Ideological vs. Formalist Approach to Film- Essay 1 Outline

Main Argument: Using the first scene in Norman Bates’ parlor from Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho (1960) as an example, I believe that the Formalist Approach to be the most effective method of studying film because it considers all aspects of the scene in context rather than simply the shots independently.

Background:

   Ideological Approach:

• Claim: In an ideological approach to film analysis, Eisenstein believed that meaning was derived from the relationship   between successive shots, rather than from the shots in relation to the rest of the film. 
• Support: Sergei Eisenstein article "The Dramaturgy of Film Form"

   Formalist Approach:

• Claim: In a synthetic approach to film analysis, V.F. Perkins argues that it is important to look at all the contents of a moment or scene within the context of the entire film. 
• Support: V.F. Perkins article

Which one?- Formalist Approach 

• Claim: While it may elicit emotions from the spectator, simply analyzing the "collision" of shots in a montage disregards the context of the scene in relation to the narrative and the rest of the film. I believe the Formalist Approach to be the more effective method of studying film because it is important to consider the moment or scene of a film not just in relation to the outside world, but within the context of the film in which it resides. 
• Support: V.F. Perkins article and detailed scene analysis from film

Film Analysis: Psycho

• Claim: I believe the Formalist Approach is more effective when analyzing the first scene in Norman Bates' parlor from the film.
• Support: detailed analysis from film 

The Grapes of Wrath: "I know this... a man got to do what he got to do."

According to Truffaut, film adaptations of literature have value only when undertaken by a man of the cinema. He believed that it was crucial for the adaptation to maintain the spirit of the original work. It’s interesting, then, to compare the similarities and difference between John Steinbeck’s novel The Grapes of Wrath and John Ford’s film adaptation to determine whether or not the film remains faithful to Steinbeck’s novel.

To begin, I want to answer the following question: 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?

In Steinbeck’s first chapter, he describe the desolate setting in which his characters will be placed: “Every moving thing lifted the dust into the air: a walking man lifted a think layer as high as his waist, and a wagon listed the dust as high as the fence tops, and an automobile boiled a cloud behind it. The dust was long in settling back again.”

This description paints a vivid picture in the reader’s mind of exactly how much dust there is and how it behaves. The bleakness of the area describes not just the physical landscape of the story, but also sets the mood of the novel.

Similarly, Ford and Toland must establish the desolation early on in the film in order to set a similar mood as the novel. In once of the first scenes, Tom Joad is shown walking up a road to his family farm. As he walks away from the camera, his footsteps kick up a cloud of dust around him, invoking in the viewer’s mind the above Steinbeck passage. It’s clear that Ford and Toland looked to Steinbeck’s description to guide the filming of this particular moment.  

While Ford and Toland remain faithful to the passage, the moment in the film is also extremely cinematic and achieves something that the novel could never do: the viewer is able to see the dust actively lifting into the air as Tom walks. I do believe the decisions that Ford and Toland made in how to visually present the scene—filming Tom from behind and having him walk uphill away from the camera—provide a glimpse of the personalities of the two men as artists.  

So I end by answering this question: 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?

 

Although most critics have dismissed it today, I do believe that auteur theory is an important aspect when studying film. I believe there are too many directors that pride themselves on a strong sense of personality in their work that it would be foolish to dismiss it. Directors known for their distinctive style include Quentin Tarantino, Tim Burton, the Coen brothers, and Woody Allen. While I do not believe that auteur theory is necessarily enough to understand a film completely, I think it is still applicable today.