It's a good question. I think the answer is to first ask, "upon which basis would Bazin view a film like Reservoir Dogs." In other words, what basic ideas and assumptions about film would he bring to the viewing as opposed to another film scholar, such as Deleuze. When you next read Bazin, jot down at least ten points of view he has about the cinema and use these as the "lens" through which you view the film. You might also want to view my video "Is Deleuze's Film Theory Useful," because it will give you clues on how to make Bazin's film theory useful when watching any film. Finally, a fun game you could play is to imagine Bazin and Tarantino engaged in dialog. What would they to one another about Reservoir Dogs? Indeed, what would Bazin have to say about how Tarantino has developed across his entire career? There's so much you can do!
All great questions to ask. I have another relating to Bazin. In the Film raging bull, there are elements of montage( eisenstein) and long takes, that would be praised by Bazin. Do you think that this film adequately uses both these theoretical bases of film. I would argue that the film is more realist than formalist.
I'd like to make the argument that Bazin would not approve of a character within a film referencing elements that exists in another film; for instance, your example of Pulp Fiction. This would be analogous to someone in reality speaking, with detail, of a previous/concurrent life of theirs from a parallel universe (in which most cases people would just consider that person crazy). By mentioning other characters that the actor has embodied in other films, their dialogue becomes a tool used to convey a message beyond what it simply portrayed in the scene (similar to montage), and, consequently, creates a biased perspective for the members of an audience. As you stated, the director would be calling upon the knowledge of each viewer's film experiences, and since not everyone has seen the same movies, it would create an uneven field of interpretation and understanding. I believe Bazin would consider this a violation when attempting to create a manifestation of reality. In contrast, I feel that Bazin would strongly promote characters to reference events that belong to that very character but are never seen in the film. This is accurate to reality, as that's what many people do all the time, such as a friend from work sharing what they did over the weekend. The information given in the description of the unseen events encourages the viewer to participate in the scene by making assumptions based off the brief information given. This can then be amplified when there's no montage because the time scales between the viewer's reality and the film's reality are equal, allowing the viewer time to make those assumptions instead of the film guiding the viewer through montage and juxtaposition. Bazin, in his purest thoughts, completely discourages montage, but he also realizes that montage is a vital foundation to film, if not even being birthed from montage. He is idealistic, as well as pragmatic.
Thanks for these thoughts! Yes, Bazin discourages montage and accepts it. However, whether or not Bazin would like uneven fields of interpretation to appear in film is not really at issue. it is a part of reality that people mention things all the time to convey messages that are beyond the reach of the person or people to whom they are referring. It is either inclusive or exclusive (or something else), but I, for instance (and I assume you too) often refer to other versions of myself from the "parallel universes" of my past and my future, not to mention my fantasy wishes about alternative presents. And when I do so, I am constantly calling upon the knowledge of the people with whom I interact. Whether or not these others pick it up and the effects that it has is also a part of the world and doesn't particularly have to do with "post-modernity" or even modernity. These aspects of the "real" were just as true for Bazin as they are for us in our time and shall continue to be so. Thanks again for your thoughts and any follow-up comments! Sincerely, Anthony Metivier
ScriptCastle I can understand that perspective, but I'm not sure if I accept it. If one considers the function of dialogue, it's to maintain some level of understanding between those involved and to use that understanding to successfully convey intended expressions. If one takes this concept and contrasts it to the idea of an actor referencing phenomena that have occurred in other films, if the audience has no knowledge of the element(s) they speak of, or even of the film that's being referenced, it would be as if the actor abruptly started speaking a different language. Nothing would make sense to the recipient(s) of the message, and no meaning could possibly be derived from it; other than that there's meaning to be sought elsewhere. For all intents and purposes, they might as well really be speaking a different language! They would have to learn that language/watch the other film to then be readily prepared to potentially interpret what's being said. This kind of thing doesn't really happen in the everyday, given the nature of a conversation: to successfully convey and receive expressions. In most conversations, the speaker knows the "limits" of the other participants and makes an effort to stay within those bounds. When was the last time a friend of yours was telling you a story and just randomly started talking in a language you probably don't know, yet still expected you to not only understand, but also to appropriately respond? Or another example: talking about a location that you've never been to, or even heard of, and then asking your opinion on certain aspects of that place. It doesn't seem logical because not all participants in the dialogue are equipped with this kind of prior knowledge (and even then only a select few may be). *Side note: There is a clear distinction here between "actual reality" and "film reality", in the sense that with actual reality, one has the ability to engage the speaker and ask questions, possibly even obtaining real answers to those questions. In film reality, the audience is restricted in this sense, and can only ask themselves or other audience members questions to obtain speculative conclusions. Again, I imagine that Bazin would consider this an obstruction to the preservation of ambiguity that should belong to a scene/film, and a reduction of the potential for open, personal interpretation. Thoughts?
Charles Whitehead Thanks for the continued dialogue! First, as a bit of randomness, your initial post and response makes me wonder to what extent any readers of this discussion will think that we're speaking another language, which in turn makes me think of My Dinner With Andre and the ways in which films determine the playing field you've discussed by setting frames, which is what we do in most discussions (the limits of which you speak, perhaps). I'm not sure that I agree that there is a distinction between film reality and actual reality, much less a clear one. Certainly not from an assemblage viewpoint (Deleuze). And if there is a difference, we are in a point of change in which that difference grows smaller and smaller everyday, just as the difference between "film" (or perhaps better said "movie") also territorialize and will eventually deterritorialize into something else, which is to say the clouds are constantly coming together, storming, drifting, reformulating. Reality does this too in combination with the things that reality produces (of which film and its various kinds of logic are just a part), and for that we must be grateful. I think you go too far by using the other language metaphor. Foreignness in one's mother tongue, or verfremdungseffekt is not another language and so long as there is a portal of entry, the viewer can learn as they go along if they choose to. Take Reservoir Dogs as another example. You don't have to know who Madonna is to get the scene, much less the woman the old gambler is looking for in the book. Chances are that most people know who Madonna is and that levels a layer of richness to the scene, but it's not necessary to understand what the characters are talking about and they are not speaking a foreign language to the audience who doesn't know who Madonna is. In fact, if they know what the word "Madonna" means and not the figure to which the word refers in this context (such as an elderly viewer who might not be caught up on his or her pop stars), then it is simply another possible way of possibly understanding or misunderstanding the scene, which can lead to alternate forms of pleasure or displeasure. As for asking the film what it means, let's get back to the difference between film reality and real reality. I assume that I'm not alone in having stopped a film to look something up on the Internet either that has been mentioned in it or that the film brings to mind (such as who did the sound design or something else missing from the opening credits, assuming there were opening credits). Perhaps it can be said that I cannot ask the film itself, but I can ask the media to which the film is either directly or indirectly assembled/territorialized. Reality is different now and the film that survives has been surrendered to the new reality of which it and then networks of people responsible for it all had a hand in creating, bot intentionally and outside of conscious awareness. I find all of this to be positive, incidentally. I'm not entirely sympathetic to Greenaway's death to the tyranny of film stuff, but as he told us when I attended one of his seminars at the European Graduate School, there is something beautiful about watching the counter on an old VCR or the progress bar while watching a movie on a computer. I don't do it all the time, but it is now part of film reality/the reality of film (it can and is represented in film itself and can and is part of film viewing). And I agree with "my man in Amsterdam" Greenaway (sorry, couldn't resist), it is beautiful. For the question is not so much would Bazin accept this or that. The question is that the means by which he could accept, deny or reject it has disappeared were he still here. If he or his disciples were to continue to support his original theories, then they would be the ones who risk speaking a foreign language. As for the reduction of open and personal interpretation, this is going to happen to most of the people in the world most of the time. Cinema should be free to perpetuate this as much and as often as possible because genres and micro-genres have the possibility to create much more potent pleasures for the viewers they call and answer than film that tries to include everyone. Ergo RUclips.
@@ScriptCastle Oh mostly this history of film style. My thesis is a neoformalist analysis of the films of Robert Bresson. But I read a lot of film theory and aesthetics/philosophy of art as well. I suppose my main areas of expertise are European/World art cinema, Contemporary Hollywood and some Asian cinemas. Hou Hsiao-Hsien and Apichatpong Weerasethakul are two favorites. I enjoyed your post on Eisenstein's montage as I needed a refresher on the meaning of "overtonal" montage!
@@Venuscombust Very cool. Bresson is amazing! I don't know if they will ever be useful to you, but if so, I have two articles in the Directory of World Cinema 2: Germany. :-)
Glad you found it useful. Thanks for letting me know. Here's the latest analysis on Joker: ruclips.net/video/ybIPVR7-GSU/видео.html I'd love to hear your thoughts on these 6 issues. :-)
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm glad to hear that you found this helpful!
What are you working on? Let me know if I can help you any further.
You´re explanation is wonderful. Youre very clear and precise. This has been very useful for the work im supposed to do :)
Congratulations! Very good job. Nice and smoot diction. The analyse is prfect and focused only on the essential things. Thank you and keep going..
Thanks for the kind words! :)
That's great to hear! Please let me know if you have any questions about anything. I'd be pleased to answer them.
Hi there, I was wondering if Bazin would appreciate resevoir dogs and in which ways
It's a good question. I think the answer is to first ask, "upon which basis would Bazin view a film like Reservoir Dogs." In other words, what basic ideas and assumptions about film would he bring to the viewing as opposed to another film scholar, such as Deleuze. When you next read Bazin, jot down at least ten points of view he has about the cinema and use these as the "lens" through which you view the film. You might also want to view my video "Is Deleuze's Film Theory Useful," because it will give you clues on how to make Bazin's film theory useful when watching any film.
Finally, a fun game you could play is to imagine Bazin and Tarantino engaged in dialog. What would they to one another about Reservoir Dogs? Indeed, what would Bazin have to say about how Tarantino has developed across his entire career?
There's so much you can do!
All great questions to ask. I have another relating to Bazin. In the Film raging bull, there are elements of montage( eisenstein) and long takes, that would be praised by Bazin. Do you think that this film adequately uses both these theoretical bases of film. I would argue that the film is more realist than formalist.
I'd like to make the argument that Bazin would not approve of a character within a film referencing elements that exists in another film; for instance, your example of Pulp Fiction. This would be analogous to someone in reality speaking, with detail, of a previous/concurrent life of theirs from a parallel universe (in which most cases people would just consider that person crazy). By mentioning other characters that the actor has embodied in other films, their dialogue becomes a tool used to convey a message beyond what it simply portrayed in the scene (similar to montage), and, consequently, creates a biased perspective for the members of an audience. As you stated, the director would be calling upon the knowledge of each viewer's film experiences, and since not everyone has seen the same movies, it would create an uneven field of interpretation and understanding. I believe Bazin would consider this a violation when attempting to create a manifestation of reality.
In contrast, I feel that Bazin would strongly promote characters to reference events that belong to that very character but are never seen in the film. This is accurate to reality, as that's what many people do all the time, such as a friend from work sharing what they did over the weekend. The information given in the description of the unseen events encourages the viewer to participate in the scene by making assumptions based off the brief information given. This can then be amplified when there's no montage because the time scales between the viewer's reality and the film's reality are equal, allowing the viewer time to make those assumptions instead of the film guiding the viewer through montage and juxtaposition.
Bazin, in his purest thoughts, completely discourages montage, but he also realizes that montage is a vital foundation to film, if not even being birthed from montage. He is idealistic, as well as pragmatic.
Thanks for these thoughts!
Yes, Bazin discourages montage and accepts it. However, whether or not Bazin would like uneven fields of interpretation to appear in film is not really at issue. it is a part of reality that people mention things all the time to convey messages that are beyond the reach of the person or people to whom they are referring.
It is either inclusive or exclusive (or something else), but I, for instance (and I assume you too) often refer to other versions of myself from the "parallel universes" of my past and my future, not to mention my fantasy wishes about alternative presents. And when I do so, I am constantly calling upon the knowledge of the people with whom I interact.
Whether or not these others pick it up and the effects that it has is also a part of the world and doesn't particularly have to do with "post-modernity" or even modernity. These aspects of the "real" were just as true for Bazin as they are for us in our time and shall continue to be so.
Thanks again for your thoughts and any follow-up comments!
Sincerely,
Anthony Metivier
ScriptCastle I can understand that perspective, but I'm not sure if I accept it. If one considers the function of dialogue, it's to maintain some level of understanding between those involved and to use that understanding to successfully convey intended expressions. If one takes this concept and contrasts it to the idea of an actor referencing phenomena that have occurred in other films, if the audience has no knowledge of the element(s) they speak of, or even of the film that's being referenced, it would be as if the actor abruptly started speaking a different language. Nothing would make sense to the recipient(s) of the message, and no meaning could possibly be derived from it; other than that there's meaning to be sought elsewhere. For all intents and purposes, they might as well really be speaking a different language! They would have to learn that language/watch the other film to then be readily prepared to potentially interpret what's being said.
This kind of thing doesn't really happen in the everyday, given the nature of a conversation: to successfully convey and receive expressions. In most conversations, the speaker knows the "limits" of the other participants and makes an effort to stay within those bounds. When was the last time a friend of yours was telling you a story and just randomly started talking in a language you probably don't know, yet still expected you to not only understand, but also to appropriately respond? Or another example: talking about a location that you've never been to, or even heard of, and then asking your opinion on certain aspects of that place. It doesn't seem logical because not all participants in the dialogue are equipped with this kind of prior knowledge (and even then only a select few may be).
*Side note: There is a clear distinction here between "actual reality" and "film reality", in the sense that with actual reality, one has the ability to engage the speaker and ask questions, possibly even obtaining real answers to those questions. In film reality, the audience is restricted in this sense, and can only ask themselves or other audience members questions to obtain speculative conclusions.
Again, I imagine that Bazin would consider this an obstruction to the preservation of ambiguity that should belong to a scene/film, and a reduction of the potential for open, personal interpretation.
Thoughts?
Charles Whitehead
Thanks for the continued dialogue! First, as a bit of randomness, your initial post and response makes me wonder to what extent any readers of this discussion will think that we're speaking another language, which in turn makes me think of My Dinner With Andre and the ways in which films determine the playing field you've discussed by setting frames, which is what we do in most discussions (the limits of which you speak, perhaps).
I'm not sure that I agree that there is a distinction between film reality and actual reality, much less a clear one. Certainly not from an assemblage viewpoint (Deleuze). And if there is a difference, we are in a point of change in which that difference grows smaller and smaller everyday, just as the difference between "film" (or perhaps better said "movie") also territorialize and will eventually deterritorialize into something else, which is to say the clouds are constantly coming together, storming, drifting, reformulating. Reality does this too in combination with the things that reality produces (of which film and its various kinds of logic are just a part), and for that we must be grateful.
I think you go too far by using the other language metaphor. Foreignness in one's mother tongue, or verfremdungseffekt is not another language and so long as there is a portal of entry, the viewer can learn as they go along if they choose to. Take Reservoir Dogs as another example. You don't have to know who Madonna is to get the scene, much less the woman the old gambler is looking for in the book. Chances are that most people know who Madonna is and that levels a layer of richness to the scene, but it's not necessary to understand what the characters are talking about and they are not speaking a foreign language to the audience who doesn't know who Madonna is. In fact, if they know what the word "Madonna" means and not the figure to which the word refers in this context (such as an elderly viewer who might not be caught up on his or her pop stars), then it is simply another possible way of possibly understanding or misunderstanding the scene, which can lead to alternate forms of pleasure or displeasure.
As for asking the film what it means, let's get back to the difference between film reality and real reality. I assume that I'm not alone in having stopped a film to look something up on the Internet either that has been mentioned in it or that the film brings to mind (such as who did the sound design or something else missing from the opening credits, assuming there were opening credits). Perhaps it can be said that I cannot ask the film itself, but I can ask the media to which the film is either directly or indirectly assembled/territorialized. Reality is different now and the film that survives has been surrendered to the new reality of which it and then networks of people responsible for it all had a hand in creating, bot intentionally and outside of conscious awareness.
I find all of this to be positive, incidentally. I'm not entirely sympathetic to Greenaway's death to the tyranny of film stuff, but as he told us when I attended one of his seminars at the European Graduate School, there is something beautiful about watching the counter on an old VCR or the progress bar while watching a movie on a computer. I don't do it all the time, but it is now part of film reality/the reality of film (it can and is represented in film itself and can and is part of film viewing). And I agree with "my man in Amsterdam" Greenaway (sorry, couldn't resist), it is beautiful.
For the question is not so much would Bazin accept this or that. The question is that the means by which he could accept, deny or reject it has disappeared were he still here. If he or his disciples were to continue to support his original theories, then they would be the ones who risk speaking a foreign language.
As for the reduction of open and personal interpretation, this is going to happen to most of the people in the world most of the time. Cinema should be free to perpetuate this as much and as often as possible because genres and micro-genres have the possibility to create much more potent pleasures for the viewers they call and answer than film that tries to include everyone. Ergo RUclips.
Very interesting!
Thanks for letting me know you found it to be so. Anything else you'd like to see covered on this channel? :-)
i'm just curious, where do you live? it looks like a chalet of some sort. what state are you in?
Thanks for your question.
This was just a normal, Canadian home.
@@ScriptCastle oh wow, I'm Canadian too and finishing my PhD in film studies. Where do you live?
@@Venuscombust Very cool! I'm overseas now, basically a digital nomad. What area of Film Studies are you focused on?
@@ScriptCastle Oh mostly this history of film style. My thesis is a neoformalist analysis of the films of Robert Bresson. But I read a lot of film theory and aesthetics/philosophy of art as well. I suppose my main areas of expertise are European/World art cinema, Contemporary Hollywood and some Asian cinemas. Hou Hsiao-Hsien and Apichatpong Weerasethakul are two favorites. I enjoyed your post on Eisenstein's montage as I needed a refresher on the meaning of "overtonal" montage!
@@Venuscombust Very cool. Bresson is amazing!
I don't know if they will ever be useful to you, but if so, I have two articles in the Directory of World Cinema 2: Germany. :-)
thankyou it helps me :)
very helpful ! thanks a lot !!
Glad you found it useful. Thanks for letting me know.
Here's the latest analysis on Joker:
ruclips.net/video/ybIPVR7-GSU/видео.html
I'd love to hear your thoughts on these 6 issues. :-)