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.
This is a great rough outline. Your progression seems natural and organized. My only suggestion would be to limit yourself to one of the effects mentioned in #6. I think that your observation that "the movie makes the audience always feel watched and paranoid" is particularly interesting and could yield a great analysis beginning with the peep hole scene.
ReplyDelete