The Obvious & The Code by Bellour

According to this article, in a sequence of shots in The Big Sleep, there is "a folding effect which clearly demonstrates the way in which the narration, even down to its details, proceeds through a differential integration of its constituent elements." Personally, I have no idea what that means. I think the article was trying to discuss a formal pattern or several formal patterns created in a series of twelve shots of a conversation between two characters in a car, but I could not follow the author's arguments. Perhaps it would have been clearer if I had seen The Big Sleep before reading the article, or even if a series of screen caps had accompanied the article, but with just the words on the page I was completely baffled. I kept reading over sentences like, "The shots which follow accentuate this imbalance in accordance with a progression which is at the same time inverse, similar, and different to that of the image‐presence progression," wondering how something could be simultaneously inverse, similar and different, and yet still constitute a clear formal pattern.

In fact, the author seemed to be struggling so hard to say something meaningful about these twelve shots that it actually made me think that there was no real meaning in the sequence, it was just the most logical way for the editor to arrange those pieces of footage. Again, maybe if I'd viewed the scene it would have helped my understanding.

Every time I thought I understood a sentence, such as:

"". . . I guess I am in love with you." This phrase, which occurs twice, uttered first by Vivian and then by Marlowe, clearly shows the extent to which the reduplication effect—in this instance a simple mirror effect linked to the admission of love—is constitutive of the narrative."

...it would be follow by a sentence so convoluted I immediately felt lost again:

"But this is so at the cost of an inversion which underscores the fact that repetition is constitutive only inasmuch as it takes its starting point from the difference circumscribing it, within a movement of bi‐motivation which is in fact the specific necessity of this type of narrative."

I really don't understand how I can be eight months away from being an officially college educated adult and still feel barely able to flounder through a six page article in my native language. Did anyone find this article interesting or informative or even comprehensible? Am I just missing some key vocabulary that would suddenly make this all clear to me?

Film Noir

I really enjoyed reading these articles. I've always been a big fan of the hard-boiled detective genre in fiction (Raymond Chandler, Dashiell Hammett, etc.) so it was interesting to learn about how that style translates into the visual sphere. It was good to read the articles right before we watched "Double Indemnity" so that we could look out for the specific stylistic conventions of the genre onscreen. With this background knowledge, it was really interesting to pay special attention to the light and shadow as equally important film elements as character and plot.

It also got me thinking about some more contemporary films that could be classified as neo-noirs (I swear I was going to write about this before I saw the other blog posts). One of my favorite movies is "Chinatown," a 1973 Roman Polanski film starring Jack Nicholson. It, like the films discussed in the articles, features a morally ambiguous private eye negotiating the shadowy, rain-slicked streets of Los Angeles in a convoluted psychological story of corruption and sexual misconduct. Another one I thought of (as did other classmates) is "Sin City," a movie based on the Frank Miller graphic novel of the same name. Although director Robert Rodriguez had the advantage of adapting from a comic book (which is essentially a storyboard), that movie overplays genre tropes to make a connection with the audience: the hard-drinking, down-on-his-luck detective, the buxom femme fatale, the corrupt social and political patriarchy, etc. I really like now being able to trace specific influences of the genre into movies released much later than the original movement.

Visual Motifs of Film Noir (Place and Peterson)

I found it very interesting that manipulating the lighting in scenes can help shape the film's dramatic effect. Film Noir usually utilizes high contrast in lighting, dark shadows, and directional lighting (e.g back lighting, key lighting, or fill lighting) all in order to add the the 'feel' of the film. Furthermore, the space in these scenes is manipulated in order to shape the emotional ambiance of the film. This was something that I somewhat unconsciously noticed a lot of in Double Indemnity.
I knew the the film makers were placing the characters irregularly in the frame, but I did not recognize the purpose of this until I read Place and Peterson's work. It is so interesting that the reason for doing this is in order to establish a certain 'feeling' in the scene. Solely from the visual effects of utilizing the lighting and space in the frame, actors can appear to be helpless, inferior, superior... adding an extra dimension to the film and evoke a feeling for the audience.

Film Noir-- Schrader

I found Paul Schrader's Notes on Film Noir very interesting in that films followed the collective mentality of the American people at the time (40's through early 50's). He talks about post-war realism and that people wanted films that reflected their desire for the harsh truth-- the realities of American society at the time, whereas in the past, during the great depression, people wanted uplifting, moire unrealistic films to be able to forget about reality. I think that Double Indemnity (made in 1944) is a great example of Film Noir and follows a lot of the thematic elements of the period including night scenes, rainfall scenes, romantic narration, complex chronological order, and the use of shadowing-- when Neff speaks with his hat on, his face is blackened out for dramatic effect. I think that this movement of darker cinema, portraying crime, corruption, and a more sardonic depiction of American life, paved the way for more socially critical movies that would never have been accepted before this movement.

Film Noir

Before reading the assigned articles, I never knew what constitutes a movie as film noir. All of the elements that are embedded within film noir can clearly be seen through Double Indemnity. In general, I found it very interesting that film noir is not necessarily a genre, but rather the tone and mood of a film. One question that came up while reading is the issue of lighting. Both Schrader and Peterson address how film noir entails particular lighting techniques that were opposite of the dominant lighting techniques which emerged by the early forties. Peterson says, "Unlike the even illumination of high-key lighting which seeks to display attractively all areas of the frame, the low-key noir style opposes light and dark, hiding faces, rooms, urban landscapes..." (66). Although this may be done on purpose as compared to the normal techniques, I can't help but think this happened just because the films are presented in black and white. Today, because films are made in color, there are not just stark contrasts between black and white and shadows aren't as prominent. I guess my question is if this happened because of the lack of technology and if this could happen today to the extent that it used to?
I was interested in film noir after these articles and decided to google the subject. I found an article that addressed one more key element of film noir that I didn't seem to notice was mentioned in the assigned articles: the femme fatale. The authors defines this as "as irresistibly attractive woman, especially one who leads men into danger or disaster." This is clearly the character of Phyllis in Double Indemnity and thought it was another interesting element that Peterson or Schrader lacked to mention.

Application of Film Noir

I found the readings on Film Noir to be interesting and comprehendible. I went into the readings never having heard of the term, “film noir” used before so everything I know now comes solely from the readings. When Paul Schrader wrote about the stylistics, I was able to apply his ideas to films I have already watched. For example, in talking about the lighting he says the “the majority of scenes are lit for night.” This was very apparent in Double Indemnity. I noticed that the lighting was always very dim and was merely highlighting the characters so that we could see their movements and interactions. The lighting definitely contributes to the dim and eerie mood of such films. In the second article we read the authors call the lighting of film noir as "low key." Later in his points about stylistics he notes that “there is a love of romantic narration.” This could easily be proved in films such as Double Indemnity and North By Northwest. Much of the dialogue seemed to hopelessly romantic, similar to the way Schrader notes. Schrader says that what is perhaps the over riding noir theme is “a passion for the past and present but also a fear of the future.” Again, since we just watched it, it is easy to apply this to Double Indemnity because Walter and Phyllis seemed so passionate in the moment and even when talking about their plans but also very skeptical about how the plan will play out in the future.

I found it very interesting when Schrader said, “it gave artists a chance to work with previously forbidden themes.” I suppose this is referring to on screen kisses and controversial film topics like affairs and violence. “For a long time, film noir, with its emphasis on corruption and despair, was considered an aberration of the American character.” While this may have been the case once, that theme definitely does not seem to me apparent in the present. Id be interesting in learning more about the transition into acceptance of controversial films.

I enjoyed reading the article on Film Noir. I had never heard the term or been aware of what it was. I didn’t know that Film noir was not a genre, but is defined by tone and mood. Also, the fact that Film noir is a specific period of film history. After watching Double indemnity, and comparing to other movies made in that time that I have seen, the article made more sense to me. I began to think differently about certain scenes, for example the first time The two lovers meet in Walters apartment, every room they walk into the lights stay off the entire time. The idea of the four catalytic elements that defined Film noir were very interesting. The War and post war disillusionment, Post war realism, The German influence and the hard boiled tradition, were all helpful concepts in understanding Film noir and the reason behind it.

Discovering Film Noir Style

I definitely number myself among those who didn’t really know what a film noir entailed until watching Double Indemnity and reading the Schrader and Place/Peterson articles (in that order). It was particularly interesting to watch and then read because it allowed me to identify the stylistics of film noir, which are really the heart of noir, before I was told about them. Throughout my notes there are mentions of nearly all of the techniques mentioned by Schrader in “Notes on Film Noir”: scenes lit for night, diagonal and vertical lines, lighting emphasis placed equally on actor and setting, more “compositional tension” than physical action, a complex timeline and romantic narration. The only thing that didn’t jump out at me was what Schrader calls a “Freudian attachment to water,” though the shot of Walter framed in the doorway of his balcony as it pours outside now sticks out in my mind. What Schrader says is true: “[F]ilm noir’s techniques emphasize loss, nostalgia, lack of clear priorities, insecurity, then submerge these self-doubts in mannerism and style” (58).

Film Noir

I found the articles on film noir by Schrader and Place & Peterson very informative, because I had no idea what made a movie film noir. After reading these articles about the use of light and contrast, and then watching Double Indemnity, I was able to recognize the visual look, tone, and motifs of film noir movies. Without reading these articles, I would not have been able to appreciate how the themes of murder and adultery, and the use of shadow and having many night scenes were all characteristic of the period in which this film was made.

The Schrader article discussed the high level of artistry that was present during the film noir period. He writes that "film noir seemed to bring out the best in everyone: directors, cameramen, screenwriters, and actors." Obviously the film industry in the 1940's and 1950's is different than today's film industry, but it seems that there is not a certain genre nowadays where there is high quality that spans across several films. Film noir seems to be an underappreciated period in film history that today's directors and actors could strive to replicate in terms of quality.

Schrader's Notes on Film Noir

Schrader’s “Notes on Film Noir” is a quite informative look at film noir as a period of United States film history rather than as a genre. It’s interesting that Schrader insists on film noir’s lack of generic status. At first, I was inclined to disagree, but if one examines his argument more closely it makes sense. It’s not that film noir lacks conventions of conflict and setting, which define the genre of the western, for example, but rather that conventions—of a kind—of mood and tone define it. I’m assuming that what he means is that this type of definition does not conform to the usual parameters of film genre’s defining qualities.

Additionally, it’s intriguing that he posits film noir’s critical “neglect” as stemming from its dependence on style rather than theme—on “choreography” rather than “sociology.” This is also what makes film noir unique in the history of film. Is Schrader arguing that film noir was neglected because it not only reflected the sociological climate of its time but also judged it when other types of film didn't (“film noir attacked and interpreted its sociological conditions,” he says)?

I wonder what Schrader would have to say now about film noir’s status as “neglected.” Is it still considered by critics to be inferior to more conventionally generic film genres like the gangster film? And what about film noir’s continued influence on American film post-1970s? Would he be surprised and impressed by neo-noir and heavily film noir influenced films like those of Tarantino and Rian Johnson's Brick?

Film Noir as a Reaction to War and Post-war Disillusionment

According to Schrader, "film noir is not a genre", but rather a film that is defined by "qualities of tone and mood". (Schrader 53) The dark sceneries, the constricting verticals and horizontals that frame the scenes and the high-angle camera settings - everything contributes to the helplessness of the protagonists. As Schrader points out, these elements are partly due to the "war and post-war disillusionment" during and after WWII. (Schrader 54)

I think it would be interesting to analyze whether the elements of film noir described by Schrader, as well as Place & Peterson, have been recurring ever since 9/11/ or the war in Iraq. Although most movies nowadays are made in color, the use of light and constricting formal elements of a scene as used in film noir can still contribute extensively to set a certain "tone and mood" in the film. And I think, many movies nowadays have a very apocalyptic mood that could have it's roots in film noir. Some examples that I can think of are "The Book of Eli" and "Sin City".

Modern Film Noir??

Unlike last week the articles for this week were much easier to comprehend and analyze. I figure many other will post on the exact content of the article so I would like to touch on whether or not any films that have been produced in the past five years can be classified under Schrader's definition of Film Noir. As he points out it Noir is not specfically a genre but more of a period of history. Within this set period Schrader says that films portrayed te "dark, slick city streets, crime and corruption" (54). But as he points out it is an extremely unwieldy period. A lot of the elements that were pointed out in Peterson and Place's article could be pointed towards modern films. I feel drawn to the idea that are films such as Inception and Shutter Island the closest thing we have today to Film Noir? Looking at the screen shot below captured from Inception, one cannot help but notice a lot of similarities as to what Peterson and Place point out. "The archetypal noir shot is probably the extreme high angle long shot, an oppressive and fatalistic angle that looks down on its helpless victim to make it look like a rat in a maze." Also this shot is looking down, while at the same time claustrophobic, and it includes the "Freudian attachment to water" (57) that Schrader references. It is possible I may be off base--or looking for connection where this is none but can anyone else think of any other modern films that could potentially be classified at least in terms of shots/lighting as Film Noir?

Visual Motifs of Film Noir by P&P

I liked the contrast between the Schrader article, which described the film noir visual style as it appears to the viewer, and this article, which explained how such images are achieved with light and camera equipment.

For instance, the light described by Schrader—high contrast, slanted shapes and patterns, with long shadows and an overall dark feel—was created by using low key three point lighting and no diffusion on the lighting instruments or the camera lens. I found it interesting that before film noir, many night scenes were shot using "day-for-night" techniques to make a scene filmed in daylight appear as though it took place at night on the screen. Also I would not have guessed that "night-for-night" was actually a more expensive technique (due to the lighting) than "day-for-night."

The film noir technique of having a greater depth of field (with everything on the screen in focus) was achieved with a wide angle camera lens, which also created certain visual distortions. These visual distortions, such as objects seeming to bulge as they approach the camera, are also a part of the film noir visual style.

The unsettling, jarring and disorienting feeling often associated with film noir scenes was created in part through unusual framing techniques, such as unbalanced, off-center compositions and claustrophobically placed set pieces and props.

Classic Hollywood cinema techniques such as beginning with an orienting long shot before moving to a close up or interior shot are frequently ignored, leaving the viewer spatially disoriented. Additionally, rather than smooth match-on-action cuts of continuity style editing, film noir often makes jarring juxtapositions between shots.

Film Noir by Schrader

I found it interesting that Schrader described film noir as not being a genre, since it is not classified "by conventions of setting and conflict, but rather by the more subtle qualities of tone and mood." However, he then went on to say that the term applied to films made in the 40s and 50s that took place in "dark, slick, city street" and dealt with "crime and corruption." Isn't that setting and conflict, which he seemed to say in the previous paragraph are what define a genre? I realize there may be films that have those elements that aren't really film noir, and films that don't have all those elements and are considered film noir, but isn't that also true of pretty much any other genre? I would have called film noir a genre prior to reading this article. I wonder how many experts agree with Schrader on this point and how many disagree.

I found the history and origin of film noir intriguing, since I'd never really thought before about what kind of society must have produced that kind of film-making. The post-war disillusionment makes sense as a driving force behind film noir and darker, more harshly realistic films in general. The influence of the German filmmakers and "hard-boiled" writers is also easy to see.

Also it's fascinating to me that although the American movie-going audiences came to prefer real locations as settings, rather than Hollywood sound stages, they also apparently developed a preference for stylized lighting and dramatic sound, which obviously were the opposite of realistic.

Finally I found it noteworthy that Schrader called the film noir period "the most creative in Hollywood's history," said it "achieved an unusually high level of artistry," and declared that "picked at random, a film noir is likely to be a better made film than a randomly selected silent comedy, musical, western and so on." Yet films noir are rarely made today. I suppose this has to do with changing tastes and culture, and the American desire to see new styles and new technology on the screen.

Formalism ad Neo-Formalism

Original thought: This article was very confusing. There was a whole lot I did either not comprehend, or can't even remember immediately following this article. However, there were a few things that did stick out to me. From what I understood, a good way to think about film form is in relation to music. Much like songs, movies have elements that are repeated or expanded upon. Much like a song has a verse, chorus, bridge, etc. structure, a film will have elements that create clear breaking points that will give it structure. If I'm wrong about this please tell me, I just felt that from what I read this worked as a good metaphor.

Other than that, one thing I noticed, was that Ian Christie had somewhat of a latent resentment towards the Cold War. At times, in the article, it seemed as if he felt that film would be further along if these theorists were not persecuted, and their thoughts were able to escape the "iron curtain." While this might be true, I'm sure that the western hemisphere had their own way of analyzing film (much like other people have said) and I would be intrigued to hear about them, since Christie fails to acknowledge this point.

Formalist Article

This article had a lot of compact information that I had trouble disentangling. I still feel as if I have an unsure grasp on Formalism vs. Neo-formalism and hope that we can go into further clarification during class. One of the points of the article that I found particularly interesting though was the discussion of the viewer’s interaction with the film during the viewing. Christie mentions how Eikhenbaum questions how “transitions appear motivated rather than arbitrary” and how the viewer “is prompted to supply links through internal speech… by completing or articulating what is implied” (60). I found this very interesting because there is a certain level of unconscious processing at work when we watch these films. Christie compares it to Freudian dreams and what I would like to learn more about this dependence on the viewer’s ability to fill in the missing pieces, develop assumptions, and really have an interactive role with the film. Furthermore, Bordwell proposes the linking of perception and cognition-- the ‘constructivist theory’ which piggybacks onto this idea of the “unconscious of the filmic system” (60), by describing how the viewer comes into the film with certain already learned prototypes and schemas in order to categorize and give meaning to the events, characters and situations that they may come into contact with in the film (62).

Formalism/Neo-Formalism

In a very original statement, I was also confused by the article. I understood it best when it addressed specific examples from films (Chaplin, etc) and when it went into other disciplines I am more comfortable with, having studied Claude Levi-Strauss and myths in the past.

Is Russian formalism the basis for all early film critiques? This seems to be a major, if not THE major early movement, and I can't help but wonder what the rest of the world was doing at the time. Perhaps we'll learn more about them in the future, but I'm certainly curious to learn how the French, and Americans, for example, were studying film at the time. What intrigued me most was the idea of studying movements like a knight moves in chess: big steps forward then pauses for criticism and experimentation within movements/genres.

Formalism vs. Neo-Formalism

I agree with what others have said and found this article to be very confusing and kind of bland. I feel as though the information could have been said in a much clearer way and this could have made the author's point even stronger.

In my attempt to understand this article, I tried to compare what we learned in class about formalism compared to what the article said. I find it interesting that formalism is considered the “poetry of cinema,” in that it makes the familiar unfamiliar and thus allows the viewer to see things in a different way. However, Christie explained formalism as a type of speech whereas in class, we defined it as concrete elements that are present within a film. In addition, I think that Bordwell and Thompson’s argument for neo-formalism seems to make sense and that an active spectator is necessary. Overall, I’m confused on the connection and difference between these two approaches considering one pertains to literature and the other to film. I tried to google each of these concepts and they seemed to put the definitions in a much simpler way, but when I compare it back to the article, they are even more confusing. Can anyone make a distinction and connection between the two?

Formalism Article... what?

 The article begins, “Formalism is the usual, if somewhat misleading name of a critical tendency which has survived for over eighty years, despite misunderstanding and even persecution.” Even from reading these first few words I was already confused and found myself re-reading it. As I continued however I realized I was going to be just as confused with the rest of the text.. So far, I told myself, I got that formalism was a form of critique, I just couldn't tell what kind. I couldn't tell how exactly the author was defining formalism and what the author would suggest to be the opposite of the term. I couldn't even really define neo-formalism and what the difference between the two are. I wish I had more observations or even questions concerning formalism but I couldn't even apply the term to all of the sentences it was being used in and therefore really am just left with a puzzled face and next to no knowledge of formalism vs neo formalism.

Under the “neo-formalism” Colum, the author brings up David Bordwell and Kristen Thompson who both believe that formalism “crucially implies an active spectator.” (What does that even mean?? Someone constantly analyzing a work of art? What makes a spectator active?) The author then goes on to discuss Bordwells constructivist theory which links perception and cognition. As if I wasn't lost enough, I was confused when psychology came into play. I hardly feel as though I read the article because of the lack of ability I have in recalling anything from it. I am going to re-read it again, do some googling and hopefully have more to say

Formalism

I'm in the same boat as everyone else. I'm not entirely sure what Christie was saying at some points. I've seen a lot of movies, but only about two of those he mentioned had any meaning for me whatsoever. It's hard to understand someone's explanation when you don't really have a frame of reference. That said, I'm not sure what he was talking about at times. I have hope that I'll get it eventually, but that will come with more explanation and information.

One part of this article that is worth discussing is the part that visibly stands out. The quote that starts "For the Formalists,...", that is enlarged on page 59 is the line that before I saw its emphasis, thought it had some significant meaning. I wonder what it meant when it said that art is the process by which perception is slowed down. I suppose it means art is attempting to synthesize emotions and experiences so that they're captured and easy to understand and analyze. Therefore the critic talks about the degree to which an artist can create a slowed down experience. Then again, based on how I feel about this reading, I could just be totally wrong.

Article

Much like some of the other posts elude to, this was an article I had a very hard time understanding and fully grasping the concepts. The concept of how art was analyzed before the advent of formalism is confusing to me. I also expected the article to have a few more concrete examples. Much of the article was all over the place.

It was clear from the article that Russia was suppressing the opportunity for critics to formally review work. A scared population is not one which can produce critical analysis. I wish had been able to understand in a little more detail the idea of Neo Formalism. I too googled this article and found the class blog from 2009 and the confusing posts about the article. So I hope some of my confusion will be answered during class later today.

Christie's Formalism and Neo-Formalism

After reading this article, I was drawn back to the same question I had following our introduction to Formalism in class--how was film criticized before the advent of Formalism? Was film generally not considered worth analyzing, or dismissed as a lesser (or inconsequential) art form? I can only really think of film being analyzed otherwise if it is stripped down: "here is good or bad writing or acting", not a film as a product of technique and circumspection. I gathered the impression from Christie's piece that, because of Soviet suppression, the movement was greatly limited during some of cinema's most formative years.

I can't say I cared for the article very much. I think I expected it to give insight into the methods or logic of Formalism and Neo-formalism, instead of offering a vague history and seemingly obscure semantics. Hopefully tomorrow will shed a little more light on it.

Formalism & Neo-Formalism by Christie

Well, I'll be honest and say that I didn't really understand much of this article, and what I did grasp vaguely I don't really feel comfortable trying to say anything intelligent about.

In an attempt to find a more simply worded summary of Christie's main points, I googled "Formalism & Neo-Formalism by Ian Christie," which lead me to the blog site for a 2009 semester of this class, where I found posts with titles like "Come On Christie, A Little Less Confusing Please" and comments such as "I don't think I could have gotten any more confused about this article," "I felt that this was a relatively confusing article and it was hard to discern exactly what the focus was," and "What ever happened to saying what you mean and meaning what you say? We know you’re smart, otherwise we wouldn’t be reading your article. No need to fluff your writing to the point of speaking in circles."

If our class is anything like the 2009 class, I'm guessing I'm not the only one who would be very grateful for a more intelligible explanation of these concepts in class.