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.
No comments:
Post a Comment