Some Philosophical Issues of Film Theory

Dissertation, University of Illinois at Chicago (1983)
  Copy   BIBTEX


This thesis examines several major philosophical issues of film theory. These include debates about the specific nature of the film medium and of film art; debates about the nature of cinematic representation and expression; and about the nature of film fiction and film realism. I approach these issues through the work of three film theorists: Rudolf Arnheim, Andre Bazin and V. F. Perkins. ;The subject of Chapter One is Arnheim. Philosophical issues discussed include: Arnheim's commitment to Lessing-type arguments for medium specificity; his espousal of an expression theory of art; his account of expressive qualities in terms of physiognomic properties; and his ill-defined notion of film-as-merely-mechanical-reproduction-of-reality as the central theoretical contrast or foil to the ideal of film-as-art. ;Bazin is the topic of Chapter Two. Philosophical issues discussed include Bazin's account of the nature of cinematic representation and of film realism. I also review Stanley Cavell's arguments in support of a Bazinian position on the ontological status of the film image. ;Chapter Three examines Perkins' Film as Film. Perkins rejects attempts at essentialist film theory like Bazin's and Arnheim's on the basis of arguments like those that are associated, in philosophical aesthetics, with the open concept theory of art. Perkins holds that the aim of film theory is meta-criticism, and he designs a set of general principles for evaluative criticism. Specific philosophical questions are raised here about Perkins' idea that the task of film theory is meta-criticism, the adequacy of a formalist system of evaluation, Perkins' account of the nature of filmed fiction, and whether or not Perkins succeeds in escaping the essentialist bias of previous film theory. ;In the Conclusion, I argue that each of these three theorists, in different ways, is committed to the belief that certain features specific to the medium of film can be characterized in such a way that these can be used as guidelines for aesthetic decision-making. I offer general objections to what I consider an obsession with medium specificity in film theory



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 89,408

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Towards a Theory of Film Worlds.Daniel Yacavone - 2008 - Film-Philosophy 12 (2):83-108.
Hugo Miinsterberg.Robert Sinnerbrink - 2009 - In Felicity Colman (ed.), Film, Theory and Philosophy: The Key Thinkers. Acumen Publishing. pp. 20-30.
Film theory and philosophy.Richard Allen & Murray Smith (eds.) - 1997 - New York: Oxford University Press.
Philosophy through Film.Christopher Falzon - 2013 - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Der ‘dritte Mann’. Noël Carroll und die Philosophie der bewegten Bilder.Dimitri Liebsch - 2010 - Studia Philosophica: Jahrbuch Der Schweizerischen Philosoph Ischen Gesellschaft, Annuaire de la Société Suisse de Philosphie 69:121-142.
Real Film.Reid Perkins-Buzo - 2007 - Semiotics:142-158.
Metaphor and film.Trevor Whittock - 1990 - New York: Cambridge University Press.
Concepts in film theory.Dudley Andrew - 1984 - New York: Oxford University Press.
Cinematic.Aaron Smuts - 2013 - Nordic Journal of Aesthetics 23 (46):78-95.


Added to PP

2 (#1,618,070)

6 months
1 (#1,005,371)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Noel Carroll
CUNY Graduate Center

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references