Engaging the Moving Image
Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub
Noel Carroll, film philosopher, has gathered in this book 18 of his most recent essays on cinema and television - what Carroll calls moving images. The essays discuss topics in philosophy, film theory, and film criticism. Drawing on concepts from cognitive psychology and analytic philosophy, Carroll examines a wide range of topics. These include film attention, the emotional address of the moving image, film and racism, the nature and epistemology of documentary film, the moral status of television, the concept of film style, the foundations of film evaluation, the film theory of Siegfried Kracauer, the ideology of the professional western, and films by Sergei Eisenstein and Yvonne Rainer. Carroll also assesses the state of contemporary film theory and speculates on its prospects. The book continues many of the themes of Carroll's earlier work, Theorizing the Moving Image, and develops them in new directions. A general introduction by George Wilson situates Carroll's essays in relation to his view of moving-image studies.
within the providence of CD- Forget the Medium! ROM; while, at the same time, formal features of film—such as line, shape, space, motion, juxtaposition, and temporal and narrative structures—are things that film shares with many other arts. Consequently, it should be clear that, strictly speaking, there is no single and/or distinctive medium of film from which the film theorist can extrapolate stylistic directives; at best there are film media, some of which perhaps await invention even now.
the close-up leaves the spectator with nothing else to see but that which the director mandates. Whereas in theater, our attention might be drawn from center stage to stage right, when it comes to a close-up, there is no stage right to divert our attention. It has been, so to say, deleted. By means of devices like the close-up, the film director can assure that the spectator is looking exactly where, from the perspective of the narrative, he should be, at precisely the moment that he should be
makes up this film? In one sense, it is made up of— it consists in—photographic imprints subjected to light. At another level of description, it is made up of lines, colors, and closed shapes. These components then give rise to representational figures that refer to certain subjects or referents, namely the child and perhaps her empty bowl, which, in turn, may also be expressive of the human quality of pathos. Furthermore, the film may take a point of view toward the child, regarding her as
implying that, in large measure, film evaluation is a reasonable activity. This approach to film evaluation is not as unified as the one proposed by Introducing Film Evaluation classical film theory. Since classical film theory acknowledged only one category, it supplied a unitary metric according to which every film might be ranked. Every film could be compared for its cinematicity. The approach that I have been discussing is far more fragmentary, since I maintain that there are many
(Indianapolis: Hackett, ). But this is not the place to discuss Kant’s theory of aesthetic judgment. For heuristic purposes, I will pass over this complication except to say that the evaluations discussed in this essay are what Kant might have considered to be judgments of dependent beauty. . As this sentence indicates, though I think that figuring out the correct way to categorize a film solves a great many problems of film evaluation, I do not think that it settles them all. Even when one