Is Film Philosophy Possible and What Aspects of Cinema May Become its Subject?

Cover Image


Cite item

Full Text

The use of a complex methodology in cinema studies is constantly being discussed. There are researches on sociology, psychology, aesthetics and semiotics of cinema. The movement towards an integrated methodology makes the idea of a philosophy of cinema relevant. The synthesis of different academic approaches in cinema studies can be only understood in terms of philosophy. Each discipline sees and is able to explain through cinema merely what is connected with its agenda. An appropriate methodology needs to be developed so that these different aspects of cinema are transformed into the elements of a uniform system. The article analyzes the philosophical approach to cinema studies of Gilles Deleuze, who made cinema instrumental in examining time. Deleuze’s work in question explores Henri Bergson's argumentation of dramatic changes in the perception of time. It would seem that it was cinema, with its ability to capture the dynamism of social life, that should have demonstrated the meaning of such changes. Bergson understood, quite traditionally, the ability of cinema to recreate time in the forms of space. Deleuze shares the conventional point of view on the fate of philosophy, which argues that previous philosophy disappears and, dissolving in art, exists only in artistic manifestations.

The authors conclude that:
1. The intrusion of philosophy into cinema dictates the need to develop a theory as a mediator between film philosophy and filmmaking.
2. When studying cinema through other liberal sciences, it is necessary to avoid discussing specific aspects and strive for a systematic consideration.
3. The study of cinema from the point of view of various schools of thought, does not exclude finding points of contact between them.
4. The need for an integrated methodology in studying cinema involving philosophical angles is also dictated by the rapid development of technology.
It is necessary to take into account what has already been accomplished in the philosophy of technology.

Restricted Access

KHrenov Nikolay

доктор философских наук, профессор, заведующий Сектором художественных проблем медиа, отдел медийных и массовых искусств


ФГБНИУ «Государственный институт искусствознания» Министерства культуры РФ

Email: nikhrenov@mail.ru

KHrenov Andrey

кандидат культурологии, ведущий научный сотрудник


Научно-исследовательского сектора ФГБОУ ДПО «Академия медиаиндустрии»
Russian Federation

Author for correspondence.
Email: andrei.khrenov@gmail.com

References

  1. Balazs B. (1925) Kultura kino [The culture of film]. – Leningrad-Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatelstvo, 1925. – 98 p. (In Russ.).
  2. Harms R. (1927) Filosofia Filma [Philosophy of Film]. – Leningrad: Academia, 1927. – 192 p. (In Russ.).
  3. Gaidenko P. (2006) Vremya. Dlitelnost. Vechnost. Problema vremeni v evropeiskoi filosofii i nauke. [Time. Duration. Eternity. The problem of time in European philosophy and science]. – Moscow: Progress-Traditsiya, 2006. – 464 р. (In Russ.).
  4. Deleuze J. (2016) Kino [Cinema]. – Moscow: Ad Marginem Press, 2016. – 560 p. (In Russ.).
  5. Sedlmayr H. (2000) Iskusstvo i istina. O teorii i metode istorii iskusstva [Art and truth. On theory and method of art history]. – Saint-Petersburg: Axioma, 2000. – 368 р. (In Russ.).
  6. Ivanov V.V. (1998) Estetika Eisensteina [Eisentsein’s aesthetics] // Izbrannye trudy po semiotike i istorii kultury. Vol. 1. – Moscow: Yazyki russkoi kultury, 1998. – 912 p. (In Russ.).
  7. Iz istorii frantsuzskoi kinomysli. Nemoye kino. [From the history of the French film thought. Silent Cinema]. – Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1988. – 320 p. (In Russ.).
  8. Cassirer E. (1997) Zhizn i uchenie Kanta [Kant’s Life and Thought]. – Saint-Petersburg: Universitetskaya kniga, 1997. – 448 p. (In Russ.).
  9. Kinematograficheskii opyt: istoriya, teoriya, praktika. Kollektivnaya monografiya [Film experience: history, theory, practice. The collective monograph]. – Saint-Petersburg: Poriadok Slov, 2020. – 360 p. (In Russ.).
  10. Levshina I. (1979) O predmete sotsiologii iskusstva. K probleme vzaimootnosheniy sotsiologii i iskusstvoznania [On a subject of art sociology. Towards the problem of relations between socilogy and art studies] // Voprosy sotsiologii iskusstva. Teoreticheskie i metodologicheskie problemy. Moscow, 1979. Pp. 33-57. (In Russ.).
  11. Linzbach J. (1916) Printsipy filosofskogo iazyka [The Principles of Philosophical Language: An Attempt at Exact Linguistics]. – Petrograd: Novoye Vremya, 1916. – 228 p. (In Russ.).
  12. Lotman YU. (1973) Semiotika kino i problemy kinoestetiki [The Semiotics of Cinema]. – Tallinn: Eesti Raamat, 1973. – 140 p. (In Russ.).
  13. Merleau-Ponty M. (1992) Kino i novaya psihologia [The Film and the New Psychology] // Kinovedcheskie zapiski. 1992. № 16. Pp. 13-23. (In Russ.).
  14. Sidorov A. (2020) Telesnost v kinematograficheskom opyte: sluchai B. Balasha [Physicality in cinematic experience: the case of B.Balash] //Kinematograficheskiy opyt: istoria, teoria, praktika. 2020. Pp. 54-73. (In Russ.).
  15. Khrenov N. (2018) Virtualnaya realnost v hudozhestvennyh i nehudozhestvennyh proyavleniah: ee predystoria i istoria [Virtual reality in art and non-fiction: its pre-history and history] // Nauka televideniya i ekrannyh iskusstv. Nauchny almanakh. Issue 14. Moscow, 2018. Pp. 27-52. (In Russ.).
  16. Tsivian YU. (1991) Istoricheskaya retseptsia kino: Kinematograf v Rossii, 1896–1930 [Early cinema in Russia and its cultural reception]. – Riga: Zinatne, 1991. – 492 p. (In Russ.).
  17. Sheremeteva A. (2018) Kino kak predmet filosofii v rannih rabotah J.-P. Sartra [Cinema as a subject of philosophy in early works of J.-P. Sartre] // Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Seria 7. Philosophy. 2018. № 4. (In Russ.). Pp. 83-97.
  18. Schrader P. (1996) Transtsedentalniy stil v kino: Ozu, Bresson, Dreyer [Transcendental style in film: Ozu, Bresson, Dreyer] // Kinovedcheskie Zapiski. 1996. No 32. Pp. 182-200. (In Russ.).

Supplementary files

There are no supplementary files to display.


Copyright (c) 2021 KHrenov A., KHrenov N.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies