Notes

Book is about the end of Theory. Namely, Bordwell is referring to Grand Theory, which is the first general theory of film and aimed to apply a sort of universal approach towards interpreting films. Theory is to be replaced with the process of theorizing. This idea seems to replace classical Grand Theory with a wide number of new approaches to cinema.

Bordwell’s essay examines the ways in which film theory has developed and splintered over time. The dominant schools of thought in this are subject-position theory and culturalism, both of which try to describe and explain properties of “society, history, language, and psyche”. Bordwell contrasts these with a third “middle-level” research, which aims to answer smaller problems.

The predominant theory of film originating in the 1920’s was auteurism, which posed the idea of a film as being authored by a single creator. This theory was challenged by others, namely structuralism in the 1960s, which looked at films within structures and genres (such as gangster films, etc).

It is odd to note that auteurism was not attacked by the fact that films are such massive and complex projects that a single individual cannot possibly be due for the film in its entirety. That idea, while it may not be widely accepted as a theory, is still massively popular.

Both auteurism and structuralism are strongly prevalent in popular understanding of games. Games are always categorized by genre, and many ones that tend to be notable have names attached: Miyamoto, Wright, Molyneux, etc.

Structuralism, by way of semiotics and mythologies, serves to relate films to a ritual structure, reflecting and enacting social dilemmas. “For example, Thomas Chatz argues that like myth, Hollywood genres are social rituals replaying key cultural contradictions. The emphasis which Hollywood filmmakers place upon the resolution of the narrative indicates the importance of key thematic oppositions, such as man/woman, individual/community, work/play, order/anarchy.”

Structuralism was gradually superseded by subject-position theory via the percolating influence of post-structuralist thinkers such as Derrida, Lacan, Foucault. The changes originated in the challenge of finding the the social and psychic function of cinema, which in turn led to questions about the role of the “subject”. This shift in focus led to the perspectives of scopophilia and narcissism, where films serve to satisfy various voyeuristic desires. This aspect defined ideology through representations, which led to an inescapable situation where representation determined subjectivity.

A theoretical school that emerged beyond subject-position theory is culturalism, which held that “pervasive cultural mechanisms govern the social and psychic function of cinema.” This domain too sees to define a foundation of knowing and acting, but allows subjectivity some freedom from representation. The center of cultural studies is the understanding of history of cultures that use texts. Cultural studies offers a more general, lighter perspective than subject-position theory.

Having reviewed the grand theories, Bordwell examines some bullet points concerning doctrine and practice.

1. Human practices and institutions are in all significant respects socially constructed.
2. Understanding how viewers interact with films requires a theory of subjectivity.
3. The spectator’s response to cinema depends upon identification.
4. Verbal language supplies an appropriate and adequate analogue for film.

Looking at the practice of theory (now there’s a phrase!), there are several methods that are employed:

1. Top-down inquiry
2. Argument as Bricolage
3. Associational Reasoning
4. The Hermeneutic Impulse

Middle-level theory emerged as a result of an increased awareness of the history and practice of actual film making. The goal of such theories is to employ both empirical and theoretical means of understanding film. The aim of these is to approach theory from the perspective of specific problems rather than sweeping doctrine. Bordwell’s defining point is the line “… you do not need a Big Theory of Everything to do enlightening work in a field of study.” (p. 29)

It might serve well to note that some of these aspects of film theory were used to reason about games, and wound up falling flat for their preoccupation with visual imagery and total failure to account for interactivity and issues of gameplay.