Main Argument:
(preceding this thesis statement, I will give unbiased, in-depth descriptions of both approaches to film study)
- In studying both V.F. Perkins' and Robin Wood's approaches, formalist and Idealogical respectively, I believe Wood's approach serves film analysis best to fully appreciate film as a whole.
*** Will continue to compare the concepts and attempt to persuade reader into thinking my way by stating that the perception of the spectator is more important than the hierarchy of shot, scene, film, and cinema. ***
Claim #1:
- In breaking down specific moments in Psycho, we can understand Hitchcock's motives by analyzing their effects on the spectator.
- Support: Noticing that the only character whose eyes we do not see is the police man, we can draw conclusions about what eyes represent in this film (the dark pit of the human soul).
***I will insert a quote from Wood here***
Claim #2:
- After viewing the film and evaluating its effect on the spectator, we can ask ourselves, "what makes Psycho great?".
- Support: What makes the film great is that we as the viewer are put in position by Hitchcock to empathize with Marion and Norman, sequentially (transitioning with the shower murder). Through analysis of these characters and their personalties/actions, we can conclude that Psycho, in its simplest form, is a classic story of good versus evil.
Claim #3:
- The final stage of Wood's ideological approach is to consider the film and how it fits into the audience's world.
- Support: At the time of Psycho's release, Freudian concepts were gaining popularity and being exercised by intellectuals everywhere. (I don't love this line, but its a tentative placeholder for my general idea) Hitchcock's intent with Psycho may have been to create curiosity towards the human subconscious (perhaps reference Wood again). This analysis of the subconscious inevitably reverts itself back to ourselves, having the audience consider their internal character.
This looks great...I really like your decision to focus on the police officer. I also like where you are going with your conclusion, but (just wanted to throw this out there) you might want to consider how a close-reading of Psycho can reveal things about today's cinema. Just a thought. Maybe you can connect attitudes towards mental illness in the 60s with attitudes today, and ask yourself, "why is this film still important today?"
ReplyDelete