Post- Teori: Film Çalışmalarında Paradigma Değişimi

Öz

Post-teori film çalışmalarında paradigma değişimine işaret eder. İlk/klasik dönem film çalışmalarındaki metodolojik yaklaşımların tekrar benimsenmesi olarak da adlandırılabilecek bu kavram uzun yıllar boyunca alanda hâkim olan Bordwell (1996) tarafından “büyük teoriler” olarak adlandırılan kuramsal ve metodolojik sorgulamaların bir eleştirisidir. Bu eleştiride farklı disiplinlerden beslenerek yapılan bir film analizindeki olası metodolojik çıkmazlar ve kuramsal tutarsızlıklar yer alır. Film analizinde daha büyük bir düzlemde tartışılması edilmesi beklenilen sosyolojik ve kültürel meselelerin dışarıda tutulması gerektiği vurgulanmaktadır. Post-teori iki ana damar üzerinden şekillenir. Bunlardan bir tanesi tıpkı ilk dönem çalışmalarda olduğu gibi filmin bir biçim olarak ele alınmasıdır. İkinci damarda ise izleyici aktif anlam yapıcı olarak yer alır. Her ne kadar 1990’lı yılların başında post-teori olarak literatürde yer alsa da esasen post-teorinin izleri neo-formalist film analizine kadar dayanmaktadır. Bu çalışmada film araştırmaları içerisinde bir paradigma değişimi olarak post-teorinin doğuşuna üç düzlem üzerinden değinilecektir (a) ilk/klasik dönem çalışmalardaki form ve sanat sorgulaması ve post teori ile kesişim noktaları (b) post-teoride analitik düzlem ve aktif izleyici nosyonu ve (c) post-teorinin doğuşunu imleyen neo-formalist film analizi.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• post-teori
• aktif izleyici
• film formu
• film çalışmaları

Post-theory: Paradigm Shift in Film Studies

Öz

Post theory is a term to define the paradigm shift in film studies. It can also be defined as re-evaluation of methodological approaches in early/classical film theory. Bordwell (1996) postulates post-theory as a critique of dominant theoretical and methodological inquiries which he calls “grand theories". He suggests that film studies based on other methodological and theoretical exploration poses fallacy. In post-theory economic, institutional, and historical domains should be excluded from a film analysis because such sociological and cultural issues are expected to be analysed within the broader senses. Therefore, post-theory presents an agenda of “mid-level” research on two areas. One of them opens the way to regard film as a form as it was argued in in early/classical film theory. In the second vein, the audience is conceptualized as an active meaning maker. Although it was coined in the literature as a post-theory in the early 1990s, the traces of post-theory actually date back to the neo-formalist film analysis. In this study, the emergence of post-theory as a paradigm shift in film studies will be discussed on three levels (a) film as an art form in the early/classical period studies and its intersections with post theory (b) analytical premises of the active audience notion in post-theory, (c) neo-formalist film analysis as a precedent of post-theory.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• post-theory
• active audience
• film as a form
• film studies

Kaynakça

1. Allen, S. ve Smith M. (1997). Introduction : Film Theory and Philosophy. Smith Allen ve Murray Smith (Ed.). Film Theory and Philosophy içinde (s. 1-35). Oxford: Oxford Press.
2. Arnheim, R. (2010). Sanat Olarak Sinema. Rabia Ünal Tamdoğan (Çev.), İstanbul: Hil Yayın.
3. Baudry, J.-L. (1974). Ideological Effects of the Basic Cinematographic Apparatus. Film Quarterly, 28(2), 39–47.
4. Bordwell, B. (1996). Contemporary Film Studies and Vicissitudes of Grand Theory. In David Bordwell and Noël
5. Carroll (Eds.), Post-Theory, Reconstructing Film Studies (pp. 3-36). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
6. Bordwell, D ve Thompson, K. (2010). Film Sanatı. Ankara: De Ki Yayınları.
7. Bordwell, D. (1985). Narration in the Fiction Film. University of Wisconsin Press: Madison, Wisconsin.
8. Bordwell, D. (1997). On the History of Film Style. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

9. Bordwell, D. (2005). Figures Traced in Light: On Cinematic Staging. California: University of California Press.
10. Bordwell, D., & Thompson, K. (2008). Film art: An introduction. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
11. Bordwell, D., Thompson K. (1990). Film Art: An Introduction. McGraw-Hill: New York.
12. Canudo, R. (1988). Extracts from reflections on seventh art. Claudia Gorbman (Trans.), In Abel, R. (Ed.), French Film Theory & Criticism: A History/Anthology, 1907-1939 (pp. 291-305). New Jersy: Princeton University Press. (Reprinted from Réflexions sur le septième art, pp. 29-47).
13. Carroll, Noël (1996). Prospects for Film Theory: A Personal Assessment. David Bordwell Noël Carroll (Ed.), Post-Theory: Reconstructing Film Studies içinde (s.37-68). Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press.
14. Currie, G. (1997). The Film Theory that Never was: A Nervous Manifesto. In Richard Allen and Murray Smith (Eds.), Film Theory and Philosophy (pp.42-59). New York: Oxford University Press.
15. Gaut, B. (1995). Making Sense of Films: Neoformalism and its Limits. Forum for Modern Language Studies. (31), 1. 8-23.
16. Gunning, T. (1990). Reviewed Work(s): Breaking the Glass Armour: Neoformalist Film Analysis by Kristin Thompson. Film Quarterly, (43), 3. 52-54.
17. Lehman, P. (1997). What is film theory? In Lehman, P. (Ed.), Defining Cinema (pp. 1-16). New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.
18. Lindsay, V. (1916). The Art of the Moving Picture. New York: Macmillan.
19. Metz, C. (1982). Psychoanalysis and Cinema. London: The McMillan Press.
20. Mulvey, L. (1975). Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema. Screen, 16(3), 6–18.
21. Münsterberg, H. (1916). The Photoplay A Psychologıcal Study. New York, London: D. Appleton & Company.
22. Nannicelli T. & Taberham, P. (2014). Introduction: Contemporary cognitive media theory. In Nannicelli T. & Taberham, P. (Eds.), Cognitive Media Theory (pp.1-25). New York: Routledge
23. Thompson, K. (1988). Breaking the Glass Armor: Neoformalist Film Analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press.