Talk:Film theory

message: agree with JButler, film style and film theory are separate categories, not sure how to fix this problem. Article also has no signs of drawing attention to the intense debates that have existed in film theory, the academic founding of film studies (as a result of film theories significance and acceptance into the academies?), and more recent developments in film theory, ie David Bordwell's classical Hollywood cinema, formalist and cognitive film theories (possibly separate articles that can be linked to this page?).
--Jwmcglone 15:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  agree 

message: (Note : this suggestion has also been posted on Film theory. Actually, I don't know where this request fits best).
It would be cool to provide an (almost) exhaustive list of what can be discussed in a movie, as well as examples of typical movies of such styles.
Comment: there can't be an exhaustive list of this kind because there have been more than 90 years filled with writing on cinema and films.
Example : 
* Rythm : alternance of quiet and active times (or whatever :-). Example of a movie with a remarkable rythm : The big sleep
* Field depth (DoF) : See main article field depth. Example of a movie with low field depth : whatever. Example of notable field depth effects : whatever
Thanks.
King mike 07:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elements of style in a movie 

message: It seems to me that the quote "Siegfried Kracauer. These individuals emphasized how film differed from reality," on this page directly contradicts the quote on the Kracauer wikipage: "In 1960, he released Theory of Film: The Redemption of Physical Reality, which argued that realism is the most important function of cinema." 
Shouldn't Kracauer be considered a realist instead of a formalist? I not familiar with the works of Kracauer so I can't be sure about this. Can anybody shed light on the subject? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.219.172.194 (talk) 10:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i see no contradiction. emphasizing on how film differs from reality is one of the issues realism theory should deal with. capi (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Siegfried Kracauer a realist or formalist?  

message: i don't know what's the criteria for these works. however, i'm adding robert stam's "film theory: an introduction" since it covers the widest cultural diversity when covering the subject. stam is known for its works as film critic and cultural studies. capi (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  bibliography 

message: Contemporary film theory informed by psychoanalysis didn't stop with Mulvey. It seems that each time a theorist is added to the page after Malvey, he (or she) is immediately deleted, even though Mulvey made her major contribution some 30 years ago. In the last twenty years, both Slavoj Žižek and Bracha Ettinger had become important influences in film theory. With Žižek, the male "phallic" gaze is emphasized, and with Ettinger a feminine gaze ("the matrixial gaze"), which is different to Mulvey's and Žižek's "male" gazes, is opened. I suggest that the addition of these two major theorists will stay and not be deleted. They have reached notablity and are important for students in the field. Doraannao (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contemporary film theory informed by psychoanalysis 

message: I want to preface this by saying that I don't really understand wikipedia, its rules and regulations and that I simply wanted to contribute a comment on a few omissions of what I have studied myself at different educational institutions about the theory of film.
The following authors, who are not in this article, are definetely relevant to film theory:
* Vachel Lindsay
* Hugo Munsterberg
* Jean Mitry
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakaa (talk • contribs) 16:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Authors and theorists that should be mentioned: 

message: The sections on "Post-war film", "Film Noir" (which is mostly about the French New Wave), "Italian neorealism", and "Japanese Formalism" are about national film movements, not theories. And the section labeled "Genre films" is actually about post-WW I German films. Consequently, I have removed these sections.
:I see now that these sections were added by a new Wikipedia editor. I'll add info to his/her talk page to try to mentor his/her Wikipedia editing.--Jeremy Butler (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major overhaul: Irrelevant material