Film Studies
He again goes back to discuss certain academic writings by film scholars like Murray Smith, Richard Allen, Noel Carroll and David Bordwell. He maintains that these scholars do not find theory to be scientific (Turvey, 110). ‘Analytic philosophy wants to redeem “theory” for film by placing it in the context of a philosophy of science. At the same time, this implies that the epistemologies that were characteristic of the humanities for a number of decades are neither philosophically nor scientifically legitimate. And so the contestation of theory becomes a de facto epistemological dismissal of the humanities’.
The philosopher, Wittgenstein, wanted to restore theory from science to the field of humanities. Wittgenstein’s writings try to find out the internal values and rules which cultures holds in everyday associations and activities. He further discusses the contribution of two great philosophers, Stanley Cavell and Gilles Deleuze to cinema studies. The author discusses two elements which may be displayed in Deleuze’s philosophy. One is ‘Concept to Image’ and the other is ‘Deleuze’s original reconsideration of Nietzsche’s presentation of ethical activity as philosophical interpretation and evaluation’. According to Deleuze, theory and practice in cinema cannot be separated as they are related concepts. The question, What is Philosophy?, in Deleuze and Guattari’s books tries to separate philosophy from science and art as philosophical expressions are distinct and yet related to art and science. The author further discusses a main issue with Deleuze’s writings and that is the relationship between concepts to signs, ideas and images in his lecture on ‘Having an idea in cinema’. Also Deleuze’s books explain the importance of images and signs and accurately link them with innovation thereby associating philosophy with art. Rodowick mentions the word ‘automatisms’ and explains it as ‘constructions or assemblages that express or give form to the concepts implied in art’s ideas’. By mentioning the constructs of signs, images and ideas does not mean that Rodowick tries to find a cinema which rigidly follows certain aesthetic guidelines (SCOPE). The ethical consideration with Deleuze’s writing encompasses both evaluation and interpretation. The similarity in Deleuze and Cavell’s academic writings are in the fact that both use Nietzschean ethics and the innovating ontological constructs. The author further illustrates that Cavell’s writings also focus on the manner in which films have slowly penetrated to display the daily happenings in life especially in the twentieth century. He tries to find a balance between ethics and epistemology and also to reconsider the association between ethical evaluation and art. According to Cavell, films portray both withdrawal and presentation of scepticism in philosophy. Cavell further discusses moral perfectionism which is in actuality the ethical evaluation proposed by Deleuze. Both the philosophers describe films as a means in which one may express the ‘ways of being in the world and of relating to the world’. In other words, the author maintains that, films portray an aesthetic appearance of persistent and current issues in philosophy.
Thus, Rodowick tries to present a fine argument of theory as an academic study by first delving into its history and discussing ancient and modern concepts of aesthetics. The generation of theory may be traced to philosophy, on one hand, and empirical sciences and positivism, on the other. In order to find out the meaning of films is a manner in which one tries to determine broader insights into art.
Works cited:
Myer, C. Critical Cinema: Beyond the Theory of Practice. New York: Columbia University Press, 2011. Print.
Roberts, J.K. “Book Reviews: The Virtual Life of Film by D.N. Rodowick”. SCOPE. Web. 1 May. 2013.
Turvey, M. “Theory, philosophy, and film studies: a response to D.N. Rodowick’s “An Elegy for Theory”. MIT Press Journals, 122(2007): 110 – 120. Print.
