Chapter Questions

How does cinema reinforce the dominant ideology? What are the most important theoretical tools for analyzing cinema’s ideological function? 

The dominant ideology in cinema is related to the male gaze, and the male dominated field on what will be watched and sold. Using nudity, language, fear, and more are all qualities of what gets the revenue in. With that, the most important tools are what the people want to see. 

The tools of placement, lighting, actors, storyline etc., is what makes a cinema something worthwhile.

Why do so many theorists stress the importance of developing a counter-cinema? What are some examples of counter-cinema and how does it engage viewers differently? 

I think theorists stress the importance of developing counter-cinema for the sole reason of the use of art rather than what sells. We have seen throughout the semester movies and films that have shaped the way for others to succeed, and without counter-cinema, others can’t thrive. Examples of counter-cinema are women led films, documentaries, and art based films that take a moment to think about to understand. 

Why do theorists draw attention to how specific groups are represented on film? How do viewers relate to these representations? How do some viewers challenge these images? 

Without theorists drawing attention to specific groups I dont think films would continue to develop and change. Throughout history there has been and continues to be a lack of representation of marginalized groups. Viewers can relate to the lack of either on purpose of out of fury as it is mostly all white cast with the token gay guy, or the funny plus sized friend, or the single black friend. These are the movies that continue to be made, and it is so frustrating. Viewers can challenge this by not watching the films, or continue speaking up online.

Why did Laura Mulvey’s essay, “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema,” have such an immense impact? What were some of the specific debates that followed it? 

As talked about in class, Mulvey’s essay “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” was devoted to the hierarchy of male gaze. The impact this had was almost a wakeup call to the realization of the high female subjection to appeal to the male gaze. Debates were obviously followed with the disagreement, but also justification on how films need to have it.

There are several brief references in this chapter to issues related to sound and voice. If film is an audio-visual medium, why is sound so often overlooked? How does sound relate to the theoretical issues that developed during this period? 

The issues related to the sound and voice are interesting as films started with silent movies. As movies began to develop, sound of music and audio effects can change the tone of any scene without dialog, making it important to carry on the story. It can be overlooked because it is not direct dialog. Without it, it would be a different film, but since most of us have not lived through silent films, there is no reason to fully pay attention to it. This relates to the theoretical issues that develop in this period because of the development of silent films to modern cinema. 

Why were film scholars wary of the influence that French Theory and Screen Theory had held over the discipline? Why were subsequent debates about this sometimes contentious? 

Film scholars were wary of the influence that French and Screen theory had because I

was new. No matter what in society, when there is a common norm, something new is hard to adjust when everyone is so used to a certain style. Some scholars did not find these theories relevant, or the style and theories something to carry on.

Why did early cinema emerge as an important topic for film studies? How did the study of early cinema intersect with both historical poetics and media archaeology? 

Film studies I feel adopted early cinema for an important topic to talk about the history. The study intersects with all for the only reason that everything must start from somewhere. Poems can be used as a script or screenplay. Media adds to the script. Together they were able to make plays which evolved into films into the cinema we see today. 

How do cognitive film theorists conceptualize the spectator? How is this approach different from other, earlier assumptions about spectatorship? 

Cognitive film theorists focus on what the viewership will look like. Modern films today sometimes don't take that into perspective where the films can get lost while watching. This approach is different because that element used to not matter. Films are made for the conceptualization of spectators so the film can go beyond the workshop/ 

Does film theory have a future? Why or why not? 

I think yes, but to an extent. Film theory has a future if people are willing to study it. It is not different from art history. There is only so much you can study for film theory without coming up with new ideas and eventually not considered film theory anymore. Film theory is incredibly subjective, and is for a very niche group of people. It can forever be studied but I think it has the potential to grow.