Bordwell and Thanouli explore the discussion between classical Hollywood and art cinema narration. How are these categories useful in distinguishing between different types of films? What films that we’ve seen this semester seem to be usefully explained by these categories? And how do these categories relate to storytelling in television and videogames, if at all? (And remember to bring your thoughts & questions about Ndalianis’s essay to class on Tuesday.)
6 thoughts on “Response for 11/2”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I’m particularly interested in what way the implied author would fit into Bordwell’s analysis of art cinema. As Bordwell says, the authorial voice is one of the defining characteristics of the art cinema that influences the construction and the meaning of the film. How can we separate the author from our understanding of the film when they motivate so many pieces of it? Author function can only cover so much of how we understand a film. Does anyone think it encompasses the authorial voice and is then integrated into the implied author? I’m not really sure what the case is.
When I was reading about how narratives have been expanding out of their traditional borders as a mode of seriality in Ndalianis’ essay, I couldn’t help but think about downloadable content for games. It seems like for almost all major game releases, the publisher has some sort of extra content that they put out in the months after the games actual release. While in some cases it just adds content or game modes that do not expand the narrative like in Rock Band where you can purchase additional songs to play in the game, more and more videogames are releasing download packs that expand the fabula events. For example, a downloadable add on for the game Dead Rising 2 called Case West, takes place one year after the events of Dead Rising 2 and features the return of the protagonist from the first Dead Rising game similar to the the second and third prototypes of neo-baroque narratives. There is similar add on content for Left 4 Dead 2 and other games as well.
Downloadable content is even changing the fabula for games now and expanding it beyond anything that can be interpreted from the game. Red Dead Redemption, a realistic Western adventure game just realized an expansion where zombies invade the ranch the protagonist is staying on, and Battlefield 2, a modern-day shooter just released a downloadable content package that switches the war to Vietnam. DLC, as us in the know call it, is slowly establishing a norm for game developers to focus on creating story worlds that can always be expanded upon rather than individual stories.
After Reading Bordwell and Thanouli, which basically deconstructs Bordwell as many of our readings do, it seems that the terms Art Cinema is much more a way of defining films within a genre rather than it’s own category of films. Away from her is art cinema within the genre of romantic tragedy, as their is no specific goal driving the two characters throughout the movie while, as Thanouli mentions, the Iranian film movement is art cinema within the genre of adventure story through it’s lack of anything un-diegetic and “letting the camera roll”, portraying the characters as they really are (we watched an Iranian film in my aesthetics class last year, and the camera literally followed a little boy every time he traveled from one town to the other over and over again). It makes me wonder what the art cinema of an action film would look like. Anyone have an example I could look into?
I think defining “art cinema” is practical only to the extent that Bordwell can better distinguish the historical norms which characterize classical Hollywood cinema, but in and of itself it’s too imprecise a term. As Thanouli notes, “art cinema” and “parametric narration” have become anti-categories which neither properly explain how authorial intervention and filmic system are distinct, nor how the narrative mode and the art cinema institution are related (or unrelated). How are we to reconcile an extremely self-reflexive film like Adaptation which spends most of its time meandering through Charlie’s life, with its ironically subversive and plotted Hollywood ending? For me, these frameworks are too dismissive of all the internal contradictions, and unique historical conditions to be useful.
Nonetheless, I tried to decide on the equivalents of “classical Hollywood cinema” and “art cinema” in video games. Perhaps game companies emphasize authorial narrative more, where as independent game designers are more willing to explore sandbox narratives? It might be interesting to look at the wildly popular Minecraft, an indie game in which your avatar has no determinate goal and is free to roam endlessly. The goal-driven (or goal-lacking) protagonist that Bordwell describes in his discussion about Hollywood and art cinema, has some parallel to how one’s avatar operates in a rule-driven video game environment, I think.
I agree with you and Thanouli in that these categories start to look like ‘everything else’ or ‘catch-all’ categories. I especially agree with Thanouli in his criticism of Bordwell’s inclusion of “ambiguity” in art cinema classification. (The word ‘ambiguity’ should never appear in a system of classification; it defeats the purpose of classification!)
But I do take issue with Thanouli’s criticism that Bordwell’s modes are solely in reference to the classical mode, and thus lacking in meaning. My understanding is that modes, norms, paradigms all must be understood in terms of OTHER modes, norms, paradigms. There is no such thing as classification in a vacuum. And since the classical paradigm was indeed the first paradigm, it is only natural to distinguish subsequent paradigms not necessarily in terms of the classical, but at least in reference to it. That’s not to say that new norms can’t be posited that do not reference classical norms, only that the starting point for assessing new paradigms should be the classical paradigm, or at least a predecessor paradigm.
I wouldn’t go as far as to say the classical paradigm is THE paradigm, and everything else is a deviation, and I don’t think that’s what Bordwell intended either. Thanouli is misconstruing Bordwell’s argument. Bordwell is merely recognizing the fact that paradigms must be understood in contrast to each other, like figure and ground, and I don’t see anything wrong with that approach.
For me, I wish Bordwell would shed some light on the distinction between Art Cinema and Experimental film. Though he uses Classical Hollywood cinema to construct a binary against Art Cinema, where does the form of expression lie within Art cinema? I feel Experimental film uses the same applied conventions to relay information in a way that contradicts those patterns of classical narrative films. Like Georges Méliès in comparison with the Lumiere Brothers, film is constantly being explored to find new techniques to exhibit entertainment and/or meaning. So, does Bordwell see a distinction between Art Cinema and Experimental film or is there larger gaps between the two?