The Different Meanings of “Film Form”

in Projections
Author:
Melenia Arouh Communication and Cinema Studies, The American College of Greece m.arouh@acg.edu

Search for other papers by Melenia Arouh in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed Close
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3167/proj.2020.140305
Keywords:
aesthetics; film appreciation; form; medium; style
Restricted access
USD  $22.00
Click here to view the full Terms and Conditions

All currencies in US Dollar

PayPal Logo

Abstract

The appreciation of form is a common preoccupation in aesthetic analyses of films. The concept of form, however, has traditionally troubled philosophers of art, and although its meaning and significance have been debated throughout history, a common understanding is not always easy to discern. This article reviews certain ambiguities regarding “form” in film aesthetics through an examination of the uses of the word, especially in relation to content, medium, and style. Through this discussion, both the significance of the word is explained, but also the type of analysis it allows for.

Contributor Notes

Melenia Arouh, Associate Professor in Communication and Cinema Studies at The American College of Greece. Her teaching and research are on film aesthetics, and film and media studies. Email: m.arouh@acg.edu

  • Collapse
  • Expand

Projections

The Journal for Movies and Mind

Cover Projections
Article Category:
Research Article
Page Count:
17
Keywords:
aesthetics; film appreciation; form; medium; style
Print Publication Date:
01 Dec 2020
Online Publication Date:
01 Dec 2020
Copyright:
© Berghahn Books 2020

  • Arnheim, Rudolf. 1997. Film Essays and Criticism. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

  • Beardsley, Monroe C. 1981. Aesthetics: Problems in the Philosophy of Criticism. 2nd ed. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.

  • Bell, Clive. 1924. Art. London: Chatto & Windus.

  • Bordwell, David, Kristin Thompson, and Jeff Smith. 2017. Film Art: An Introduction. 11th ed. (International). New York: McGraw-Hill Education.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Carroll, Noël. 2003. Engaging the Moving Image. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

  • Conant, James. 2005. “Stanley Cavell's Wittgenstein.” The Harvard Review of Philosophy 13 (1): 50–64. https://doi.org/10.5840/harvardreview200513113.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Corrigan, Timothy. 2010. A Short Guide to Writing about Film. 7th ed. New York: Longman.

  • Cormier, Harvey. 1995. “2001: Modern Art, and Modern Philosophy.” In Philosophy and Film, ed. Cynthia A. Freeland and Thomas Wartenberg, 183–200. London: Routledge.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Davies, David. 2009. “Medium in Art.” In The Oxford Handbook of Aesthetics, ed. Jerrold Levinson. Online Publication. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199279456.003.0009.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Eldridge, Richard. 1985. “Form and Content: An Aesthetic Theory of Art.” British Journal of Aesthetics 25 (4): 303–316. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjaesthetics/25.4.303.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Gaut, Berys. 1995. “Making Sense of Films: Neoformalism and Its Limits.” Forum for Modern Languages 31 (1): 8–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/fmls/XXXI.1.8.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Gotshalk, D. W. 1953. “Form.” In The Problems of Aesthetics: A Book of Readings, ed. Eliseo Vivas and Murray Krieger, 194–208. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Ingarden, Roman. 1960. “The General Question of the Essence of Form and Content.” The Journal of Philosophy 57 (7): 222–233. https://doi.org/10.2307/2021863.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Khatchadourian, Haig. 1975. “Film as Art.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 33 (3): 271–284. https://doi.org/10.2307/428353.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Khatchadourian, Haig. 1980. “Movement and Action in Film.” British Journal of Aesthetics 20 (4): 349–355. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjaesthetics/20.4.349.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Klevan, Andrew. 2018. Aesthetic Evaluation and Film. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

  • Kracauer, Siegfried. 1997. Theory of Film: The Redemption of Physical Reality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

  • Kraft, Selma. 1986. “Content, Form, Originality.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 44 (4): 406–409. https://doi.org/10.2307/429792.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Langer, Susanne. 1953. Feeling and Form. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

  • Linden, George W. 1971. “Ten Questions about Film Form.” The Journal of Aesthetic Education 5 (2): 61–73. https://doi.org/10.2307/3331675.

  • Munro, Thomas. 1943. “Form in the Arts.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 2 (8): 5–26. https://doi.org/10.2307/42594.

  • Munro, Thomas. 1954. “Form and Value in the Arts: A Functional Approach.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 13 (3): 316–41. https://doi.org/10.2307/426433.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Munro, Thomas. 1969. The Arts and Their Interrelations. Cleveland, OH: The Press of Case Western Reserve University.

  • Nannicelli, Ted. 2016. Appreciating the Art of Television: A Philosophical Perspective. London: Routledge.

  • Perkins, V. F. (1981) 1982. “Moments of Choice.” In Movies of the Fifties, ed. Ann Lloyd, 209–213. London: Orbis Publishing.

  • Rieser, Max. 1966. “Problems of Artistic Form: The Concept of Form.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 25 (1): 17–26. https://doi.org/10.2307/428880.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Rouve, Pierre. 1972. “Aesthetics of the Cinema.” British Journal of Aesthetics 12 (2): 148–157. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjaesthetics/12.2.148.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Sesonske, Alexander. 1971. “Vision via Film Form.” Journal of Aesthetic Education 5 (2): 53–59. https://doi.org/10.2307/3331674.

  • Sesonske, Alexander. 1989. “Aesthetics of Film, or A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Movies.” In Aesthetics: A Critical Anthology, 2nd edition, ed. George Dickie, Richard Sclafani, and Ronald Roblin, 583–590. New York: St. Martin's Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Sparshott, F. E. 1985. “Basic Film Aesthetics.” In Film Theory and Criticism: Introductory Readings, 3rd edition, ed. Leo Braudy, Marshall Cohen, and Gerald Mast, 284–304. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Sparti, Davide. 2014. “Philosophy as Therapy: On Some Analogies between Wittgenstein and Freud.” European Journal of Psychoanalysis 2. http://www.journal-psychoanalysis.eu/category/ejp/number-2–20132/wittgenstein-and-psychoanalysis/.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Stolnitz, Jerome. 1960. Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art Criticism: A Critical Introduction. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.

  • Tatarkiewicz, Władysław. 1980. A History of Six Ideas: An Essay in Aesthetics. Warsaw: PWN/Polish Scientific Publishers.

  • Thomson-Jones, Katherine. 2008. Aesthetics & Film. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.

  • Thomson-Jones, Katherine. 2009. “Formalism.” In The Routledge Companion to Philosophy and Film, ed. Paisley Livingston and Carl Plantiga, 131–141. London: Routledge.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

  • Weitz, Morris. 1971. “The Content of Form: A Commentary.” New Literary History 2 (2): 351–356. https://doi.org/10.2307/468608.

  • Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1998. Culture and Value: A Selection from the Posthumous Remains, ed. Georg Henrik von Wright, Heikki Nyman, and Alois Pichler. Oxford: Blackwell.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 4229 2180 94
Full Text Views 165 6 0
PDF Downloads 200 13 0