(Continued)
Previous articleFrom the motivation for discussing this topic, to my attitude toward film criticism, to the importance of feelings. This time we continue to talk about the knowledge and experience of film.
For both knowledge and experience, it is easy to understand. Knowledge, that is, the need to supplement the understanding of the art of cinema through book books. It is roughly divided into two types, one is familiar with the history of film, and the other is the study of film theory. In between, there is knowledge of film art creation. Film history, like other histories, is full of reincarnation. After reading it, we will look at contemporary cinema from a higher perspective and a broader perspective.
Through the combing of the development process of Westerns, we can perceive how this "past" film has been transformed into genre elements, integrated into a large number of science fiction films, and what new styles are presented in today's Westerns; through the Brighton School, Hollywood classicism in the 1910s, German spectacle films and chamber dramas, New Objectivism, 1920s European experimental narratives, International Experimental Films and Poetic Realism in the World War II period, Italian Neorealism and french New Wave in the 40s and 60s, From the political criticism films of the 60s to the 70s, the American independent films of the 80s and 90s, the Asian, African and Latin American films, etc. From the objective investigation, we can understand how Hollywood has gradually dominated the global market and formed the game state of today's films in production and industry. At the same time, we will also understand how many of the most popular art film directors in the United States, Asia, Europe and Latin America at the three major European film festivals and international independent film festivals are inherited from European art films from the 30s and 70s, and how many are deliberately abandoning the template of history; through the study of Chinese films in the new democratic period, left-wing film movements, Mandarin duck butterfly school, Great Wall school, Shenzhou school, lone island film, Soviet montage movement and later socialist realist films. We can understand how the most significant unique temperament of Chinese cinema came about, and how to continue to carry it forward, so as to avoid some of the current traps and misdirections. Of course, we can't ignore the history of documentaries full of gunpowder.
Film history is also a vast social/political/cultural/economic history, so in addition to focusing on the history of works, it is also necessary to shift our attention to other artistic styles and historical phenomena. The development of film not only reflects the social problems of many different eras, but also the result of the common influence of theater, painting, music, literature and so on. For example, the occupation of early French films by the Impressionists, such as the stimulation of video art on the expression of films, and the inspiration of three-dimensional futurism and constructivism on Soviet films. And how art forms such as Bonnai, Noh, Noh, Mandala, ukiyo-e and so on subtly influenced the development of Japanese cinema, and eventually condensed into today's Japanese film style. In addition, the evolution of movie viewing places also need to pay attention to, if you see the Nickel Cinema and the Film Palace, in the nearly one hundred years ago, the great changes in social life, you can understand why into the screen era, we are surrounded by mobile phones, computers, televisions and other screens every day, the theater as a public viewing space, still has irreplaceable significance - not only because of the large screen.
Some of the popular history books mentioned here are for reference only. The first must-read is the history of world cinema co-authored by David Podwell and Kristen Thompson, which is almost perfect in structure and writing, comprehensive and detailed. If you think the book is too thick, you can also read Janetti's "Knowing the Movie", which is not a history book in the strict sense, introducing many shots and style terms, but the content is very shallow, the writing is also good, suitable for entry. Another of Janetti's books, A Brief History of Flashback films, can also be read as an introductory read. In addition, the two volumes of "History of Chinese Cinema" edited by Cheng Jihua are important books to understand the development of Chinese films, and it is enough to pay attention to avoiding the ideology in it. The two "History of the Development of Contemporary Chinese Cinema" edited by Zhang Baiqing and Jia Leilei can also be used as references, but they are not particularly excellent readings.
For books that narrate historical fragments, Tadao Sato's "Movie in the Sound of Cannons" is very good, vividly reviewing the early fusion of Chinese and Japanese films, and the story is strong. And Richard Newbert's "History of French New Wave Cinema" and Jiao Xiongping's "French Film New Wave" are enough to know Truffaut, Godard, Chablore and Vadim. It is only inevitable that the two are somewhat disordered and narrow-minded, and they are very sorry to ignore the Left Bank. For historical theory, you can read Shao Mujun's "The History of Western Cinema" and Robert Allen and Douglas Gomel's "Film History: Theory and Practice". Books that judge history are often controversial, do not blindly admit to use, dialectical treatment can be. Reading history can also remind us of some interesting comparisons, such as the controversy about film or rationality or badness on the Internet today, and the controversy between soft films and left-wing films in the 30s, and the controversy between drama and film in the 80s, how many similar positions and atmospheres, and how many new literary characteristics.
Theory is the cornerstone of film criticism. Many people think that the theory is too mysterious and dispensable, which is anti-intellectual prejudice. For making movies, you really don't need to think too much, just pick up the machine to shoot, don't tie yourself up for one reason or another. But the great directors are all qualified film theorists, and after the film is filmed to a certain extent, there must be a relatively sufficient theoretical support to have more possibilities for progress. This is actually the well-known relationship between theory and practice. The same is true for film criticism, which may not initially require any theoretical knowledge to gilt the border, but theory will ultimately determine the ceiling of film criticism.
Theoretical books are basically difficult to understand, and it is generally better to understand the history of film after understanding them. On the other hand, film theory, as a post-study, draws heavily on philosophy, phenomenology, linguistics, sociology and psychology, etc., and it is interdisciplinary from the beginning. Therefore, to understand these, it is obviously necessary to study film theory. It should be noted that no film theory can unify all works, and it is necessary to avoid partial generalization and rigid fabrication.
Classical cinema theory ends with Jean Mitri, a film theorist I love very much. We can understand his ideas through his Film Aesthetics and Psychology and Film Semiotics Questioning, and distill some of them that are still applicable for our own purposes. We can examine contemporary cinema through his interpretation of the relationship between "reproduction-semantic-art", and through his "subjective and objective lens theory", we can observe whether the depiction of dreams and memories in a large number of films is reliable, and its most important "poetic aesthetics" theory is embodied in contemporary films. Modern film theory began with Christian Mytz, whose thesis "Imaginary Signifier" and the important work "Film Ideographic Generalism" cannot be ignored. Yang Yuanying's compilation of the "Film Theory Reader" contains many important papers from different periods and is the best object for understanding various theorists. And after film semiotics, it is the one person who cannot avoid all contemporary theoretical research: Jill Deleuze.
Deleuze's Motion-Image and Time-Image are also quite difficult to gnaw. Before challenging his book, there are many ways to prepare — such as getting acquainted with Bergson — or there will be a deep misunderstanding of Deleuze. Philosophy is the creation of concepts, and the concepts written by Deleuze, although they seem to be similar in words, are very different from our daily definitions, so they cannot be taken for granted. Deleuze "invented" a new film classification in two books. Through the analysis of examples, the book expounds concepts such as action-image, perception-image, recall-image, emotion-image, spirit-image and hyper-image, and finally leads to the vitality of "time-image", which has continuity and fragmentation, and conforms to the logical relationship between "recognition", "remembrance" and "dream". The typical manifestation of time-imagery is the crystal-image, and it is the existence of this image that makes montage possible.
It is impossible to briefly summarize Deleuze's theory. He was a very important philosopher and film theorist, a landmark figure who also introduced film theory into a new dilemma. After Deleuze, Jacques Rancière, who published The Fate of the Image, is also well worth reading. In addition, some philosophers were inspirational or passers-by of the film, such as Alain Badio, who explored the aesthetic dilemma, as well as Foucault, Althusser, sartre, etc., and it was beneficial to be exposed. Similarly, a better understanding of the views of these theorists requires tracing and malleable absorption, such as Saussure, Jacques Derrida, Benjamin, Gadamer, Baudrillard, and Guydeb.
We can apply Freud's psychoanalysis to some old films, and Jung can use Jung to elucidate the national psychological model behind superhero movies, and Kant can do a good job of exploring the mental transformations of film characters, especially those involving their childhood. For Saussure and Derrida, we can take a macroscopic look at the structure and mechanism of image language. Laura Mulvey's claims can be used in all feminist films, while Baudrillard and Cuydbo bring to mind a certain symptom of the era in which images are submerged. Confronted with Hitchcock's films, Deleuze claims that he created the psychic-image, which in turn paralyzed the motion-image picture. And Rancière explains how "Ecstasy" breaks Aristotle's logic of the chain of motion in order to pursue the "vertigo" effect, resulting in the continuous improvement of the film's artistic mechanism, but also becomes separate and unbalanced... Depending on the times, positions, and angles, theorists will make different interpretations of the film or author. Obviously, theory is a powerful weapon in film criticism.
I don't read much about film reviews, so I only recommend Bazin's What is a Movie? 》。 Looking at this book now, it is more worth learning from Bazin's sober attitude towards film, the rational debate of some conservatives about the misunderstanding and backward ideas of film, and his excellent writing. Although some of Bazin's views now seem to be somewhat backward, they can still be studied as a good theoretical book. But I don't recommend Roger Ebert's The Great Movie and Wake Up in the Dark, in fact, I prefer his attitude and stance to his writings. These two books are more mediocre in arrangement, and the translation does not reflect Roger's humor and irony very well, so it is better to go to the internet to search for his original English text. In addition, Susan Sontag's article is valuable, although it has little to do with the film, but it is very helpful for the critical approach. As for some books that introduce filmmaking techniques, unless you want to transform into a film creator, you only need to read a few books and understand some terminology and creation methods. They contain some important content, which can understand the process, links and techniques of film production, and help film critics to be more concise and accurate in expression. But also avoid treating it as a golden rule and falling into dogmatism.
Feelings and knowledge ultimately become our experiences. Aesthetic activities require our understanding of real life, which depends on experience and character, and more importantly, our aesthetic experience. The more experienced, the deeper the understanding and insight into the art of cinema. Separately, in the constant feeling of the film, we have accumulated a lot of visual experience. The amount of reading is an indicator, but we must also pay attention to quality. It is much more useful to appreciate a masterpiece with your heart than to see ten plain and mediocre works. However, there is no need to blindly pursue the amount of reading, when it has accumulated to a certain extent, the video experience combined with book knowledge is enough for critics to use. I have seen tens of thousands of people who have read films, and their understanding of movies is not as good as that of people who have only watched two thousand films, but have fully thought and studied.
This is more reflected in the ability of comparative analysis. Through knowledge and experience, we can understand why Bresson's "Diary of a Country Priest" is the greatest literary adaptation, why he always gives the door a few seconds of still shots, and how his exquisite capture of the movements of the characters is achieved. Innocent Man is undoubtedly a creative psychological thriller, but without exposure to Clayton's work, it's hard to see how Isle of Horror, Cry, and even Mulholland Drive are influenced by their ambiguous expressions. Also making good use of the empty mirror long mirror, what is the fundamental difference between Cai Mingliang, Apichatabong, and Beratal. To take a recent example, last year's Korean film "Swing Frenzy" is only a well-made genre film with a sad ending at first glance, but if we have tasted a lot of song and dance films since the 30s, we will find the director's new attempts at song and dance passages. Unfortunately, Swing Frenzy is only a taste of the new style, so this film did not achieve any groundbreaking, but it did surprise people.
With the development of imaging technology, a new emphasis, or requirement, for visual experience has been proposed - video games. Video games, as an imaging phenomenon, have an unusually close connection with movies, but at the same time have a huge difference in nature. Examining video games and comparing the similarities and differences between game images and movie images should gradually be listed as one of the necessary tasks of film critics. For film fans, ignoring the exuberant trend of video games in image creation makes it impossible to make a unique look at contemporary cinema. I'm not referring to games like Glory of Kings, League of Legends, or Hearthstone — they can certainly be used as references, but they don't make much sense. I'm referring more to games like Edith Finch's Memories, The Last Survivor, Wanda and the Colossus, Wind Traveler, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, the new God of War, and Only Wolves. Some subvert the inherent form of expression of the image, and some innovate the stereotyped narrative means of the image. Narrative-driven games often make extensive use of cinematic techniques and often show surprising developments.
However, the number of movies is too large, and we spend a huge amount of time reading films, but we can never rely on watching movies to be absolutely comprehensive. Therefore, through active reading and drawing on the summaries of our predecessors in a way other than watching the film, we have formed the necessary indirect experience. As a result, direct visual experience and indirect book experience will eventually build a healthy aesthetic and rational judgment system. And these, in turn, will act on the progress of individual sensibility.
"Literature is first" is a kind of truth. As a cultural carrier and art form, there will be no situation in which a film looks at everything and is on top. But that doesn't mean Michael Bay is on the same level as Kubrick, and Paul Anderson is just as important as Ridley Scott. Just as no one thinks that the works of Guo Jingming and Mo Yan have an equivalent literary nature. After the organic combination of feelings, knowledge and experience, we naturally have the ability to distinguish between good and bad works, rather than judging only by our own preferences and tastes. The difference in aesthetics is an objective existence, and whether you like this work or not should not be confused with the advantages and disadvantages of the objective quality of the work. I've had a penchant for some poor films, and I've realized that they're not great. Therefore, this is not to say that critics should maintain objective neutrality, but to emphasize once again that film criticism should be a product of subjective rational thinking.
Finally, I want to reveal the point that this article has been avoiding, that is, how to do a good job of film criticism, or how to correctly view the most critical point of film. After I have expressed so many dissatisfactions, cited so many character works, and talked about the importance of feelings, knowledge and experience, I sincerely believe that how to write a qualified film review, how to be a qualified appreciator, fundamentally, still depends on whether we are enough obsessed with and awe of movies. Love is the key to doing everything well.