Giannetti, Chapter 10: Ideology This chapter is helpful to look over, but don’t

Giannetti, Chapter 10: Ideology
This chapter is helpful to look over, but don’t worry about absorbing every single word. In its attempt to attune you to ideology, Giannetti makes a lot of oversimplifications regarding things like politics and culture. We should beware of simple left-right distinctions, and even the spectrum that Giannetti offers on p. 411 demands close inspection. Also, when Giannetti makes a statement about “Japanese society in general” tending “to be ideologically conservative,” we should take a step back. Giannetti gives a Western perspective that lumps a huge, complex culture into a single word: “conservative.” Undoubtedly, Japanese people don’t see it so simply. Would Americans like it if a Japanese person characterized US society as simply “conservative” or “liberal”? Most of us feel entrenched enough within US politics that we want to point out how mixed our society is. My point is, it’s not necessary to assume these generalizations about various cultures, politics, religions, or whatever. Look closely at the film you’re watching to determine what you see. Even then, note how different characters represent different points of view—you’ll have an opportunity to do this in our one screening this week, Waitress. The film addresses, explicitly and implicitly, gender politics and cultural conventions regarding gender roles. You’ll get to consider what the film is saying or illustrating through its main cast of female characters.
Related to this, I question what Giannetti means on p. 420 when he writes, “American films are also strongly sexual and fast-paced compared with most foreign movies. Typically, many people stereotype Americans as lawless, sex-obsessed, and ‘fast.’” Giannetti acknowledges that this is a stereotype but doesn’t go on to explain the stereotype’s relation with reality, which is always more complicated than stereotypes. I wonder what he means by the phrase “strongly sexual.” It seems to me that European films are more stereotypically known to be sexual on account of freer cultural mores and more open depictions of nudity. I’m not suggesting that Giannetti is wrong with this phrase, only that it isn’t explained.
Giannetti’s section on Feminism (429-437) helpfully presents an important theme or approach for Waitress. Again, Giannetti gets into details (however important at a global and ethical level) that you shouldn’t worry about memorizing. Instead, try to absorb the overall concern for how women are represented in and through the movies. The topic of feminism is present in Waitress. Characters discuss what it means to be women, how women’s needs are similar and different, and how certain traditional acts associated with women (such as childbearing) aren’t always things women want. Too, consider how Waitress depicts sexuality in terms of its main and supporting characters, keeping in mind that Waitress was written and directed by a woman, Adrienne Shelly, a woman. For Discussion, you may choose to analyze a woman character in Waitress in terms of her gender. Is she represented as strong? Weak? Capable? Emotional? Intelligent? Desperate? Independent? Consider (1) dialogue as well as (2) the character’s role in the narrative and (3) how she is shot by the camera. You may also choose to compare or contrast Waitress with last week’s film Daisies.
In relation to the previous paragraph, let me add a point of recent relevance. Has anyone seen the film Mad Max: Fury Road? An internet uproar resulted from someone suggesting that the film was not feminist while others insisted that the film is indeed feminist. Let me encourage you to take a step back from these debates and first ask the question, can a film be feminist? Certain people identify as feminist, but even then there are various schools of feminism with different emphases. In a film as complex as Max Max: Fury Road, I would suggest that there are moments, characters, even themes that can be identified as “feminist,” but we’re backing ourselves into a corner by trying to determine whether the film as a whole is. (On the other hand, I could be wrong! Think about this for yourselves. If you’re writing on the previous Discussion questions, consider to what extent Waitress is a “feminist film.” And be careful not to assume it’s feminist just because it’s directed by a woman!)
Regarding Giannetti’s section on Queer Cinema(438-443), you may choose to discuss the extent to which queer characters are represented in Waitress. Or, is there something about the absence of queer characters that you think is significant? Some films highlight the visibility of queer folks, whereas others do not. If it interests you, you may choose to write about this/these in your Discussion post.
Toward the end of the chapter, Giannetti discusses how tone and genre are related in films (447). As you’ve already read about genre and are now thinking about this (potentially very fuzzy) question of tone, you may write for your Discussion post about which genres you recognize in Waitress. Think of a variety of different scenes/sequences, as well as characters and narrative elements. Then consider whether the film has a consistent tone or a shifting one.
Chapter 11: Critique
For your Discussion post, and apropos to Giannetti’s comments about Italian neorealism(454), explain how Waitress could be considered a politically-engaged film. Does the film address its political concerns explicitly? Subtly? What questions does it raise? Does it answer them? If it answers these questions, does it do so in (what you think is) a progressive or traditional way?
Regarding Giannetti’s section on “Formalist Film Theories” (460-465), can you identify for your Discussion post scenes/sequences in Waitressthat stand out from the rest of the film? Although it’s arguable whether the film as a whole is “realist” in style, there are certain scenes that are especially “formalist” in relation to the rest. Name at least a couple of these sequences and describe them in formalist terms, giving special attention to the scene’s mise-en-scène.
On pages 465-471, Giannetti discusses what he calls “The Auteur Theory.” Historically, this is less a “theory” than it is a politics, a policy, or a general critical approach. As he notes, it remains a remarkably influential way to talk about movies, largely because using the director’s name is an easy way to manage a lot of movies at once, and also because the cultural heritage of the West places enormous importance on the author or artist. (We discussed some of this previously in the course.) Insofar as the “auteur” is considered the single person most fully in charge of the making of a film, we can point to Adrienne Shelley as the auteur of Waitress. She was the writer and director of the film, in which she also starred in a supporting role. Sadly, we can’t look forward to more great films from Shelley, as she was killed before Waitress had its release.
It’s fine with me if you skip the section on “Structuralism and Semiology” (476-481). My main concern is that the section is disproportionally confusing in relation to its importance. Semiotics is a complex field that is largely out of vogue and remains largely relevant only to students of the history of theory. Giannetti acknowledges as much.
On the other hand, I commend to you the section on “Historiography” (482-488). Giannetti starts things off on the right foot when, in the second paragraph, he notes four different approaches to doing film history. Scholars like David Bordwell have expanded this to five. As Giannetti notes, there is really no such thing as “film history,” per se. There are any number of histories, depending on who’s writing it and on the particular approach they’re taking. Any honest historian will tell you that writing a history means emphasizing certain events and marginalizing others. Since this is a simple fact of doing history, a good historian will acknowledge that his/her history isn’t complete; it’s one account that should be related to other accounts. The practice of “foregrounding,” which Giannetti describes (482), is quite important. A biography on Rita Hayworth, for example, necessarily foregrounds Rita Hayworth! If this approach tried to tell you “everything” that happened during Rita Hayworth’s career, you’d end up with very little idea of who Rita Hayworth was or why she matters.
On p. 483, Giannetti generalizes about those who do aesthetic histories. He argues, “Aesthetic film historians concern themselves with a tradition of masterpieces and great filmmakers… This is an elite form of history, ignoring the vast majority of motion pictures to concentrate on a relative handful of important works of art that have endured the test of time.” However, David Bordwell, whom I mentioned in the last paragraph, collaborated in 1985 with Kristin Thompson and Janet Staiger to produce a monumental work of aesthetic film history, The Classical Hollywood Cinema: Film Style and Mode of Production to 1960. The authors’ approach to a history of film style in Hollywood was to take a random sampling of 100 Hollywood movies and evaluate them all equally, without deference for so-called masterpieces or auteurs. The result was a canonical film history that has hugely influenced how scholars understand the conventional approach to making movies in Hollywood. Whenever I reference this book (which is often), I’m surprised at how few of these old films I’ve even heard of, let alone seen! This is far from an elite history.
Chapter 12: Synthesis
As this chapter essentially functions as an opportunity to perform all of the skills and tools of the book, I won’t comment on it here. I strongly encourage you to read through it, however, especially as you move forward on writing your final essays. This chapter has sections on a variety of approaches, at least one of which you should be using in your paper: photography, mise-en-scène, movement, editing, sound, acting, dramatization, story, writing, ideology, and critique. Since you’ve all seen Citizen Kane only a few weeks ago, the movie should be fresh enough for you to read Giannetti’s analysis and have lots of “aha!” moments as you discover ways to make thoughtful connections between the ideas you’ve learned and the film you’re analyzing. Let me also add: in addition to the glossary at the end of the book, please see the Yale Film Analysis website, which provides you with many helpful descriptions and examples of the tools we’ve discussed here.
This week contains multiple discussion questions that you are required to consider as you write your discussion response. Each student should have his/her own thread for each week’s discussion. Be sure to respond to at least two (2) posts from your classmates. I also invite you to add any other responses to the film you might have.