul in the center of the camera the whole time. The scene if shot in modern Hollywood would arise no particular interest of the viewer. It would have no impact on the overall understanding of the film. Godard does not shoot this scene in what we would assume as normal. He shows Paul walking out of the building but staring directly at the camera. As he passes, the camera moves ahead and slightly up, removing him from the shot but then focusing back on him as he crosses the street. As the camera refocuses on him, the viewer realizes that Paul is still staring directly at the camera.

      The scene reveals a lot about what Godard believes film should be. Paul staring at the camera allows the viewer to come back to reality and realize that this is a film. The awkward staring of Paul is unusual to the viewer and makes them rethink their surroundings. Godard does this intentionally because he believes the viewers should understand that film is just that, film; it is not theatre. Godard believes that the impact film and its editing has on the viewers is a far different than that of theatre and he wanted to make this clear throughout his film.