Film and Phenomenology: Towards a Realist Theory of Cinematic Representation

by Allan Casebier

In Film and Phenomenology, Allan Casebier develops a theory of representation first indicated in the writings of the father of phenomenology, Edmund Husserl, and then applies it to the case of cinematic representation. This work provides one of the clearest expositions of Husserl's highly influential but often obscure thought. It also demonstrates the power of phenomenology to illuminate the experience of the art form unique to the twentieth-century cinema. Film and Phenomenology is intended as an antidote to all hitherto existing theories about the nature of cinematic representation, whether issuing from classic sources such as the film theory of Andre Bazin or the post-structuralist synthesis of Lacanian psychoanalysis, Barthesian textual analysis and Metzean cine-semiotics. Casebier shows how a phenomenological account of representation will further the aims of any film theory. Developing a viable feminist film theory, legitimising the documentary, answering the challenge of Derridean deconstruction, properly theorising narrativity, Film and Phenomenology argues that theory of film must be Realist both with respect to epistemology and ontological issues. In this way, this work runs contrary to the whole course of contemporary film theory, which has been deeply anti-Realist.

176 pages, Paperback

First published October 25, 1991

Reviews

[Jacob Kelly · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nominalists if I see you, it's fists. You've held film theory back for far too fucking long you muppets and quite frankly I'm sick of you! Working towards a realist theory of cinematic representation seems kind of odd at first when you're dealing with signs and the imagination but it does make a lot more sense than the alternative which takes even more unrealistic and lazy shortcuts in analysis. Husserl and Satre are obvious go tos to work this around and bring it in to film. Metz, Lacan, Freud, Derrida and the post modernists/structuralists then become the jumping points after that.

Phenomenonology reinforces Godard's game changing brilliance and the significance of a film like Breathless. It's easy to tap out on him with maturity but when you realise there's a pattern of shots involved in sequences and he was someone who really broke away from that by always thinking about leading you down the familiar then switching it up with a different shot that you don't expect, literally recreating the language and destroying the typical reinforced western bourgeois images, that was his big offering and I only respect him further. Phenomenonology is a model that allows you to explain how we know the shot patterns already. There are certain rules that we accept and processes we're unaware we're making. Phenomenonology teaches us how to recognise those. It's potentially a counterpoint to the spectacle which Debord and Vaneigem have described because it allows us to break down the images being cast out.

Not too sure on the feminist section here. I'm not saying it's awful, perhaps there's some good in what it sets as goals and phenomenonology could add. However, I don't understand how you can talk about the differences in the camera being used in the west/east to reinforce bourgeois ideology and there being a difference between representation and presentation, be so aware of the cameras perspective, the difference planes, spaces and editing and yet disagree with so much of what Mulvey has said about classic cinema and voyeurism. I think the writer seems somewhat confused over how aware filmmakers and spectators are over their own tendencies. Or maybe I'm just a bit of a cynic who believes everyone is a voyeur to some extent. Anyway, a lot of what he says just seems like a cop out in this section to me and not in line with what he's said previously.

An eye opener was how much Bordwell's ideas have been accepted and get taught pretty much from day one with relation to diegesis. Here we are laying out all these different boundaries and missing out all the crossings. This is a theory I've been looking for for a long time. Something to explain the gaps that the nominalists and idealists miss. It gets us one step closer to the Kelly grand theory of PsychoCondo. I have never really accepted the idea of dividing all these planes and of denying certain outside connections and even the strangest of associations. I believe there exists a layer of what could be termed shared dreaming and on this layer we can see both what other filmmakers have left behind, what a new filmmaker is adding and that these are the signifiers the audience pick up on. We need to become marksmen out on the range every day sharpening our eyes with culture to see these things cause there'd be nothing worse than to perfect this and have it go over heads due to lack of awareness in our zombified culture. If used correctly cinema will be fully utilised to it's best capabilities as a visual medium, taking account of space and location and conflicts will be fought in the most exciting and abstract ways yet unseen. Action cinema in particular will prevail with true economy. I've still not got this completely nailed down but phenomenonology is another step forwards.

[java · Rating 5 out of 5]

bekhon ta befahmi!