My Teaching Philosophy is a work in progress. I'm going to put up some ideas here about it.
IDEAS
The idea is all about finding individual voice and identity. For me, this means doing it through the medium of film, but concepts could apply to all sorts of learning.
RIGHT AND WRONG?
I'm not so concerned with ideas of "right" and "wrong" in the context of "the way to do things." I'm more concerned with the idea of communication. So, "the ways to do things" or "how do you want to do things?" Maybe another way to say it is: what are you trying to communicate? That's the one thing essential.
ONE UNIVERSAL RULE
There is one universal rule: you have to know what it is you want to communicate. What you actually communicate to the viewer is up to interpretation by them, but you have to want to construct a meaning of some kind.
IMPORTANT POINT
A filmmaker MUST want to communicate SOMETHING. They just have to know what story they want to tell. Otherwise, it doesn't matter what you do, or how you do it.
INTERRPRETATION - OR MUDDYING THE WATERS
This means, I like to talk about ways of communicating effectively. So, we definitely learn the conventions of film making, but I want to promote the idea that there are infinite "correct" ways of doing things. What makes something correct, then, is contingent on the circumstances of the particular film project in question or the film's objectives (this is just another way of saying the message or the meaning, or the story). There are guidelines for how to make films "effectively" and how to communicate. But! The film maker is, in the end, in control of that universe (the film universe or universe within the film). The idea is that filmmakers realize their creative potential. Instead of the film concepts ruling the filmmaker (either because they don't know what to do with these elements or they ignore them), the filmmaker rules the film concepts and uses them to tell the kind of stories that they want to tell.
ESSENCES
That is the essence of my teaching philosophy. Now I just need to develop it so that it makes sense to other people besides myself. This blog is part of that.
What do you think about all of these rambling sentences and ideas?
I'm working on some particular lectures in the context of film production in which to house these philosophies.
Here's my outlines for EDITING:
FOR EDITING:
(And by editing here I mean how shots are strung together and which kind of shots may or may not be valued over others).
•Present Andre Bazin’s filming/editing objectives vs Eisenstein’s filming/editing
objectives and ask how those might be translated into visuals.
•Show examples of both.
•Then talk about the strengths and weaknesses of both.
•Ask students which one they like more, and why.
•Ask them which one is the better one to use?
Answer: neither or both. What objective are you trying to achieve in your narrative?
HOW DO YOU THINK FILM SHOULD BE TAUGHT?
SHOULD IT?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
*Sorry, I had to delete my previous comment and re-post because of grammatical errors. I'm sure there are still some, but this will have to do.*
I'm assuming that you're question refers to how teach others how to be a filmmaker, and not just teach film (which is much more broad). I suppose the number one thing is to teach how to condense your ideas into one universal goal, like you talked about, and methods that film makers can draw on to accomplish that.
It's one thing to have an idea or a vision of what you want to create, but the filmmaker needs to know how to reveal his vision step by step to the audience. That is a huge task considering every audience member has a different cache of lifetime experience to draw upon to interpret the film by. So then, I guess another important thing to teach in order to accomplish that goal would be to help filmmakers understand and know who their audience is. This seems almost impossible to do. How can one person come to know the many different types of people in the world? How can one person so perfectly create his vision so it could be understood by the masses? I guess then the next step would be to study some master filmmakers who did just that.
In centuries past it was the educational standard to study literary masters, copy them (thus learning their technique), and after time the student could then create works of art such as the masters did themselves. This copying not only made student familiar with masterpieces, but also taught the student how to dissect, analyze, know the various parts or techniques, copy & imitate, then eventually fully create from the vast stores of knowledge they acquired. Although I'm referring to literature, I'm sure that it can be applied to multiple mediums.
That is one educational philosophy that was used when there weren't many others to choose from. There are, of course, many, many others now. I suppose it's up to each teacher to decide what suits them and their personality, or vision the best.
I really like this sentence here: "Instead of the film concepts ruling the filmmaker (either because they don't know what to do with these elements or they ignore them), the filmmaker rules the film concepts and uses them to tell the kind of stories that they want to tell."
I think that's a very important point to stress with students in any disciplin. There are rules out there, but the rules should not be limiting factors, they are guides to help create.
It's an interesting media that you play with. You actually get to play with the 4th dimension and for that, I believe some artists might be rather envious. I believe that what you are doing, as a filmmaker, is truly an art. And like any piece of art, there are bound to be those who love it and those who do not. It is entirely subjective and I'm glad you brought in the personal analysis. Having students discuss what they like and do not like and giving concrete reasons behind this is good practice. Sometimes it is harder than others.
What I also appreciated was the idea of perception as part of communication. What the filmmaker (or artist) is trying to say is only a part of the whole. What is perceived is the other half. If you bring in the idea of nature vs. nurture, you may start to see why an individual feels the way they do about something. Much of my opinions about films can be traced to who I saw it with, who was in it, was it something I've already seen and so forth. Each of these has bearing on my final opinion.
I've seen some pretty craptacular movies before, but because of who I was with, they were bearable, if not enjoyable. The viewer brings certain expectations and previous knowledge to the production and thus become a part of it themselves.
In regards to your question about how film should be taught...
First off, I only read that question since it was in bold, perhaps my ideas coincide with yours, but I wanted to respond first so that I can say that I wasnt biased from your opinions.
I think that eventually film will be exclusively taught as any other "art" form is currently being taught. You will have some professor who spent years in a top tier school writing some dissertation so that he can be the authority of costume wigs in elizabethan period pieces. Then they will give him a classroom and young maluable minds fresh for the molding, and have him teach some general survey class and, his instruction, his material, those "perfect" film pieces that he subjects his students to view will be biased because his utopic bliss is grounded in some hair-piece fetish.
I was once told, by my mentor (who taught English at BYU to not further my studies in English Literature, after I got my bachelors degree. After I told him how much I loved reading and studying books of all genre, he told me that graduate school will destroy your love of literature and essentially make you myopic. Your masters program is designed to narrow your view to a certain period- Elizabethan, for instance. Your doctorate work will further narrow your scope to one author and most times one peice of literature and one critical theory (marxist, formalist, feminist, etc). And you study and research for 4+ years on one inch of the miles and miles of literary beauty out there.
Perhaps this seems far fetched...I hope it does and I hope that it never happens, but it probably will. Man hasnt changed in academia since Socrates was sentenced to death by poison for "corrupting the youth." Thats what usually happens to those who fight against the prevaling wind.
Sure there are the exceptions and I hope that anyone who is currently aspiring to be a teacher of Film will follow their dreams and teach their hearts out in their local community college!
If this was a perfect world then teachers would nurture a love for film in their student. That means, even though we might have to bite our tongues once in a while, allowing our students to appreciate films based on "watcher-response"(adapted from literature's reader response).
I dont know much about film theory, I do know that I love watching movies. A great movie is great when I feel like I'm the protagonist while Im watching it. I'm so absorbed in the character that when its over, I still feel like Im the character- like a dream, when you wake up its hard for a short while to distinguish between reality and imagination.
But that's crazy talk, especially for anyone who doesnt have the imagination of a preschooler like I do.
When I read your teaching ideas one thing sprang to my mind. After showing the students a film you mentioned first that you would comment on certain aspects of the film and then ask the students about their thoughts. I think that you should replace the order of those actions.
1. Show the film
2. Ask how it affected them and have them discuss why.
3. THEN comment on your observations and encourage discussion.
???
Just a thought from an old lady.
P.S.
Just another quick thought.
Your effort to communicate need not be anything more than to encourage your viewers to think about a subject! On a rare occasion my sister and I will each have recieved a different message from a film but we love to talk about what we saw and how it affected each of us differently. You don't have to have an agenda.
I agree that changing the order of questions might provoke more "free" answers rather then "Well let me see if I can come up with an answer that I know the teacher will like" type answers.
Awesome.
Sometimes, though, questions of "Did you like this and why" are too vague for students. They don't know what to do and then they shut up. WHere's the balance between free answer and guided answer? This I am struggling with.
Post a Comment