Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
This thesis will explore how DVD technology has provided a new context for viewing films, and how these changes in the technology of film viewing has generated a new relationship between films and film viewers.
Typology: Thesis
1 / 60
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
A thesis presented to the faculty of the College of Fine Arts of Ohio University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts
Paul M. Bielecki June 2007
This thesis titled RETHINKING BAUDRY'S APPARATUS THEORY IN LIGHT OF DVD TECHNOLOGY
by PAUL M. BIELECKI
has been approved for the School of Film and the College of Fine Arts by
Adam J. Knee Assistant Professor of Film
Charles McWeeny Dean, College of Fine Arts
Dedication
To my constant companion, Dana Swartz.
Acknowledgments I would like to sincerely thank the members of my thesis committee for their time and dedication to this research project. Without the help of Dr. Adam J. Knee, Dr. Alessandra Ranego, and Dr. Keith M. Harris, this thesis could not have been possible. They contributed valuable criticism over the course of the past year. I would also like to acknowledge Professor Jack Wright for his constant advice and willingness to entertain my ideas. Finally, I would like to thank the proofreading team at First Editing for their timely and proficient work on this project.
Chapter 1: A Preliminary Discussion of DVD Technology The issue of the psychology of film viewing and the desire to formulate an adequate, theoretical explanation of the film viewing experience has held the interest of scholars and writers for nearly as long as motion pictures have been in existence. Similarly, throughout the history of the discipline of film studies, various thinkers and theorists have attempted to analyze and explain the experience of watching films through specific frameworks ranging from filmís mirror relationship to reality (as argued by Hugo Munsterberg), the power of editing to manipulate and possibly control film audiences (as theorized by the Soviet Montage writers, such as Eisenstein or Pudovkin), or the creation of meaning, which stems from film audiences and their interactions with film genres (as proposed by writers such as Robert Warshow, Leo Braudy, or Robin Wood). As the brief list of theorists and approaches demonstrates, the question of how film audiences interact with films remains a perennial subject of interest. Perhaps this can be traced to the fact that motion pictures are a dynamic medium that has continued to evolve throughout the past century. One such evolution, which will be explored in this thesis is the advancement of DVD technology over the past decade and the impact it has had upon the experience of film viewing. The goal of this thesis is to generate a model that discusses DVD technology within a carefully constructed theoretical framework. Such a task requires that I explain how DVD technology is different from earlier modes of film viewing, and what accounts for that difference. Since my claim is that it is the digital technology that is responsible for this difference in viewing experience, the methodology employed in the following chapters
can be roughly sketched out in the following way: I begin by providing a descriptive account of two problematic features of how apparatus theory seeks to provide a theoretical explanation as to how films affect viewers. This is necessary because Baudryís theory, although fraught with problems, can be recuperated and redirected to address specific issues regarding how DVD technology functions to create an alternative experience of film viewing. Next, I turn to an investigation into specific differences in viewing form, procedure, and context of DVDs compared to those that can be identified in earlier modes of film viewing, such as watching a film in a movie theater or on VHS tape or television. Once these differences have been established, I propose how DVD technology can be handled theoretically, through the introduction of the concept of a functionalist approach to DVD technology. This concept takes into account the role that digital technology plays in the construction of a viewerís experience while watching a film on DVD, and as such, this concept frames DVD technology in functional terms by addressing how DVD technology can be potentially utilized by filmmakers, as well as film viewers, in the creation of an alternative viewing experience which is unique to the DVD format. I test the functionalist approach by applying it to a case study, using the Sin City: Recut, Extended, Unedited DVD as the variable, in order to surmise if my concept is a valid option for serious theoretical consideration. I focus on certain aspects of the DVD, such as the presence of alternative versions of a film as opposed to the theatrical version and bonus features, for example, audio commentary tracks and behind the scenes
Chapter 2: Discussing Problematic Elements of Apparatus Theory In this thesis, I attempt to construct a theoretical framework for addressing the impact of DVD technology over the past decade. In order to support this claim it will be necessary to prove that DVD technology requires theoretical consideration, which is separate from previous discussions that have surrounded film and film viewing in the past. The position that I advance here is that a close analysis of DVD technology, which is patterned after specific elements of Jean-Louis Baudryís apparatus theory, can judiciously handle the complex issues surrounding DVD technology, which have yet to be thoroughly discussed. My approach is patterned upon a reconsideration of apparatus theory, because it focuses attention upon the technical machinery responsible for the experience of film viewing. Before moving on to introduce the conceptual reconsideration of apparatus theory in chapter three, it is necessary to provide a descriptive account of two problematic features of Baudryís theory, which rendered the original theory unworkable. Two features of apparatus theory that need to be addressed in order to articulate why it has long been considered unsupportable, are (i) the supposition that film viewers are inactive victims who are subjected to the ideology of the ruling class and cannot differentiate between the world of the film (a world of illusion) and the real world experienced by the viewer on a daily basis; and (ii) the belief that film viewers misidentify their identities with the identities of the characters on screen, thus making them vulnerable to the ideological positioning that Baudry argues is inherent in films. From this analysis, I move on to propose, that despite the inherent flaws within Baudryís
theory, a reconsideration of it can yield a more theoretically critical understanding of DVD technology, its impact upon the experience of film viewing, and the psychology of film viewing. Apparatus theory, as constructed by Jean-Louis Baudry through two essays (ìIdeological Effects of the Cinematic Apparatusî (1970) and ìThe Apparatus: Metapsychological Approaches to the Impression of Reality in Cinemaî (1975)) combined the concept of ideology and ideological state apparatuses (ISAs) proposed by the Marxist writer Louis Althusser, along with the psychoanalytic concept of mirror misrecognition and the role it plays in identity formation, advanced by Jacques Lacan, in order to explain the relationship between film texts and film viewers. Baudryís theory is not concerned with an analysis of a single film or any specific genre cycle of films; instead it concentrates on generating a metacomment upon the social activity of film viewing, an activity that Baudry believes can best be explained as functioning as one of Althusserís ISAs. However, upon a careful examination of Baudryís position, it becomes clear that the conception of film viewing as an ISA is highly problematic and difficult to support, as I demonstrate in this thesis. Before delving into Baudryís argument, it seems appropriate to address Althusserís concept of ideology and ISAs, which Baudry is using in his theory. In the essay , ìIdeology and Ideological State Apparatusesî, Althusser states that ìideology is a ërepresentationí of the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence.î 1 Ideology, for Althusser, is a process that generates a picture of everyday life,
(^1) Louis Althusser, ìIdeology and Ideological State Apparatuses (Notes Towards an Investigation),î in Visual Culture: The Reader , ed. Jessica Evans and Stuart Hall (London: Sage Publications, 1999), p. 317.
been interpellated by such a grouping and as a result identify themselves with that grouping. Film viewing may be an extremely widespread and popular social activity, but there is no evidence that the activity of film viewing functions in the same manner as membership in a family or in a church. In fact, the activity of film viewing is relatively new (a little over one hundred years old if we use the familiar date of 1895 and the Lumiere brothers as our reference point) and as such it does not have the proven social longevity that Althusser attributes to ISAs. Baudry tries to circumvent the problem under discussion by attempting to situate the newness of cinema as the latest incarnation of a shared human desire to entertain illusions, which goes back thousands of years, by referencing Platoís allegory of the cave found in The Republic. Baudry analogizes that the prisoners who are trapped in the cave should be understood as proto film viewers. He tries to draw parallels between the prisoners in the cave and modern day film viewers in order to support his claim. Using Althusserís distinction between reality and the illusion of reality that ISAs produce, Baudry discusses the allegory of the cave: As we have seen, Plato constructs an apparatus very much like sound cinema. But, precisely because he has to resort to sound, he anticipates an ambiguity which was to be characteristic of cinema. This ambiguity has to do with the impression of reality: with the means used to create it, and with the confusion and lack of awareness surrounding its origin, from which result the inventions whichmark the history of cinema. Plato effectively helps us to recognize this ambiguity. For, on the one hand, he is careful to emphasize the artificial aspect of reproduced reality. It is the apparatus that creates the illusion, and not the degree of fidelity with the Real. 3
(^3) Jean-Louis Baudry, ìThe Apparatus: Metapsychological Approaches to the Impression of Reality in Cinema,î inMarshall Cohen (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 765. Film Theory and Criticism: Introductory Readings, Fifth Edition, ed. Leo Braudy and
Here we find Baudry discussing Platoís allegory of the cave as something like an ancestor in the pre-history of films. However, Baudryís evocation of the allegory of the cave as a means of supporting his claim that film viewing should be understood as being an ISA does not hold up. To begin, Baudryís analogy between the prisoners in Platoís cave and film audiences seated in a movie theater is highly problematic. Baudryís use of Platoís cave as a metaphor for the activity of film viewing is not firmly supported by his claim that cinema is just the latest form of a human desire that reaches back through the centuries. As Noёl Carroll points out in his discussion of Baudryís use of the allegory of the cave, Baudry is divorcing the allegory from its place within The Republic , and as such is attempting to generate an alternate meaning from the allegory. Carroll asserts, ìBaudry tears the myth of the cave out of the context in which it functions as an allegory, and treats it as a fantasy ripe for psychoanalysis,î 4 which is a comment referring to another metaphor that Baudry employs, that of the ìdream screen.î The dream screen, a concept which originated in the writings of psychoanalyst Bertram Lewin, is used by Baudry in order to explain that the way dream imagery is projected in the mind of the dreamer is similar to how film imagery is projected before the eyes (and thus absorbed into the unconscious) of the film viewer. This appropriation of Platoís cave mainly functions to establish that the cinema is a fulfillment of an ancient human desire to indulge in imagery which appears to mirror our everyday reality without accurately revealing the ideological structures that underpin human society. While this tactic is necessary for Baudry in order to support his claim
(^4) Noёl Carroll, Mystifying Movies: Fads and Fallacies in Contemporary Film Theory (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988), p. 20.
Baudryís use of Lacanís concept of the mirror stage can be seen as being a similar strategy to his appropriation of Platoís allegory of the cave. To put it another way, Baudryís use of the mirror stage works in a similar manner to his manipulation of the allegory of the cave, in that both techniques serve to establish a strong connection between film viewing and human development and behavior. For Lacan, the mirror stage, beginning in the sixth month of infancy, refers to a development period when an infant first begins to develop a sense of its own identity as a being that is separate from its parents. Through the recognition of its own image in a mirror, the infant begins to formulate a conception of its identity, despite the fact that the infant still lacks mastery over its motor skills or bodily coordination. It is also during this stage when the infantís ego begins to develop. The concept of the mirror stage that Lacan describes is not necessarily intended to be taken literally, since the formulation of a childís identity begins irregardless of whether or not an infant manages to be located in front of a mirror and take notice of its reflection. In short, for Lacan, the mirror stage is an important stage in the development of individual identity, which every person experiences. However, Baudryís incorporation of the mirror stage as a method of explaining how film viewers identify with the films they watch differs significantly from the way in which the mirror stage is employed in Lacanian psychoanalysis. Baudry draws an analogy between the infant seeing its image in a mirror and identifying itself with the image and the film viewers, who, while watching the characters projected on screen, identify themselves with the images they see on the screen. Baudry describes this process in the following manner:
From the very fact that during the mirror stage a dual relationship is established, it constitutes, in conjunction with the formation of the self in the imaginary order, the nexus of secondary identification. The origin of the self, as discovered by Lacan, in pertaining to the imaginary order effectively subverts the ìoptical machineryî of idealism which the projection room scrupulously reproduces. Butit is not as specifically ìimaginary,î nor as a reproduction of its first configuration, that the self finds a ìplaceî in the cinema. This occurs, rather, as a sort of proof or verification of that function, a solidification through repetition. 5 Baudryís quote indicates how Lacanís concept of the creation of identity during the mirror stage is being extended well beyond the formative model that Lacan actually uses. Baudry is using Lacan as a means of elaborating upon his argument that the cinematic apparatus is responsible for the ideological construction of subject identity. The ìdual relationshipî which Baudry claims is established during the mirror stage, helps to explain how an ideological state apparatus creates the illusory sense of identity in individuals, while it actually interpellates them as subjects of the ruling class. Baudryís emphasis upon the imaginary order can be seen as a reference not only to the imaginary order that is created through an ISA, such as the church or family, but also upon the imaginary order that exists within the world of cinema. Classical film style suits itself to a mode of invisibility, thus allowing the artificial nature of motion pictures to go unnoticed, just as the artificial nature of ideology goes unnoticed by interpellated subjects. However, Baudry states that it is not in the ìoptical machinery of idealismî that is responsible for the identity formation of film viewers, but rather the repetition of film viewing.
(^5) Jean-Louis Baudry, ìIdeological Effects of the Basic Cinematic Apparatus,î in Film Theory and Criticism: Introductory Readings, University Press, 1999), p. 353. Fifth Edition, ed. Leo Braudy and Marshall Cohen (New York: Oxford
at best, is vulnerable to the possibility of confusion with some sort of pseudo identity resulting from what is projected on screen. This claim seems to be unsupported by Lacanian psychoanalysis, as well as by most theories that deal with an individualís identity formation. Once again, it appears that Baudryís attempts at framing the activity of film viewing as a process responsible for the identity formation of viewers, function as a means of supporting his claim that the cinematic apparatus is an ideological state apparatus that interpellates viewers into unknowing ideological subjects, while deceiving them into believing that they are actually individuals who are unique from other groups in society. A major flaw in Baudryís argument is the fact that films are a form of mass entertainment, catering to an amorphous grouping of people, where the typical distinctions and separations which exist between the various ISAs (such as church, family, or education) are, by and large, unimportant. There are no specific beliefs required for viewing a film. Aside from purchasing a ticket and not causing any interruptions, there are no tasks that are necessary to complete, and there are no recognized ideological agents (such as a priest, professor, or parental figure) who direct viewers in how to think or respond to particular events. By analyzing Althusserís concepts of ideology and ideological state apparatuses, it seems clear that Baudryís attempt to identify the machinery responsible for presenting films (projectors and projection screens) as being an ISA is unconvincing. The ISAs that Althusser discusses are capable of playing such a major part in the interpellation process because they are connected to the subjects in question on a daily basis. Family members are always family
members, there is no option for discussion or choice because familial relationships are final. This is not the case when it comes to film viewing, which is completely contingent upon the amount of free time a person may have, what types of films are being screened at a theater at any given date, and, perhaps most important, whether or not the viewer has enough money to purchase a ticket. Of course, it is important to note that ideological content can find its way into individual films or even into specific production cycles. It is possible to examine individual films in order to identify any possible ideological leanings of either the film or the filmmakers such as Leni Reifenstahlís Triumph of the Will (1935), Veit Harlanís Jud Suss (1940), or D.W. Griffithís Birth of a Nation (1915). The ideological content of these films are located within the presentational mode of characters (such as the divine image of Hitler, the parasitic representations of Jews in 19th^ century Germany, or the heroic construction of the Ku Klux Klan) rather than in the process of watching them. Ideological content is present in things other than character representation, which include plot structure, film style, and narrative themes, which become familiar cultural stereotypes. It is essential to make this distinction, since the ideological connotations of these films were detected by film audiences and protested against. This would indicate that film viewers are not necessarily ideologically constructed by the images they see on screen; if viewers can be cognizant of the ideological content of a specific film, it would seem that film viewing cannot be a genuine ISA as Baudry is claiming. If viewers were aware of how ideology is constructed, then Baudryís argument would be nullified, as Richard Allen points out:
