Cinema Basics (thoughts for analysis of film for this course)

Prepping for films and in-class rules when viewing films

My basic goals: 1) Create as much discussion time as possible. 2) Create an environment for careful, non-multitasking viewing of the films.

To that end, the below are required to create a specific viewing environment and to move to outside of class the bulk of preparation in terms of information coverage and discussion preparation:

NO ANNOUNCEMENTS IN CLASS. WATCH THE WEB SITE.
Arrive on time and get your notes out. Films start immediately.
No eating, drinking, talking, or use of electronic devices.
Remind yourself of the main topics returned to frequently in this class (layering, etc.)
Cover the background material before class and keep it in mind while viewing the film. Consider making short notes so you can refer to main points as you watch.
Read the discussion questions ahead of time, bring a copy to class, and be ready to answer questions by thinking a little bit about them during the film. This means having the fairly firmly in mind while watching.
Watch the film as a total product, not just a story being told: sound as context, setting as context, body language, how things are said, makeup, minor aspects in the film frame, anything that gives clues to how the director (and perhaps others) wants you to think about romantic values or values that are related to romance.

Thoughts on some relevant (to us) differences between premodern texts and modern films.

There are some fundamental differences between narratives delivered as literary prose and narratives delivered as film. For our purposes, two areas are of particular importance: differences in narrative shape due to the medium (literary prose / film) and differences that directly impact the position that narrative takes to core values (changes which can be seen on scales of presence/absence, modification, consistency/inconsistency).

Narrative length. Films are shorter narratives both in terms of real time (consumption of the story via reading or viewing) and in terms of words. For example the 1996 modern cinematic take on the story of Romeo and Juliet—a "wordy" movie as movies go—has a script of about 7,800 words while the original play as written by Shakespeare is about 25,700 words long. The greatly limited "word space" of films reduces discursive nuance although nuance generated by its medium's special characteristics (sound, image, etc.) creates complexities that prose cannot. However, these nuances are usually less about narrative elements than about context (context as direction on how to take narrative events). Limited space simplifies stories. Limited space often simplifies values.

Linearity. Films are more linear than literary prose. Narratives are generally streamlined so that they can be "captured" by the viewer as they happen. Stories can be more challenging in structure because readers control reading speed, reading direction, re-reading, and so on.

Single medium vs. multimedia. Multimedia (film) containers have the ability to present layered experiences: sound, image, and words interact in complex, even unpredictable ways. Single medium literary prose can evoke sound and image but the mental presence is generated by the reader rather than directly presented as it is to the audience of a film. The power of sound and image to generate powerful emotional responses in the viewer leads film to usually draw more heavily on emotive context for its message. In short, "mood" can rival narrative content as the primary aspect of the work. This is less often the case in our premodern texts where cognitive delights abound. This is relevant because romance consumed as mood and romance that is interesting because of complex, even high-culture, discourse differ on the scale of "low" and "high" love that we constantly consider and the place of values in the two contexts is different as well. This is one of the reasons love stories in films seem more universal than some of the love stories we read in premodern texts. (In other words, it is not because the core values are shared but rather that "low" love is the primary film content.)

Literary prose in general and our East Asian premodern texts in particular, have different reference points than film. EA premodern texts are situated in literary traditions such as didactic essay (Confucian classics, Buddhist canon, etc.), poetry or prose, and prose devoted to romantic stories is often a "lesser" tradition in these countries, creating a type of marginality. Films, on the other hand, have as important reference points the audience of the day, current films, and the history of films. The core values, or the status of core value,s of these areas usually differ, sometimes dramatically.

Audience diversity. Our premodern texts, when compared to one another, differ rather widely in the degree of diversity of the anticipated readership (at the time of writing). However, compared to modern films, all are much less diverse. Producers and directors need to create products that appeal to a wide variety of viewers. Generally this creates a "blend" of values to appeal to a variety of viewers, and this blend includes inconsistencies within the film and generally "softer" moral positions either by playing to commonly or widely held (even if not followed in the real lives of the viewers) core values or deemphasizing the role core values play in the narrative.

Similarly, films are bound to commercial concerns in a way quite different from our premodern texts. The need to produce a product that has a high likelihood of being widely view is a very dynamic component of most film production. This creates both simplicity of story and caution in terms of core values. Most of the authors of the texts we read in class received no wealth compensation of any sort, and did not intend the work to be sold to the readership. (By the 1600s commercialism is becoming relevant, however.) The pressure to "succeed" is both different in content and probably in degree as well.

Authorship. Our premodern texts are not simply single-author texts: in some cases portions might have been written by others and in some cases the stories first had an oral tradition before being written down. However, compared to the complex production line of films they are relatively single-author texts. Film content at minimum is the result of producer, director, script writer, cinematographer, musical director (and composer), editor, and actor. These interact in complex ways and it is impossible to say a film is purely the vision of a single individual. The director, if very strong, mostly succeeds in making the film that he or she wants to make, but part of the skill of any director is allowing a certain "openness" in the final product where the talents of the many individuals involved contribute to the quality of the film. When we are trying to figure out a film's "values" this diversity of voice is relevant.

"Of its time." While both premodern texts and modern films are relevant to the time and place of their composition, what exactly that means is rather different. The "classical" mentality that is the context for our premodern texts insists on an honoring of the past and an incremental progress in "new" developments of expression (and contemplation / exploration of values). Modern films are usually very much in the moment and are less concerned about seeming dated over the years if they succeeded in drawing large audiences for a short period of time after a release.

Overview of main topics explored during the screening of the five primary films

Below I list which of our class topics becomes a focus for discussion for each film (in abbreviated form, for details go to the specific questions in the modules). You can use this list as a "map" to review the basic topics of the class, to key back to films to help in writing your essays, to see where emphasis lays, where we are headed, and so forth.

These topics are linked to the basic topics of this class listed on the "Course Basics" page. Go here to review them or get more information than listed below.

As we cover more films we begin comparing them to one another.

This is a "live" list — it might change as the term progresses.

House of Flying Daggers (Beijing):

We note the content of the love theme song, for future use (Three Times).
Deception.
(Confucian) loyalty - (Confucian) faithfulness - individual interests (Confucian duty is included in the concept of loyalty)
Comparisons: Introduction of "instances".
Comparisons: Faithfulness in Flying Daggers and Chunhyang.
Comparisons: Mei's actions compared to those of Bao-chai, Dai-yu and Xi-feng.
Summary analysis: the place of traditional, core romantic values in this film.

2046 (Hong Kong):

Layering: role of memories in romance
Layering: blending of boundaries of individuals
Non-linearity (narrative structure, experience of the presence as tied to the past and future, especially the past—memories).
Comparisons: Dreams in 2046 and Genji.
Comparisons: Money in 2046 and Story of the Stone.
Summary analysis: the place of traditional, core romantic values in this film.

Three Times (Taipei):

Context influencing the experience (interpretation of, understanding of, valuation of) love.
Soundtrack as context—music in general, lyrics in particular (with reference to Flying Daggers)
Comparisons: "layering" in Daggers, 2046, and Three Times
Comparisons: money in 2046 and segments 2,3 of Three Times
Summary analysis: the place of traditional, core romantic values in this film.

Dolls (Tokyo):

Free-will / fate in a nihilistic environment.
Comparisons: Sacrifice in Flying Daggers, 2046 and Dolls.
Comparisons: how bonds are narrated in Flying Daggers and Dolls.
Comparisons: role of memory in 2046 and Dolls.
Summary analysis: the place of traditional, core romantic values in this film.

3-iron (Seoul):

Comparisons: Dream-like worlds of Genji, 2046, and 3-iron.
Comparison: accidents in Dolls and 3-iron.
Summary analysis: the place of traditional, core romantic values in this film.