Blog assignment #4 - essay outline

1) Main argument: The formalist approach is the most effective method of studying film because it allows for a greater interpretation of films. It takes into account creativity of the filmmaker and why those techniques were used to make the audience feel or think a certain way. The ideological approach considers the overall messages and tones while the formalist approach covers how the film flows and works in general. I will use Psycho as an example of this approach.

2) The formalist approach is better for Psycho because the film is highly stylistic. The director uses so many unique techniques to make the audience feel the way the director wants. He guides us along and tricks us several times, and everything he does in the film is for a specific reason. (Examples: Marion dying early, suspenseful music, etc.)

3) Support: Psycho, V.F. Perkins Film as Film & Robin Wood "Psycho")

4) Why the Ideological approach is flawed - directors at times do not have a huge role in the making of the film

5) Support: Article in class

6) Other specific moments in film that the formalist theory allows us to see what the director was trying to get across - the scene where Norman watches Marion through a peephole, the fact that the shower scene was intense but still not graphic, how the movie makes the audience always feel watched and paranoid, and how Hitchcock does this so effectively.

7) Support: Psycho, articles quotes

Is the best way to go about this to make all of my claims about specific Psycho scenes and then relate them to the formalist theory? Also, this is a really rough outline and I plan to use quotes from the articles for the essay.

Blog Assignment #3: To betray, or not to betray, that is the question."

(1) Pick one moment from the film adaptation and describe how it either departs from or remains faithful to Steinbeck's novel. Is this moment "cinematic," and, if so, does it make Ford & Toland auteurs?

I have not read Grapes of Wrath, but from what we discussed in class, it's apparent that the ending largely differs from the film's ending. From things i've read online, the film is very similar to the book in the first half but strays away in the second. Ford & Toland made a conscious decision to leave several scenes out that were in the book. All of these scenes, one in particular, gave the overall meaning to the story a more dreary effect. Like we discussed in class, the scene where the woman gives a dying man her breast milk was not included. According to Truffaut, he believed cinema should stay true to the literature and not change the spirit of the original work. I don't think the spirit of the story was changed too much by the movie, but it definitely made things seem a little easier than things were for the characters in the original story. The film's ending was simpler and gave a more positive message overall. The fact that Ford & Toland decided to do this definitely makes them auteurs because they made their own version of the story. However, because the movie was made in 1940, keeping these darker scenes might have been nearly impossible in that time in cinema because audiences were not acclimated to seeing that yet. I am not sure if Ford & Toland would have kept the scenes out in a later period or not. The ending is cinematic because it held back from showing things which were too much for film in that time period but that could still be told in literature.

(2) Most critics today dismiss auteur theory for various reasons. Do you believe it is a valid area of study in film studies? Why or why not?

I do believe auteur theory is a valid area of study in film, but I can also understand why some would dismiss it. I think film studies should include a lot of different types of theories, and auteur should be one of them, but definitely not the only one. Looking at a director's work specifically is a great way to get a better understanding of the director and how they work, and what they are trying to get across in later films. But I also think films should mostly be watched without even knowing the director so that your conclusions on the film won't be biased. I agree that not all films by a good director are necessarily good, and films by a new or not-so-good director can turn out great.