Blog Post #2

Context

Structuralist Film Theory (derived from structuralism) is the theory that all films are based on basic structures, semiotics, and patterns (Nashville Film Institute). I decided to apply this to different movie directors to assess whether or not a higher use of structuralist patterns in movies leads to higher-grossing films or films that are considered more artistic. This addresses the controversy of filmmakers and their intentions in making their films. This problem is addressed at a University of California San Diego newspaper that examines the motives of the movie-making industry. The author describes films such as ‘“The Lion King” that offer nothing substantially new or demonstrate anything particularly creative and how many films are used as “money-making tools” (Barneclo). Furthermore, author Lewis Pearce from the Medium Newspaper describes the film industry as lacking authenticity, causing “[us to] get stuck with the same regurgitated movies” (Pearce).  Clearly, there are accusations against the film industry for making movies for the sole purpose of money. Hence, I want to examine how different directors approach filmmaking based on their success among critics versus the box office, and whether or not a structuralist approach has something to do with it. 

Gap

While some sources examine structuralist film theory and its definition, there is a slim amount of research that actually applies the theory to film. A majority of the sources that I found where people analyzed structuralism in film were on YouTube. However, this poses a problem because I was not able to effectively identify the credibility among the people making these videos. Because of the lack of research around this film theory I originally wanted to look at structuralist film theory in one film or among one director. Then, I was able to find one film analysis that applied structuralism to the movie The Matrix. In the article, Analysis of Structuralism in The Matrix, the author examines the structuralist aspects presented throughout the movie. However, there are never any comparisons to other movies. Therefore, there are some examples of structuralist film theory being applied to film analysis, but never in comparison with how the theory is present in other films. There is also a lack of structuralist film theory and how it is used by different directors. Because of this gap in research around a film comparison, I switched my research question to be centered around comparing the filmographies of multiple directors and applying structuralist film theory to each film.

My Process

Progression 

I have concluded my data collection and finished watching all of my films.  I am now analyzing my data and putting together my final presentation. Here is some of my data. 

Roadblocks 

The only roadblocks I have encountered are having a small sample size of films to watch and having limited time. If I were to have more time to rewatch each film I feel that I would be able to collect more data than I was able to during this initial research. I am also only watching 6 films, however, it would be ideal to watch more to accurately address my research question. 

Results and Discussion

Conclusion

Overall my data shows that there is a difference in the use of structuralism from different directors. This connects back to my original influence to do this project surrounding the "lack of creativity" in Hollywood. Therefore, based on my results, movies that have more structural aspects are more likely to gross more money than movies with less structural aspects. 

Here is the link to my 3 minute presentation: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1L21bytBiqunzuwfl0AozjwR_3gH6TVcida_wCPzY1xQ/edit#slide=id.g26c73ff5931_0_195