Talk:Film theory

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2021 and 14 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): YALUWANG330.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

agree
agree with JButler, film style and film theory are separate categories, not sure how to fix this problem. Article also has no signs of drawing attention to the intense debates that have existed in film theory, the academic founding of film studies (as a result of film theories significance and acceptance into the academies?), and more recent developments in film theory, ie David Bordwell's classical Hollywood cinema, formalist and cognitive film theories (possibly separate articles that can be linked to this page?).

--Jwmcglone 15:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I would divide the theoretical discussion into continental and analytical traditions. The attention to the theoretical basis would solve much around these issues. For example, cognitive film theorists (e.g. Bordwell, Grodal) are working in analytical tradition whereas gaze and apparatus theorists are continentally inclined.

[Anonymous]

Elements of style in a movie
(Note : this suggestion has also been posted on Film theory. Actually, I don't know where this request fits best).

It would be cool to provide an (almost) exhaustive list of what can be discussed in a movie, as well as examples of typical movies of such styles. Comment: there can't be an exhaustive list of this kind because there have been more than 90 years filled with writing on cinema and films.

Example :
 * Rythm : alternance of quiet and active times (or whatever :-). Example of a movie with a remarkable rythm : The big sleep
 * Field depth (DoF) : See main article field depth. Example of a movie with low field depth : whatever. Example of notable field depth effects : whatever

Thanks. King mike 07:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the thrust of what I'd like to accomplish with a new website I just set up - wikifilmschool.com, if anybody is interested in participating. HamillianActor 00:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC) GAGA IS THE BEST

Don't know how active this area is, but coming from a theatre background I'm surprised to find that this page doesn't lay out broad areas of inquiry - iconography, genre criticism, cinematography, editing and montage theory, etc. Deeply immersed in theatre articles, so can't do it myself, unfortunately. Anyone able to flesh that out a little? DionysosProteus 16:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Is Siegfried Kracauer a realist or formalist?
It seems to me that the quote "Siegfried Kracauer. These individuals emphasized how film differed from reality," on this page directly contradicts the quote on the Kracauer wikipage: "In 1960, he released Theory of Film: The Redemption of Physical Reality, which argued that realism is the most important function of cinema."

Shouldn't Kracauer be considered a realist instead of a formalist? I not familiar with the works of Kracauer so I can't be sure about this. Can anybody shed light on the subject? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.219.172.194 (talk) 10:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC).


 * i see no contradiction. emphasizing on how film differs from reality is one of the issues realism theory should deal with. capi (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Contemporary film theory informed by psychoanalysis
Contemporary film theory informed by psychoanalysis didn't stop with Mulvey. It seems that each time a theorist is added to the page after Malvey, he (or she) is immediately deleted, even though Mulvey made her major contribution some 30 years ago. In the last twenty years, both Slavoj Žižek and Bracha Ettinger had become important influences in film theory. With Žižek, the male "phallic" gaze is emphasized, and with Ettinger a feminine gaze ("the matrixial gaze"), which is different to Mulvey's and Žižek's "male" gazes, is opened. I suggest that the addition of these two major theorists will stay and not be deleted. They have reached notablity and are important for students in the field. Doraannao (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism Section
I think the criticism section needs a lot of work. It seems to consist of one filmmaker ridiculing the terminology. Can anyone find some more thorough critiques of film theory? David Delony (talk) 01:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. The main problem with Weddle's criticism is that he mistakes film theory for filmmaking.  These are two wildly different programs:  film theory deals with academic dissection of film, and filmmaking deals with the processes of making film.  Weddle uses both interchangeably and uses his own profession to discredit an academic program that he really has no understanding of.  Nor does his article really go into reasonable depth.  Like literary theory, film theory also takes into consideration that the person/people making the film are also exposing more about their mentality subconsciously through making the film than they do intentionally, making Weddle's complaints about film theory 'not preparing my daughter for a career in film' very misguided.


 * In short, Weddle's article doesn't really have anything to do with film theory. It has to do with his wild misunderstandings of film theory without any real proof towards the discipline.  The only arguments he provides are ad hoc statements towards the University of California at Santa Barbara, not with anything even remotely related to film theory as a practice.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zbu (talk • contribs) 18:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Authors and theorists that should be mentioned:
I want to preface this by saying that I don't really understand wikipedia, its rules and regulations and that I simply wanted to contribute a comment on a few omissions of what I have studied myself at different educational institutions about the theory of film.

The following authors, who are not in this article, are definetely relevant to film theory: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakaa (talk • contribs) 16:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Vachel Lindsay
 * Hugo Munsterberg
 * Jean Mitry

Major overhaul: Irrelevant material
The sections on "Post-war film", "Film Noir" (which is mostly about the French New Wave), "Italian neorealism", and "Japanese Formalism" are about national film movements, not theories. And the section labeled "Genre films" is actually about post-WW I German films. Consequently, I have removed these sections.
 * I see now that these sections were added by a new Wikipedia editor. I'll add info to his/her talk page to try to mentor his/her Wikipedia editing.--Jeremy Butler (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)