AF

Contemporary Attitudes: Cognitive Film Theory – Comprehensive Study Notes

Introduction

  • Classical hero–villain binaries in U.S. cinema have blurred since the mid-1990s, especially in big-budget Hollywood.
  • Heat (1995) typifies this shift: hero and villain receive equal empathy; clear moral labels vanish.
  • Thesis goal: explain how contemporary films build audience sympathy for BOTH sides, why this resonates culturally, and how cognitive film theory illuminates the process.
  • Key analytical lenses:
    • Murray Smith’s “structure of sympathy” (Recognition, Alignment, Allegiance)
    • Keith Oatley’s cue-based emotional layers
    • Torben Grodal’s PECMA flow, symmetry, saturation
    • Benshoff & Griffin on homosociality / buddy dynamics
    • Northrop Frye on romance-vs-realism continuum
  • Case-study corpus (post-mid-90s with two precursors): Blade Runner, Apocalypse Now, Heat, The Rock, X-Men, Unbreakable, Collateral, Captain America: Civil War, Avengers: Infinity War, Star Wars VII–VIII.

Theory Framework

Cognitive Film Theory

  • Emerged in 1980s as empirical counterweight to psychoanalytic/Grand Theory.
  • Marries film studies with neuropsychology, psychology, literary criticism, cultural studies.
  • Core premise: spectators proactively seek emotional engagement; cinema is a primary modern site for collective feeling.

Recognition, Alignment & Allegiance (Murray Smith)

  • Recognition: basic identification of a figure as human/agentic (body, face, voice).
  • Alignment: how narrative gives us information about that figure.
    • Spatio-temporal attachment: camera stays with character; we share their view.
    • Subjective access: flashbacks, internal monologue, dreams, etc.
  • Allegiance: moral/ideological evaluation; which side we WANT to win.
  • Two plot templates shape allegiance:
    • Manichean (good vs. evil poles)
    • Graduated (moral spectrum, ambiguity)

Emotional Cues (Keith Oatley)

  • Cue = on-screen sensory pattern; Schema = stored world knowledge.
  • Three nested layers of emotional attention:
    1. Immediate elicitation (attention-grabbing acts: kiss, gunshot).
    2. Appraisal patterns (audience judges event vs. goals; e.g.
      \text{loss} \rightarrow \text{sadness} ).
    3. Empathy/identification (viewer mentally simulates character emotions).

PECMA Flow & Saturation (Torben Grodal)

  • PECMA: Perception → Emotion → Cognition → Motor Action pipeline.
  • Visual cortex rewards pattern discovery; symmetry is emotionally salient.
  • “Network of associations” from many charged objects can build unresolved tension = Saturation.
  • Reality/fantasy distinction processed AFTER perception; film leverages same brain pathways as life.

Methodology

  • Combine Smith’s macro “structure of sympathy” with Oatley’s micro cue analysis; Grodal’s terms (Symmetry, Saturation) flesh out neuro basis.
  • Critics warn Grodal can be reductionist; adding narrative/thematic readings and Frye’s genre theory balances micro biology with macro culture.
  • Film selection criteria: cultural impact (box-office or cult), release after mid-90s (plus two formative earlier works), variety of genres.
  • Focus: only characters central to hero–villain dyad.

Truth & Authenticity in U.S. Culture

  • Rise of social-media “fake news,” Wikileaks, Snowden → heightened public skepticism.
  • Audiences gravitate toward stories that embrace ambiguity rather than offer neat moral clarity.
  • Studios invest billions in such narratives, confirming market appetite.

Analysis

Building Villain Allegiance

Childhood Trauma as Shortcut

  • Violated innocence = potent emotional cue; small screentime, big sympathy.
    • Blade Runner: replicants’ “missing childhood” framed via eye-city intro.
    • X-Men: Magneto’s camp separation + “I’ve heard these arguments before.”
    • Unbreakable: Elijah “Mr Glass” Price’s brittle-bone isolation.
    • Civil War: Stark’s unresolved parental loss surfaces during flashback.
    • Infinity War: Thanos’ Titan childhood → universal resource anxiety.
    • Last Jedi: Kylo’s feeling of betrayal by Luke.
  • Net effect: villains coded as victims acting from wounded logic.

War Trauma & Disillusion

  • Apocalypse Now: Kurtz witnesses child arm amputations → moral break.
  • The Rock: Gen. Hummel mourns fallen men, stages non-lethal revolt; opening funeral + graveside monologue establishes empathy.

Case Study – Collateral’s Vincent

  • Almost equal alignment with hostage Max (shared cab space).
  • Vincent’s worldview: cosmic insignificance, hypocrisy of selective empathy.
  • Backstory (neglectful father) hints at deep hurt → partial allegiance despite sociopathy.

Synthesis

  • Villains framed as damaged idealists; audience asked to weigh trauma vs. deeds.

Sacrifice as Moral Fault-Line

  • X-Men, Unbreakable, Infinity War: willingness (villain) or refusal (hero) to sacrifice innocents differentiates sides despite shared goal.

Hero Elaboration (or Lack Thereof)

  • Heroes often get primary alignment; thus need fewer backstory cues.
  • Example: Goodspeed (The Rock) is flatly “good,” exists mainly to contrast Hummel’s complexity.
  • Willard’s PTSD intros in Apocalypse Now still foreground hero damage to parallel Kurtz.

Metaphysically Evil Catalysts

  • Flat, cue-only villains used to enhance ambiguity of MAIN antagonist:
    • Heat’s Waingro, Star Wars’ Snoke, Hydra foot-soldiers, The Rock’s Frye & Darrow, Kilgore in Apocalypse Now.
  • Limited alignment, pure negative allegiance → spotlight nuanced villain.

Common Denominator & Symmetry

  • Films craft mirrored traits to glue hero & villain:
    • Heat/Collateral: professionalism.
    • Blade Runner: longing for freedom, mortality.
    • Apocalypse Now: war-induced nihilism.
  • Symmetry triggers Grodal’s visual-pattern reward at thematic level; allegiance to one leaks to the other.

Professionalism (Heat & Collateral)

  • Shared work ethic → café scene (Heat) / route debates (Collateral).
  • Both sides sacrifice relationships for job. Quote: “Don’t let yourself get attached…”

Mirror Effect (Blade Runner)

  • Voight-Kampff test questions human/replicant line; unicorn motif links Deckard & Batty.
  • Final rooftop rescue = ultimate symmetrical empathy.

Willard/Kurtz Symbiosis

  • Willard: “There is no way to tell his story without telling my own.”
  • Kurtz sees Willard as worthy successor; mutual understanding bridges moral gap.

Homosocial Bonds

  • Buddy-film dynamics transplanted onto adversaries.
  • Physical/intimate gestures without eroticism (hand-holding Heat, face-to-face dying monologues Blade Runner & Collateral).
  • Female love interests often secondary, underscoring asexual male bond.

Emotional/Thematic Saturation

  • Parallel sympathies create unresolved tension; films withhold catharsis.
  • Audience leaves morally “saturated,” prompted to reflect (e.g., Deckard escapes but system unchanged).

Romance–Realism Continuum (Frye)

  • Romance: stylized archetypes, wish-fulfillment; Realism: ambiguity, social masks.
  • Modern blockbusters blend: superhero spectacle (romance) + morally grey conflicts (realism).

Wish-Fulfillment 2.0

  • Traditional happy endings replaced by desire to SEE complexity; satisfying curiosity about “truth,” not neat closure.

Conclusion

  • Cognitive film theory clarifies how modern cinema nurtures dual allegiance through targeted cues, alignment strategies, and thematic symmetry.
  • Cultural landscape primed for ambiguity (fake news, partisan divides) makes these narratives commercially potent.
  • Villains are no longer obstacles but mirrors; hero/villain dyad becomes engine for ethical contemplation.
  • Trend shows no sign of fading; expect continued blockbuster investment in morally entangled character pairs.