Mrs.
Duncan
What is Theory?
In essence an ideology is a system of thought or "world view" which an individual acquires (usually unconsciously) from the world around him/her. An ideology determines what you think is important in life, what categories you put people into, how you see male and female roles in life, and a host of other things. You can visualize your ideology as a grid, or a set of glasses, through which you can see the world.
Overview:
Film's Cave Theory is loosely based on Plato's famous "Allegory of the Cave." The idea being that the audience members watching a film are equal to Plato's prisoners chained in the cave. The filmmakers (Plato's puppeteers) offer them an artificial reality in the form of light and shadow projected onto a screen (or wall). The audience becomes convinced of the reality of the images to the point where they either fear or cannot recognize the real, natural world. In this theory, film as an art (or artificial construction) is contrasted with reality in an attempt to understand the relationship a film has with (or the effect a film has on) its audience.
​
Method:
An analysis of a film using Cave Theory, then, involves looking carefully at the idealized or artificial diegetic world the film presents, comparing it to reality (the non-diegetic world), and examining the motives or purposes behind the film's adjustments. What does the film expect it's audience to believe and why? How effective is the film in convincing the audience of its reality? What are the possible consequences or outcomes of audiences believing the diegetic world of the film?
Cave Theory
Overview:
Cognitive Dissonance as a film concept is based on Leon Festinger's "Theory of Cognitive Dissonance" in which he claims that, "humans are not a rational animal, but a rationalizing one." If, for example, a person believes that a certain behavior is wrong, but that person participates in that behavior, then that person is trying to hold two competing or incongruent things to be true at the same time: the behavior is okay, but the behavior is not okay. Trying to believe both causes psychological pain until it is resolved. Since it is much easier to change a belief than a behavior, the person attempts to rationalize or justify the behavior to reduce the dissonance. In short, we come to believe in what we find ourselves doing -- regardless of the reason we first started doing it.
The film application is a little less individual. While watching a film, the audience is presented with two competing truths or realities: the diegetic world of the film itself and the non-diegetic world of the theater, living room, classroom, etc. in which the audience is watching the film. The audience, then, must make a choice of the world in which to believe. Normally (as this is why audiences watch films in the first place), the audience will want to choose the diegetic world. Once that choice is made, anything that reminds the audience of the possible reality of the other (real) world will prompt a poor reaction (in much the same way as a person would react if another person were to remind him/her that his/her behavior is unacceptable or unethical). This theory is an attempt to understand the relationship between the audience and the film.
Method:
A film analysis using Cognitive Dissonance as its base, then, should include an explanation and evaluation of how effectively the film creates a believable world. The analysis should include any moments where the film lapses or reminds the audience that it is only a movie and there is a real world around them. This analysis, of course, should focus on the film itself and not on real-world interruptions such as talking audience members, rattling concession wrappers, nor lights from electronic devices.
Cognitive Diss.
Overview:
Phenomenology as a film theory is a somewhat simplified version of the Philosophy of Phenomenology suggested by Kant. According to this philosophy, we are not able to see things as they really are (the "noumena") but only as they are interpreted by human senses and understanding (the "phenomena"). Therefore, with our individual differences in ability to sense and understand, no one will see the same thing in the same way (especially not in its "true" way). The film application works from the understanding that the filmmaker (an individual with his or her own schema) will construct a film with certain meanings and interpretations in mind. An audience member (a different individual with a completely different schema) can only see their own meanings and interpretations in the film -- therefore misreading the filmmaker's original intent. This theory attempts to understand and explain the relationship the audience has with the film.
​
Method:
So, when writing a phenomenological analysis of a film, one is more or less writing an analysis of oneself experiencing the film. Analyses should be based on the viewer answering the following questions about that experience:
-
First, how did it feel? In other words, what did I enjoy or dislike while interacting with the film and why?
-
Second, what is it like? In other words, what, in my past experiences and associations, does the film remind me of and why?
-
Third, what are its effects? In other words, how (and to what degree) has the film added to or altered my schema and my perceptions?
Obviously, it is difficult to write in the academic voice (avoiding first-person pronouns and speaking in the present tense, specifically) during such a personal analysis. However, it can be done. Broadening the scope of the writing helps. For example, instead of writing, "I liked the film's fight scenes because they are fast-paced with no down time and no boring dialogue. I found myself wishing there were more of them," one could write, "The film's fast-paced fight scenes, with their constant action and lack of boring dialogue, create a sense of excitement and entertainment in contrast with the film's other scenes. In fact, the film could probably have included more."
Phenomenology
Overview:
Auteur Theory proclaims that a film should and does reflect the personal vision of its director (even unintentionally at times). "Auteur" is French for "author," and like the author of a novel has the largest responsibility for the plot, theme, word choice, and success or failure of the book, so the director has the largest responsibility for the film. Rather than really being a study of film, then, Auteur Theory is really a study of directors through their films. It is not, however, merely a study of technique or skill; it is more so the study of the attitudes (political, social, religious, artistic, etc.) of the director. It is especially useful as a predictive tool in that, once one knows a director's style well, one can usually predict what kinds of themes and content will appear in that director's future work. A film, according to this theory, cannot escape its creator; and the creator cannot escape the film. This theory, of course, is an attempt to understand the relationship between the filmmakers and the film.
Method:
Auteur Theory analyses are accomplished by studying as many works as possible from a given director and looking for consistencies or "through-lines" in the techniques, themes, and content of the works. Using those consistencies (and any obvious inconsistencies) as evidence in support of analysis, the writer offers up a critique of the director's techniques and skill, but more importantly, assumptions and theories about the director's personality, attitudes, and beliefs. An Auteur Theory analysis is difficult to complete in a classroom setting (especially in the course of a semester) as one would usually have to watch several films from the same director, and time is short. However, using directors' shorter works (short films, commercials, and music videos), students will be able to put the theory into practice with reasonable success.
Auteur Theory
Overview:
Mirror Theory (or Media as a Mirror Theory) focuses on the way media, especially mass media like film, reflects the society and culture which created it. Its premise is that a film cannot escape the time and place of its creation -- regardless of the time and place of its diegetic setting. Specifically, there are four things which will, theoretically, always find themselves represented or reflected in the films that a given time period and culture produce. Besides being reflected in the film, those four things create and support the film's Institutional Mode of Representation (IMR) -- the core mode or method films use to communicate meaning. Because they support that institutional mode like pillars support a roof, they are often referred to as the "four pillars:"
-
Technology -- the available technology at the time the film was produced (both the technology involved in film production and the general level of technology in society).
-
Economics -- the value of money and goods as well as the general economic conditions of the society that created the film.
-
Sociology -- the contemporary social attitudes, religious beliefs, political climate, ethics, and morals of the period and culture.
-
Aesthetics -- the artistic tastes of the people in that time and place including what they consider beautiful, distasteful, appropriate, shocking, etc.
By examining how these pillars create the film's mode and represent themselves in the film, this theory attempts to explain the relationship among the film, its creators, and its audiences (both synchronically in its own time and diachronically across time).
Method:
Mirror Theory analyses require, often, historical research in order to clearly see the connections between the time period/culture and the film (and that research should be cited within the paper). The analysis consists either of an explanation of how those four pillars are reflected in the film, or what can be learned about the film's time period/culture directly from the film. For example, a science fiction film from 1955 (even if it is set in the distant future) can actually teach a modern audience quite a lot about the social attitudes and technology of the early 1950s through its characterization of the "aliens" as foreigners or its lack-luster (by today's standards) special effects, production design, and photography.
Mirror Theory
Overview:
Marxist Film Theory comes, of course, from the Russian film industry following the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 when the Marxist communists came into power. It has little connection to the political ideals of Communism, however, and is named more for the fact that its innovators were Marxists. Developed, promoted, and expressed in the 1920s mainly by Russian filmmakers, Sergei Eisenstein, Vsevolod Pudovkin, and Dziga Vertov, Marxist film theory sees filmmaking much more closely tied to language (or textual communication) than to other artistic communications like painting or musical composition. Each shot, according to this theory, has a concrete meaning like a word, and so each shot can be put into context with other shots to "assemble" the meaning of the film (in the same way that a writer builds or "assembles" a sentence or a paragraph. The theory promotes the editing of the film as the most important aspect.
Marxist film theory greatly differs from other theories in that it is less about analysis of film and more about production. Marxist theory filmmakers attempt to create a concrete, realistic, and unbiased structure to promote ideas (especially political ideas) in a convincingly truthful way. These films use "deep focus" cinematography to avoid "forcing" audiences to look at a particular character or object; their plot-lines are not character driven (in fact, there is rarely a protagonist or antagonist), and groups of people move the narrative forward rather than individuals; and they use jump-cuts and other harsh editing techniques to clash images together in order to avoid lulling audiences into a suspension of disbelief (or a feeling that the film is real and not constructed). This theory, then, attempts to explain the relationship between the film and its audience while also describing a relationship between the filmmakers and the film. It is nearly the direct opposite of Cave Theory.
Method:
Writing a Marxist Film Theory analysis involves two things: first, identifying and describing the structural techniques the filmmaker uses to avoid biasing the film and manipulating the audience; and second, evaluating how successful the attempt at an even-handed portrayal of the events has been. Did the filmmaker allow the audience to feel they could interpret the film however they wanted? Did the filmmaker manipulate the audience with the structure? These analyses should include very specific structural examples from the film as support for assertions.
Marxist Film Theory
Overview:
Genre theory, an aspect of Genre Studies, focuses on understanding how the structural elements that carry the meaning of a filmed text, and the common structures among groups of filmed texts, begin to carry meaning on their own. Once the structural elements of a generic category of film are recognizable to audiences, they can become predictable and even expected. At that point, those structural elements become symbolic and, therefore, meaningful. For example, the monologue a villain gives rather than killing the hero in an action or fantasy film carries meaning in itself -- regardless of what is said, the particular film in which it appears, or from which villain it comes. Audiences expect the villain to explain the evil plot or taunt the hero when the hero is trapped under the villain's power. It is one of the semiotic elements of the genre. Elements like that become so comforting and expected that, if they don't appear in a generic film, the audience gets confused, disappointed, or even hostile. Imagine the audience's reaction if the villain simply killed the hero at the first opportunity without a word. This reaction is called "generic frustration."
Method:
Since this is a structuralist theory, the analysis should focus on the structural elements of the film, how those elements are used to create meaning, and whether or not those elements match the audience's generic expectations. Before embarking on the analysis, the writer should make sure he or she is very familiar with the film's particular genre and its semiotic elements. The questions to answer are:
-
Into which genre(s) does this film fit and why?
-
Which generic elements carry meaning in this film and how?
-
Which generic elements, if any, were left out, altered, or overused (in other words, did not match audience expectations)?
-
If there were elements that didn't match expectations, did they cause generic frustration or were they well enough placed that they were acceptable or enjoyable anyway?
-
How could those new elements (or unexpected new ways of using the elements) find themselves incorporated as new semiotic elements in the generic structure?
Genre Theory
Overview:
Film theorists adapted Jacques Lacan's psychological theory of the mirror stage to discuss how film reflects not its time and place of creation (like the other mirror theory), but its audience. Lacan argues that when a child begins to recognize that he or she is seeing his or her own image in a mirror (rather than another child) he or she begins to see the "self" as an object that can be acted upon, owned, or mastered. So, by extension, Lacan argues that anything people see, we see as an object, and get a sense of power over it. The feeling of power decreases if we ourselves can be seen and objectified, but it increases greatly (in a voyeuristic way) if we can see without being seen. Lacan called this the power of the gaze. Film gives audiences that very power. An audience member can view the people and objects on the screen with no danger that those objects and people can look back.
The effect of this phenomena can be an almost addictive reaction to film and the film experience. It can also lead to an alteration of the audience's own identities when audience members begin to see themselves (or aspects of their personalities) reflected in the characters they watch on the screen. Because the audience members now "own" or "master" those aspects, they can adopt them. The audience members then "suture" their own identities to those they gaze at on the screen. In effect, the film reflects the audience, and the audience ends up reflecting the film. Obviously, this theory is an attempt to explain the relationship between the audience and the film.
Method:
Analyses using Lacan's Mirror Theory focus on exploring and explaining how the film offers the audience opportunities to objectify the characters and own or master the objects presented in the production. Writers should also indicate how the film tempts audiences to suture themselves and their identities to the images they see on the screen in the same way that infants suture their identity to their reflection in the mirror.