Neoformalism in Film Analysis

Throughout pages 3-35, in “Neoformalist Film Analysis: One Approach, Many Methods,” Thompson explains in a clear and moral way what Neoformalist film analysis is. The difference between the ordinary, everyday world and the world of art is what she describes to be fundamental to Neoformalism. One can infer that the everyday world depends upon the cultivation of habit, using routine to foster the efficiency of communication. In contrast, the world of art relies upon the disruption of routine by deliberately deviating from what is normal. The key word in Neoformalist art theory is “alienation.” This term expresses the unusual perception that art demands. Yet even this unusual perception can become routine through frequent repetition. I find this Neoformal approach very interesting and unique in the way that it is used to analyze films.

Although I found Kristin Thompson's article on Neoformalist Film Analysis to be rather dense and difficult to follow, I also found that it was filled with many interesting concepts and approaches. Neoformalism, which focuses on the aesthetics of a film, is an interesting idea, as it is not commonly used among film theorist, yet Thompson strongly advocates for it. I agree with Thompson's argument for Neoformalism, as I feel that every film has its own artistic value to it that can be related to many other factors and elements aside from aesthetics that are very important to the film and it's significance. Despite having a hard time understanding all parts of Thompson's article, I did understand and appreciate many of her points.

Neoformalism

Neoformalism is interesting because, according to Thomspon, it steps away from the interpretive theories and really focuses on different empirical ways that we can analyze film. It seeks to identify facts, rather than hypothesis. The three different models that are found within the neoformalistic approach aim to look at the real life aspects of when the flim was made to create a different kind of analysis than previously used. The approach looks at a film's historical context, economic and social constraints, and the particular effects of the film as it was constructed. It's a dynamic approach that looks at the systematic effects of film.

The Concept of Formalism

I'm interested to see how we will be applying this concept in class. The examples Christie gave in the article were all of films that I myself have not seen yet, and therefore found it hard to grasp the concept of Formalism and Neo-formalism. Even when I attempted to look for a simpler definition somewhere online no one could seem to pinpoint what Formalism really is. So I'm going to try to make a succinct definition for it. Formalism has many components, one is that it looks at film as more of an art form. Formalism came before film, therefore once film came about, it was incorporated into these discussions. The second facet is that formalism looks at the "process by which perception is slowed down, or even obstructed." This is important because it means that Formalism disects HOW films create and affect our perceptions, which is a pretty cool concept. The last component is having the distinction between story and plot, the story being more of an underlying meaning and the plot being the actual happenings in the movie.

Thompson: Neoformalist Film Analysis

Upon first read, I found this section of Thompson's book rather difficult to follow and comprehend.  However, once I scanned a second time, I believe I was better able to understand her main message.  Thompson's main point is to stress the broadness and flexibility of the neoformalist approach.  On the last page of the section, on page 35, Thompson writes, "Neoformalism assumes that artists are rational agents, making choices they judge appropriate to an end they have in view."  It's important to note that there is a different end goal for every film, other than to be successful.  For example, the creators of Finding Nemo have a different goal in terms of how their viewers should leave the theater compared to the creators of Zero Dark Thirty. Thus, not all films should be judged and criticized by the exact same, cookie cutter method, which is where neoformalism comes in.

Neoformalism

In a dense article by Kristen Thompson, we are presented an interesting take on the analysis of film. Kristin Thompson's article on Neoformalist Film Analysis provides an interesting viewpoint on film analysis, it’s known as neoformalism. Thompson describes the neoformalist method as a unique, uniform way of analyzing movies. It varies in each film and allows the critic to be more thorough and personalize their critique. When analyzing a film, Kristin Thompson states that there is not just one method in which to approach the film. The Neoformalism approach offers “a series of broad assumptions about how artworks are constructed…but neorformalism does not prescribe how these assumptions are embodied in individual films” (Thompson 6). Thompson describes how neoformalists look at a movie and its relation to the world as opposed to trying to explain the world. It is a method that is constantly changing and in today’s society that is continuously being updated and transformed, it is important to use a method that is able to constantly modify itself.  

Neoformalism

It is interesting that formalism (I think) means not what it seems like. It's not a formal approach to critiquing film, but instead an informal, abstract way of interpreting something. This backwards way of thinking seems odd but once I got my head around this it was a little easier to understand the article. The article stated that a formalist way of thinking was to find motivation for transitions in film, asking why and finding the answers in maybe not the most conventional of ways. For example, Christie uses examples from film where we can find answers in metaphors in the film October. However, the problem is that this approach only works when an active audience member genuinely wants to know more. If it is more of a general public viewing the work, it can be harder to get a formalist interpretation from it.

Neoformalism

When analyzing a film, Kristin Thompson states that there is not just one method in which to approach the film. The Neoformalism approach offers “a series of broad assumptions about how artworks are constructed…but neorformalism does not prescribe how these assumptions are embodied in individual films” (Thompson 6). I found this approach to be unique but yet extremely practical. Not all films are structured in the same manner; although films belong to a designated genre, does not ensure they follow a homogeneous pattern. Sticking to one method of analysis limits the audience’s ability to discover intriguing aspects about the film. This approach also judges the artwork on its own communication abilities and not just as means of entertainment. Since film is a modern form of art, compared to literature and paintings, we need to learn to approach it as a serious piece of work instead for mere amusement purposes. 

Neoformalism

Kristin Thompson’s explanation of neoformalism in her book, Breaking the Glass Armor, was extremely dense and hard to follow. She first talks about how many critics use preexisting methods to talk about films. She then convinces the reader that those preexisting methods are not favorable when analyzing film because they do not look at each film individually. What is unique about the neoformalist method is that is not a uniform way of analyzing movies. It changes from movie to movie and allows the critic to go more in-depth and personalize their critique. I also thought it was interesting that she says that trying to find meaning can contribute to the defamiliarizing effect of a film. Instead of trying to figure out the meaning of a film, neoformalist focus more interpretation. They like to focus on interpretation because it may emphasize meanings we did not see previously or may emphasize the work in relation to society. Thompson also says that neoformalists look at a movie and its relation to the world as opposed to trying explain the world. It is important to use a method that is able to constantly modify itself because of the constantly changing nature of our society. 

Neoformalism

This except from Kristen Thompson’s book was very interesting in explaining the neoformalist approach. This approach, “builds into itself the need to be constantly challenged and thus changed. Each analysis should tell us something not only about the film in question, but about the possibilities of film as an art” (6). I find the idea of modifying constantly to be very useful in analyzing films due to the changes in society and technology. Neoformalist approaches can clearly change with the times and continue to be relevant in analyzing films whereas other approaches may not be as adaptable. This flexibility in the approach allows each viewer of film to interpret it in their own way and each of these differing views are seen as acceptable according to the approach. I like this idea because often when analyzing something according to one approach it is hard to formulate what you want to say because you feel like you need to stick within certain guidelines whereas this method allows for different meanings of different films based on one's own perceptions. Another note Thompson made was that neoformalism does not have a distinction between high art and low art. Often in film and other media forms low art is under appreciated and not focused on but in this approach one can still analytically appreciate low art and learn from it.