Subject: Re: Sociology-Film
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 10:34:08 -0700 (MST)
From: Gary Norris <garyn-AT-tatteredcover.com>


> 
> Vince-
> 
> Yes, you're right: films offer some kind of sociological
> analysis themselves, and are themselves at the same time socially
> situated. (hence possibly the object of sociological study.) A
> common occurrence at undergraduate level classes in sociology is that
> most, if not all, students come to them with the assumption that
> sociology ought to be / can be analogous to the "hard sciences." Most of
> them are introduced to the notions of social-constructedness of concepts
> such as race and gender and the complexity of making statements about the
> social world in these initial years of collegec. Films, as a
> corollary in this understanding, are separated from the realm of the
> "social": they are fun, they are "artistic," and they are "epiphenomenal"
> to sociological questions. 



hey good post!   anyway, film, is a great tool for educating the 
undergrad on all levels--  from aesthetics to sociology.


I would pose a warning, though, when using media to educate on the level 
of the sociological realm.  There is something "unseen" in the mechanism 
of translating real events into documents.  From journalism to film, from 
"news" to entertainment, the "look" of the camera, the "print" of the 
newspaper, re-interpret what is, for lack of a better term, real.  let us 
say, instead of real, a loaded word if there ever was one, "the camera 
and the typewriter re-interpret, or ask us to interpret, what actually 
happened at a given time, since we were/are not there to "feel" and "see" 
the events documented."

in godard's film COMMENT CA VA (How is it going?), the directors, godard 
and meiville (sp?), work very hard to show how we make a text and ignore 
the process of making the text.  The film is that thing which comes 
between the subject and the audience.  The film is that thing which comes 
between the act and the spectacle.   ((btw, GADFLY [march 99] just 
printed an article on stevie spielberg and his use of spectacle, check it 
out))  

A good example would be documentaries, of course, i.e. EYES ON THE PRIZE.

This amazing document of the civil rights movement is amazing for what it 
tells but is also  amazing for what it doesn't tell.  The audience, the 
viewer, is left to interpret the meaning of the film, not the movement.  
this may be a more relevant topic of discussion for a student of sociology, say 
than what the film was trying to say.  


What you see and
What you don't see
and the film in between.
how is "it" going?




anyway, it is good to let the list be silent every once in a while.  air 
things out, you know?    kelley, are you hanging out here.  if so, hi.


I need some info please.  I work at a bookstore and can't find anything!  i 
need to help a friend who is working on an article on postructuralism in 
film theory and history.   he stumped me with this one, yet I am sure 
there are some listmembers who could share sources.  this guys a film 
student but has been doing commercial work and is now delving into 
theory.  he asked me for help, but I am not up on the poststructuralism.  
i tend to leave that for the pomo crowd.     

any info would be greatly appreciated.



thanks

gary norris



kurdistan now!


     --- from list film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---