Term Paper

Film + Philosophy = Filmosophy

Winter Semester 2008/2009

TERM PAPER

­ Filmosophy ­

About Framptons Radically New Way of Understanding

Cinema

Martin Thiele

1. Fachsemester

M.A. Europäische Medienwissenschaft

Contents

1. INTRODUCTION

3

2. DISCUSSION OF THE TERMS OF FILMOSOPHY

5

2.1 Film-being

5

2.2 Filmind

9

2.3 Film-thinking

13

3. FINAL COMMENT

15

4. IMAGE SEQUENCES

13

4.1 Sequence one

17

4.2 Sequence two

18

4.3 Sequence three

19

4.4 Sequence four

20

5. BIBLIOGRAPHY

21

5.1 Literature

21

5.2 Internet Sources

21

5.3 Film Sources

22

2

1. Introduction

"Die Verwendung des Ausdrucks ,Medium Film′ weist darauf hin, daß der Film

gleichfalls ein Mittler ist, dessen man sich bedienen kann, um anderen, den

Zuschauern, etwas mitzuteilen. [...] Ob wir ein Gesicht in einer Großaufnahme

zu sehen bekommen oder als Teil einer Totalaufnahme der betreffenden Per-

son, bedeutet einen großen Unterschied"

1

These basic declarations of the film theorist Jan Marie Peters from 1962 were almost

the general consensus in film science in the last decades. Daniel Frampton, the au-

thor of the book `Filmosophy′, that he calls `a manifesto for a radically new way of

understanding cinema′, refuses a consideration like this. In his perception, cinemato-

graphic elements, like camera angle, sound or editing don′t

mean

(

bedeuten

) some-

thing but rather they

are

. Being itself does not mean in this case the very existence of

elements as representative signs but the autonomic living of film as something that

does not refer to something else behind it.

The aim that Frampton is trying to reach with the introduction of Filmosophy in media

discourse is primarily the renovation of cinematic reception, scientifically as well as

educationally:

"The first [aim] is really just to change your experience of cinema, to relight

your engagement with the cinema. That is, to create an immersive and poetic

experience of cinema for film-goers. The other aim [...] has to do with visual

literacy within Media Studies, with assisting in the development of visual liter-

acy education for anybody, for adults and kids."

2

Because the times in film production change, a change in reception is also neces-

sary. In Frampton′s theory, film is no longer a photographic reproduction of a past

performance. This is not simply because nowadays there are countless assumed re-

1 Peters, Jan Marie, ,,Die Struktur der Filmsprache" (1962), in: Albersmeier, Franz-Josef, ,,Texte zur Theorie des

Films", p. 371 et sqq. [Translation: The use of the expression ,medium film′ indicates that film also is a mediator

what can be used to tell something to others, like the spectators. If we see a face in close up or as a part of the

whole person in a long shot does mean a significant difference.]

2 Frampton, Daniel, ,,What is Filmosophy?",

http://www.bfi.org.uk/education/conferences/mediastudies2008/prog_app.pdf .

3

alistic film images which were never shot as they are presented later. Frampton con-

cedes that film uses material of the real world but finally ­ and hence his theory is

one of reception ­ this material becomes its own world with its own processes and

even its own thoughts.3 To draw a consistent picture of his theory he developed a

kind of unique language to speak about film.

In this paper, I will try to operate with this language and to use his neologisms for the

film example `eXistenZ′ of David Cronenberg. In the next chapter, I will attempt to ex-

plain his most important terms of Filmosophy and to make them transparent and us-

able.

3 Cf. Frampton, Daniel, ,,Filmosophy", p. 4 et sqq.

4

2. Discussion of the terms of Filmosophy

2.1 Film-being

"How is the film-world is created and reconfigured?"4. This question is a major com-

ponent of Filmosophy, and is what Frampton discusses in the second chapter, basing

the discussion on several writers from the twentieth century and what he calls the

film-being. It is one of his most general terms because it comprises the being of film

with all the aspects the filmgoer5 perceives while he is experiencing the film. It is

firstly the union of the sound and the images presented to the filmgoer, and secondly

the content and style of presentation. For example: "why do we see this character, at

this moment, from this angle?"6.

The most important step in understanding Frampton′s thoughts about Filmosophy is

to think of all these named aspects as one. The major critique against common re-

ception theories, like narrative, aesthetic or technical reflections, is that they do not

conceive film as one medium that consists of all these. Appreciating the technical

language or the narrative structure might help to understand the way a film is con-

structed, but does not help to explain the filmgoer′s experience where form and con-

tent are experienced as one.7 This unity implicates also that the well-defined posi-

tions between author, film and filmgoer are more permeable. Questions for the inten-

tion of the director are absolutely irrelevant because the film itself is the final being

that the filmgoer experiences in its entirety. That this is also true for the filmic content

itself, Daniel Frampton gives several examples. In his opinion, there is no difference

for the film-being if there is an impersonal or personality-full narration.8 A personal

narrator as an acting figure might give the filmgoer the impression that he stands

closer to what is being shown, but in any case this is nothing more then the filmic

world, so the film-being is that which is talking. So in this regard, there is no concep-

tual difference if the filmgoer does feel duped by the film, or if he sympathises with a

4 Frampton, p.27.

5 Frampton tries to avoid the word spectator because in his perception the one who is watching the film is doing

more then just spectating. He is experiencing trough sight and hearing while his thoughts still filter through con-

text, personality and language. (cf. p. 148 et sqq.)

6 Frampton, p.27.

7 Cf. Huygens, Ils.

8 Cf. Frampton, p. 35.

5