92 MINUTES - SPY THRILLER - PRODUCED BY LEONIDAS ZEGARRA - WRITTEN AND DIRECTED BY JORGE LUIS VILLACORTA SANTAMATO (JORGE VILLACORTA). STARRING: JORGE L. VILLACORTA.
THEORETICALLY, A PARANOID CONSPIRATORIAL PHONE CALL (2020)
¡¡¡Un espacio donde todas las películas son maravillosas!!! A site where every movie is wonderful!!!
martes, 4 de agosto de 2020
sábado, 20 de junio de 2020
viernes, 19 de junio de 2020
ACADEMY FILM SCHOLARS GRANTS 2,020. PROJECT "BOURGEOIS AND PETIT BOURGEOIS FILM MODES OF PRODUCTION AS ART PROJECTS OR, THE AMERICAN FILM INDUSTRY , ITS ARTISTIC BOUNDARIES, AND THE KIND OF FILM STYLE BEYOND THE OUTER LIMITS TO ITS ACCUMULATED ECONOMIC, CULTURAL, SOCIAL, AND SYMBOLIC CAPITAL" BY JORGE LUIS VILLACORTA SANTAMATO.
| Academy Grants Program |
-------------
Bourgeois and Petit Bourgeois Film Modes of Production as Art Projects or, The American Film Industry, its Artistic Boundaries, and the Kind of Film Style Beyond the Outer Limits to its Accumulated Economic, Cultural, Social, and Symbolic Capital.
Project Statement
By Jorge Villacorta
a. Description of the project.
This will be a book or booklet that will explain why the Bourgeois art project cannot be fully developed by the American film industry, even though this industry pretends to create art in the bourgeois sense because it depends on Petit Bourgeois consumption, a situation that at the same time limits the economic viability of the Petit Bourgeois film production that innovates in film style according to the Bourgeois project.
Experimentation in film style is not encouraged in the film industry because it is intended to be a profitable industry that creates what Pierre Bourdieu describes as popular art, art that seems to be an extension of daily experience and demands the emotional participation of the consumer. In the Bourgeois art project, recognizing style requires the ability to compare pieces of artwork while keeping contemplative distance. David Bordwell verifies that film style is non-existent for most moviegoers.
For those of us who learned from Sarris, then, there remains much to do. In particular, although “style” as sensory bombast has become part of a movie’s packaging and marketing (X-Men and JFK order up Technique in 40-gallon drums), viewers remain almost completely unaware of style in any rigorous sense, let alone its nuances. “The auterists,” Sarris remarked over 25 years ago, “are still fighting an uphill battle to make movie audiences conscious of style.” La lutte continue, as the French used to say. (Bourdieu 2008: 262)
b.. Definitions: Objective and methodology.
B1. Objective:
To explain why the American film industry cannot fully develop the Bourgeois art project as it is described by Pierre Bourdieu and point out why its nature as popular art contributes to limit the economic viability of the Petit Bourgeois film production that innovates in film style according to the Bourgeois project
B2. Methodology:
Critical reading of information provided by a variety of sources (thesis, papers, books, interviews, documentaries, etc.) will allow me to conceptualize the relations between the Bourgeois art project, the American film industry, the Petit Bourgeois art project, and the Peti Bourgeois film mode of production.
c. The project in the academic context.
Up to this date, the history of art and the sociology of art have viewpoints that would enrich the history of film style when extended to this field, clarifying present pseudo-problems derived from insufficiency of sociological knowledge.
d. Subjects or ideas underrepresented in the canon of film scholarship to date.
Bourgeois and Petit Bourgeois film modes of production, concepts derived from the field of sociology and its concept of social class, have not been identified as such by the field of film studies. While a variety of terms like “independent film”, “low-budget”, “B movies”, or “microbudget” are applied to describe productions outside the American film industry or productions of lower legitimacy inside it, these designations do not characterize the social extraction of the productions, which shapes its main social tendencies in form and content. The censorship the American film industry applies to its productions, as described by Gregory Black in Hollywood Censored is a consequence of the film industry being a Bourgeois art project, based on its political importance, even though it is commonly assumed that the censorship is founded on profitability. Ruling the film market is a need for the American film industry, more for political reasons than for economic reasons, as Peter Decherney shows in Hollywood and the culture elite: How the movies become American. The museums, government agencies, universities, and other cultural institutions that helped organize an American Bourgeois society, supported the film industry as “art” because it had a vast audience which was not Bourgeois but, Petit Bourgeois or working class. Through the movies, the Bourgeoisie, educates the Petit Bourgeoisie and the working class during their “free time,” providing ideas and images created having in mind the Bourgeois (political) interest. In the area of filmmaking, Petit bourgeois or working-class art projects have immediately recognizable characteristics in form and theme, even when they become distinctive due to “a lack of resources” (material or intellectual) that are intrinsic to these social classes in contrast to the Bourgeois art project, represented by the ”American film industry.” So, there are “social class film styles”, in the plural, but the Bourgeois one in a Bourgeois society is considered the “legitimate” one. So, the distinction between Bourgeois and Petit Bourgeois film modes of production widens the understanding of film style being a useful application of a sociological concept that is not present in the film theory literature extensively up to this day.
e. Significance in its field of study.
While a scholar like David Bordwell claims that the “viewers remain almost completely unaware of style in any rigorous sense, let alone its nuances” (Bordwell 2008: 262) pretending that they should be educated in this skill, he doesn’t differentiate between popular art and art for producers, as stated by Pierre Bourdieu in Distinction: a social critique of the judgment of taste, which explains why most viewers demand a particular film style, that forces them to “remain almost completely unaware of” other kinds of film style. Bordwell narrows the awareness of style to the “rigorous sense” but, the viewers obviously identify a style and demand it, even though they may not have the concepts to explain with scholar terminology what they perceive. In studies like The love of art: European and museums and their public by Pierre Bourdieu and Alain Darbel, the sociology of art shows that the art consumer is conditioned through social institutions like the family and school to appreciate what they see, hear, and value, which means that even though the filmgoers may not have knowledge of the historical evolution of style they have notions that allow them to process their movie consumption. An evident example of this situation is the movie Grindhouse (2007), in which Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino alter the image quality of their films to resemble worn out celluloid and purposely eliminate already shot scenes to emulate missing reels. These traits were learned by film consumption conditioned by their social extraction. Even though it could be seen as a scholar homage to those movie classics that are lost and found and present different duration according to the copy of the film that is preserved, this more complex explanation is not the origin of this situation, which is the direct past experience of the filmmakers as viewers whose social position forced them to watch the movie in specific social circumstances that make them feel that missing reels and “low-quality image” were fundamental to the filmmaking experience. Had they watched films in theaters that projected mint prints, they wouldn’t dare to pretend it. Naturally, had they done that it would have meant they were in a different social position, which was not the case. Then, social extraction determines ways of consumption and perspectives of production. The sociology of art explains why David Bordwell’s expectations are unrealistic: “style in any rigorous sense” is an academic discourse disconnected from mass interest. Instead of suggesting that educating the public will be a difficult task to accomplish he should ask first why the “viewers remain almost completely unaware of style in any rigorous sense, let alone its nuances.” Once explained the causes of the situation, it would make sense to evaluate if raising awareness among the viewers is a sensible objective. In Distinction: a social critique of the judgment of taste Pierre Bordieu has compared the art historian with the religious priest, both dedicated to organizing the devotion of the sacred reliques. In Reproduction in education, society, and culture, with Jean Claude-Passeron, Bourdieu has shown that the educational system in a Bourgeois society is designed to protect the Bourgeois interest. With this knowledge, it is possible to understand Mr. Bordwell’s position as a scholar who concedes more importance to the film style as it is understood by the academic world than to the actual perception and behavior of the viewers. If the religious leaders don’t have access to “special information, knowledge, or qualities”, preferably magical ones, the faith of the followers may be weakened. The “artistic freedom” promoted by the Bourgeoisie in the field of painting cannot be assumed by the American film industry due to its dependence on a mass audience, therefore, it won’t produce the Abstract Expressionism film unless it becomes very popular, which is unlikely. In Narration in the fiction film David Bordwell identifies four kinds of historical modes of narration: Classical one, represented by Hollywood; Art-Cinema narration, Historical-materialist narration, and the Parametric narration. Extrapolating to the sociological description made by Pierre Bourdieu in Distinction, the first and fourth modes of historical narration would be popular art, one in the capitalist society (American film industry), and the other one in the Socialist society (Soviet film industry and other Socialist film industries). The third and fourth historical modes of narration would be art produced for art producers to be consumed by other art producers, identifiable by its formal innovation. According to Bordwell, who borrows the term “parameters” used by Noël Burch in Theory of film practice, the Parametric narration is the one that focuses on the style due to the fact that the way it tells the story doesn’t seem to explicitly serve the story told in the way “classical” or “historical-materialist” narration does, calling attention to itself. Obviously, as useful as this classification is, it would be improved by a deeper understanding of the sociology of art as elaborated by Pierre Bourdieu and other authors that work in that field. “Classical narration” or “Historical-materialist narration” wouldn’t be recognizable hadn’t they already a particular style. What the Parametric narration does is to deviate from both historical modes of narrations proposing a new artistic language, canon, or code as modern art under the capitalist system does. Nowadays around the world, with recording and editing equipment at hand, as humble as they may be, experimentation in feature films is possible at low costs but, as the popular art produced by the American film industry rules the market in many countries, feature films that create their own conventions and are produced in artisanal ways aren’t perceived as artistic by the mass viewers. These movies are better received by artists who are interested in the audiovisual field. This is a natural outcome of the existence of the American film industry and the viewers shouldn’t be blamed for gladly consuming what an industry that produces popular art offers to them. At the same time, artists who are interested in experimenting with the audiovisual narration should understand the position they occupy in society as producers of art for other producers. So, clarifying concepts related to film style and Bourgeois and Petit-Bourgeois films modes of production would generate a more realistic approach to film production by artists, investors and would-be investors, scholars, and the consumers.
f. How my professional experience is relevant to the project.
Working for free for Leonidas Zegarra, the Anti-Communist Filmmaker, during the shooting, editing, and exhibition of María y los niños pobres (2010) I gathered experience in different áreas related to the “artisanal” or Petit-Bourgeois mode of production: as an actor, an assistant director, a co-editor, as crew in the direct sound department, as a promoter, as a sponsor, and as a security guard at the rented movie theater where the film was exhibited. Also, being an unpaid ghostwriter for Leonidas Zegarra, I have written his “Official Blog” since 2008, a situation that forced me to think and research different scholar material to understand the social situation that occupies an artist as Mr. Zegarra. As his unpaid media adviser and unpaid manager of his IMDb.Pro account that I financed, I have had to identify inexpensive methods that would help to develop the public image of a broken filmmaker. As a teacher of the course “Directing Actors Workshop” at the University of San Marcos (Lima – Peru), for one semester, after inviting Leonidas Zegarra to my classroom, I observed the reactions and interaction between the filmmaker and the students, which provided me with deeper insight into the Petit Bourgeois mind that is under the influence of the Bourgeois film mode of production. As the appointed curator of the Leonidas Zegarra (Film) Museum [Casa Museo Leonidas Zegarra, in Spanish], which is a project in development initiated in 2010, I have had to study Mr. Zegarra’s film career and accompany him at a variety of artistic events, retrospectives, and homages developed along the streets, in cultural centers, art galleries, and museums, as well as to hear negatives to exhibit his autobiographical movie at multiplexes located in Lima, Peru. Having a Master’s degree in Social Communication and having undergone a doctoral program in the History of Art (2012-2013), the data I accumulate is complemented by a permanent interest in film and art theory. So, if there is someone with the experience acquired in the artisanal film production field needed to develop the project, it is me.
g. The project’s significance to my own professional development.
The project is the theoretical extension of my experience working with Leonidas Zegarra, the Anti-Communist Filmmaker as well as a consequence of research I have developed to describe his film style in María y los niños pobres (2010). Being myself interested in the audiovisual narration and being an aspiring artist, a book or booklet that clarifies the position of the producer of art for other producers in the filmmaking field, would contribute to support my future practice. It is easier to refer the own practice to a written source than to explain every time what one is doing. Also, the ´project would clarify Mr. Zegarra’s film practice, facilitating my labor as curator of The Leonidas Zegarra (Film) Museum, which is a project in development.
h. Timetable for completing the project.
2020: Reception of funds.
January – May 2021. Analysis of the information available.
June – October 2021. Elaboration of the text.
November 2021: Final draft.
December 2021: Publication.
i. Additional resources and how I intend to use the grant.
I don’t have additional resources and I intend to use the grant wisely. The core of the project is conceptual, which demands books and time to read and these have costs. The grant will be used to cover these costs and to pay for the cost of publishing the book or booklet.
-----------
Bourgeois and Petit Bourgeois Film Modes of Production as Art Projects or, The American Film Industry, its Artistic Boundaries, and the Kind of Film Style Beyond the Outer Limits to its Accumulated Economic, Cultural, Social, and Symbolic Capital.
Select Bibliography
By Jorge Villacorta
Agassi, Joseph; Jarvie, Ian (2008). A critical rationalist aesthetics. Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi B.V.
Bazin, Andre (1991). Orson Welles: a critical view. Los Angeles: Acrobat Books.
Black, Gregory (2001). Hollywood censored: Morality codes, Catholics, and the movies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Becker, Howard Saul. (2008). Art Worlds. Berkeley ; Los Angeles ; London: University of California Press
Becker, Howard Saul. (1974). Art As Collective Action. American Sociological Review, Vol. 39, No. 6. (Dec., 1974), pp. 767-776. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-1224%28197412%2939%3A6%3C767%3AAACA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Z
Beller, Jonathan (2006). The cinematic mode of production: Attention economy and the society of the spectacle. Hanover and London: University Press of New England.
Bordwell, David; Thompson, Kristin; Smith, Jeff (2020). Film art: An introduction. New York, NY : McGraw-Hill Education
Bordwell, David (2015). Narration in the fiction film. New York ; London : Routledge, Taylor & Franics Group.
Bordwell, David; Staiger, Janet; Thompson, Kristin (2015). The classical Hollywood cinema: Film style & the mode of production to 1960. London; New York : Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group
Bordwell, David (2010). The way Hollywood tells it: Story and style in modern movies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bordwell, David (2008). Poetics of cinema. New York; London: Routledge
Bordwell, David (1999). On the history of film style. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press
Bordwell, David (1996). Making meaning: inference and rhetoric in the intepretation of cinema. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Bordwell, David (1994): Ozu and the poetics of cinema. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bourdieu; Pierre; Turner, Christ (2016). The social estructures of the economy. Cambridge ; Malden: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre; Nice, Richard; Benntt, Tony (2015). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. London ; New York : Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group
Bourdieu, Pierre (2008). Homo Academicus. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1996). The rules of art. Cambridge : Polity Press
Bourdieu, Pierre (1986). The forms of capital. In Richardson, J., Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (1986), Westport, CT: Greenwood, pp. 241–58.
Burch, Nöel; Lane, Helen R. (2018). Theory of film practice. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Burch, Nöel; Brewster, Ben (1990). Life to those shadows. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Burch, Nöel (1979). To the distant observer. Form and meaning in the Japanese cinema. Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Burnett, Colin (2008). A new look at the concept of film style in film: the origins and development of the problem-solution model. Published online: https://doi.org/10.1080/17400300802098289
Commolli, Jean-Louis (2015). Cinema against spectacle Technique and ideology revisited. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Cutting, James E.; Brunick, Kaitlin L.; DeLong, Jordan E. (2011) How act structure sculpts shot lengths and shot transitions in Hollywood Film. Projections. Volume 5, Issue 1, Summer 2011: 1-16. doi: 10.3167/proj.2011.050102
Decherney, Peter (2005). Hollywood and the culture elite: How the movies became American. New York: Columbia University Press.
Edwards, Matthew (ed.) (2007). Film out of boundaries. Essays and interviews on non.mainstream cinema worldwide. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers.
Hadjinicolaou, Nicos (1979). Art history and class struggle. London: Pluto Press.
Jarvie, Ian C. (2014). Philosophy of the film: Epistemology, ontology, aesthetics. New York: Routledge.
Jarvie, Ian C. (2001). Towards a sociology of the cinema: a comparative essay on the structure and functioning of a major entertainment industry. London: Routledge.
Jarvie, Ian C. (1989-90). Audrey Hepburn: the performer and the star. Unpublished paper. http://www.yorku.ca/jarvie/online_publications/HepburnAudrey.pdf
Jarvie, Ian C. (1978). Controlling the international film industry. Unpublished paper. http://www.yorku.ca/jarvie/online_publications/Honolulu.pdf
Kapsis, Robert E. (1993). Hitchcock: the making of a reputation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kapsis, Robert E. (1993). Reputation building and the film art world: the case of Alfred Hitchcock. The Sociological Quaterly. Vol 30, No 1 (Spring 1989), pp. 15-35.
Kaufman, Lloyd; Antill, Sara (2017). Sell your own damn movie! New York: Focal Press.
Kaufman, Lloyd; Antill, Sara; Tlapoyawa, Kurly (2016). Direct your own damn movie! London, New York: Routledge.
Kaufman, Lloyd; Collins, Ashley Wren (2009). Produce your own damn movie! Burlington, MA: Focal Press.
Kaufman, Lloyd; Jahnke, Adam; Haaga, Trent (2003). Make your own damn movie! Secrets of a renegade director. New York: Saint Martin’s Griffin.
Kaufman, Llody; Gunn, James (1998). All I need to know about filmmaking I learned from the Toxic Avenger. Troma Entertainmet / Berkley Boulevard Books.
Klinger, Barbara (1994). Melodrama and meaning: history, culture, and the films of Douglas Sirk. Bloomington: Indiana University Press Press.
Lindenmuth, Kevin J. (1998). Making movies on your own. Practical talk from independent filmmakers. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers.
Linnell, Greg (1993). Prospects for a historical poetics of cinema: David Bordwell, Kristin Thompson, and neoformalism. Thesis. Master of Philosophical Foundations in Aesthetics. Institute for Christian Studies. Toronto, Ontario, Canada. https://ir.icscanada.edu/bitstream/handle/10756/290830/Linnell_Greg_199309_MPhilF_Thesis.pdf
O’Pray, Michael (ed.) (1991). Andy Warhol film factory. London: British Film Institute Publications.
Pela, Robrt L. (2002). Filthy: The weird world of John Waters. Los Angeles, California: Alyson Books.
Raymond, Marc (2013). Hollywood’s New Yorker: The Making of Martin Scorsese. Albany, New York: SUNY Press.
Raymond, Marc (2000) Martin Scorsese and American Film Genre. Thesis. Master’s of Arts in Film Studies. Ottawa; Ontario: Carleton University. https://curve.carleton.ca/2e3497c6-e49b-4897-b0d4-4da0b938c865
Raymond Marc (2009) Martin Scorsese and Film Culture Radically Contextualizing the Contemporary Auteur. Thesis. Doctor of Philosophy. Institute of Comparative Studies in Literature, Art and Culture: Cultural Mediations. Ottawa, Canada: Carleton University. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9127/02a004a27fc60b19866e20c11e00aa2aa39d.pdf
Sarris, Andrew (1996). The American cinema: Directors and directions 1929-1968. New York: Da Capo Press.
Simens, Dov S-S (2003). From reel to deal: Everything you need to create a successful independent film. New York, NY: Hachette Book Group, Inc.
Symons, Alex (2012). Mel Brooks in the cultural industries: Survival and prolonged adaptation. Edinburgh University Press..
Thompson, Don (2015). The supermodel and the Brillo box. Back stories and peculiar economics from the the world of contemporary art. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Turner, Graeme (1999). Film as social practice. London, New York: Routledge.
Wolff, Janet (1981). The social production of art. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hamphire, and London: MacMillan Education LTD.
---------
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)