Is Film Philosophy Possible and What Aspects of Cinema May Become its Subject?
https://doi.org/10.17816/VGIK95937
Abstract
The use of a complex methodology in cinema studies is constantly being discussed. There are researches on sociology, psychology, aesthetics and semiotics of cinema. The movement towards an integrated methodology makes the idea of a philosophy of cinema relevant. The synthesis of different academic approaches in cinema studies can be only understood in terms of philosophy.
Each discipline sees and is able to explain through cinema merely what is connected with its agenda. An appropriate methodology needs to be developed so that these different aspects of cinema are transformed into the elements of a uniform system. The article analyzes the philosophical approach to cinema studies of Gilles Deleuze, who made cinema instrumental in examining time.
Deleuze’s work in question explores Henri Bergson's argumentation of dramatic changes in the perception of time. It would seem that it was cinema, with its ability to capture the dynamism of social life, that should have demonstrated the meaning of such changes. Bergson understood, quite traditionally, the ability of cinema to recreate time in the forms of space. Deleuze shares the conventional point of view on the fate of philosophy, which argues that previous philosophy disappears and, dissolving in art, exists only in artistic manifestations. The authors conclude that:
1. The intrusion of philosophy into cinema dictates the need to develop a theory as a mediator between film philosophy and filmmaking.
2. When studying cinema through other liberal sciences, it is necessary to avoid discussing specific aspects and strive for a systematic consideration.
3. The study of cinema from the point of view of various schools of thought, does not exclude finding points of contact between them.
4. The need for an integrated methodology in studying cinema involving philosophical angles is also dictated by the rapid development of technology. It is necessary to take into account what has already been accomplished in the philosophy of technology.
About the Authors
N. A. Khrenov
State Research Institute for Art Studies
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Doctor of Science in Philosophy, professor, head of the Section of the Artistic Problems in Media, Department of Media and Popular Arts
A. N. Khrenov
Academy of Media Industry
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
PhD in Cultural Studies, leading researcher, Research Section
References
1. Gaidenko P. (1970). Tragedia estetisma. Opyt harakteristiki mirosozertsaniya Serena Kirkegora [Tragedy of Aesthetism. The attempt of a definition of Soren Kirkegaard’s worldview]. Moscow: Iskusstvo. 1970. 246 p. (In Russ.).
2. Delez Zh. (2016). Kino [Cinema]. M.: Ad Marginem Press, 2016. 289 p. (In Russ.).
3. Jameson F. (2019). Postmodernism, ili kulturnya logika pozdnego kapitalizma [Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism]. Moscow: Izdatelstvo Instituta Gaidara. 2019. 427 p. (In Russ.).
4. L’Herbier M. (1988). Germes i molchanie [Hermes et le silence] // Iz istorii frantsuzskoi kinomysli. Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1988. 287 p. (In Russ.).
5. Nikonova S. (2020). Kinematografichesky opyt i kinematograficheskaya realnost [Cinematic experience and cinematic reality] // Kinematografichesky opyt. Istoria-teoriapraktika. Saint-Petersburg: Izdatelstvo Poriadok Slov, 2020. 360 p. (In Russ.).
6. Pazolini P-P. (1985). Poeticheskoye kino [Poetic cinema] // Stroyeniye filma. M.: Raduga, 1985. pp. 45–66. 280 p. (In Russ.).
7. Polikarpova D. (2020). Kinematograficheskiy opyt bez zritelia: filosofia kino kak filosofia kinematograficheskoi chuvstvennosti [Cinematic experience without a spectator: The philosophy of cinema as the philosophy of cinematic sensuality] // Kinematograficheskiy opyt. Istoria-teoria-praktika. Saint-Petersburg: Izdatelstvo Poriadok Slov, 2020. pp. 203–227 360 p. (In Russ.).
8. Radeev A. (2020). Povorot k perezhivaniyu: vot noviy povorot, chto on nam neset? [A turn to feeling: Here’s a new turn, what it will bring to us?] // Kinematograficheskiy opyt. Istoria-teoria-praktika. Saint-Petersburg: Izdatelstvo Poriadok Slov, 2020. Pp. 21–34. (In Russ.).
9. Khrenov N. (2018). Discurs A. Tarkovskogo s kulturologicheskoi tochki zreniya: russki messianism bes imperskogo kompleksa [The discourse of A. Tarkovsky from the cultural studies angle: Russian messianism with an imperial complex] // “Yaroslavsky pedagogichesky vestnik” journal. 2018., № 2. Pp. 169–178. (In Russ.).
10. Khrenov N. (2019). Novaya vizualnost kak problema kultury [New visuality as the problem of culture]. Moscow — St. Petersburg: Tsentr Gumanitarnyh Initsiativ. 2019. 416 p. (In Russ.).
11. Khrenov N. (2002). Publika v istorii kultury [Mass audience in the history of culture]. Moscow: GII., 2002. 496 p. (In Russ.).
12. Khrenov N. (2007). Publika v istorii kultury. Fenomen publiki v rakurse psihologii mass [Mass audience in the history of culture. The phenomenon of mass audience from the psychology of masses’ angle]. Moscow: Agraf., 2007. 496 p. (In Russ.).
13. Khrenov N. (1981). Sotsialno-psychologicheskie aspekty vzaimodeistvia iskusstva i publiki (Socio-psychological aspects of interaction between art and mass audience). Moscow: Nauka. 1981. 304 p. (In Russ.).
14. Elsaesser T., Hagener M. (2016). Teoriya kino: glaz, emotsii, telo [Film Theory: An Introduction through the Senses]. St. Petersburg: Seans. 2016. 440 p. (In Russ.).
15. Epstein M. Postmodern v Rossii. Literatura i teoriya [Postmodern in Russia. Literature and theory]. Moscow: Izdanie P.Elinina. 2000. 368 p. (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Khrenov N.A., Khrenov A.N. Is Film Philosophy Possible and What Aspects of Cinema May Become its Subject? Vestnik VGIK. 2021;13(4(50)):92-106. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17816/VGIK95937
Views:
38
Email this article 