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.