the cognitive turn
cognitive film theory
critique of screen/grand theory
offering an alternative
an approach with diverse array of theoretical standpoints, unified by some theoretical assumptions but first and foremost by a methodological orientation
film theorists, philosophers and psychologists
cognitive film theory is a programme rather than a specific theory, opting instead for an eclectic mix of thoeries and models determined by the purpose at hand (piecemeal theorizing, bottom-up)
cognitive science
“broadly construed, it is a domain of inquiry — specifically it is an investigation of cognition, encompassing attention, learning, memory, reasoning, problem-solving, and perception, that draws upon research in a variety of disciplines, including anthropology, artificial intelligence, linguistics, neuroscience, philosophy, and psychology. Narrowly construed, cognitive science is a specific understanding of how cognition works — namely, along the lines of the computional theory of mind, according to which the mind/brain is akin to a computer” — Nannicelli & Taberham 2014:5
classical cognitivism
rationalism
reason is ultimately what guides the decisions or judgments we make
cognitive film theory:
grew out of classical cognitivism
postulates that the spectator is actively making sense
objecting to the illusionist psychoanalytic model of (passive) subject positioning that had up until then dominated contemporary film theory
key assumptions in cognitive film theory
the specator is actively making sense of films
hypotheses are constantly adjusted and revised making use of schemata based on the cues in the film
the skills the spectator uses to understand fiction film are predominantly the same she uses to understand reality
the spectator’s response to film is an informed attempt to make sense — not an irrational process
against pathologizing spectator, mystifying the spectator’s experience
1st generation cognitivists — comprehending films
“this theory does not address affective features of film viewing. this is not because i think emotion is irrelevant to our experience of cinematic storytelling — far from it — but because i am concerned with aspects of viewing that lead to contructing the story and its world. I am assuming that a spectator’s comprehension of the films’ narrative is theoretically separable from his or her emotional responses” — Bordwell 1985:30
cognitive theories of narration
spectators work actively to construct meaning from information and clues given in the unfolding of the film
as we watch we propose, enttertain, test, develop, modify and shelve hypotheses about the story
narration as ‘a process’
constructing meaning
curiosity
eg speculation on past events not shown in the film
suspense
sets up anticipations about forthcoming events
temporary/permanent gap
a hole in the story is plugged or never plugged
flaunted/suppressed gap
does the film call attention to its gaps, so that we know we lack crucial information, or are we unaware that there is even a question to be asked?
diffused/focused gao
do we fill the gap with a general idea or do we beed a specific answer?
2nd generation cognitivists — emotional dimension
emotions (not seen in opposition to rationality)
murray smith’s concept of spectator engagement
replaces the psychoanalytical concept of identification with the concept of engagement
3 levels of engagement:
recognition
alighment
allegiance
together, these form a “structure of sympathy”
engagement — murray smith
recognition
spectators construct characters as individuated and continusous agents
alighment
spectators are more or less aligned with characters spatiotemporally, and given more or less access to a character’s actions, knowledge, thoughts and feelings
allegiance
spectators evaluate events and characters morally. has congnitive dimension, and also an affective component (eg we feel for the characters, start rooting for them, etc)
commonly shared assumptions in cognitive film theory
how features of the human mind are at work when engaging in film — the mental activity of viewers
intersubjective regularities (sasmeness)
eg startled
critique: ignoring culture, class, race, gender differences
a cognative film theorist typically…
… takes an explanatory approach rather than only an interpretive
“scholars often resist the cognitive approach to art because they’re reluctant to mount casual or functional explanations. instead of asking how films work or how spectators understand films, many scholars prefer to offer interpretive commentary on films. even whats called film theory is largely a mixture of received doctrines, highly selective evidence, and more or less, free association. Which is to say that many humanists trewat doing film theory as a sort of abstract version of doing film criticism. they don’t embrace the practices of rational inquiry, which includes assessing a wide body of evidence, seeking out counterexamples, and showing how a line of argument is more adequate than its rivals”
critique of cognitive film theory:
it is apolitical or even politically reactionary
plantinga — estrangement theory is seen as favoring films that try to distance the spectator from the narrative by reflective film techniques in order to prevent the spectator from being subjected to the film’s dominant ideology
“… an ethics of engagement does not underplay the importance of questioning and critique; it merely affirms that possible value of engagement with screen stories, as opposed to the priori ruling out of such engagement as inherently harmful, mystifying, and unethical”
“strong engagement with the film is also most likely to lead to post-film conversation, celebration, and critique. That which moves us — through fascination, suspense, empathy, and the entire amalgam of complex emotions elicited by powerful screen stories — is likely to sear itself into our memories, demand our attention, and engage further processing” — Plantinga 2018, 111