Yuri Lotman tells us about shots in cinema to be like the idea of language. We interpret meaning based on sequence/shots of events from what we know of outside settings. To create film criticism, we can't exactly talk about every single aspect of a shot we see in these films, so we "skim off" some parts from film for a better analysis. As I was reading his solution, I can't help but interpret it as that we criticize film based on a standard formula to determine what is "good and bad" film. If it doesn't follow the formula we set like, "exposition, rising action, climax, falling action, and resolution" then it can be considered terrible in terms of narrative structure. He raises the point that there's no such thing as an accidental or bad film because of the ability to derive meaning from it still. It was pounded into my head from earlier school days that they must follow such a formula. I had the longest time understanding this simple construct as I was reading these ideas of what is "good and bad" art.
In the theory of montage, I've also always believed montage to be combination of ideas/concepts to create meaning from chained together. Never thought about montage considered as a central element of film and media. Montage as a conflicting collision of social/political ideas does make the most sense in terms of what arouses emotions the most. The idea we have to question our sense of reality within the perspective of the film is a powerful one. Our ideas of social decency is put to the test and is explored thoroughly as to the point with the Rashomontage example. I've never seen the film but from what the basis is described to be, there's a certain sense of arbitrary notations that can be taken into to judge our own sense of reality. Do we blame the woman for being promiscuous or the victim of rape? Was she really attacked? Do we believe there's a shaman or magical force at work here? Did the bandit and woman think of this plan together against the samurai?
No comments:
Post a Comment