Film and Television Appreciation Midterm Assignment

16,480 characters2006.11.17

Midterm Assignment for Film Appreciation

A、“Request for Feedback” Questions:

1. Is the difficulty and depth of this course appropriate? Is there enough knowledge content? Please give examples.

I feel the difficulty is appropriate. As for the depth, since I don’t have much else to study as a point of comparison, it’s hard to say. Through this course I learned a great deal about the artistic and technical aspects of film, and came to understand that film, as the “seventh art” and as a kind of “culture,” is something very special and important. Compared with the vast topic of film art, the “knowledge content” a general elective course can provide is of course far from enough. Many concepts are only mentioned in passing and not explored in depth. But what matters is that this course has attracted me to learn more.

2. Was the pace of this course too fast or too slow? In what ways have you improved or benefited through studying it, or have you gained little? Please be honest.

Since there wasn’t much in the way of outside assignments, I didn’t feel the pace was fast. The main content during the earlier period consisted of watching many films—old films that we usually would not go out of our way to find and watch ourselves. Through viewing them, and with the teacher’s explanations, I gained a more intuitive and sensory understanding of film history and technique, and I also came away with a new impression of what film is.

3. Is the ratio of time spent on basic theory, film screenings, and film appreciation reasonable? How else might it be adjusted?

It feels as though too much time was spent on film appreciation. Perhaps that was because the teacher adjusted the course schedule due to surgery. In general, though, it should be reasonable, I suppose. If one wanted to explain the basic theory in depth, even a year’s course would not be enough; and if one wanted to present the classics of cinema comprehensively, there still would not be enough time. Within limited time, the best approach is to keep theory, screening, and appreciation roughly balanced.

4. Suggestions for the films being appreciated (for example, specific titles you hope to watch).

Perhaps some slightly shorter films could be chosen, so that after screening there would still be more time left for appreciation and discussion in class. I recently read Sculpting in Time, and I would like to see works by Tarkovsky.

6. Suggestions for the textbook and the exam.

The final exam seems to count for too much… It would also be good to have a few more assignments or film reviews during the term.

B、Please write a short essay of about 500 words expressing your views on a question that struck you during class or while watching films or reading (an issue of art, a cultural issue, a particular film, a phenomenon, a passing impression—anything is fine).

Let me offer some reflections on issues of art and culture.

The word “art” in ancient Greek already referred to “technology” or “craftsmanship”; art was originally a kind of “skill” devoted to pursuing “beauty” and attempting to express “beauty.” It is only natural that new “arts” emerge alongside the development of new “technologies.” Film art is precisely such a new art form that grew up on the basis of modern technology. In many respects, film art synthesizes the features of literary, dramatic, visual, and other art forms, but it is a wholly new art, not a derivation or combination of earlier art forms.

One major characteristic of film is its “sense of reality,” its ability to present the feeling of being there in the most immediate way. And increasingly advanced techniques of stunts, special effects, and post-production make it possible for film not only to recreate real-life scenes, but also to make free and flexible use of diverse narrative techniques. Of course, film’s strength in presenting “reality” does not mean that it must be faithful to reality. If art too must remain faithful to something, then I think it should be faithful to genuine emotion; artists should pour their sincerest feelings wholeheartedly into their works.

Another major characteristic of film, or rather a feature of its development, is “massification” and “commercialization.” Of course, in modern times other art forms such as literature and music have also been greatly affected by massification and commercialization, but film art has been tightly bound up with commerce from the very beginning of its birth.

A beautiful work of art will naturally be recognized by more people. On the other hand, the enterprise of art is not merely a simple pursuit of “beauty”; more importantly, it is the expression and presentation of “beauty.” Artists always expect recognition from audiences, and always hope to achieve a spiritual exchange and resonance with audiences—including audiences beyond their own era—through their works of art. But this does not mean that artists should become slaves to the audience, pandering deliberately to the audience’s “taste.” Artists should be faithful to their own feelings, or faithful to their belief in “beauty,” rather than faithful to “box office.” I believe that artists certainly bear responsibilities toward the public, but they should be devoted to the public rather than serving the public. To be guided from beginning to end by the urge to cater to the masses will ultimately cause film to degenerate from “art” into mere “entertainment.” Of course, another characteristic of film is the huge investment it requires, which in turn forces film to bow to commercialization; this may well be one of the greatest difficulties in the development of film art.

November 17, 2006

Latest comments

unic

2006-11-17 16:20:07 [reply]

Hehe~ you really are lucky, having read Sculpting in Time that I recommended? That book should still be fairly profound, right? I only flipped through it casually in a bookstore.
I’m personally very interested in film, mainly serious film, or academic film, as well as films about human nature. And I’m also very interested in the Soviet Union.
What films did your teacher show you?
There should be Schindler’s List, right?
This should be the shortest and shallowest article you’ve written, right? Haha. I hope to see something a bit deeper from you.
Also, Tarkovsky’s books can be worth a look.
As for the commercialization of film, I think it’s inevitable in the present era. After all, purely academic directors are poor… Go look at the director of Crazy Stone; if you look at what he was like before, you’ll know.

UNIC

2006-11-17 16:23:33 [reply]

“Also, Tarkovsky’s books can be worth a look. ”
Sorry, I mistyped—it was Fassbinder.
That teenage genius who recently passed away—Zi You—(the author of Whose Youth Is Not Wild) was also quite knowledgeable about film; you might want to look at his books.
What a pity—heaven begrudged talent!

2006-11-17 19:36:36 [reply]

Sculpting in Time has such a great reputation that there was no need for you to recommend it; I’d already heard of it. Since I took Film Appreciation, it was just the right chance to read it. The book consists of a number of short pieces; basically it’s his thoughts and views, not theoretically very deep. By the way, I also thought of the famous “Sculpting in Time” café in Wudaokou—I made a special trip there twice, but both times it happened to be full…
China Film Press has a series called the “Translated Masterworks of World Film Theory,” which seems a bit more theoretical, but I didn’t buy it.
The Film Appreciation midterm counts for only 10%, and as long as you hand it in on time you get full marks, so I didn’t write much.

pengkus

2006-11-18 14:25:35 [reply]

When film is presented as such, it can never escape these two things: time and space. After all, film is nothing more than a series of continuously moving images. Time and space are eternal themes in philosophy; perhaps you could try looking at film from that angle.

2006-11-22 21:33:42 [reply]

Whether it is Tarkovsky or Wu Ziyou, their discussions of film are just reflections, random notes, impressions, and the like, aren’t they? Film as an academic topic has an entirely broad territory of its own, including philosophy, aesthetics, philosophy of art, psychology, cultural criticism, narratology, semiotics, and so on—all different paths for studying film.
Today I saw that Sanlian’s “Modern Western Academic Library” has published Selected Readings in Foreign Film Theory (revised edition, in two volumes). I glanced at the table of contents, and it covers everything it should cover. For amateur enthusiasts of film theory, I think this one book would more or less be enough~~

unic

2006-11-22 23:16:57 [reply]

All art is humanity’s pursuit of a kind of eternity.
Art can be lofty or lowly.
I always feel that it belongs to the people. That is where its destiny lies.
Film is the same.
I suggest listening to Zhu Zheqin’s music, and hearing how she exchanges music with people in different places.
You will come to experience——the beauty of the people, the beauty of art——the beauty of humanity and eternity

2006-11-22 23:42:40 [reply]

Hehe, what are the “people”? If by art belonging to the “audience,” I’m willing to support that. But what does “the people” mean? The majority? The lower classes?
Tarkovsky did say: art, after all, “is ultimately aristocratic.”

unic

2006-11-24 16:26:28 [reply]

“the people” is, well, rather abstract.
Originally it was a political term, meaning the masses who support one’s party. In China it has been used very broadly.
What I mean should be the lower classes, but also the majority of people.
Actually, “the people” is a kind of sentiment.
Art itself certainly did not arise with aristocratic bloodlines.
I remember that when Zhu Zheqin interviewed a poor Gypsy family in India, the whole family danced and played music together. They said that when they felt hungry and had no food, they would seek out music, because it could temporarily relieve their pain.
Folk music and folk painting are the most primitive and the most full of life. But compared with them, aristocratic art may perhaps be more emotionally powerful, such as Wolta. In any case, art is infinite.
From a certain angle, I also believe that art is the only distinction between human beings and other things.
We create art, and at the same time we can be aware that it is beautiful, lofty, and even eternal.
Art is a kind of force; compared with the forces of reason and science, perhaps its force is more primitive and more vital.

2006-11-24 20:32:10 [reply]

The origin of the word “art” was originally “craft” or “skill”; it belonged to artisans. It indeed did not come from aristocratic bloodlines. And art forms such as dance, painting, and drama are very likely to have originated in shamanism (shamanism was part of the lives of early humans. The proposition that science, religion, and art all stem from shamanism is probably correct.) Although they were always collective, they could also be said to belong to priests—though of course priests were not aristocrats.
What something originates from and to whom it belongs are different questions. We say that among ordinary people there is scientific knowledge as “common sense,” or that science may also originate from what is called “the people,” but science does not belong to the people; science belongs to humankind. Scientific inquiry is meant to serve truth, and will not serve the people. Consider religion as well: when interviewing poor families of other ethnic groups, they might say that when they feel hungry and have no food, they want to pray to the gods. But that does not mean religion belongs to the people. Religion also cannot serve the people; it seeks to save the people and reveal truth to them, but not to serve them. What I mean when I say art does not belong to the people is that art does not need to bow to “public opinion”; art turns toward nature, or toward “beauty,” and not toward the people. Artists make sacrifices for the people, rather than serving the people; they do not have to be at the mercy of public opinion. There is no such thing as folk art and aristocratic art. To say that art is aristocratic in essence, in Tarkovsky’s sense, means that “its influence on the audience has its own selectivity,” and that “the influence it can produce is intimately connected with the personal feelings of each audience member who comes into contact with the work” (P183).
Nature itself also creates marvelous “art” works. If you want to say that art is the only distinction between humans and other things (why is it the only distinction?), then here art probably does not refer only to artistic creation. As you also added, one must include the point that humans “can be aware that it is beautiful.” Art may of course originate among the folk, but for ordinary people, their activities are not consciously regarded as artistic creation; for them, what we see as art is their life. Just as you said, “when they felt hungry and had no food, they would seek out music, because it could temporarily relieve their pain,” there is no art there; music among the Gypsies is simply a way of life. Only when it reaches Zhu Zheqin does it become art.
As for “the people sentiment,” “the lower-classes sentiment,” and even “the majority sentiment,” that would take a long time to discuss, and I won’t say much about it for now. At the very least, I do not have those sentiments. I think all these are rather naive, and even a bit one-sided—but of course, being naive is not a bad thing.

unic

2006-11-24 23:24:41 [reply]

Hehe, I kind of feel that your place here is a bit like the mysterious doctor’s letter in The Sophie’s World, hehe.
First of all, thank you for your reply.
After reading it, I’m a bit muddled. I really do have a people sentiment, and it was formed step by step; the process of its formation is basically already over. It should be naive, and perhaps also one-sided; looking back now, that seems to be the case. But I think I will still hold to it—it would take a long time to explain. In any case, it comes from my admiration for predecessors who devoted themselves to the people and to truth. However, as for the “people,” “truth,” and the “meaning and manner of self-sacrifice” to which they devoted themselves, these are all things I must think about forever. The more something is especially important to oneself, the more deeply one ought to think about it.
Perhaps you could look at a few posts on my blog, such as “The ‘Bloody’ Void”; it may not give an explanation, but there is still a bit of what I mean in there.
You might also want to look up information on Yuluo Ke.
As for the discussion of art, I’ll need to think about it more. We may simply understand art differently. But there are some things in what you said above that I agree with.

2006-11-25 12:33:14 [reply]

I have had very little contact with the philosophy of art; what I mainly wanted to emphasize above is just one thing: art cannot be manipulated by the demands of the “majority,” that is, art cannot be dragged along by commercialization.
To devote oneself to the people, to contribute to the people—these are all good. But to serve the people (to be the “public servant” of the majority), to speak for the people (how do intellectuals speak for the people? Often they merely borrow a kind of “bottom-layer imagination” as a comfort to themselves)—these are questionable. I maintain that scholars should always be eccentric and independent, and should not be used by “public opinion.” For example, during World War II, 99% of public opinion in Japan supported aggression; but a scholar should remain clear-minded. Or again, nowadays people worship money and despise scholarship, but scholars cannot decide their direction according to the popular will. To do science one must be faithful to nature; to do art one must be faithful to one’s own feelings; no matter who you are, you should be faithful to your own convictions. Truth is often held by the minority; voting can only produce compromise, not truth. Even if the majority says the earth does not move, I should still stick to my own view. Of course, perhaps truth will eventually have to be accepted by the majority—but who knows? All I know is that when many great minds first put forward those new ideas, they were often not broadly supported, but instead were denounced by all and sundry.
The masses are often short-sighted, and if you really let the masses, let the “lower classes,” rise up and seize power, it is even more unavoidable that things will fall into madness—just look at the second phase of the French Revolution, just look at Animal Farm, and you’ll understand.
In short, “benefiting the people” and “serving the people” are two different things. In the first case, I am the master (acting on my own behalf); in the second, I am a servant. Scholars (or artists) are not civil servants; truth is not “public opinion.”

unic

2006-11-25 17:17:08 [reply]

Oh, so that’s what you mean.
I agree.
I have never thought that being manipulated by the people is something honorable. As for the examples you mentioned, I am certainly aware of them as well.
And what I mean by a feeling for the people is simply caring about their fate and their lives, taking their safety and well-being into account when necessary, speaking the truth on their behalf, and working for their happiness.
As for the pursuit of truth, my view is the same as yours: even if everyone else is drunk while I alone stay sober, I would absolutely remain loyal to the truth, loyal to myself, and even give up my life without hesitation.
And here the contradiction arises: the people, or rather the majority of people, are most of the time unwise, and even when someone dies for them, they respond with foolish and even heartless abuse!
I once struggled deeply with this—are the people really worth loving? Are they worth sacrificing oneself for their interests? They are so foolish, so ungrateful; all that stuff like “the one who has done things for the people, the people will lift him up very, very high…” (Zang Kejia, “Some People”) is all false.
But I cannot erase my reverence for the predecessors who have already sacrificed themselves for them, nor can I erase my admiration for their spirit and their love.
So I settled myself: I love truth, I love those who sacrifice themselves for truth; I love those who sacrifice themselves for the people—I love the people, I love them deeply.
Even if they misunderstand, even if they can never understand. I still love them.
I feel that only the people possess humanity’s most primitive power.
Just as I realized after reading *1984*: why is it that when the protagonist stands by the window of their “home—the little second-floor house,” he hears a poor woman singing a love song over and over again?
Because—when humanity loses love, it will inevitably perish, not because it becomes too dull, but because it has lost its last strength.
And the poor woman sings a love song with such feeling—a love song manufactured by machines, yet sung with such devotion—showing that humanity at that time had not yet lost love, had not yet lost its last strength, and therefore still had hope.
So, I love the people deeply.