Sanakirja.org

Esimerkit

• [title] International Bureau of Filmology ¶ When the International Film Congress met in Paris in 1947 a plan was approved for the organization of a “Bureau International de Filmologie.”
• Pervy's research in filmology may eventually open wider applications of films in modern languages.
• [title]
• So the University of Paris set out to study the science of filmology—after Cohen-Séat's important book had given rise to an institute, a review, and a whole series of investigations.
• The fourth approach is that of filmology—of the scientific study conducted from outside by psychologists, psychiatrists, aestheticians, sociologists, educators, and biologists. [contrasted with film criticism, the history of the cinema, and the “theory of cinema”]
• 190: According to Marc Soriano, secretary editor of the institute's review, “Before filmology, one was restricted to verifying a basic truth, that the projection of a film affected the audience. As far as how and why, that was another question. It was thus this ‘how and why’ that the nascent filmology tackled.”
• 198: This problem of the film spectator, which we have just begun to address, was already at the center of the filmology movement's debates during the 1950s.
• In the history of the filmology movement this conjuncture of disciplines underwent a gradual but unrelenting reconfiguration wherein the disciplines of psychology and sociology (at this time overwhelmingly Durkheimian in cast) acquired such prominence that aesthetic or hermeneutic concerns were virtually eliminated.
• 103: It should be noted that filmology is not the only branch of the ongoing research, however; but we have had strong reasons for privileging it so far. It cannot be said too often that filmology introduced a scientific approach to cinema for the first time and that, during the 1950s and 1960s, it hosted the most important psychological contributions to the topic. But when the references to this experience started disappearing, especially in the second half of the 1970s, other lines of enquiry emerged, close to filmology in spirit.
• If filmology, for its part, has not shown much interest in films, it has significantly contributed to the shift in film theory's center of gravity by determining it in relation to certain “scientific” achievements, and, despite the generality of its stakes, has sometimes wound up touching several levels of textual singularity—and above all reviving a concern for method, which will have more or less long term direct effects on the analysis of film, thanks to a progressive displacement at work from filmology toward semiology.
• 9: Filmology once again set an example, by explicitly proposing a new vocabulary (“filmofanic,” “profilmic,” “diegetic,” etc.), just as semiotics and psychoanalysis would become exemplary in the 1960s and 1970s by tending toward private lexemes (“syntagmatic,” “icon,” “suture,” etc.).