Outline for Essay 1- Formalist or Ideological Theory?

Main Argument:
In the 1960s, two very different approaches to film theory evolved. In the United States, Ideological Film Theory was mainly used, by focusing on the overall film in its entirety and by comparing it to issues in the real world. The British utilized the Formalist Approach by viewing films one scene or shot at a time and analyzing the film’s effects, such as lighting, editing, and camera angles, to describe how this scene would relate to the rest of the film. By looking inward first, then towards the overall picture, the Formalist Theory to me this is the most effective way to study film.


Claim 1:
In Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho, the scene where Norman and Marion eat dinner and talk depicts a strong mise-en-scene and decoupage in the camera placement and props, such as the birds in the scene. These attribute to the Formalist Theory and help us analyze the small scenes of the film first.
Example: The camera looks up at Norman as we look up to a bird that is sitting or soaring above us, while when focused on Marion, the camera is directly in front of her with no angle at all.

Support: An article analyzing mise-en-scene and Psycho

Claim 2:
There are many instances of repetition in this scene, which is common in the Formalist Approach.
Example: As Norman keeps mentioning his work with birds, we begin to see a correlation with how he perceives Marion. At one point he states that she eats like a bird.

Support: Analysis of Psycho

Claim 3:
In all Formalist Approaches, there lies a deeper meaning to the film’s effects and sends the audience clues and hints for the rest of the movie.
Example: The way in which Norman talks about how everyone goes insane at some point in their lives and how people would perceive his mother in an insane institution gives the insight that Norman had lost his mind and drifted away from reality before this scene

Support: Perkins’ Film as Film and Wood’s article
　
　

The Grapes of Wrath

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 had read Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath in high school, but never had the opportunity to watch this classic book come to life on the silver screen in Ford and Toland’s film adaptation. I was excited to learn that I would finally have my chance at seeing this movie as one of our film presentations. The film to me was true overall to both the letter and the spirit of the book.

One scene in the film that was very powerful and stood out from the rest was when the Joad family was driving into the transient camp in California. Up to this point, the scenes presented to us, the audience, were of the characters, of their past recollections, and from their viewpoints. In this scene, the audience is shown the viewpoint from the front of the Joads’ truck. As their vehicle slowly curves throughout the camp, we see the faces of the other families that have taken the same harsh journey after they either were kicked off of the land that they had lived on their whole lives or had lost their business because of the forced migration. From the position of the camera, the broken, uninviting, sickly faces of the fellow campers seem to be looking up and over into the vehicle. This effect makes the audience feel as though they were also in the car, as another member of the Joad family, or sitting on top of the car, watching the people as the Joads past by them.

This scene remains faithful to the novel in that it shows the poor conditions of the camp and of its residents. Where this depiction departs from Steinbeck’s vision is that it secludes the Joad family from the others and steers the film into a story about a singular family unit instead of mankind as a whole. This moment is very “cinematic” since only a film could capture this as well as the feeling of despair that the audience is given when shown the other families’ faces at this distantly different angle. I believe that this moment shows that Ford and Toland are auteurs since not only did they perfect the technique of the way they captured the scene and add their own personal style by creating a different viewpoint with the camera, but they also brought a deeper meaning of this scene to the surface, depicting all of the anguish and distrust the campers had developed throughout their individual journeys.

　

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?

The auteur theory is when a body of work shows that the director’s best films have the same degree of technique, personal style, and, most importantly, interior meaning. The director has to use decoupage to put together the film in a cohesive way while still maintaining their attitude towards the piece. After learning about the auteur theory in class, I feel that it is a valid area of film study. This theory makes students view films in a different way, while interpreting and evaluating a movie based on the director’s work. I can now view a film and decide whether the director is just a technician, developing a certain technique for the creation of the movie, a stylist, adding their personal touches in the scenes, or an auteur, meaning author, adding these traits with a specific, interior meaning to the film as a whole.