Bond University DOCTORAL THESIS
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Bond University DOCTORAL THESIS Film as Argument: Mainstream Feature Filmmaking as the Social Practice of Incognizant Argument Design and Delivery Fisher, Darren Paul Award date: 2021 Licence: CC BY-NC-ND Link to publication General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal. Film as Argument: Mainstream Feature Filmmaking as the Social Practice of Incognizant Argument Design and Delivery Darren Paul Fisher Submitted in total fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy December 2020 Faculty of Society & Design Dr. Damian Cox and Dr. Michael Sergi This research was supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship Abstract There is a consensus amongst film historians that the practice of making narrative feature films started 110 years ago in Australia with The Story of The Kelly Gang (Charles Tait, Australia, 1906), the first released feature film. But what precisely is the practice of making narrative feature films? There is a significant body of literature regarding the intrinsic nature of narrative cinema, as well as how to write, direct or produce narrative films. However, whilst much of this literature seeks to improve the practice of narrative feature filmmaking, what constitutes the practice – in the teleological sense – is a fundamental question in its own right. In this thesis I articulate and defend an account of mainstream narrative feature filmmaking in terms of the purpose the current social practice of making mainstream narrative feature films serves. The central proposition defended is that the practice of making mainstream narrative feature films is intrinsically the practice of constructing an argument: to move the audience to a worthwhile conclusion in a worthwhile way. I examine existing literature on the subject of argument in mainstream narrative feature films from academic and professional perspectives to demonstrate that it is not simply a case that mainstream narrative feature films have the capability to argue, or that some films can argue well, but that currently the practice of mainstream narrative feature filmmaking is fundamentally the practice of designing and delivering edifying arguments. If a film’s argument is removed or significantly flawed, then the film fails to meet the internal standards of the practice of mainstream narrative filmmaking. In defending this claim, I set out in detail what is meant by the terms ‘mainstream’, ‘argument’, ‘success’ and ‘failure’ in terms of the current practice, how argument manifests and functions within a cinematic context, as well as an account of how films compensate for flawed argumentation. ii Keywords Argument, Internal Goods, Narrative feature film, Mainstream, Ethics, Compensation iii Declaration by Author This thesis is submitted to Bond University in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. This thesis represents my own original work towards this research degree and contains no material that has previously been submitted for a degree or diploma at this University or any other institution, except where due acknowledgement is made. ______________________________ Darren Paul Fisher, December 2020 iv No Copyright Declaration No published manuscripts were included for publication within this thesis. v Acknowledgments Many heartfelt thanks to Bond University for giving me to opportunity to undertake the research, and to my supervisors Dr. Damian Cox and Dr. Michael Sergi for their incredible support, guidance and advice. I’d also like to thank the many renowned and unreasonably generous practitioners and academics who gave up their valuable time to help test and refine the thesis, especially Paul Thompson, Associate Professor, NYU Tisch School of the Arts, Richard Walter, former Professor and Associate and Interim Dean of the UCLA School of Theatre, Film and Television, Ira Deutchman, Professor of Professional Practice, Film, Columbia University School of the Arts, Jamal Joseph, Professor of Professional Practice, Film, Columbia University School of the Arts, screenwriter John Sweet and filmmakers Felix Thompson and Ted Geoghegan. I’d also like to acknowledge the patience of my fellow colleagues in the department of Film, Screen and Creative Media for engaging in my somewhat one-sided conversations on the topic, as well as all the various thought leaders referenced in the study – it has been a pleasure immersing myself in your worlds. Finally, to my wife and children without whom none of this would have been in any way possible. I may – soon – have an evening free. vi Table of Contents Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………. ii Keywords…………………………………………………………………………………...iii Declaration by Author…………………………………………………………….…….....iv No Copyright Declaration………………………………………………………………....v Acknowledgments……………………………………………………………………….....vi Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………. vii Chapter One: The Scope and Scale of the Project……………………………………… 1 1.1 The Scope and Scale of the Project…………………………………………….. 1 1.2 Definitions of Key & Related Concepts……………………………………….. 4 1.3 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………22 Chapter Two: Current Thinking on Film as Philosophy………………………………. 24 2.1 Can Film do Philosophy? ……………………………………………… ……... 24 2.2 How a Film Argues…………………………………………………………….. 41 2.3 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………... 52 Chapter Three: The Practice: Goods, Virtues, Success & Agency……………………. 54 3.1 Internal Goods………………………………………………………………….. 54 3.2 The Virtues……………………………………………………………………... 56 3.3 Terrence Malick: A Case Study in Virtues and Success……………………….. 57 3.4 External Goods…………………………………………………………………. 70 3.5 Agency in Mainstream-film-as-social-practice………………………………… 75 3.6 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………... 79 Chapter Four: Alternate Conceptions of Internal Goods……………………………… 80 4.1 Popular Conceptions…………………………………………………………… 80 4.2 Just Entertainment……………………………………………………………… 80 4.3 Just Telling Stories……………………………………………………………... 86 4.4 Emotional Manipulation………………………………………………………...92 4.5 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………98 vii Chapter Five: Dominant Theories of Professional Screenwriting and Directing…….. 100 5.1 The Writing Gurus: Incumbent Thinking for Industry Screenwriters…………. 100 5.2 Essential Directing Methodology: Key Texts………………………………….. 124 5.3 Conclusion………………………..……………………………………………. 135 Chapter Six: Why Failures Succeed – The Cinema of Compensation………………… 137 6.1 Definitions of Success………………………………………………………….. 137 6.2 Compensations as Insurances: A Complete List……………………………….. 138 6.3 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………... 170 Chapter Seven: The Exemplar – Toy Story 3……………………………………………. 172 7.1 Why Pixar’s Toy Story 3? ……………………………………………………... 172 7.2 Toy Story 3 – Classic Cinema Argument………………………………………. 180 7.3 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………... 197 Chapter Eight: The Counter-Example – Mulholland Drive……………………………. 199 8.1 Why David Lynch’s Mulholland Drive? ……………………………………… 199 8.2 Mulholland Drive – Argument or Obfuscation? ………………………………. 201 8.3 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………... 213 Chapter Nine: Conclusion………………………………………………………………... 216 9.1 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………216 9.2 Implications of Findings……………………………………………………….. 218 9.3 Suggestions for Further Research ……………………………………………... 220 References…………………………………………...…………………………………….. 221 Screen Projects Cited………………………………...…………………………………… 247 viii Chapter One The Scope and Scale of the Project 1.1 The Scope and Scale of the Project The origins of this thesis lie in the claim that narrative feature films can actively perform philosophical argument. As I researched this argument, more fundamental questions about mainstream commercial cinema began to emerge. Are not mainstream narrative feature film screenwriters and directors trained (knowingly or unknowingly) in argument building? At one level, are not mainstream narrative feature films dramatized arguments, arguments that function to convince the audience of a point-of-view? This led to my main research question, put most simply as: What is the current practice and tradition of mainstream narrative feature filmmaking from conception to delivery? The thesis is concerned with practice in the teleological sense, in terms of providing an explanation of practice in relation to the purpose the practice serves, rather than a sociological account as typified by Bourdieu (1972) and Giddens (1976) which primarily seeks an explanation by which practices arise. Both Bourdieu and Giddens are pioneers of practice theory, yet it should be noted that their notion of social practices include far smaller units of activity that will be used in this study. Giddens defines social practice simply as an “ongoing series of practical activities,” (1976, p. 81), and Bourdieu developed his theory of habitus to explain individual human social practices as formed by subconscious dispositions located within the body itself (both physical and mental), created in response to social constructs (1990, p. 53). The precise