Film-Philosophy journal review

Film-Philosophy journal review

Name:

Course:

Presented to:

Date:

Film-Philosophy journal review

Film-Philosophy is a peer-reviewed academic journal which discuses film studies, aesthetics and world cinema from a philosophical point of view. The journal has five editors namely; Dr. David Sorfa, Dr. Greg Singh, Dr. Graham John Matthews, Matthew Holtmeier and Dr. Ben Tyrer. All of these editors work in recognized universities in the departments of film, Media or Cultural Studies. On top of this, the journal has an editorial board comprised of 15 individuals.

Film-Philosophy publishes the works of numerous authors on a broad range of topics and academic disciplines such as cultural studies, film studies, gender studies, philosophy, media studies and the arts. It was founded in 1996 and it is published three times in a year. Its main purpose has always been to provide a philosophical discussion of film studies, philosophical aesthetics and world cinema. It is sponsored by Open Humanities Press and is available online and in print format.

Critical Reflections

The dominant purpose of the Film-Philosophy journal is that it seems to offer a platform for discussions and debates of hot issues related to films and philosophy. The essays published in it examine theoretical issues related to film and philosophy, but which have practical implications. The content of the essays is particularly relevant to students and scholars in film studies, philosophy, media studies, cultural studies and the arts. Though the essays in the journal hardly contribute to other disciplines apart from those listed above, I find the journal to be very helpful to me as a film studies student.

The philosophical position of the essays in the interpretation of films is quite interesting to readers. In volume 15 of the journal, we find for example Imprisoned in Disgust: Roman Polanski’s Repulsion by Tarja Laine, Toward a Poetics of Cinematic Disgust by Julian Hanich, Body Horror and Post-Socialist Cinema: Györgi Pálfi’s Taxidermia by Steven Shaviro and the Introduction: Tarrying with Disgust by Tina Kendal. These articles discuss the presence of disgust in films and movies and the impact that this has in the society. This is one of the highly debated issue topics, especially in film studies. Thus, my review of this journal does not only complement my class work, I have been able to broaden my knowledge on the issue of presence of disgust in films and movies. Informed by the different authors of the essays in the journal, am able to look at this issue from many perspectives. Upon this base, I personally find the journal to be very rewarding to me.

One challenge I faced with the journal is that most of the essays published in it have long paragraphs and lack headings and subheadings. In addition, the authors occasionally use complex sentences and complex language, making the articles a-little-bit abstruse. This is evident in the essays in volume 15 such as Imprisoned in Disgust: Roman Polanski’s Repulsion and the Introduction: Tarrying with Disgust. This particular aspect reduces cohesiveness of the contents and ideas produced in the essays, which might make it difficult for a reader to understand how information is layered and prioritized.

Secondly, most of the essays published in the journal such as Imprisoned in Disgust: Roman Polanski’s Repulsion and Toward a Poetics of Cinematic Disgust offer persuasive ideas to demonstrate how films are filled with disgusting scenes. However, some of their statements in the description of films fail to include research references or acknowledgements that the statements are their own opinions. Example include assertion made in the Toward a Poetics of Cinematic Disgust that “In the last decade phenomenological film theory has emphasized that the film experience does not rest exclusively on the dominant senses of seeing and hearing.” This is a strong point whose source is not acknowledged. Acknowledging such opinions and explaining their reasoning could increase opportunity for persuading skeptical readers to agreement. By failing to provide research findings or personal reasoning, the authors increase reader’s resistance to their arguments.

Another issue is that the essays published in Film-Philosophy journal rarely treat films as objects of aesthetic contemplation. Words such as ‘aesthetic value’ and ‘beauty’ rarely appear in the essays describing films. This is not surprising given that many of the films discussed in the essays such as Terminator II and Back to the Future have little or no aesthetic value. As a result, many of these essays are inclined on revealing the presence anomie and psychological dysfunction in our societies. Unfortunately, much of the investigation of relationship between films and psychological and social matters is unsupported speculation. As noted, some of the ideas brought out in most essays support from lack factual findings or credible sources. However, the journal remains interesting and informative to targeted readers.

Similar to Film-Philosophy journal, this review targets students and scholars in film studies, philosophy, media studies, cultural studies and the arts. I believe that this review effectively meets the needs of the audience by present both the positive sides and negative sides of the journal.

References

Film-philosophy journal, (2012), Retrieved 29 March 2012 from, HYPERLINK “http://www.film

philosophy.com/index.php/f-p/index” http://www.film

philosophy.com/index.php/f-p/index