This summary of the video was created by an AI. It might contain some inaccuracies.
00:00:00 – 00:20:49
The video explores Beaudry's apparatus theory, focusing on the roles of perspective, ideology, and apparatus in cinema and visual arts. Key concepts include the illusion of movement created by still frames and how films function as "identification machines." This perspective is critiqued through the lens of French Marxist thinkers like Louis Althusser, who argues that individuals are shaped by ideological apparatuses, believing they are autonomous while actually being influenced by higher authorities. Influences from Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud are noted, emphasizing ideological false consciousness and the unconscious mind.
The video also discusses how Renaissance perspective centers the viewer's eye as the focal point, contrasting it with other art forms like medieval and ancient Egyptian art or isometric projection in early video games. Cinema's maintenance of linear perspective is highlighted as ideologically charged.
Further, theorists like Baudrillard and Henderson critique traditional cinematic practices, suggesting alternative approaches like those in Jean-Luc Godard's films and anime, where camera movements avoid privileging individual perspectives. This discussion underscores the ideological implications of visual and narrative techniques in shaping viewers’ perceptions and beliefs.
00:00:00
In this part of the video, the lecturer introduces Beaudry’s apparatus theory, focusing on key concepts such as perspective, ideology, and apparatus. The terms “ideology” and “apparatus” are defined for context, with “apparatus” referring to the technical equipment needed for an activity and “ideology” to a system of ideas and ideals. The lecturer discusses Beaudry’s diagram illustrating the transformation of objective reality in cinematic works and emphasizes the ‘film theory of suspicion’ from 1968 onward, which critiques cinema’s alignment with dominant ideologies like capitalism. The lecturer aims to simplify Beaudry’s complex arguments, highlighting two sections: “The Eye of the Subject,” which criticizes linear perspective in cinema, and “Projection: Difference Denied,” which discusses how cinema creates movement from still frames.
00:03:00
In this part of the video, the discussion centers around the concept of movement in films and how it creates an illusion of reality. The video explains that the perception of continuous movement from a series of still frames is essentially deceptive because it hides the fact that we are only seeing static images. It delves into how camera movement, continuity editing, and narrative continuity are mental constructs that give us a synthetic impression of reality, which feels satisfying but is ultimately false.
Additionally, the segment covers how films function as “identification machines,” making us emotionally align with what the camera shows and the characters’ stories, providing a pleasurable yet illusory experience. The topic then shifts to the notion of perspective in art, particularly Renaissance perspective, which is critiqued as ideologically biased rather than neutral. The explanation references Erwin Panofsky’s work on perspective as a symbolic form, emphasizing that the concept of ‘the subject’ in film and art theory positions the viewer’s eye as the central, meaning-creating entity.
00:06:00
In this segment of the video, the speaker delves into the concept of the subject as both a perceiving and ordering self, highlighting its centrality in creating meaning. The speaker references Beaudry and his critique of this concept, pointing out that defining oneself as the active center and origin of meaning isn’t necessarily positive. To support this critique, the speaker introduces Louis Althusser, a French Marxist thinker, who in his seminal work “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses,” defines the subject in two ways: as a free subjectivity and as a subjected being who submits to higher authority. The critique focuses on how individuals believe they are free and responsible for their actions, while in reality, they are often unconsciously submitting to higher authority, which strips them of true freedom. This complex interplay between perceived autonomy and actual subjugation is central to the critique.
00:09:00
In this part of the video, the speaker discusses the concept of the “subject” as understood by French Marxist thinkers like Althusser and Baudrillard. The subject is viewed not as a free, isolated individual responsible for their actions, but rather as someone shaped by larger social forces. This perspective emerges from the influence of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud, who introduced the ideas of ideological false consciousness and the unconscious mind’s influence on behavior.
Althusser argues that ideology’s primary function is to constitute individuals as subjects, suggesting that individuals’ understanding of themselves is shaped by ideology, which is ingrained in material practices and societal structures. For instance, he uses the example of Pascal’s notion that performing religious actions can lead to belief, indicating that actions and behaviors might precede and shape beliefs, contrary to the typical understanding. This approach also ties into Baudrillard’s thoughts on how cinema functions as an ideological apparatus.
00:12:00
In this part of the video, the speaker explores the ideological effects of cinematic and visual apparatuses. They discuss how cinema influences our bodily actions and rituals, potentially aligning with Althusser’s concept that ideology can stem from actions. The focus then shifts to Beaudry’s influential idea on perspective, emphasizing that Renaissance painting centers space around the viewer’s eye, making it the focal point of the visible world. This constructed perspective is ideologically charged, positioning the spectator centrally and realistically, akin to how visual lines in art and cinema converge to a single point. The segment highlights how cinema tends to maintain this linear perspective, organizing visual objects around a fixed point and defining the spectator’s position.
00:15:00
In this part of the video, the discussion focuses on the concept of Renaissance perspective, which positions a single spectator as the central point of view in art, making them the subject around which the world in the painting revolves. It contrasts Renaissance perspective with medieval and ancient Egyptian art, noting the lack of three-dimensionality and precision in the latter, and how these forms do not create the same immersive experience. The segment also introduces isometric projection, exemplified by early video games like SimCity, highlighting how this form of representation appears in various cultures independently, unlike the singular discovery of Renaissance perspective. The video references Arnheim and Baudry, discussing the historical specificity and illusionistic aspects of realism, along with the question of whether stylistic choices in experimental films can suppress the inherent perspective of the camera.
00:18:00
In this part of the video, the speaker discusses the film theorist who wrote “Toward a Non-Bourgeois Camera Style,” analyzing shots like those in Jean-Luc Godard’s “Weekend.” The theorist, Henderson, argues that Godard’s style rejects the bourgeois hero concept by using camera movements that do not prefer one individual over another. The speaker highlights how this 1980s ideology views depth staging as suspicious and notes its persistence in modern analyses, such as Tom Lamar’s work on anime. Lamar’s book “The Anime Machine” explores animation techniques that create spatial effects. He argues these effects differ from traditional, depth-focused camera movements, suggesting they avoid exploiting space. The segment concludes a discussion on the relationship between camera styles and ideological perspectives.