Discussion Question 4 covering Lectures 7 and 8
Question 1 – Cavell on “Re-marriage”
How convinced are you by Cavell’s proposals here? Is there anything in the Cavell text that allows us to gain further insights about cinema’s affinity for this dynamic?
Question 2 – Jameson and Postmodernism
Do you find postmodernism to be a promising avenue for understanding cinema in the post-war or late-capitalist era? Is there something maybe depressing about its status as a “blank” or affectless style? Any sections from Jameson’s writing that supports your position would again be useful to share here.
Solution
Sample
I am well convinced by Cavell’s proposals on “Screwball Comedy”, “remarriage”, and approach to life as a series of repeated encounters with skepticism. To further explain his view of film, he views film as moving images of skepticism, which is a certain separation/disenchantment we as individuals have with ‘their world’ (the world behind the screen). His philosophical views on the screen reflects a modern post-enlightenment consciousness, as he has mentioned that “Film as a metaphor for modern conscious”. These can further give us insight to about how film can truly still be analyzed in a philosophical way, which go against the beliefs of David Bordwell (who believes that film should be studied by its history and not in a philosophical way). Therefore, Cavell’s arguments further supports film theory as being seen as the philosophy of film and that interpretation can be an important thing to do. His philosophical views are so compelling that we still see his principles of “Screwball Comedy”, skepticism, and the dynamics of “remarriage” to this day of modern society.
In the accompanying clips from Bringing Up Baby, it can be seen that the Screwball comedy dynamic comes into play as the couple portray a sort of battle of the sexes, farce, reconciliation, and fast-paced repartee moment, further supporting Cavell’s insights/principles on the views of the world (being its own subject) behind the screen and the rekindling of romance between the couple (aka remarriage moment). By continuing to incorporate Cavell’s teachings, we are sure to continue to have much pleasure in watching cinema today, as I believe these have helped evolve Hollywood film greatly.
Sample 2
Good afternoon,
At first glance, I found Jameson’s description of and reasoning for the rise of pastiche art to be quite somber. To propose a limit on something seemingly as limitless as an art form like film felt preposterous and discouraging: what is the point of continuing the art form if there is no possibility of creating something entirely new and different? Although the initial statement seems disheartening, to say that the innovation of film styles can no longer be done is not to say that all hope is lost for film. In the creative combinations of styles, or in the combination of old and new, directors and filmmakers can continue to produce interesting films. Jameson uses Star Wars as an example of reinventing an existing style, specifically the style of Buck Rogers. Despite the fact that technically, Star Wars imitates a pre-existing style, it is an interesting film, and does not feel like we are watching something we have already seen before.
In short, when reading Jameson’s description of postmodern art, I felt a little discouraged. To say that all art produced currently is imitating what has already been done can seem depressing: without analysis into his points, it could bring about the sentiment that any new art we consume will begin to feel boring, as it is just imitation of what has already been done. Yet, upon seeing his examples of imitation in film, we see that postmodern art can be interesting in the ways the artist chooses to combine different styles of the past.
..Please click on the Icon below to purchase the full answer at only $5
Instant Download on Payment
