Talk:Film theory

agree with JButler, film style and film theory are separate categories, not sure how to fix this problem. Article also has no signs of drawing attention to the intense debates that have existed in film theory, the academic founding of film studies (as a result of film theories significance and acceptance into the academies?), and more recent developments in film theory, ie David Bordwell's classical Hollywood cinema, formalist and cognitive film theories (possibly separate articles that can be linked to this page?).

--Jwmcglone 15:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elements of style in a movie

(Note : this suggestion has also been posted on Film theory. Actually, I don't know where this request fits best).

It would be cool to provide an (almost) exhaustive list of what can be discussed in a movie, as well as examples of typical movies of such styles. Example :

Rythm : alternance of quiet and active times (or whatever :-). Example of a movie with a remarkable rythm : The big sleep
Field depth : See main article field depth. Example of a movie with low field depth : whatever. Example of notable field depth effects : whatever

Thanks. King mike 07:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the thrust of what I'd like to accomplish with a new website I just set up - wikifilmschool.com, if anybody is interested in participating. HamillianActor 00:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC) GAGA IS THE BEST[reply]

Don't know how active this area is, but coming from a theatre background I'm surprised to find that this page doesn't lay out broad areas of inquiry - iconography, genre criticism, cinematography, editing and montage theory, etc. Deeply immersed in theatre articles, so can't do it myself, unfortunately. Anyone able to flesh that out a little? DionysosProteus 16:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Siegfried Kracauer a realist or formalist?

It seems to me that the quote "Siegfried Kracauer. These individuals emphasized how film differed from reality," on this page directly contradicts the quote on the Kracauer wikipage: "In 1960, he released Theory of Film: The Redemption of Physical Reality, which argued that realism is the most important function of cinema."

Shouldn't Kracauer be considered a realist instead of a formalist? I not familiar with the works of Kracauer so I can't be sure about this. Can anybody shed light on the subject? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.219.172.194 (talk) 10:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

i see no contradiction. emphasizing on how film differs from reality is one of the issues realism theory should deal with. capi (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bibliography

i don't know what's the criteria for these works. however, i'm adding robert stam's "film theory: an introduction" since it covers the widest cultural diversity when covering the subject. stam is known for its works as film critic and cultural studies. capi (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]