Film’s Changing Form: Film’s Changing Form: Presence Found, Presence Lost?Presence Found, Presence Lost?

Kimberly A. Neuendorf, Ph.D.

School of Communication

Cleveland State University

November 5, 2004

Annual Conference of the Mid-Atlantic Popular and American Culture Association

Presence and Film—Presence and Film—A Simple AnalysisA Simple Analysis

Physical Presence = related principally to form characteristics: Sensory Bandwidth

Number of senses (e.g., sound, Aromarama, 4D) Level of sensory engagement (e.g., image resolution, color,

widescreen, surround-sound) Editing style

Invisible editing vs. obtrusive editing styles

Social Presence = related principally to content and context characteristics: Encapsulated narrative Availability of repeat viewing (Edison vs. Lumieres) Group viewing context

The Dilemma of Film & PresenceThe Dilemma of Film & Presence “Nonmediation” between the viewer. . . and what,

exactly? – Gollin (1992) notes that “What matters is the reality we in fact experience.” The “real” (e.g., everyday events, critical events) Past forms of representation of the “real” (e.g., the proscenium,

photography; Turvey, 2004) A new filmic reality—the diegesis

Green’s (2004) concept of “transportation into a narrative world” The mind

Much film scholarship that considers this notion Even invisible editing is dreamlike (Sitney, 2002) Luis Bunuel said Un Chien Andalou “profits by a mechanism

analogous to that of dreams” Psychologist Hugo Munsterberg’s idea that film is a medium of the

mind, not of the world; his 4-part hierarchy of mentality places emotion at the highest level, and is achieved when form mirrors mental activities

The Dilemma, ContinuedThe Dilemma, Continued

The bottom line—an existential issue

And, part 2--presence to what end?

(Marsh, 2003; Boorstin, 1995) Voyeuristic Actualities Visceral “Cinema of Attractions” Vicarious Early narratives (e.g., Hepworth,

Porter)

The Interweaving History of Film The Interweaving History of Film Form & Theory—Form & Theory—the Centrality of Presencethe Centrality of Presence

Even Intro to Film teaches—”representation,” “perspective,” and of course “realism” MANY waves of “Realism”—e.g., silent, Italian, Soviet,

Czech, Brazilian Cinema Novo Sigfried Kracauer insists that it is “the clear obligation and

the special privilege of film to record and reveal, and thereby redeem, physical reality”

Andre Bazin’s “aesthetic paradox”—that the “faithful reproduction of reality is not art”

Waves of activity—both in terms of film practice and scholarship—related to presence, across film’s 109-year history

Some examples. . . Some examples. . .

Magic Lantern Shows Magic Lantern Shows (1600s through 1800s)(1600s through 1800s)

The original “4D” experience

Eadweard Muybridge (1870s)Eadweard Muybridge (1870s)

Did not wish to create a sensation of reality, but rather chose to dissect it

Cinema of Cinema of Astonishment, orAstonishment, orSimple Actualities? Simple Actualities? (1890s)(1890s)

Lumieres’ Arrival of a Train Lumieres’ travelogues

Sergei Eisenstein & Synesthesia Sergei Eisenstein & Synesthesia (1920s)(1920s)

A concerted attempt to use somewhat obtrusive techniques to generate cross-modal sensations cutting to extend and compress time thematic montage & non-diegetic

inserts

The Machine Art of Dziga Vertov The Machine Art of Dziga Vertov & Busby Berkeley (1920s/30s)& Busby Berkeley (1920s/30s)

Creating “unreal” positions and juxtapositions

Pudovkin on Sound (1930s)Pudovkin on Sound (1930s)

“Is sound more real than picture because it is the reproduction of an aural fact whereas an image is a representation in two dimensions of a visual fact?” (rephrased by Andrew, 1976)

Gimmicks of the 1950s—Gimmicks of the 1950s—A Return to “4D” Attempts of A Return to “4D” Attempts of Magic Lantern Shows?Magic Lantern Shows?

William Castle’s “Ghost Vision” and “Percepto”

3D Movies Cinerama Aromarama

The French New Wave (1960s)The French New Wave (1960s)

A sloppy eclecticism “In your face” techniques:

Breaking the 4th wall Ironic ruptures Fake freeze frames

Contemporary Film TechniqueContemporary Film Technique “A cinema of narrative incoherence and stylistic

fragmentation”—related to music video styles (Vernallis, 2001)

Bordwell (2002) calls the current dominant style of U.S. commercial films “intensified continuity,” a simple amplification of long-established techniques: rapid editing bipolar extremes of lens lengths closer framings in dialogue scenes free-ranging camera

I would add to the list: obtrusive sound design—extreme mickeymousing, non-

sync sound

Given the Norms of Given the Norms of Contemporary Film --Contemporary Film --

Is Presence Lost?

Or, do viewers become accustomed to the “obtrusive” techniques?

Or, is a heightened “reality” created?

Calls to ActionCalls to Action

Presence scholars may learn much from film theory scholarship over the past 100 years May also consider a new type of presence, one of mental

emulation

Film scholars need to collect data to test their highly developed notions Bordwell’s “intensified continuity” vs. Neuendorf’s

“diegesis of insanity”

Content analysts could empirically chart the dominant stylistics relevant to presence

Film’s Changing Form: Film’s Changing Form: Presence Found, Presence Lost?Presence Found, Presence Lost?

Kimberly A. Neuendorf, Ph.D.

School of Communication

Cleveland State University

November 5, 2004

Annual Conference of the Mid-Atlantic Popular and American Culture Association