Proceedings of National Seminar on Postmodern ... - Igcollege.org

<strong>Proceedings</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>National</strong> <strong>Seminar</strong> on Postmodern Literary Theory and Literature , Jan. 27-28, 2012, Nanded 

Postmodernism and Film 

-- Rajendra Gonarkar 

School <strong>of</strong> Media Studies, SRTM Uni. 

Nanded. 

“Last night I was in the kingdom <strong>of</strong> shadows.” 

Maxim Gorky, on attending his first film 

screening. 

Introduction: 

Watching a movie takes almost all 

viewers out <strong>of</strong> their everyday lives and lands 

them into a complete different world. To this a 

Russian writer Maxim Gorky called “the 

kingdom <strong>of</strong> shadows”. Whether people watch 

a film in a theatre or the digitalized version at 

home on a DVD, they continue to visit 

Gorky’s kingdom (Tom Wallis, 2008). They 

immerse themselves in the lives <strong>of</strong> the 

fictional characters, develop opinions about 

historical events, and get captivated by the 

artistic combinations <strong>of</strong> colour, light and 

sound. Film engages viewers on an emotional 

level, but some criticize the cinema as an 

escapist entertainment. It is also praised as an 

imaginative art form that allows people to 

realize their dreams and fantasies. The reality 

is that films do both <strong>of</strong> these things and much 

more. 

The Theory <strong>of</strong> Film: 

The theory <strong>of</strong> film is almost as old as 

the medium itself whereas the cinema 

developed at the close <strong>of</strong> the nineteenth 

century. It evolved through the stages such as 

the advances in photography, mechanics, 

optics and the scientific production <strong>of</strong> 

serialized images (chrono photography). It also 

has its roots in the ancient form <strong>of</strong> popular 

entertainment, ranging from magic lantern 

shows and phantasmagorias, large-scale 

panoramas, dioramas and optical toys. 

From the very beginning, inventors, 

manufacturers, artists, intellectuals, educators 

and scientists asked themselves questions 

about the essence <strong>of</strong> cinema: was it a 

movement or otherwise, was it an image or 

writing, was it capturing place or storing time 

Besides its relationship to other forms <strong>of</strong> 

Dr. Ramesh Dhage 

School <strong>of</strong> Language, Literature & Culture 

Studies, SRTM University, Nanded 

visualization and representation, the question 

was; was it science or an art Did it elevate 

and educate, or distract and corrupt 

Discussions cantered not just on the specificity 

<strong>of</strong> cinema, but also on its ontological, 

epistemological and anthropological relevance. 

All the discussions ended up in the answers 

ranging from derogatory to scepticism. The 

first attempt to make film as a new medium 

took place in the early twentieth century and 

two representatives whose work can lay claim 

to the title ‘The first film theory’ are Vachel 

Lindsay and Hugo Munstgerberg (Richard 

Rushton and Gary,2010). 

Roots <strong>of</strong> Film Study : 

The acdemicization <strong>of</strong> film studies 

took root in the late 1960s, as humanities 

scholars imported film analysis into traditional 

humanistic programmes simulated by a more 

widespread renaissance <strong>of</strong> cinephilia within 

American culture, young pr<strong>of</strong>essors, and 

students took seriously to the study a <strong>of</strong> 

cinema as an intellectual pursuit. Students in 

literature classes attacked the Searchers (1956) 

and Psycho (1960) with hermeneutic fervour. 

Budding philosophers debated the existential 

worldviews <strong>of</strong> Bergman and Antonioni, 

Admitting film programmes into the academy, 

thus, established the legitimacy <strong>of</strong> film as an 

intellectual field <strong>of</strong> study. 

Postmodernism and film: 

Karl Marx is probably the most 

influential thinker <strong>of</strong> the last two centuries, 

both for those who accepted his ideas and, 

oddly by those who rejected him. Marx had 

argued that the economic base determines the 

superstructure <strong>of</strong> a society. The superstructure 

<strong>of</strong> society consisting <strong>of</strong> culture, ideology and 

politics follow the basic structure <strong>of</strong> society 

called capitalism. Ernest Mandel (1923-1995), 

for example, divided capitalism into three 

periods; 

519 PLTL-2012: ISBN 978-81-920120-0-1


a) Market 

b) Monopoly & 

c) Post-industrial phase 

The post industrial period began 

somewhere in between the end <strong>of</strong> the Second 

World War. The 1960s saw the increasing use 

<strong>of</strong> nuclear power and electronic machines. It 

also marks the beginning <strong>of</strong> the fall <strong>of</strong> the old 

empires and the multinational corporations 

eclipsed the nation-state concept (Andrew M. 

Butler, 2009). The American academic, 

Fredric Jameson, was one <strong>of</strong> the major 

scholars who labelled the era <strong>of</strong> the postindustrial 

as postmodern age. 

The names <strong>of</strong> the postmodern 

vanguards are Michel Foucault, Jacques 

Derrida, Jean-Francois Lyotrd and Richard 

Rorty who are its leading strategists. They set 

the direction <strong>of</strong> the movement. They also 

provided potent tools for its assessment. There 

are other contributors to this ideology who 

have earned infamous names for themselves, 

they are Stanley Fish and Franck Lentricchia 

in literary and legal criticism, Catharine 

Mackinnon and Andrea Dworkin in feminist 

legal criticism, Jacques Lacan in psychology, 

Robert Venturi and Andreas Huyseen in 

architectural criticism and Luce Irigaray in the 

criticism <strong>of</strong> science. 

Michel Foucault has identified the 

major targets, thus, “All my analyses are 

against the idea <strong>of</strong> universal necessities in 

human existence” (Stephen R. Hicks, 

2004).Such necessities must be swept aside, 

argues Foucault. 

Postmodernism, as a discursive 

stylistic grid has enriched film theory and its 

analysis by calling attention to a stylistic shift 

toward a media conscious cinema. Much <strong>of</strong> 

the work on postmodernism in film has 

involved the positing <strong>of</strong> a postmodern 

aesthetic, exemplified in such influential films 

as Blue velvet, Blade Runner and pulp fiction 

(James Monaco,2000). For Jameson, the 

postmodernism was to be viewed with a 

certain amount <strong>of</strong> suspicion. This approach is 

supported by other theorists. These aesthetics 

celebrated the copy or simulacrum over the 

original, style over substance, demonstrated a 

failure <strong>of</strong> emotion and individualism and 

frequently would be characterised by pastiche 

or nostalgia for an imagined golden age 

(Robert Stam, 2000). Jameson wrote about the 

nostalgic film in relation to Star Wars (1977), 

American Graffiti (1973), Something Wild 

(1986) and Blue Velvet (1984). Film, as 

supposedly a democratic, lowbrow, art form, 

was written about heavily by postmodern 

analysts, with Blade Runner (1932) being the 

ionic text for the new iconoclasts. 

Jameson discerns the neo-noir film 

‘Body Heat’ as’ nostalgia for the present.’ 

Films like American Graffiti for |Americans, 

Indo chine for the French and the ‘raj 

nostalgia’ films (Heat and Dust, A passage to 

India) for the British convey a wistful sense <strong>of</strong> 

loss for what is imagined as a simpler and 

grander time. For this stylistically hybrid 

postmodern cinema, both the modernist avantgarde 

modes <strong>of</strong> analysis with the cinema as the 

instigator <strong>of</strong> epistemological breakthroughs – 

and the modes <strong>of</strong> analysis developed for 

classical cinema, no longer quite ‘work’. 

Instead, libidinal intensities compensate for the 

weakening <strong>of</strong> narrative time, as the older plots 

are replaced by an ‘endless string <strong>of</strong> narrative 

pretexts in which only the experiences 

available in the sheer viewing present can be 

entertained’. 

The movie Clueless by Joe 

Dante could be seen as a reflection <strong>of</strong> 

postmodernism. The rewriting <strong>of</strong> Austen’s 

story no longer just belongs to her. The 

characters <strong>of</strong> Emma and Mr Knightly, depicted 

by the novelist have been pushed into oblivion 

by the versions in the movie. The joy is in 

seeing how the characters in the movie enjoy 

sexual liberty, which is absent with the 

characters in the novel. (Tom Wallis & Maria 

Pramaggiore, 2008) The liberty exercised by 

the film maker made the characters in the 

visual form more appealing than the ones in 

the written version. 

Conclusion: 

In the present times when the world is 

dominated by information technology, film 

continues to remain as an inevitable tool <strong>of</strong> 

public education and entertainment. The timetemper 

has dried human relations. Man has 

become isolated and lost communication with 

the outer world. This hollow space in human 

life constitutes the content <strong>of</strong> postmodernism 

which has been forcefully brought to the 

notice <strong>of</strong> the world by cinema. It is, therefore, 

520 PLTL-2012: ISBN 978-81-920120-0-1


the assessment <strong>of</strong> cinema in the context <strong>of</strong> 

post-modern film theory is an inevitable need. 

References: 

1. Tom Wallis and Maria 

Pramaggiore, Film A Critical 

Introduction, Laurence King 

Publishing Ltd. London, 2008. 

2. Richard Rushton and Gary 

Bettinson, What is Film Theory, 

An Introduction to Contemporary 

Debates, open University Press, 

England, 2010 

3. Andrew M. Butler, The pocket 

Essential Film Studies, 2009 

4. Stephen R. Hicks, Postmodernism 

scepticism and socialism from 

Rousseau to Foucault, Scholargy 

Publishing , New Berlin,2004 

5. Robert Stam, Film Theory- An 

Introduction, Blackwell 

Publishing, Malden,2000 

6. James Monaco, How to read A 

film, Oxford University Press , 

New York,3 rd edition, 2000 

521 PLTL-2012: ISBN 978-81-920120-0-1


Application <strong>of</strong> Film Theory on Hollywood Animated Movie Antz 

Kale Sandip Sahebrao 

Indira Gandhi Sr. College, Nanded. 

Abstract:- 

1.Film theory in general 

2.Henri Bergson’s opinion on film theory 

3.Instroduction to Antz 

4.Production and reception <strong>of</strong> Antz 

5.Comparision between Antz and a Bugs Life 

6.Application <strong>of</strong> Film theory to Antz 

7.Anew tide in animated 3D movies with didactic purpose 

8.Individual vs Society 

9.Critical conclusion 

Keywords:- 

1.Cenemetagraphy terminology 

2.Film theory in general 

3Conformist society 

4.hard socialism 

5.hard individual 

6.facist methodology 

7.critical reception 

8.critical consesus 

9.tremendous humanism 

Film theory is as intrinsic as the film 

itself. As we know it’s an academic disciple that 

aims to explore the essence <strong>of</strong> cinematography. 

Film theory also provides conceptual 

frameworks for fancy and imagination and other 

complementary arts. Henri Bergson truly hailed 

film theory as an amalgamation <strong>of</strong> the 

movement image and the time image film theory 

took up residence in academia importing 

concepts from established disciplines like gender 

studies, psychoanalysis, anthropology, literary 

theory semiotics and finally linguistics. This 

paper will apply film theory on a 3D Hollywood 

child-movie Antz. The paper will deal with the 

thematic dimensions, production values and 

reception by audience all over the world.(Stam, 

Robert:1). 

Antz is a current computer animated 

action adventure film produced by 

DreamWorks. Ant was directed by Eric Darnell 

produced by Brad Lewis, written by Paul Weitz 

and cinema to graphied by S. J. Smith Antz 

features the voices <strong>of</strong> well-known celebrities 

like woody Allen, Sylvester stone and Jennifer 

Lopez. [2] Along with Finding Nemo and Shark 

Tales, Antz is notable for being part <strong>of</strong> Disney- 

Dream works. This movie was released little 

more than a month before Pixar’s A Bug’s Life, 

which was coming out opposite Dream work the 

prince <strong>of</strong> Egypt. Even though a bug’s life was 

the first to be pitched, Antz was finished and 

leased first. Though the general public tends to 

say they are similar in many ways, <strong>of</strong>ten 

claiming one ripped-<strong>of</strong>f the other, the only true 

commonality they have is that they both include 

a work and falling in love with a princess 

out.(Stam, Robert:3) 

Loosely based on the novel Brave New 

World by Aldous Huxley, the setting for the 

story is an ant colony in Central Park in New 

York City, under the chronological time span <strong>of</strong> 

4 days. The protagonist (Woody Allen) is Z- 

4195, or "Z" for short, a neurotic and 

individualistic worker ant living in a wholly 

conformist society who longs for the opportunity 

to truly express himself. His friends include 

fellow worker Azteca (Jennifer Lopez) and a 

soldier ant, Weaver (Sylvester Stallone). Z 

meets Princess Bala (Sharon Stone) at a bar 

where she goes to escape from her suffocating 

royal life and falls in love with her. In order to 

see Bala again, Z exchanges places with Weaver 

and joins the army. He marches with the ranks, 

befriending Barbatus (Danny Glover), another 

522 PLTL-2012: ISBN 978-81-920120-0-1


soldier, in the process. He doesn't realize that the 

army's leader and Bala's fiancé, the corrupt 

General Mandible (Gene Hackman), is secretly 

sending all the soldiers loyal to the Queen to die 

so he can begin to build a colony filled with 

powerful ants. At the base <strong>of</strong> a tree near 

nightfall, Z realizes he's actually marching into 

battle, and all <strong>of</strong> the soldiers except for Z are 

killed by the acid-shooting termites. Following 

the battle, all Z can find <strong>of</strong> Barbatus is his head. 

Before he dies, Barbatus tells Z to think for 

himself rather than follow orders all his life. Z 

returns home and is hailed as a war hero, 

congratulated personally by the secretly irate 

General Mandible, and is brought before the 

Queen. There he meets Princess Bala, who 

eventually recognizes him as a worker. When Z 

finds that he has been cornered in a lie, he panics 

and takes Princess Bala hostage. They escape 

the colony and hide, and Z decides to search for 

the legendary Insectopia. Bala reluctantly 

decides to go with him after she narrowly 

escapes from a hungry praying mantis. Word <strong>of</strong> 

the incident quickly spreads through the colony, 

whereupon Z's act <strong>of</strong> individuality sparks a 

revolution in the workers. As a result, 

productivity grinds to a halt. Seeing an 

opportunity to gain control, General Mandible 

begins to publicly portray Z as a villain who 

cares only about himself. Mandible then 

promotes the glory <strong>of</strong> conformity and promises 

them a better life, which he claims to be the 

reward <strong>of</strong> completing a "Mega Tunnel" planned 

by himself. Mandible learns Z is looking for 

Insectopia after interrogating Weaver. Knowing 

full well <strong>of</strong> the place's existence, Mandible sends 

his aide, Colonel Cutter (Christopher Walken), 

to its location to retrieve the Princess and kill Z. 

Cutter, however, slowly begins to have second 

thoughts about Mandible's plans and agenda and 

develops sympathy for the worker ants. 

The film topped the box <strong>of</strong>fice in its 

opening weekend, earning $17,195,160 for a 

$7,021 average from 2,449 theaters. In its 

second weekend, the film held the top spot 

again, with a slippage <strong>of</strong> only 14% to $14.7 

million for a $5,230 average and expanding to 

2,813 sites. It held well also in its third weekend, 

slipping only 24% to $11.2 million and finishing 

in third place, for a $3,863 average from 2,903 

theaters. The film's widest release was 2,929 

theaters, and closed on February 18, 1999. The 

film altogether picked up $90,757,863 

domestically, recouping its $60 million budget, 

but failing to outgross its competition with A 

Bug's Life. The film picked up an additional $81 

million overseas for a worldwide total <strong>of</strong> $171.8 

million, making it a box <strong>of</strong>fice success. Antz is 

the first animated film, as well as the first CGIanimated 

film, by DreamWorks and the 

second computer-animated film released in the 

United States after Toy Story. The film was 

originally released to theaters on October 2, 

1998. 

Z and Bala, after misdirection and a 

brief separation, finally find Insectopia, which 

consists <strong>of</strong> a human waste-bin overfilled with 

decaying food (a treat for insects <strong>of</strong> all kinds). 

Here, Bala begins to reciprocate Z's feelings. 

However, during a break, Cutter arrives and 

takes Bala back to the colony. Z finds them gone 

and makes his way back to the colony to rescue 

Bala, aided by a wasp named Chip (Dan 

Aykroyd), whom he met earlier and has made 

himself drunk grieving over the loss <strong>of</strong> his 

swatted wife, Muffy (Jane Curtin). Z arrives at 

the colony, where he finds that Bala has been 

held captive in General Mandible's <strong>of</strong>fice. After 

rescuing her, he learns that General Mandible's 

"Mega Tunnel" leads straight to a body <strong>of</strong> water 

(the puddle next to Insectopia), which Mandible 

will use to drown the queen and the workers 

who have gathered at the opening ceremony. 

Bala goes to warn the workers and her mother at 

the ceremony, while Z goes to the tunnel exit to 

stop the workers from digging any further. He 

fails, however, and the water leaks in. Z and 

Bala unify the workers into a single working 

unit and build a towering ladder <strong>of</strong> ants towards 

the surface as the water continues to rise. 

Meanwhile, General Mandible and his 

soldiers are gathered at the surface, where he 

explains to them his vision <strong>of</strong> a new colony with 

none <strong>of</strong> the "worker filth". He is interrupted, 

however, when the workers successfully claw 

their way to the surface and break through. 

Mandible tries to kill Z but is stopped by Cutter, 

who finally rebels against Mandible and instead 

tries to help Z and the worker ants out <strong>of</strong> the 

hole "for the good <strong>of</strong> the colony." Mandible then 

snaps, yelling that he is the colony, and charges 

523 PLTL-2012: ISBN 978-81-920120-0-1


toward Cutter, who is, however, pushed away by 

Z at the last moment. Mandible inadvertently 

takes Z with him back down into the flooded 

colony, and gets killed when he lands upon a 

root while Z falls into the water. Cutter, taking 

charge, orders the other soldier ants to help the 

workers and the queen onto the surface while he 

himself rescue Z. Although it seems that Z has 

drowned, Bala successfully resuscitates him. Z 

is lauded for his heroism and marries Bala. 

Together they rebuild the colony with Cutter as 

their General, transforming the colony from a 

conformist military state into a community that 

values each and every one <strong>of</strong> its members. The 

film is loosely based on the novel Brave New 

World by Aldus Huxley; the setting for the 

strong is an ant colony in central park in New 

York City, under the chronological time span <strong>of</strong> 

4 days. The protagonist z is symbolically a 

neurotic and individualistic worker and living in 

a wholly conformist society who longs for the 

opportunity to truly express him. The film also 

paradise the suffocating royal life as well as the 

war lord general. Here the motifs like insectopia, 

mega-tunnel, praying mantis and towering 

ladders are very symbolic. The antagonist 

mandible is truly a fascist Hitler like hypocrite is 

really a momentum <strong>of</strong> the movie The Antz is 

truly didactic, z is lauded for his heroism and 

married princess Bala. Together they rebuild the 

colony with cutter as their general, transforming 

the colony from a conformist military state in to 

a community that values each an d every one <strong>of</strong> 

its members. [4] 

This movie received positive reviews. 

Review aggregate rotten tomatoes reports that 

95% <strong>of</strong> critics have given the film a positive 

review based on 85 review with an average 

score <strong>of</strong> 7.7/10. The critical consensus is 

References:- 

1. Stam, Robert. Film Theory : An Anthology, 

New York, Wiley-Blackwell.2010 (P.1) 

wonderful animation backed by humor and the 

vocal talents <strong>of</strong> its cast make for an entertaing 

movie, Antz 

was the first animated dream works film 

to receive over 90% <strong>of</strong> its reviews as very 

positive and the only one until How to Train 

Your Dragon. Even Roger Berts praised the film 

saying that it’s sharp and funny”. The variety <strong>of</strong> 

themes, interesting visuals and voice acting were 

each aspects <strong>of</strong> the film that were praised. 

According to time magazine the protagonist is a 

limit neurotically oppressed sexually obsessed 

flumly fanny urban male who somehow 

stumbles his way to conditional happiness time 

further asserts. In the dark-toned computer 

animation kids may be puzzled by rebellious 

worker ants chanting Marxist slogans. (Stam, 

Robert:9) 

According to a positive response is a 

milestone <strong>of</strong> animation complexity despite some 

visual sameness, it clearly contrasts a vast 

underground world with the larger one under the 

sun, and deftly keeps a love strong alive amid 

crucial political crisis. .(Stam, Robert:14). 

Hence we can assert that the film strikes 

creative gold with a sequence in which 

protagonist Z breaks out <strong>of</strong> his stifling situation 

by trading places with weaver buddy and a 

hunky warrior who’d rather be a worker ordered 

into battle, emerges as a hero and this gets big 

attention from his love with whom ultimately 

flees the colony. Thus we can say that Z and 

Bala encounter the giant world <strong>of</strong> humans. They 

both get stepped on by a kid but cling to a piece 

<strong>of</strong> gum and the bottom <strong>of</strong> his shoe as he runs 

through a park. The action is shown from their 

point <strong>of</strong> view and it’s a gem. 

5. Ibid. Stam, Robert. Film Theory : An 

Anthology, New York, Wiley-Blackwell.2010 

2. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antz 

3. Stam, Robert. Film Theory : An Anthology, 

New York, Wiley-Blackwell.2010. 

4. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/antz/ 

524 PLTL-2012: ISBN 978-81-920120-0-1


Adumbration <strong>of</strong> Major Concepts in Film Theory 

--Sushil A. Deshmukh, 

Tuljaram Chaturchand College, 

Baramati Dist- Pune, 413102. 

Cinema has arguably been the most 

powerful cultural phenomenon <strong>of</strong> the twentieth 

century. As a mode <strong>of</strong> mass public culture, art 

practice, vehicle <strong>of</strong> propaganda and 

documentary reflection, it has been integral to 

the development <strong>of</strong> modern societies. Film 

theory is an academic discipline which intends 

to explore the essence <strong>of</strong> the Cinema and 

provides ideas and principles based frame works 

to understand film’s relationship to reality, the 

other arts, individual viewers and society at 

large. Living in a multi-centered media world, 

academia has begun to draw upon from an 

elective range <strong>of</strong> disciplinary approaches- media 

and cultural studies, anthropology, sociology, 

film and performance studies and more, to 

accommodate perspectives and research 

methods from both the humanities and social 

sciences. 

Literature, media and films are means <strong>of</strong> 

communication and these have had an enormous 

influence on every single one <strong>of</strong> us. Film theory 

is a verbal representation <strong>of</strong> the film complex. 

However, Film Theory is not to be confused 

with general film criticism, though there can be 

some crossover between the two disciplines. 

One <strong>of</strong> the notable predecessors <strong>of</strong> the 

development <strong>of</strong> ‘Film Theory’ is the French 

philosopher Henri Bergson. His work “Matter 

and Memory” (1896) had wide influence ‘during 

the birth <strong>of</strong> cinema. Bergson coined the terms 

“the movement image” and “the time image.” 

Early Film-Theory arose in the silent 

era and was mostly concerned with defining the 

crucial elements <strong>of</strong> cinema as a medium. It 

largely evolved from the works <strong>of</strong> directors like 

Germaine Dulac, Louis Dellue, Jean Epstein, 

Sergei Eisenstain, Lev Kuleshov, and Dziga 

Vertov and film theorists like Rudolf Arnheim 

and Bela Balazs. These individuals emphasized 

how film differed from reality and how it might 

be considered a valid art form. However, the 

French critic Andre Bazin voiced against this 

approach. He argued that film’s essence lay in 

its ability to mechanically reproduce reality, not 

in its difference from reality. American scholar 

David Bordwell has used the humorously 

derogatory term “SLAB theory” to refer to film 

studies based on the ideas <strong>of</strong> Saussure, Lacan, 

Althusser and Barthes. Film always exceeds 

attempts to institute such New- Critical readings, 

because <strong>of</strong> its history. Film’s promiscuity points 

every day and in every way toward the social. It 

is three things, all at once: a recorder <strong>of</strong> reality; a 

manufacturer <strong>of</strong> reality and part <strong>of</strong> reality.Film 

is a marker <strong>of</strong> culture: 

………………….not even the final 

target <strong>of</strong> enquiry, but part <strong>of</strong> a wider 

argument about representations-- the 

social process <strong>of</strong> making images, 

sounds, signs stand for 

something………….In effect, Film 

Theory becomes part <strong>of</strong> the wider field 

<strong>of</strong> disciplines and approaches called 

cultural studies (Turner 1988:38). 

This suggests that the study <strong>of</strong> cinema is about 

how consciousness and systems <strong>of</strong> value are 

created and either bind society together or 

illuminate its fissures. Film attained its majority 

as one <strong>of</strong> the principal new forms <strong>of</strong> inter-war 

communication. Along with the popular press 

and radio, it was designated as ideal for 

propaganda and social uplift. 

Specific Theories <strong>of</strong> Film: 

Apparatus theory – Apparatus theory came into 

prominence in 1970s. The term 'cinematic 

apparatus' refers to both an industrial machine as 

well as a mental or psychic apparatus. Jean 

Louis Baudry and Metz and Mulvey analyze the 

cinema as an institutuion. Baudry explored his 

ideas about the cinematic apparatus in his essay 

‘ Ideological Effects <strong>of</strong> the Basic 

Cinematographic Apparatus’. He maintains that 

cinema is by nature ideological because its 

mechanics <strong>of</strong> representation are ideological. Its 

mechanics <strong>of</strong> representation include the camera 

and editing. The central position <strong>of</strong> the spectator 

within the perspective <strong>of</strong> the composition is also 

ideological. Apparatus theory argues that cinema 

525 PLTL-2012: ISBN 978-81-920120-0-1


maintains the dominant ideology <strong>of</strong> the culture 

within the viewer. Ideology is not imposed on 

cinema but is its integral part. 

Auteur theory – Auteur theory draws on 

the work <strong>of</strong> group <strong>of</strong> cinema enthusiasts who 

argued that films should reflect a director’s 

personal vision. The word ‘auteur’ is the French 

word for author. In 1954, Francois Truffaut 

wrote an essay entitled A Certain Tendency in 

French Cinema. In this work he claimed that 

film is a great medium for expressing the 

personal ideas <strong>of</strong> the director. He suggested that 

this meant that the director should therefore be 

regarded as an auteur. In fact, Truffaut once 

provocatively said that “There are no good and 

bad movies, only good and bad directors”. 

Auteur Theory suggests that a director can use 

the commercial apparatus <strong>of</strong> film-making in the 

same way that a writer uses a pen or a painter 

uses paint and a paintbrush. Sometimes this 

theory is useful when analyzing the works <strong>of</strong> 

actors who are working within the ‘star system’ 

For example, it is possible to interpret Golmal 3 

in relation to the canon <strong>of</strong> films created with 

Ajay Devgan in them. Auteur theory holds that 

a director’s film reflects the director’s personal 

creative vision. The best films will bear their 

maker’s ‘signature’ Alfred Hitchcock is one <strong>of</strong> 

the first names who comes to mind when talking 

about auteur theory. His most famous films are 

Vertigo, Psycho, The Birds and Rear Window. In 

law, the film is treated as a work <strong>of</strong> art, and the 

auteur as the creator <strong>of</strong> the film is the original 

copyright holder. Under European Union Law, 

the film director is considered the author or one 

<strong>of</strong> the authors <strong>of</strong> a film, largely as a result <strong>of</strong> the 

influence <strong>of</strong> auteur theory. 

Feminist Film Theory–Feminist film 

theory was influenced by second wave feminism 

and the development <strong>of</strong> women’s studies within 

the academy. Feminist film theory inspired from 

sociological theory and focused on the function 

<strong>of</strong> women characters in particular film narratives 

or genres and <strong>of</strong> stereotypes as a reflection <strong>of</strong> a 

society’s view <strong>of</strong> women. Claire Johnston was 

among the first feminist critics to <strong>of</strong>fer a 

sustained critique <strong>of</strong> stereotypes from a semiotic 

point <strong>of</strong> view. She put forward how classical 

cinema constructs the ideological image <strong>of</strong> 

woman. Drawing on Roland Barth’s ‘notion <strong>of</strong> 

myth’ Johnston investigated the myth <strong>of</strong> 

‘Woman’ in classical cinema. The sign ‘woman’ 

can be analyzed as a structure, a code <strong>of</strong> 

convention. It represents the ideological 

meaning that ‘woman’ has for men. In relation 

to herself she means nothing (1919:25): women 

are negatively represented as ‘not man’. The 

‘woman as woman’ is absent from the text <strong>of</strong> the 

film. Molly Haskell’s “From Reverence to Rape: 

The Treatment <strong>of</strong> Women in Movies (1974) 

analyze how the women portrayed in film 

related to the broader historical context, the 

stereotypes depicted the extent to which the 

women were shown as active or passive, and the 

amount <strong>of</strong> screen time given to women. For e.g. 

women have mainly played decorative objects in 

Hindi cinema for a long time. Or, even in films 

where they had important roles, they are more 

victims and martyrs or victimizers <strong>of</strong> other 

women. Rarely have films like Kunku presented 

women as strong women who can raise their 

voice against injustice, who can rebel in their 

own way and make their own political 

statement. 

Formalist Film Theory–Formalism is 

primarily concerned with style and how it 

communicates ideas, emotions and themes. Two 

examples <strong>of</strong> ideological interpretations that are 

related to formalism: the classical Hollywood 

cinema has a very distinct style, sometimes 

called the Institutional Mode <strong>of</strong> Representation, 

secondly, continuity in editing, massive 

coverage, three point lighting, “mood” music, 

dissolves, all designed to make the experience as 

pleasant as possible. 

Film noir which was given its name by 

Nino Frank is marked by lower production 

values, darker images, under lighting, location 

shooting and general nihilism: this is because, 

we are told during the war and post-war years 

filmmakers were generally more pessimistic. 

Italian film The Bicycle Thief is a great example 

<strong>of</strong> film noir. It can be argued that, by this 

approach, the style or language <strong>of</strong> these films is 

responsible, but by social, economic and 

political pressures <strong>of</strong> which the film makers 

themselves may be aware or not. It is this branch 

<strong>of</strong> criticism that gives us such categories as the 

independent movement, the New American 

526 PLTL-2012: ISBN 978-81-920120-0-1


independent movement, the new queer cinema 

and the French, German and Czech new waves. 

Genre Studies–Genre studies are a structuralist 

approach to literary theory, film theory and other 

cultural theories. The study <strong>of</strong> a genre in this 

way examines the structural elements that 

combine in the telling <strong>of</strong> a story and find 

patterns in collections <strong>of</strong> stories Genre studies 

have gained the most recognition in film theory 

where the study <strong>of</strong> genre directly contrasts with 

auteur theory which privileges the directors’ role 

in crafting a movie. 

Psychoanalysis Film Theory– 

Psychoanalysis and the cinema were born at the 

end <strong>of</strong> the nineteenth century. They share a 

common historical, social and cultural 

background shaped by the forces <strong>of</strong> modernity. 

Theorists commonly explore how 

psychoanalysis, with its emphasis on the 

importance <strong>of</strong> desire in the life <strong>of</strong> the individual, 

has influenced the cinema. A great many films 

from the first half <strong>of</strong> the 20 th century drew upon 

psychoanalytic concepts such as: the 

unconscious as in Keaton’s Sherlock Jr.; dream 

work in Cavalcanti’s Dead <strong>of</strong> Night; the Oedipus 

complex in Olivier’s Hamlet and psychoanalysis 

itself as in Hitchcock’s Spellbound. Historically 

speaking film and psychoanalysis have always 

been close siblings. The unconscious studied by 

psychoanalytic film theory has been attributed to 

four different agencies: the filmmaker, the 

characters <strong>of</strong> a film, the film’s audience, and the 

discourse <strong>of</strong> a given film. 

1) The filmmakers unconscious: - In its 

earliest stages, psychoanalytic film theory 

compared films to such manifestations <strong>of</strong> the 

unconscious as dreams, slips <strong>of</strong> the tongue, and 

neurotic symptoms. Just as these are considered 

to be manifestations <strong>of</strong> a patients unconscious, 

films were considered to be manifestations <strong>of</strong> a 

filmmaker’s unconscious. 

2) The Character’s Unconscious: - Here 

the focus is on the character <strong>of</strong> a given film and 

their behavior and dialogue is being analyzed in 

an attempt to interpret traces <strong>of</strong> their 

unconscious. 

3) The Audience’s Unconscious: - The 

audience focused approach will <strong>of</strong>ten focus on 

the way in which the behavior and dialogue <strong>of</strong> 

certain characters can be interpreted as 

manifestations <strong>of</strong> our unconscious. Thus, as we 

sit quietly in the dark and forge are psychic 

bonds with this or that character, we 

unconsciously project our own fantasies, 

phobias and fixations. 

4) The Unconscious <strong>of</strong> Cinematic 

Discourse: - This version <strong>of</strong> psychoanalytic film 

theory abandons the character central approach 

and focused instead on how the form <strong>of</strong> films 

replicates or mimics the formal model <strong>of</strong> the 

conscious/unconscious mind posited by 

psychoanalysis. 

Marxist Film Theory–Marxist film 

theory is one<strong>of</strong> the oldest forms <strong>of</strong> film theory. 

Sergei Eisenstein and many other soviet 

filmmakers in the 1920s expressed ideas <strong>of</strong> 

Marxism through film. In fact, Hegelian 

dialectic was considered best displayed in film 

editing through the Kuleshov Experiment and 

the development <strong>of</strong> montage. 

Sergei Eisenstein <strong>of</strong>ten considered to be 

the “father <strong>of</strong> Montage”. He is well known 

particular for his silent films ‘Strike’, ‘Battleship 

Potemkin’ and ‘October’. His articles “Film 

Form and The Film Sense” explain the 

significance <strong>of</strong> montage in detail. Eisenstein 

believed that “collision” <strong>of</strong> shots could be used 

to manipulate the emotions <strong>of</strong> the audience and 

create film metaphors. According to him an idea 

should be derived from the juxtaposition <strong>of</strong> two 

independent shots, bringing an element <strong>of</strong> 

collage into films. This he called ‘methods <strong>of</strong> 

montage’. In his film ‘Strike’ a shot <strong>of</strong> striking 

workers being attacked cut with a shot <strong>of</strong> a bull 

being slaughtered creates a film metaphor 

suggesting that the workers are being treated like 

cattle. This meaning does not exist in the 

individual shots; it only arises when they are 

juxtaposed. At the end <strong>of</strong> ‘Apocalypse Now’ the 

execution <strong>of</strong> colonel Kurtz is juxtaposed with 

the villagers’ ritual slaughter <strong>of</strong> a water buffalo. 

Concepts similar to montage 

would arise during the first half <strong>of</strong> the 20 th 

century, such as Imagism in poetry specifically 

Ezra Pounds’ Ideogrammic Method or Cubism’s 

attempt at synthesizing multiple perspectives 

into one painting. 

527 PLTL-2012: ISBN 978-81-920120-0-1


Conclusion 

To conclude, Humanities divisions are hiding 

places for radical cultural critics for whom film 

study provide an opportunity to help shift the 

ground <strong>of</strong> whole realm <strong>of</strong> humanities. Film 

theory born in the world <strong>of</strong> humanities has been 

based on the efficacy and import <strong>of</strong> metaphors 

about the film phenomenon. Since metaphors are 

more readily generated than are computerized 

analyses <strong>of</strong> audience questionnaires or minute 

descriptions <strong>of</strong> hundreds <strong>of</strong> obscure films, the 

discourse <strong>of</strong> film theory is destined to remain in 

this literary world. 

References:- 

•Eisenstein Sergei M. Film Form: Essays in Film 

Theory & The Film sense. (1949) Harcourt 

Brace & Co. 

•J. Dudley Andrew (1975) The Major Film 

Theories. Oxford University Press 

•Thomas Elsaesser, Mallte Hagener (2009) Film 

Theory: An Introduction through the Senses. 

Rout ledge 

•Toby Miller, Robert Stam (2004) A 

Companion to Film Theory. Blackwell 

Publishing. 

528 PLTL-2012: ISBN 978-81-920120-0-1


Title: HUMAN BONDING IN VIOLENCE IN THE FILM: PINJAR 

India’s partition in 1947 and the holocaust that allowed it made every 

sensible feels that it was grave blender to divide this ancient country on the 

grounds <strong>of</strong> religion. 

Post- independent and translation textual and cinematic works have 

revisited the violence <strong>of</strong> India-Pakistan partition and cross border migration 

with specific attention to the abduction, raping and mutilation <strong>of</strong> women’s 

bodies through literary texts and films like: Megh Dhake Tara, Tamas, Gadar, 

Earth , Pinjar etc. Communal violence among Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims was 

not only due to mutual hatred among the communities for historical and 

religious reasons. There were other factors responsible for the bloodshed. The 

psychoanalyst Sudhir Kakar, holds sociological reasons for the violence: 

“On a more sociological level, the chief reason for the preponderance <strong>of</strong> specifically sexual 

violence in the partition riots in the north is that, as compared to the many other parts <strong>of</strong> the 

country, the undivided Punjab (and continue to be) a rather violent society. It’s high murder 

rate is only one indication <strong>of</strong> one’s land or <strong>of</strong> personal and family honour”. 

The present paper focuses on the theme <strong>of</strong> human bonding in violence 

during partition in the film: Pinjar. The film is based on the novel by Amrita 

Pritam by the same name in 1950. 

Pinjar is one <strong>of</strong> the most influential stories <strong>of</strong> Pritam at least in south 

asian literature circles. Pinjar (skeleton), a dark narrative <strong>of</strong> the cross religious 

abductions <strong>of</strong> woman that took place in the partition. The protagonist Puro, is a 

Hindu woman who is abducted and forcibly married into a Muslim family. Puro 

isn’t a single victim, there are so many women who were abducted and forcibly 

change their religion, during partition riots. Pritam’s story is somewhere 

between a realist (ethnographic and historical) account <strong>of</strong> particularly nasty 

aspects <strong>of</strong> women’s experience <strong>of</strong> the partition, on the one hand and a more 

internal psychological portrait where realism is only a secondary goal on the 

other hand. 

The novel is filmed in 2003 and directed by Dr.Chandraprakash Dwivedi. 

In an interview with Dr. Dwivedi, he answered the question, what prompted 

him to make a film on the novel: 

529 PLTL-2012: ISBN 978-81-920120-0-1


“ History always talk <strong>of</strong> the victories, literature talks <strong>of</strong> defeats. History speaks <strong>of</strong> what is 

while literature talks <strong>of</strong> what could have been but both talk <strong>of</strong> what should not have been. 

Partition is a wound, which doesn’t heal ever. There are lot <strong>of</strong> painful memories associated 

with it and those who have gone through it are still haunted by memories”. 

The film starts with Puro’s (Urmila Martondkar) carefree life with her 

parents (Kulbhushan Kharbanda and Lillete Dubey) and brother Trilok 

(Priyanshu Chatterjee) and two sister, one <strong>of</strong> them is Rajjo(Isha Koppikar). The 

film moved during 1946 and 1948, the time <strong>of</strong> freedom from British colonies 

and the air <strong>of</strong> partition <strong>of</strong> the land India and Pakistan. 

Puro’s marriage is fixed with a wealthy, decent and scholar young man, 

Ramchand (Sanjay Suri) and it is decided that Trilok will be marry with Lajjo, 

Ramchand’s sister (Sandali Sinha). But one evening Puro is kidnapped by 

Rashid (Manoj Bajpai). Puro’s family is grief stricken but they neither bother to 

lodge police complaint nor look for her. When girl is kidnapped mysteriously 

from a house, she is as good as dead for her family. What is the reason- Rashid 

explains it – the two families – his and hers – haven been rivals for some years 

now. Her grandfather had gone one <strong>of</strong> his aunts kidnapped and kept her at their 

house for three successive nights, while his grandfather, father and uncle 

pledged revenge. It was done thing so, now it was Puro’s turn to face the 

consequences <strong>of</strong> her ancestors’ misdeeds. One night Puro succeeds to run away 

and reaches her parent’s house but they refuse to take her back because their 

community won’t accept her and nobody will marry her. Puro decides to get 

suicide but Rashid waits for her near the well and takes her back with him. He 

loves her genuinely; he has repentance for his deeds. Puro also slowly adjusts 

with her new life and identity with the new name Hamida though she can’t 

forget her root, her parents, her village and her love. 

Life goes on for everybody except Trilok and Ramchand, Trilok searches 

his sister Puro and Ramchand yet waits for his Janaki. 

This situation <strong>of</strong> these three persons are narrated through a beautiful song 

sung by Jagjeet Singh: 

“Haath Choote bhi to Rishte Nahi Choota Karate 

Waqt ki Shakh se Lamhe Nahi Toota Karate.” 

530 PLTL-2012: ISBN 978-81-920120-0-1


Months pass and the Hindu-Muslim unrest grow with each passing day. 

The partition takes place and thousands <strong>of</strong> Hindu and Muslim families are 

displaced overnight, riots breakout, girls are kidnapped and raped while men are 

brutally killed. Ramchand’s family is also forced to leave the place, 

unfortunately Lajjo is kidnapped by a Muslim man. Puro gets to know this 

through Ramchand who has been forced to seek refuge in the nearby village. 

She decides to search her sister in law with Rashid’s help .After some attempts, 

she manages to not only rescue Lajjo but also hand over to her brother 

,Ramchand. 

The last seen <strong>of</strong> the film is important when Puro once again departs from 

her people. Trilok tells her that Ramchand is ready to marry her and take her 

back but she explains that now she adjusted herself with her new identity, a wife 

<strong>of</strong> Rashid, 

“don’t make me homeless again.” 

Pinjar is the saga <strong>of</strong> human strength during trying times. A saga that is far from 

being the story <strong>of</strong> victims The film interrogates not only but how we know it. 

Pinjar is the strength and hope that epitomizes the way many people responded 

to the brutal past. The film is the representation <strong>of</strong> the partition, the story <strong>of</strong> the 

division lives seen and experienced by a young woman, Puro. Where we know 

the recorded facts in the history, Pinjar revisits the sprit <strong>of</strong> that time. The desire 

to live combat circumstances, the will to change the world and the suffering for 

anyone untouched by the mayhem. Puro is the symbol <strong>of</strong> undaunted strength 

and determination. Like Puro, the women’s struggle during this time was 

through silence which eventually transformed into the silent movement where 

Puro’s refused to become helpless victims to the crossfire <strong>of</strong> polity. Puro’s 

mission and inner strength are very poignant nuances the film highlights. It’s 

about Puro, her selflessness and her ability to keep aside her personal grief and 

strive for the happiness <strong>of</strong> the others. On those counts Pinjar is heart wrenching. 

References: 

1.Cinema in India,A quarterly magazine. 

2.Interview with Dr. Dwivedi:Hindu Times. 

3.M.P.Sinha:Indian Fiction in Translation:Atlantic Publishers,2005. 

531 PLTL-2012: ISBN 978-81-920120-0-1


Webliography: 

Lotusread.com 

BHORE ASHWINI R. 

Nagari, 

Road 

‘Usha’,13,Ayodhya 

Taroda(kh),Malegaon 

Nanded. 

Mob:9423137302. 

532 PLTL-2012: ISBN 978-81-920120-0-1


Film Theory 

Film theory is an academic discipline that aims to explore the essence <strong>of</strong> 

the Cinema and provides conceptual frame works for understanding film’s 

relationship to reality, the other Arts, individual viewers, and society at large. 

Film theory is not to be confused with general film criticism, though there can 

be some crossover between the two disciplines. 

French Philosopher Henri Bergson’s “Matter and Memory” (1896) has 

been cited as anticipating the developments <strong>of</strong> film theory during the birth <strong>of</strong> 

cinema. Bergson coined the terms “The Movement Image” and “The Time 

Image”. Early film theory arose in the silent era and was mostly concerned with 

defining the crucial elements <strong>of</strong> the medium. This work is largely evolves from 

the works <strong>of</strong> directors, like Germaine Dulac, Louis Delluc, Jean Epstein, Sergei 

Eisenstein, Lev kweshov, and Dziga Vertoy and film theorists like Rudolf 

Arnmeim, Bela Balazs and Siegfried Kracher. These individuals emphasized 

how film differed from reality and how it might be considered a valid art form. 

French film critic Andre Bazin Says.: 

“Film’s essence lay in its ability , 

to mechanically reproduce reality; 

not in its difference from reality.” 

In 1960 and 1907s, film theory took up residence in academic importing 

concepts from established disciplines like Psychoanalysis, gender studies, 

anthropology, literary theory semiotics and linguistics. 

The late 1980s, or early 1990s, did film theory achieve much 

prominence in American universities by displacing the prevailing humanistic, 

auteur theory that had dominated cinema studies and which had been focused 

on the practical elements <strong>of</strong> film writing, production, editing and criticism. 

American scholar David Bordwell has spoken against many prominent 

developments film theory since the 1970s, i.e. he uses the humorously 

derogatory term “SLAB Theory” to refer to film studies based on the ideas <strong>of</strong> 

Saussure, Lacan, Althusser, Barthes. Bordwell Promotes what he describers as 

“Ne<strong>of</strong>ormalism”. During 1990s, the digital revolution in image technologies 

had an impact on film theory in various ways. Film ability to capture an 

“indexicl” image <strong>of</strong> a moment in time by theorists like Mary Ann Doane, Philip 

Rosen, and Laura Mulvey who was informed by Psychoanalysis. A 

psychoanalytical perspective, Lacanian “ The Real”, Slavoj Zizek “The gaze”, 

extensively used in contemporary film analysis. 

533 PLTL-2012: ISBN 978-81-920120-0-1


Television writer David Weddle says – 

“Film theory as practiced in the early 2000s, is a form <strong>of</strong> bait 

and switch, taking advantage <strong>of</strong> young, would be film-makers, anyone in 

Hollywood film making who used film theory terms like “fibula” and 

“Syuzhet” would be laughed <strong>of</strong>f the lot.” 

Roger Ebert sys, - 

“Film theory has nothing to do with film.” 

Film historian Kevin Brownlows says, “Academic film theorists are typically 

quite aggressively Marxist”. 

In 2008, German film maker Werner Herzog sys – 

“Theoretical film studies has become really awful, that’s not how 

you should study film, abolish these courses and do something 

else which makes much more sense.” 

Some theories <strong>of</strong> film as follows 

1) Apparatus Theory :- 

It derived in part form Marxist film theory, semiotics and 

psychoanalysis, was a dominant theory within cinema studies during 

1907s. It maintains that cinema is by nature ideological because its 

mechanics <strong>of</strong> representation are ideological. Its mechanics or 

representation include camera and editing. This theory argues that 

cinema maintains the dominant ideology <strong>of</strong> the culture within the 

viewer. Ideology is not imposed on cinema, but is part <strong>of</strong> its nature. 

Apparatus theorists like – Jacque Lacan, Louis Althusser, Jean-Louis 

Baudry, Jean- Louis Comolli, Christian Metz, Giorgio Agamben, 

Laura Mulvey, Peter Wollen, Constance penley. 

2) Auteur Theory :- 

In film critism, auteur theory holds that a directors film reflects the 

director’s personal creative vision. Auteur French word meaning 

“author”. The production <strong>of</strong> film as a part <strong>of</strong> an industrial process, 

the auteurs creative voice is distinct enough to Shine through all 

kinds <strong>of</strong> studio interference and through the collective process. The 

auteur, as the creator <strong>of</strong> the film, is the original copyright holder. 

European Union Law Says – 

“The film director is considered the author or one <strong>of</strong> the 

authors <strong>of</strong> a film, largely as a result <strong>of</strong> the influence <strong>of</strong> 

auteur theory.” 

The theory influences film criticism since 1954, it was advocated by 

film director and critic Francois Truffaut. This was originally associated with 

534 PLTL-2012: ISBN 978-81-920120-0-1


French New Wave, French film review periodical “Cahiers du cinema”. It was 

developed later in America through the writings <strong>of</strong> ‘The village voice’ critic 

Andrew Sarris. He analysed it as a serious work through the stuty <strong>of</strong> respected 

directors, and their films. This theory comes from “Alexandre Astrue’s” notion 

<strong>of</strong> the camera stylo or camera pen. Andre Bazin and Roger Leenharot presented 

the theory that it is the director that brings the film to life and uses the film to 

express their thoughts and feelings <strong>of</strong> the subject matter as well as a world view 

as an auteur. 

3) Feminist Film Theory :- 

Feminist Film Theory is theoretical film criticism derived from 

feminist politics and feminist theory. Feminists have many 

approaches to cinema analysis, regarding the film elements 

analysed and their theoretical underpinnings. It was influenced by 

“Second wave Feminism”, and the development <strong>of</strong> ‘Women’s 

studies’, within the academy. Early 1970s, were based on 

sociological theory and focused on the function <strong>of</strong> women 

characters in particular film narratives or genres and <strong>of</strong> 

stereotypes as reflection <strong>of</strong> a society’s view <strong>of</strong> women. Marjorie 

Rosen’s “Women, Movies and the American Dream” (1973) 

Molly Haskell’s “The Treatment <strong>of</strong> Women In Movies” (1974) 

analyze how the women portrayed in film as active or passive and 

the amount <strong>of</strong> screen time given to women. Analysis Say – 

Cynthia Says- 

“The production <strong>of</strong> meaning in a film text, the way 

text constructs a viewing subject, and the ways in 

which the very mechanisms <strong>of</strong> cinematic 

production affect the representation <strong>of</strong> women and 

reinforce sexism” 

“ Feminist frameworks for horror films focused on psychodynamics and 

chief interest in watching horror films”. 

Feminist film theory focused on – 

“ Disparate feminisms, nationalisms, and media in various location and 

across class, racial and ethnic groups throughout the world” 

Film theorists and critics like – Carol J. Clover, Molly Haskell, Dai Jinhua, 

Claire Johnstong Teresa de Lauretis, Laura Mulvey, Griselda Pollack, Ruby 

Rich, Keja silverman. 

4) Genre Studies :- 

Genre studies are a structuralist approach to literary theory, film 

theory and other cultural theories. Genre theory or studies got 

underway with the Greeks. They felt that – 

535 PLTL-2012: ISBN 978-81-920120-0-1


Aristotle said, 

“The type <strong>of</strong> person an author was directly responsible for 

the type <strong>of</strong> poetry they wrote”. 

“ We have, a natural instinct <strong>of</strong> representation and for tune and 

rhythm and starting with these instincts men very gradually 

developed them until they produced poetry.” 

This is all based on platos mimetic theory. The Romans carried on the Greek 

tradition <strong>of</strong> literary criticism. At the end <strong>of</strong> 18 th century, the theory <strong>of</strong> genre 

based on classical thought. Pamphlets and broadsides began to diffuse 

information, new genres like novel were being generated. Lock’s “An Essay 

concerning Human Understanding”, (1690). In 18 th century literary critics find 

a theory more commensurate with the realities <strong>of</strong> individual texts within 

genres. In 19 th and 20 th century it was influenced by deconstructionist thought 

and the concept <strong>of</strong> reality. ex. Jacques Derrida wrote “The Law <strong>of</strong> Genre”. 

Current state <strong>of</strong> genre theory focuses on rhetorical genre. The category <strong>of</strong> genre 

is divided into – aesthetic, ritual, ideological. Genre works to promote 

organization, classify works. “Metagenre is nothing” but “Situated language 

about situated language.” The concept metagenre provides a valuable way to 

understand the dynamics <strong>of</strong> institutional at interrelations between genres. 

Miller defines it as “Typified rhetorical actions”. It evolves as “a form <strong>of</strong> social 

knowledge.” Some are computer and video game genres, film genre, formula 

fiction, genre fiction, literary genre, Music genre, Plot device, stock character, 

genre criticism. 

5) Marxist Film Theory :- 

It is one <strong>of</strong> the oldest form <strong>of</strong> film theory. Serget Eisenstein and 

Many other soviet filmmakers in 1920s expressed ideas <strong>of</strong> 

Marxism through film. Hegelian dialectic was considered best 

displayed in film editing through the Kuleshov Experiment and 

the development <strong>of</strong> montage. Structuralist approach to Marxism 

and filmmaking was used. Russian filmmakers had the narrative 

structure <strong>of</strong> Hollywood filmmaking. French Marxist film makers, 

such as Jean-Luc Godard, would employ radical editing and 

choice <strong>of</strong> subject matter, as well as subversive parody, to 

heighten class consciousness and promote Marxist ideas. 

Situationist film maker Guy Debord author <strong>of</strong> “The Society <strong>of</strong> 

the Spectacle.” began his film “In girum imus nocte et 

consumimur igni” (Wadering around in the night we are 

consumed by fire) Marxist film theory has developed from these 

precise and historical beginnings and in now sometimes viewed 

in a wider way to refer to any power relationships or structures 

within a moving image text. 

6) Philosophy <strong>of</strong> Language Film Analysis:- 

536 PLTL-2012: ISBN 978-81-920120-0-1


The philosophy <strong>of</strong> language film analysis is a form <strong>of</strong> film analysis that 

studies the aesthetics <strong>of</strong> film by investigating the concepts and practices 

that comprise the experience and interpretation <strong>of</strong> movies. It is based on 

the philosophical tradition begun by Ludwig Wittgenstein. Critics from 

this tradition <strong>of</strong>ten clarify misconceptions (citation needed) used in 

theoretical film studies and instead produce analysis <strong>of</strong> a films 

vocabulary and its link to a form <strong>of</strong> life. Richard Allen – 

“Cognitive Film Theory”, Stephen Mulhall “on film”, Rupert Read and 

Jerry Good enough “Essays on cinema” are some examples. 

7) Psychoanalytical Film Theory:- 

Psychoanalytical film theory is a school <strong>of</strong> academic film 

criticism that developed in the 1970s and 80s, is closely allied 

with critical theory, and that analyzes films form the perspective 

<strong>of</strong> psychoanalysis, generally the works <strong>of</strong> Jacques Lacan. The 

film viewer is seen as the subject <strong>of</strong> a ‘gaze’ that is largely 

constructed by a film itself, where what is on screen becomes the 

object <strong>of</strong> that subject’s desire. The theory stresses the subject’s 

longing for a completeness which the film may appear to <strong>of</strong>fer 

through identification with an image. 

8) Screen Theory:- 

Screen theory is a Marxist film theory associated with the British 

Journal Screen in the 1970s. The theoreticians <strong>of</strong> this approach Colin 

Maccabe, Stephen Heath and Laura mulvey describe the “Cinematic 

apparatus” as version <strong>of</strong> “Althusser’s Ideological state Apparatus” 

(ISA). According to screen theory, it is the spectacle that creates the 

spectator and the other way round. The subject is created and subjected 

at the same time by the narrative on screen is masked by the apparent 

realism <strong>of</strong> the communicated content. Some works – Stephen (1981) 

“Theoretical Essays”. 

9) Structuralist Film Theory:- 

Structuralist film theory is a branch <strong>of</strong> film theory that is rooted 

in structuralism, itself based on structural linguistics, nowobsolete 

branch <strong>of</strong> linguistics. Structurealist film theory 

emphasizes how films convey meaning through the use <strong>of</strong> codes 

and conventions not dissimilar to the way languages are used to 

construct meaning n communication. The Juxtaposition <strong>of</strong> the 

images convey the meaning to the audience. Some works – 

Christrian Metz, Kuleshov Experiment. 

10) Fictional Film:- 

Fictional film or narrative film is film that tells a fictional story or 

narrative. Narrative cinema is ususlly contrasted to films that 

present information, such as nature documentary, as well as to 

some experimental films Michael Snow’s “Wavelength”, “Dziga 

537 PLTL-2012: ISBN 978-81-920120-0-1


Vertoy’s” Man with a Movie Camera”, or film by Chantal 

Akeraman in such instances documentary films, while nonfiction, 

may nonetheless recount a story. Unlike literary fiction which is 

based on characters, situations and events that are entirely 

imaginary; cinema always has a real referent called the “Pr<strong>of</strong>ilmic”, 

which encompasses everything existing and done infront 

<strong>of</strong> camera. In classical Hollywood, i.e. in 20 th century, narrative 

usually in the form <strong>of</strong> the feature film, has held dominance in 

commercial cinema and has become popularly synonymous with 

“The Movies”. Classical, invisible filmmaking is realist fiction, 

and its key element is continuity editing. 

11) Film:- 

A film also called a movie or motion picture, is a series <strong>of</strong> still or 

moving images. It is produced by recording photographic images 

with cameras, or by creating images using animation techniques 

or visual effects. The process <strong>of</strong> filmmaking has developed into 

an art form and industry. Films are cultural artifacts created by 

specific cultures, which reflect those culture and in turn affect 

them. The word ‘film’ comes from the fact that photographic film 

(film stock ) has historically been the primary medium for 

recording and displaying motion pictures. Many other term like – 

picture, picture show, Moving picture, photo-play, flick, the big 

screen, the silver screen, the cinema and the movies. Films are 

made up <strong>of</strong> a series <strong>of</strong> individual images called ‘Frames’. 

However film theory seeks to develop concise and systematic 

concepts that apply to the study <strong>of</strong> film as “Art” 

References:- 

1) Robert stam, Film Theory : an introduction. Orford ; 

Blackwell Publishers, 2000. 

2) A Film Theory Reader, Columbia University press 1986. 

3) Los Angeles Times Magazine, “Lip Service”, March 25, 

2001. 

4) Bordwell, David, and Thomson, Kristin (2010) “Film History 

: An Introduction, Third Edition” New York, NY : MCGraw – 

Hill. P. 382. 

5) Braudy and Cohen, Film Theory and critisim, sixth edition, 

Oxford University press, 2004, page 861. 

6) Jacques Derrida, ‘The Law <strong>of</strong> Genre’, Critical Inquiry, 

Autumn, 1980, Vol. 7, p.g.55. 

7) Stanley Cavell, “The World viewed : Reflections on the 

Ontology <strong>of</strong> Film’ (1971) 

8) Heath, Stephen (1981) : Questions <strong>of</strong> Cinema Bloomington : 

Indiana university press. 

538 PLTL-2012: ISBN 978-81-920120-0-1


9) Bordwell, David/ Mark Cuevas, Kristin Thompson, 1997. 

Film Art : An In 

10) ‘Silent Film Speed’, Cinemaweb.com 1911 -12-02. 

- Dr. Auradkar Sarika Pradiprao 

Department <strong>of</strong> English, 

Indira Gandhi (Sr.) College 

Cidco, Nanded 

539 PLTL-2012: ISBN 978-81-920120-0-1


Literature and Film: A Retrospective. 

- Nitin S. Kendre 

Vivekanand College, 

Aurangabad. 

“Adaptations are the future <strong>of</strong> Indian cinema.” 

- Chetan Bhagat. 

Numerous films are adapted into literary works. The process <strong>of</strong> adaptation actually amalgamates 

the interpretation <strong>of</strong> the spectators and the art <strong>of</strong> film itself. Most adaptations are films based on the 

literary works. Literature provides filmmakers rich source <strong>of</strong> materials for movies. Dudley Andrews, a 

film critic and theorist, states that literary work is the basis <strong>of</strong> more than half <strong>of</strong> all commercial films. 

Both for the serious students <strong>of</strong> film and the conscientious practitioner <strong>of</strong> the art, it is instructive to 

know how film as art and entertainment has related to literature. There is a perception on some people 

that the enjoyment <strong>of</strong> a person in watching a film will be hindered by readers’ knowledge in the film 

concepts and process. However, there are film enthusiasts who stressed that “studying films increases 

their enjoyment … and appreciation <strong>of</strong> the effort and creativity involved in making them.” Therefore, 

having background knowledge in film will add to the viewers’ comprehension on why a film is produced 

the way it is and in the case <strong>of</strong> adapted films, why the filmmaker came up with such adaptation knowing 

each medium’s limitations and strengths. 

This paper is intended to act as how adaptation works. It is important to note that its focus is 

heavily slanted toward a literary approach. Adaptation theory is a subject that many different disciplines 

are interested in it. 

Bollywood is much concerned about enough stories and it finally turn to the Indian literature. So 

because <strong>of</strong> the lack <strong>of</strong> good scripts Bollywood is turning towards literature. We can say that Bollywood is 

hungry for fresh ideas to put on silver screen, and in accordance with that quest they are turning their 

attention towards literature. Novelty and originality are a rear in today’s Bollywood films. There have 

been quite a few good adaptations <strong>of</strong> a literary work. But adapting the literary text <strong>of</strong> hundreds <strong>of</strong> pages 

into a 3 hour movie is not easy task. While a book takes a couple <strong>of</strong> words to express a particular 

massage, a movie will require a combination <strong>of</strong> the precise script, setting, character and other essential 

factors. 

540 PLTL-2012: ISBN 978-81-920120-0-1


Books by Indian writers and writers having Indian origin have always proved appealing to Indian 

film makers; it is only in recent times that there has been an increase in numbers <strong>of</strong> adaptations <strong>of</strong> Indian 

author writing in English. The unforgettable brilliant film “Guide” was possibly one <strong>of</strong> the first cinematic 

adaptations <strong>of</strong> an English novel by an Indian author. 

As far as cinematic adaptation <strong>of</strong> novels in Indian languages is concerned special mention must 

be made <strong>of</strong> the repeatedly remade and widely successful “Devdas” based on famous novel by Sarat 

Chandra Chattopadhyay. In fact there are some five films with the same name, based on this novel alone. 

It even got adapted to fit today’s youth by changing the tragic ending and not killing the protagonist, but 

instead making him realize his folly in the critically acclaimed “Dev D”. So this is the change according 

to the commercial considerations and youth centric views. 

A good novel by itself is not enough; bur a director has to lean on the crutches <strong>of</strong> good dialogues 

and script to create the desire impact on his audience. The originality <strong>of</strong> thought and subject matter 

attracts film makers to make the film on the book. Besides, the simple narrative style <strong>of</strong> the book also 

made it easy to make a film script out <strong>of</strong> the book. Nazarian Eric comments on adaptation as: 

“Adapting novel into films is no easy task. The job is by no means simpler because a 

story already exits. Adapting literature requires a great deal <strong>of</strong> reading, thinking, 

eliminating and compressing words, character and time frames.” 

Nazarian, Eric (2000). Prose and Pictures: Adapting Literature into Film. 

Definitions <strong>of</strong> film adaptation include transfer <strong>of</strong> one medium to another. Film adaptation is 

defined as, 

“The process <strong>of</strong> changing or transforming material from one medium (novel, stage play, 

short story, real life story etc) into another (i.e. film <strong>of</strong> TV)”. 

Frensham, R. (Eds) (2003). Teach Yourself: Ies (3 rd Ed) Prentice Hall. 

Following are few fundamental obstacles to consider while adapting a literary text into cinema/film. 

1. When adapting it is important not to loose the spirit <strong>of</strong> the literary texts, because the original 

meaning <strong>of</strong> that text is the reason for picking that text into film. 

2. Novels about in minor characters, subplots and incidental events which add to the richness <strong>of</strong> the 

work however, in film you have to concentrate on your main characters because <strong>of</strong> the time 

constraints. 

3. In novel characters and action <strong>of</strong>ten revealed through extended dialogue between characters. But 

screen writers frequently aim for screens that eliminate the need for dialogue. The convention is 

that because film is so visual, it is best not to create dialogue when the meaning could easily be 

conveyed in an action. 

4. Film making is essentially a co-operative team work rather than the work <strong>of</strong> an individual, such 

as a novel writing. This therefore entails the necessity <strong>of</strong> demanding <strong>of</strong> high level organized 

work. 

5. A film is limited in the aspect <strong>of</strong> length and depth as well as the amount <strong>of</strong> material, thus, it is 

forced to suggest pictorially a great many things that novel can explore in more depth. 

541 PLTL-2012: ISBN 978-81-920120-0-1


In adapting a novel into film, a film maker must decide if s/he will only include a specific part <strong>of</strong> a 

novel or to ‘capture a sense <strong>of</strong> the whole novel by writing the high points’. 

Indian-born Canadian-based filmmaker Deepa Mehta represents the Partition <strong>of</strong> India in her film 

Earth (1999). While representing the Partition on the screen, Mehta’s film provides a different point 

<strong>of</strong> view when set alongside Bapsi Sidhwa’s novel “Cracking India”. Mehta’s film represents the 

story from an unfixed point <strong>of</strong> view rather than from the first-person point <strong>of</strong> view <strong>of</strong> Lenny. This 

modification provides us with an alternative representation <strong>of</strong> the Partition. 

Transforming a literary work into the medium <strong>of</strong> film entails tremendous alterations. DeWitt Bodeen 

says: 

“Adapting literary works to film is […] a creative undertaking, but the task requires a 

kind <strong>of</strong> selective interpretation, along with the ability to recreate and sustain an 

established mood” 

(qtd. in McFarlane 7) 

While sticking to Bapsi Sidhwa’s plot, Deepa Mehta not only recreates Sidhwa’s representation 

but also creates what Sidhwa does not (or is not able to) represent. A striking example is Mehta’s 

visualization <strong>of</strong> the bloody train scene. In Sidhwa’s literary account, this scene is not represented 

directly. Lenny does not present this scene to us. The absence <strong>of</strong> a direct description <strong>of</strong> the train scene 

results from the first-person point <strong>of</strong> view employed in Sidhwa’s novel. In addition to the train scene, 

a second striking example represented in Mehta’s film is one <strong>of</strong> the most important impact <strong>of</strong> the 

Partition—the great migration <strong>of</strong> people. In Sidhwa’s novel, this phenomenon is rarely portrayed. 

Mehta’s representation <strong>of</strong> the migration is impressive. In this respect, Mehta’s film represents an 

aspect <strong>of</strong> the Partition that has been neglected not only by Sidhwa’s novel but by Indian historians. 

Sidhwa represents the Partition by telling, while Mehta represents it by showing. More than 

visualizing the events in Cracking India, Mehta alters the point <strong>of</strong> view in the novel—and thereby 

transforms the function <strong>of</strong> Lenny’s narration. In Mehta’s film, Lenny’s voice-over only appears at the 

beginning and at the end. For the rest <strong>of</strong> the film, Mehta does not adopt a first-person narration. 

In Earth, because the representation <strong>of</strong> the Partition has been liberated from Lenny’s limited point 

<strong>of</strong> view, we have the chance to see the train scene from Ice-candy-man’s perspective and the 

migration <strong>of</strong> people through Masseur’s perspective. Mehta’s alteration <strong>of</strong> the point <strong>of</strong> view enables us 

to re-examine and re-consider the representation <strong>of</strong> the Partition. 

In the film “Heat and Dust,” we somehow confused because <strong>of</strong> the different initiation <strong>of</strong> the film. 

Instead <strong>of</strong> starting with a short introduction as it was in the book the film directly began with Olivia’s 

elopement from the hospital after her miscarriage. This anticipated the tension <strong>of</strong> the reason why 

Olivia ran away from Douglas. 

Another point was that the narrator had a name. But I think for a film it is necessary to name the 

persons for a better recognition. Furthermore, after Olivia’s elopement in the film Douglas married 

542 PLTL-2012: ISBN 978-81-920120-0-1


Olivia’s Sister Marcia whereas in the book he married Beth Crawford’s sister Tessie. I also imagined 

Mrs. Saunders as well as Ritu in another way because in my opinion their condition was somehow 

worse than it was depicted in the film. 

Despite all the negative facts the film also has good aspects. 

The viewer gets an idea <strong>of</strong> what India looked like in those days and also about the British-Indian 

society in the 1970s. So the film helped to get a closer look to the setting. All things considered I 

would say that the film helps to imagine India and the living conditions there as a British and as an 

Indian. 

Adaptation <strong>of</strong> Jhumpa Lahiri's internationally acclaimed novel ‘The Namesake’, by the director 

Mira Nair vividly portrays a Hindu family's reality in America. ‘The Namesake’ depicts the 

struggles <strong>of</strong> Ashoke and Ashima Ganguli (Irrfan Khan and Tabu), two first-generation immigrants 

from West Bengal, India to the United States, and their American-born children Gogol (Kal Penn) 

and Sonia (Sahira Nair). The film takes place primarily in Kolkata, India; New York City and places 

around it. 

A frequent criticism <strong>of</strong> film adaptations is that where the book allows us to participate in the 

creative process (using our imaginations to fill in the characters and settings; for instance), while the 

film by its very nature makes everything explicit, closing the door on imagination. But I thought 

Nair's film was more satisfying than the novel precisely because these characters are presented to us 

in specific terms, we see them talking to each other, and most importantly all this is done extremely 

well. The casting is near-perfect – Irfan Khan, Tabu and Kal Penn bring an immediacy to the 

characters <strong>of</strong> Ashoke, Ashima and Gogol that we sometimes missed in the book. On the whole this is 

a gentle feel-good film, full <strong>of</strong> well-meaning characters. 

The lack <strong>of</strong> good quality screenplays together with the viewers hopes are the most basic cause 

for the inclination to go back to the literary area. In analyzing a movie based on novel, it is better that 

one has an insight into the changes that bound to happen in adaptation and an understanding that 

novels and films are two different media which have their own strengths and weaknesses. So that the 

viewer would have a proper frame <strong>of</strong> mind in approaching the two mediums. . However, most <strong>of</strong> the 

times, it has been seen that the audience prefer books to the films based on them. It shows that people 

prefer to visualize themselves rather than depending on someone else’s imagination. 

*********************---------------********************* 

543 PLTL-2012: ISBN 978-81-920120-0-1


References: 

BOOKS: 

• Nazarian, Eric (2000). ‘Prose And Pictures: Adapting Literature Into Film.’ 

• Frensham, R. (Eds) (2003). ‘Treach Yourself:Ies’ (3 rd Ed) Prentice Hall Pub. 

• McFarlane, Brian. “Backgrounds, Issues, and a New Agenda.” Novel to Film: An 

Introduction to the Theory <strong>of</strong> Adaptation. New York: Oxford UP, 1996. 

• Griffith, James. ‘Adaptations As Imitations: Films From Novels.’ Newark: University <strong>of</strong> 

Delaware Press, 1997. 

Electronic Media: 

544 PLTL-2012: ISBN 978-81-920120-0-1


• http://www.moviemaker.com/issues/38/38_prose.htm 

• http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_adaptation. 

***********---------------*********** 

Brief Resume 

• Name: Nitin S. Kendre 

• Qualification: M.A. (Eng), B.Ed 

• Contact No: 9823043329, 02402392000. 

• E-mail Id: n_nik3@rediffmail.com 

• Submitted Synopsis for Ph.D registration on the topic “Adaptation <strong>of</strong> novels into films: a case 

study <strong>of</strong> five adapted novels”. 

• Presently working as a lecturer (for U.G. & P.G.) in Vivekanand Arts, S.D. Commerce & Science 

College, Aurangabad. 

545 PLTL-2012: ISBN 978-81-920120-0-1


FEMINIST FILM THEORY IN HOLLYWOOD CINEMA : 

AN INTRODUCTION 

--Shuddhodhan P. Kamble, 

Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Mahavidyalaya, 

Amravati (M.S.) 

Abstract: Feminism is a social movement which has had an enormous impact on film theory and criticism. Cinema is taken 

by feminists to be a cultural practice representing myths about women and femininity, as well as about men and masculinity. 

Issues <strong>of</strong> representation and spectatorship are central to feminist film theory and criticism. Early feminist criticism was directed 

at stereotypes <strong>of</strong> women, mostly in Hollywood films (Haskell 1973/1987, Rosen 1973). Such fixed and endlessly repeated images 

<strong>of</strong> women were considered to be objectionable distortions which would have a negative impact on the female spectator. Hence, 

the call for positive images <strong>of</strong> women in cinema. Soon, however, the insight dawned that positive images were not enough to 

change underlying structures in film. Feminist critics tried to understand the all-pervasive power <strong>of</strong> patriarchal imagery with the 

help <strong>of</strong> structuralist theoretical frameworks such as semiotics and psychoanalysis. These theoretical discourses have proved very 

productive in analysing the ways in which sexual difference is encoded in classical narrative. For over a decade psychoanalysis 

was to be the dominant paradigm in feminist film theory. More recently there has been a move away from a binary understanding 

<strong>of</strong> sexual difference to multiple perspectives, identities and possible spectatorships. This opening up has resulted in an increasing 

concern with questions <strong>of</strong> ethnicity, masculinity and hybrid sexualities. 

Introduction: 

Feminist film theory has emerged in the 

past 20 years to become a large and flourishing 

field. Its dominant approach, exemplified by 

such journals as Screen and Camera Obscura, 

involves a theoretical combination <strong>of</strong> semiotics, 

Althusserian Marxism, and Lacanian 

psychoanalysis. On this view, human subjects 

are formed through complex significatory 

processes, including cinema; traditional 

Hollywood cinema's "classic realist texts" are 

purveyors <strong>of</strong> bourgeois ideology. Added to this 

theory by Laura Mulvey's now-classic essay, 

"Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" 

[Mulvey, 1975], was the feminist claim that men 

and women are differentially positioned by 

cinema: men as subjects identifying with agents 

who drive the film's narrative forward, women 

as objects for masculine desire and fetishistic 

gazing. Mulvey's essay is heavily invested in 

theory. It is cited as "the founding document <strong>of</strong> 

feminist film theory" [Modleski 1989], as 

providing "the theoretical grounds for the 

rejection <strong>of</strong> Hollywood and its pleasures" 

[Penley 1988], and even as setting out feminist 

film theory's "axioms" [Silverman, quoted in 

Byars 1991]. Mulvey assumed a general picture 

<strong>of</strong> cinema as a symbolic medium which, like 

other aspects <strong>of</strong> mass culture, forms spectators 

as bourgeois subjects. She used Lacanian 

psychoanalysis to ground her account <strong>of</strong> 

gendered subjecivity, desire, and visual pleasure. 

Mulvey allowed little possibility <strong>of</strong> resistance or 

critical spectatorship, and recognized no 

variations in structure or effect <strong>of</strong> realist cinema. 

Unsurprisingly, her view has been much 

criticized and further refined, as writers 

(including Mulvey herself) have noted issues 

raised by differences among women, phenomena 

like male masochism, or genres that function in 

distinctive ways, such as comedy, melodrama, 

and horror. Still, writers in feminist film theory 

commonly assume Mulvey's basic parameters 

and take some version <strong>of</strong> psychoanalytic theory 

as a desideratum. Key issues are <strong>of</strong>ten seen only 

in terms <strong>of</strong> some refinement or qualification <strong>of</strong> 

psychoanalytic theory. Thus Barbara Creed's 

book The Monstrous-Feminine argues that the 

fact that women in horror films are <strong>of</strong>ten not 

victims but monsters "necessitates a rereading <strong>of</strong> 

key aspects <strong>of</strong> Freudian theory, particularly his 

theory <strong>of</strong> the Oedipus complex and castration 

crisis." [Creed 1993] Creed turns instead to 

Kristeva's theory <strong>of</strong> the abject and the maternal. 

Far less <strong>of</strong>ten, Mulvey's critics have adopted 

more sharply different theoretical bases such as 

cultural studies, identity politics, deconstruction, 

or the philosophy <strong>of</strong> Foucault. 

Feminist Film Theory: 

546 PLTL-2012: ISBN 978-81-920120-0-1


Early film theory arose in the silent era 

and was mostly concerned with defining the 

crucial elements <strong>of</strong> the medium. It largely 

evolved from the works <strong>of</strong> directors like 

Germaine Dulac, Louis Delluc, Jean Epstein, 

Sergei Eisenstein, Lev Kuleshov, and Dziga 

Vertov and film theorists like Rudolf Arnheim, 

Béla Balázs and Siegfried Kracauer. These 

individuals emphasized how film differed from 

reality and how it might be considered a valid art 

form. In the years after World War II, the French 

film critic and theorist André Bazin reacted 

against this approach to the cinema, arguing that 

film's essence lay in its ability to mechanically 

reproduce reality, not in its difference from 

reality. 

In the 1960s and 1970s, film theory took 

up residence in academia importing concepts 

from established disciplines like psychoanalysis, 

gender studies, anthropology, literary theory, 

semiotics and linguistics. However, not until the 

late 1980s or early 1990s did film theory per se 

achieve much prominence in American 

universities by displacing the prevailing 

humanistic, auteur theory that had dominated 

cinema studies and which had been focused on 

the practical elements <strong>of</strong> film writing, 

production, editing and criticism. American 

scholar David Bordwell has spoken against 

many prominent developments film theory since 

the 1970s, i.e., he uses the humorously 

derogatory term "SLAB theory" to refer to film 

studies based on the ideas <strong>of</strong> Saussure, Lacan, 

Althusser, and/or Barthes. Instead, Bordwell 

promotes what he describes as "ne<strong>of</strong>ormalism." 

During the 1990s the digital revolution 

in image technologies has had an impact on film 

theory in various ways. There has been a refocus 

onto celluloid film's ability to capture an 

"indexical" image <strong>of</strong> a moment in time by 

theorists like Mary Ann Doane, Philip Rosen 

and Laura Mulvey who was informed by 

psychoanalysis. From a psychoanalytical 

perspective, after the Lacanian notion <strong>of</strong> "the 

Real", Slavoj Žižek <strong>of</strong>fered new aspects <strong>of</strong> "the 

gaze" extensively used in contemporary film 

analysis. There has also been a historical 

revisiting <strong>of</strong> early cinema screenings, practices 

and spectatorship modes by writers Tom 

Gunning, Miriam Hansen and Yuri Tsivian. 

Television writer/producer David 

Weddle suggests that film theory as practiced in 

the early 2000s is a form <strong>of</strong> bait and switch, 

taking advantage <strong>of</strong> young, would-be 

filmmakers: anyone in Hollywood filmmaking 

who used film theory terms like "fabula" and 

"syuzhet" would be "laughed <strong>of</strong>f the lot." 

Weddle also quotes Roger Ebert's opinion that 

"Film theory has nothing to do with film" and is 

an obscuricantist "cult;" and quotes silent film 

historian Kevin Brownlow's alarm that academic 

film theorists are typically "quite aggressively 

Marxist." 

In 2008, German filmmaker Werner 

Herzog suggested that "Theoretical film studies 

has become really awful. That’s not how you 

should study film. Abolish these courses and do 

something else which makes much more sense." 

The female Spectator <strong>of</strong> Hollywood 

Cinema: 

In considering the way that films are put 

together, many feminist film critics have pointed 

to the "male gaze" that predominates in classical 

Hollywood filmmaking. Budd Boetticher 

summarises the view thus: "What counts is what 

the heroine provokes, or rather what she 

represents. She is the one, or rather the love or 

fear she inspires in the hero, or else the concern 

he feels for her, who makes him act the way he 

does. In herself the woman has not the slightest 

importance." 

Whilst Laura Mulvey's paper has a 

particular place in the feminist film theory, it is 

also important to note that her ideas regarding 

ways <strong>of</strong> watching the cinema (from the 

voyeuristic element to the feelings <strong>of</strong> 

identification) have been very important in terms 

<strong>of</strong> defining spectatorship from the 

psychoanalytical view point. 

Mulvey identifies three "looks" or 

perspectives that occur in film which serve to 

sexually objectify women. The first is the 

perspective <strong>of</strong> the male character on screen and 

how he perceives the female character. The 

second is the perspective <strong>of</strong> the spectator as they 

see the female character on screen. The third 

547 PLTL-2012: ISBN 978-81-920120-0-1


"look" joins the first two looks together: it is the 

male audience member's perspective <strong>of</strong> the male 

character in the film. This third perspective 

allows the male audience to take the female 

character as his own personal sex object because 

he can relate himself, through looking, to the 

male character in the film. 

In the paper, Mulvey calls for a 

destruction <strong>of</strong> modern film structure as the only 

way to free women from their sexual 

objectification in film, arguing for a removal <strong>of</strong> 

the voyeurism encoded into film by creating 

distance between the male spectator and the 

female character. The only way to do so, 

Mulvey argues, is by destroying the element <strong>of</strong> 

voyeurism and "the invisible guest". 

Mulvey also asserts that the dominance 

that men embody is only so because women 

exist, as without a woman for comparison, a 

man and his supremacy as the controller <strong>of</strong> 

visual pleasure are insignificant. For Mulvey, it 

is the presence <strong>of</strong> the female that defines the 

patriarchal order <strong>of</strong> society as well as the male 

psychology <strong>of</strong> thought. 

Mulvey's argument comes as a product 

<strong>of</strong> the time period in which she was writing. 

"Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" was 

composed during the period <strong>of</strong> second-wave 

feminism, which was concerned with achieving 

equality for women in the workplace, and with 

exploring the psychological implications <strong>of</strong> 

sexual stereotypes. Mulvey calls for an 

eradication <strong>of</strong> female sexual objectivity in order 

to align herself with second-wave feminism. She 

argues that in order for women to be equally 

represented in the workplace, women must be 

portrayed as men are: as lacking sexual 

objectification. 

Mulvey posits in her notes to the 

Criterion Collection DVD <strong>of</strong> Michael Powell's 

controversial film Peeping Tom that the cinema 

spectator’s own voyeurism is made shockingly 

obvious and even more shockingly, the spectator 

identifies with the perverted protagonist. The 

inference is that she includes female spectators 

in that, identifying with the male observer rather 

than the female object <strong>of</strong> the gaze. 

B. Ruby Rich argues that women’s 

relationships with film is instead dialectical, 

consciously filtering the images and messages 

they receive through cinema, and reprocessing 

them to elicit their own meanings. 

Coming from a black feminist 

perspective, bell hooks put forth the notion <strong>of</strong> 

the “oppositional gaze,” encouraging black 

women not to accept stereotypical 

representations in film, but rather actively 

critique them. Janet Bergstrom’s article 

“Enunciation and Sexual Difference” (1979) 

uses Sigmund Freud’s ideas <strong>of</strong> bisexual 

responses, arguing that women are capable <strong>of</strong> 

identifying with male characters and men with 

women characters, either successively or 

simultaneously. Miriam Hanson, in “Pleasure, 

Ambivalence, Identification: Valentino and 

Female Spectatorship” (1984) put forth the idea 

that women are also able to view male 

characters as erotic objects <strong>of</strong> desire. In "The 

Master's Dollhouse: Rear Window," Tania 

Modleski argues that Hitchock's film, Rear 

Window, is an example <strong>of</strong> the power <strong>of</strong> male 

gazer and the position <strong>of</strong> the female as a prisoner 

<strong>of</strong> the "master's dollhouse". 

Carol Clover, in her popular and 

influential book "Men, Women, and Chainsaws: 

Gender in the Modern Horror Film" (Princeton 

University Press, 1992) argues that young male 

viewers <strong>of</strong> the Horror Genre (young males being 

the primary demographic) are quite prepared to 

identify with the female-in-jeopardy, a key 

component <strong>of</strong> Horror narrative, and to identify 

on an unexpectedly pr<strong>of</strong>ound level. Clover 

further argues that the "Final Girl" in the 

psychosexual sub-genre <strong>of</strong> Exploitation Horror 

invariably triumphs through her own 

resourcefulness, and is not by any means a 

passive, or inevitable, victim. Laura Mulvey, in 

response to these and other criticisms, revisited 

the topic in “Afterthoughts on ‘Visual Pleasure 

and Narrative Cinema’ inspired by Duel in the 

Sun” (1981). In addressing the heterosexual 

female spectator, she revised her stance to argue 

that women can take two possible roles in 

relation to film: a masochistic identification with 

the female object <strong>of</strong> desire that is ultimately selfdefeating 

or a transsexual identification with 

men as the active viewers <strong>of</strong> the text.[9] A new 

version <strong>of</strong> the gaze was <strong>of</strong>fered in the early 

1990s by Bracha Ettinger, who proposed the 

notion <strong>of</strong> the "matrixial gaze". 

548 PLTL-2012: ISBN 978-81-920120-0-1


Conclusion: 

The diversity <strong>of</strong> contemporary feminist 

film theory reflects the variegated production <strong>of</strong> 

women's cinema <strong>of</strong> the 1990s. Women 

filmmakers have increasingly conquered 

Hollywood. Several <strong>of</strong> them have been able to 

maintain a consistent production in diverse 

genres: comedy (Penny Marshal), romantic 

drama (Nora Ephron), and action movies 

(Kathryn Bigelow), to name just a few. This has 

also been the case for several women 

filmmakers in Europe, such as Margarethe von 

Trotta (Germany), Claire Denis (France) and 

Marion Hensel (Belgium). In a more noncommercial 

pocket <strong>of</strong> the market, there has been 

a significant increase in films made by lesbian, 

black and post-colonial directors: filmmakers as 

diverse as Monika Treut and Patricia Rozema, 

Julie Dash and Ngozi Onwurah, Ann Hui and 

Clara Law. This decade has witnessed the 

popular success <strong>of</strong> feminist art films, like 

Orlando by Sally Potter (1992) and the Oscarwinning 

films The Piano , a costume drama by 

Jane Campion (New Zealand 1994) and 

Antonia's Line , a matriarchal epic by Marleen 

Gorris (Netherlands 1995). Dropping a few 

names and titles does in no way do justice to the 

scale <strong>of</strong> women's cinema <strong>of</strong> this decade. It 

merely indicates a prolific diversity which 

resonates with film audiences in this decade <strong>of</strong> 

hybridity. The polyphony <strong>of</strong> voices, multiple 

points <strong>of</strong> view, and cinematic styles and genres, 

signify women's successful struggle for selfrepresentation 

on the silver screen. 

Reference: 

1) Robert Stam, Film Theory an 

introduction, Oxford: Blackwell 

Publishers, 2000. 

2) Dudley Andrew, Concpets in Film 

Theory, Oxford, New York: Oxford 

University Press, 1984. 

3) Francesco Casetti, Theories <strong>of</strong> Cinema, 

1945-1990, Austin: University <strong>of</strong> Texas 

Press, 1999. 

4) www.wikipedia.org 

5) www.google.com 

549 PLTL-2012: ISBN 978-81-920120-0-1

Proceedings of National Seminar on Postmodern ... - Igcollege.org

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?