[Foot] Great Films Post: Film Theory and Censorship

With so much in 129 pages, I chose two different sections of interest to focus on: The first is a brief overview of Film Theory and the second being Censorship.

(A brief history of Film Censorship. View a larger version here.)

Having seen several of the films listed during the first paragraph of movies that were censored in schools during the first wave of censorship, I honestly wasn't that surprised. Two of the films that I had seen that were listed were The Lottery and Bonnie and Clyde. The first of these I can definitely see being censored in a school. The film is based off the short story by Shirley Jackson and is, to be frank, quite gruesome. Being a short story, it doesn't offer much insight into the actual thematic details that a longer novella or novel could offer on the consequences and intricacies of the The Lottery. Instead, in its short length, it is just a haunting piece of shocking literature with little appetite for more depth. While an interesting discussion, it's basically the story of stoning someone to death for tradition's sake, so banning the film version of this does not surprise me. The second film, Bonnie and Clyde, is the story of the famous crime duo. While most of the film is just about that, the last scene of the movie is overbearingly bloody. This scene alone I could see being reason for it being banned in schools.

The section goes on to talk about the history of censorship and the basic fights for and against it, but not in too much detail, and were fairly obvious. Those for were parents who felt they should have a say, those against fought using the first amendment. Nothing was a surprise in either of these statements. But, this did get me thinking about my own view on censorship in the classroom for film and literature.

During our discussions on censorship in all of my education classes, I have staunchly fought against almost every single case of censoring a book citing the educational process in some way or that it isn't really all that touchy of a subject or something of that nature. The point being, I have always been very against censoring a teacher's choices in literature. But I'm now contradicting that ideal I've had by agreeing with these censorships. I definitely think both those films are rightfully censored. They're gruesome and serve no educational purpose from them. But does this mean that my viewpoint is skewed when it comes to literature? Or is there truly a distinct difference between the films and the literature I support?

I don't actually have the answers to these questions, but I'm definitely contemplating them these days. If I see the legitimacy in film censorship, what differentiates it from literature censorship?

Currently, my main argument rests on the difference between visual stimulation and written word. The way a film portrays something visually has a defined and concrete image to it, forcing it to be offensive if it hits the right emotive spots. Language, on the other hand, is a bit more amorphous than that. But then what about something like the Huck Finn censorship?

Is the word nigger automatically offense like a bloddy scene at the end of Bonnie and Clyde? I currently don't think so, but I definitely need to reevaluate that.

---------

In the section on Film Theory, I was most drawn to Marixsm, which focused on film in an idealogical manner and believed that it was an "instrument for social change" (pg. 66, Costanzo) Because of my main focus on literature, I most relate to this because it is how I view literature. By viewing film in this way, it shows how the writers, producers, and everyone else in the film reflect a current state of social norms or a revolt against them. Even in fictionally based films, they reflect their time period and are used to help perpetuate or change society itself.

I find this to be a very applicable and relatable angle to view film because it's also an important aspect of literature. By using images, film can give a more vivid view of life and really strike an audience member in a different, and perhaps stronger, manner than words can. These can help move the wheels of social change or help keep them stagnant. The marxist focus on how images evoke emotions plays well into affecting social roles and norms because it will help motivate people to think in a certain way because it is focused on exactly that.

What I am not sure of is how a marxist point of view would see documentaries, since they are directly meant to influence social change. Are they just the ultimate purpose of a marxist film critic, perhaps? I guess I'd have to study more film from critical view points to have a better understanding of this.

Several of the other theories interested me, such as Realism/Antirealism and semiotics, but didn't seem to delve too deep into them. In fact, most of the chapter felt very uninspired to me. Having read entire books on critical literary theory, I really wanted more information on each theory and how it works and famous criticizers of each theory, etc. Some of the more popular ones like Feminist, Psychoanalytic, and Cultural Studies got a full page or so, but it didn't even delve into the intricacies enough.

I think that all of this information can be applied in the classroom, though. Just like literary theory, film theory is putting on a particular lens and looking at a piece of work through it and then analyzing it using that perspective. Perhaps this "light" version of each lens is enough information to use directly with a high school student to get them thinking in different ways about films. I'll definitely be holding onto this book and have a sticky note on this section for future use in the classroom if/when I show a film and to hopefully help stimulate student thought in different manners.