“Meeting Points” (as a response to our relevant discussion in the Critical group)

An artistic audiovisual text (film) is not only “the meeting point between a creator and a recipient-spectator”, but also each film constitutes a mental meeting “place” (in the sense of Trafalgar Square or Alexanderplatz) where different individuals with different cultural backgrounds who agree to meet there, share the same experience and, potentially, communicate-exchange their differing points of view. This is a major component of cinema (an invention aiming to show moving pictures on a screen for the public). All audience-centered arts share this (opera, theater, musical performances etc though, there, the role of the audience may directly affect the final outcome). In a concise form, cinema may be a common experience between 3-10 children viewing a DVD in a classroom. While private experience of the same DVD in a laptop or home TV, can be a “study” activity practiced by an enthusiast. A Film Literacy project then, may focus more in developing conscious cinema audiences with critical skills, than developing critical skills for private cinema aficionados.


Response to the importance of experiencing films (as discussed in the Critical Group)

Experiencing films is of primary importance. But Film Education cannot just be random film experiences. Education may provide a systematic context for experiencing films and reflecting on them. Discourse elaborating on a film experience will encourage the “translation” of personal impressions into communication between the members of an audience which shared the same experience. Two examples for providing and organizing film experiences in an educational context:

  • The educational power of categorizing:
    Primitive and crude (often simplistic) categorizations of films by the pupils can be a powerful educational tool enhancing their argumentation and negotiation skills, essential for the development of critical thinking. Each time pupils watch a film or a film’s excerpt, it may be useful asking them to agree categorizing it in simple categories (e.g. silent – sound, color – BW, fiction – documentary, simple film technology – extravagant film technology etc) and to try to support their choice with an example. A template suggesting pairs of categories would be useful for the teacher.
  • The educational power of comparisons:
    Comparing films that share one major common characteristic (e.g. theme) made by different directors and representing a variety of film aesthetics (not only European), can reveal issues of film aesthetics beyond the common remarks of “what the story was about” to which the pupils usually focus. Do they tell similar stories? How do they differ? Can we describe our different impression for each one of them? Through comparisons children will develop their own perspective of film history.
    e.g. Films with trains:

    Clement's "Battle of rail", 1946

    Clement’s “Battle of rail”, 1946

    Keaton's "The General", 1926

    Keaton’s “The General”, 1926

    Lumiere's "Arrival of a train", 1896

    Lumiere’s “Arrival of a train”, 1896

    Frankenheimer's "The Train", 1964

    Frankenheimer’s “The Train”, 1964

    Hitchcock's "The lady vanishes", 1938

    Hitchcock’s “The lady vanishes”, 1938

(Slides from PPT used in teacher training to encourage comparisons. The corresponding DVDs are easily accessible in the Internet or in DVD libraries).






The questions I brought home from Berlin

Links between film education and EU key competences

8 Key competences have been defined at EU level (http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/thematic_reports/145EN.pdf).

Among them there are such competences as cultural awareness and expression, social and civic competences, communication in languages, and digital competence etc.

Maybe it would be reasonable to link film education outcomes with them?
However, if we say that film education should lead towards cultural awareness and self-expression, do we condemn a film to become only a tool for developing key competences? On the other hand, do we really mean that sensitivity to films/cinematic experience shall be our end destination?

What comes first, cinema experience or knowledge and skills?

I like Petra’s argument that “knowledge might be a tool for something more important: experiencing cinema“ (the post on 31st October). However, do we mean that knowledge and tools for experiencing cinema should come first, before cinematic experience? If yes, how can we assure that these knowledge and tools do not channel viewer‘s experience into the direction we have constructed? Maybe relationship between cinema experience and knowledge is not a relation between a reason and an outcome? Maybe it is rather a dialectic process we are trying to grasp?

Intersection between Cultural, Critical and Creative

In the Creative group we admitted that one of the greatest challenges for the project will be the work on linkages between the outcomes formulated by all the groups. Therefore, maybe it would be reasonable to mix the three groups for a couple of hours in the next meeting in order to make the linkages between Cultural, Creative and Critical?

 Short term vs. long term activities

When we speak passionately about film education outcomes, do we mean by film education only a long term process, e.g. film education module at school which is taught for several years? Or do we also think that short-term activities, such as one day film workshop, are also valuable? Then, do we think about the outcomes for short-term projects? Do they differ from the long-term outcomes in the extent of knowledge, skills, and competences? …Or should we neglect them at all?

Film heritage and film education

I would strongly agree with Vitor’s argument that “film literacy should contribute to good preservation and better understanding of our cultural collective memories“ (the post on 31st October). However, when we look at MEDIA financing schemes we come across the contemporary production. Certainly, it is also an important reservoir for our collective memory. Nevertheless, film heritage has to play more significant role in relation to film education and the overall film policy. Therefore, the film education outcomes should also inspire to actualise and revive film heritage.

Looking forward to see all of you again and to continue our discussions in Prague.

Getting Critical with the Critical Group

For our Framework Seminar discussions, devising working groups around the 3 Cs – Critical, Cultural and Communication – was a useful way of focussing our diverse and often dizzying ideas.

The Critical Group, calmly steered by Ian, ventured into territories both familiar and uncharted. Were we critical? Definitely. Informed? We believe so! And passionate in our criticisms too. But what would the Critical aspect of a proposed Framework look like? How would we define critical? Did it have to be judgemental? Was the emphasis to be on process or end-product? Were we obliged to make it competencies-based when, as a group we (more or less) agreed that a ‘find the close-up’ approach was not desirable. Instead we favoured encounters with film that would prompt a How and Why. Critical encounters involved providing access to a wide range of film (including – but not only – European, given that audience development was a Creative Europe concern). Critical acknowledges pleasure as a valid aspect of the cultural encounters and the fact that film, unlike any other area of the curriculum, was an artform of which learners all had some experience by the time they arrived at school. And yet, were we simply to give learners what they would enjoy? Or what they would choose to watch? Was it to be Kurosawa or the Fast and the Furious for all? Heated discussions ensued and, despite differences of opinion, we all agreed that a framework should aim high. The artform was paramount, and film heritage too; the encounters – be they mediated through discussions/introductions/workshops – or just standalone should, where possible, take place in a cinema, within optimum viewing conditions. As film educators we disputed the notion that people watched passively. We agreed that foregrounding the artform at its best should be at the heart of the framework. From several different countries, over two consecutive days, our different voices, backgrounds and film education experiences combined to make the experience one that was, in many ways, critical.