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?
No comments:
Post a Comment