Lauri Lozano

Professor Gregory Castle

ENG 502
July 10, 2018
Paper # 1: Literary Theories
“Two Literary Theories Analysis on Film” Commented [no1]: Format: titles should include the
name(s) of the author(s) you are discussing and sometimes
titles of works. In any case, the idea is to give some sense of
the focus of the paper. Please see “Developing Papers on
What is literary criticism? It is the method of using the different schools of literary criticism Literary Topics” under Syllabus and Other Documents.

Format: please paginate all written work

to interpret and evaluate a work of literature. These various schools of criticism provide a lens

which allows individuals to reveal important aspects of work, such as helping to understand the

relationship between authors, readers, and text; and helps readers understand what is important

about the text. There are two dominant trends in the history of theory. One is a tendency toward Commented [no2]: Overly general and not terribly relevant.
Concentrate on creating a context for your argument, not for
an understanding of the entire history of theory
textual and language analysis in the forms of formalism and structuralism. The other dominant

trend in the history of theory is a tendency toward cultural and political critique called Critical

Theory. Formalism focuses on conventions and literary forms where the text explains itself. It

includes a close reading of a text where one looks at the organization, the structure, the word

choice, and the figurative language of a text. Structuralism also looks at text analysis by

analyzing conventions and the structure of language. It looks for patterns of structure universal to

similar works which look for meaning. Critical Theory had its beginnings at the Frankfurt School

in Germany, which promoted socialism in an attempted to overthrow capitalism. Critical Theory

stems from Marxism that focus on the representation of class conflict. The premise behind

critical theory is being critical of the prevailing view of society that favors the privileged.

Theodore Adorno among others helped develop the concepts and theories, “…which takes the

stand that oppression is created through politics, economics, culture, and materialism, but is

maintained most significantly through consciousness.” (Fagan n.d.) These theories follow the Commented [no3]: Please do not use sources that are not
assigned for this class. LTH is designed to help you define
these terms and theories.
Marxist literary theory that focuses on conflicts of class where literature supports the interest of
Commented [no4]: which ones?

the elite and suppresses the working class. There are many examples of text that are analyzed
 Lozano

through the lens of formalism, structuralism and critical theory. This paper will discuss two Commented [no5]: Not needed.

authors, from various schools of literary theory, that have different viewpoints associated with

film. Roland Barthes views film using the structuralist approach, whereas Walter Benjamin

views film using the critical theory approach. In what follows, I will show Barthes structuralist

approach to the narrative structure in film with regards to the levels of functions, actions, and

narration, as opposed to Benjamin’s critical theory approach to film and the disappearance of the

‘aura’ which he contributes to the modern age of reproduction.
Roland Barthes was a structuralist theorist and is credited with producing his own theory
regarding narratives in the media. Barthes divides narrative work into three levels, function,
Commented [no6]: This first paragraph is a bit too long.
Your thesis is a bit repetitive and could be more concise.
Structurally, a sound thesis but what are the specifics points
of your comparison?

action, and narration. “It must be recalled that these three levels are linked together according to

a mode of progressive integration: a function has meaning only insofar as it occurs in the general

action of an actant; and this action itself receives its ultimate meaning from the fact this it is

narrated, entrusted to a discourse which has its own code.” (Barthes 1975, 243) Barthes first

explains how functions give meaning to narratives. Functions are the base or bottom of the

narrative. They are the smallest basic unit of meaning that may not have meaning by themselves,

but they acquire meaning when combined with other units. Barthes explains that functions have

different classes that all correlate with each other to build meaning as a whole. Barthes says

functions of narratives are like art. “We might say in other words that art does not acknowledge

‘noise’ it is a pure system, there is never a ‘wasted’ unit, however long, loose, and tenuous the

thread linking it to the levels of the story. Function is obviously, form the linguistic point of

view, a unity of content: it is what a statement ‘means’ which constitutes it as a functional unit.”

(Barthes 1975, 245) Barthes continues with is structuralist approach to narratives with the

description of actions. Here he combines characters, their actions, and alludes to the fact that
 Lozano

narratives cannot have one without the other. According to Barthes, a character is defined by his

participation in a “sphere of actions.” (Barthes 1975, 258) Barthes cites Claude Bremond’s idea

of character, “What it comes down to is that each character, even a secondary one, is the hero of

his own sequence” (Barthes 1975, 257) The action, which consists of the unit of characters, can

only find meaning when they are integrated into the third level of a narrative, called narration.

Barthes talks about narration being about the exchange between the “giver of narrative and the

recipient of narrative.” (Barthes 1975, 260) Barthes says there are two systems of narration or

narrator’s code, personal and apersonal. He states, “These two systems do not necessarily benefit

from the linguistic marks attached to the person (I) and the nonperson (he).” (Barthes 1975, 262)

This is where the structure of the text is analyzed. Apersonal narration is designed to “eliminate

the present of the person who is speaking.” (Barthes 1975, 262) The text of narration is in the use

of I or he. If the third person narration cannot be rewritten in the first person, focalized through

the character, it is in the apersonal mode. To conclude, through the points that I have made about

Bathes article, “An introduction to the Structural Analysis of Narrative,” one can see how

functions, actions and narrations of narratives help individuals analyze the meaning behind films

and promotes Barthes’s firm belief in the structuralist approach to looking at film. Commented [no7]: very good exposition.

But like every other paragraph here, it is too long.

On the other hand, Walter Benjamin’s critical theory approach to film is far different than

from the structuralist approach that Barthes holds. Benjamin wrote the book “The Work of Art in

the Age of its Technological Reproducibility” during the years of his exile in France from Nazi

Germany. The political turmoil that he experienced had a profound effect on his viewpoint of the

world around him. Unlike Barthes structurally approach to film, Benjamin’s view of capitalism
is the basis for his theory on film. He views the age of technology as a detriment to society. He
felt that the reproduction of art would lessen its authenticity and aura. Benjamin’s premise for his
Commented [no8]: If you do not plan to discuss this aspect
of Benjamin’s work, which is beyond the reach of a short
assignment, I would leave it out and stick to your thesis.
Commented [no9]: This strikes me as inaccurate: the basis
for his argument is technological advancement
 Lozano

opinion stems from the modern age of technology. He claims that the use of technology takes Commented [no10]: unclear phrasing, relevance

away the aesthetics involved in appreciating art and film. Benjamin begins his assessment of film Commented [no11]: “takes away”? Any support for this?
Doesn’t he claim that technology opens up new avenues of
aesthetic appreciation, good and bad?
by looking at how it is made. Benjamin does not take the structuralist approach that Barthes took,

he takes the approach that looks at how culture had an impact on the concept of film making. He

says, “The finished film is the antithesis of a work created at a single stroke. It is assembled from

a very large number of images and image sequences that offer an array of choices to the editor;

these images, moreover, can be improved in any desired way in the process leading from the

initial take to the final cut.” (Benjamin 2008, 28) The camera, used for filming the actor, which

Benjamin calls an “apparatus”, was the catalyst which changed the aura of art and film. He

agrees that the camera does capture everyday life, and the import elements that come with it, but

in the process of film making many things are lost. “The most important social function of film is

to establish equilibrium between human beings and the apparatus.” (Benjamin 2008, 37)

According to Benjamin, the camera is able to capture the commonplace actions in society.

However, with the ability to swoop, stretch, compress sequence, and reduce or enlarging an

object, the camera discovers what he calls the “optical unconscious.” This is where ordinary

actions, like walking or picking up a cigarette, are void of the realities of the unconscious. The

naked eye does not pick up the nanosecond images of what takes place while the hand is moving

to the cigarette, but the camera does. This technological evolution replaces the traditional aura of

perception to the unconscious type of aura. The disappearance of the aura is a direct result of

technological advancement. Benjamin describes the aura as, “A strange tissue of space and time:

the unique apparition of distance, however near it may be.” (Benjamin 2008, 23) Benjamin goes

on to talk about using the eye to “rest’ upon a summer afternoon, or to go back and look again.

“In the light of this description, we can grasp the social basis of the aura’s present decay.”
 Lozano

(Benjamin 2008, 23) Benjamin also blames the loss of the aura on the actor performing for the

camera. “In the case of film, the fact that the actor represents someone else before the audience

matters mush less than the fact that he represents himself before the apparatus.” (Benjamin 2008,

31) He claims, “the actor is performing for a piece of equipment.” (Benjamin 2008, 31) He

alludes to Macbeth and the living spectators who surround him as the type of aura that is lost

when using a camera to film. “The film actor, Pirandello writes, ‘feels as if exiled. Exiled not

only from the stage but from his own person” (Benjamin 2008, 31) Benjamin further explains

that the aura that surrounds the actor as he portrays his character, is lost to the camera. Benjamin

ends with the loss of the aura to the modern age of reproduction as a result of mass media in the

contemporary capitalist society. The last three lines of the text sum up Benjamin’s critical theory

approach to film, “Its self-alienation has reached the point where it can experience its own

annihilation as a supreme aesthetic pleasure. Such is the aestheticizing of politics, as practiced by

fascism. Communism replies by politicizing art.” (Benjamin 2008, 42) Commented [no12]: Good exposition of Benjamin

In conclusion, I have shown the different approaches to analyzing film through the lens of Commented [no13]: conclusions to short papers like this
shouldn’t repeat what you’ve just said.
two opposing theories. The structuralist approach, explained through Roland Barthes, “An

Introduction to the Structural Analysis of Narrative” focuses on the structure of text, and how the

interplay of concepts works together to analyze a narrative. Starting with the functions, the

smallest unit that work to create sequence. Which in turn define actors by their actions and help

the story to progress. Which finally leads to the narration, which is about the exchange between

the giver of the narrative and the recipient of the narrative. All three concepts create a way to Commented [no14]: These are all sentence fragments

structurally analyze a film. In contrast to Barthes’s theory, is Walter Benjamin, who was the

pioneer in film analysis using the lens of the critical theory approach. Benjamin’s analysis of

film was brought on by the modern age of reproduction, which transformed society’s expectance
You have not been describing concepts.
 Lozano

of mass media. His primary means of analysis of film is based on the use of the camera and how

it distorted the sense of reality. The loss of the aura is the principal concern of Benjamin with

regards to film making. His analysis of the aura in “The Work of Art in the Age of Its

Technological Reproducibility” was very in depth and insightful, especially in today’s society.

The use of billboards, IMAX movies, mechanical art reproduction, and many more instances of

mass production have disseminated the aura of art that was so prevalent before the 20th Century.

Benjamin was forward thinking and was correct in predicting the loss of the aura due to the ever-

changing advancements of technology. Whatever stance you choose to take when analyzing film,

both Bathes and Benjamin provided compelling analysis of film. Although one takes the

structuralist approach, and one takes the critical theory approach, both provide insight into film

analysis that is still used today. Commented [no15]: Your conclusion could be tighter, more
concise

Works Cited Commented [no16]: Please do not change font size and
style
Barthes, Roland. 1975. "An Introduction to the Structural Analysis of Narrative." New Literary
History 237-272.
Benjamin, Walter. 2008. "The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility." In
The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility, and Other Writings in
Media, by Benjamin Walter, 19-55. Cambridge: Belknap-Harvard University Press.
Fagan, Andrew. n.d. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosphy. https://www.iep.utm.edu/adorno/.

Lauri,

The exposition of the authors you analyze is quite good, though the comparative aspect is almost
absent (aside from a sentence before you discuss Benjamin). You claim to have discussed the
different approaches, and you do, but you do not take the next step to compare them point by
point. The last paragraph attempts to do what should have been done throughout. Writing is
generally good, but paragraph development needs work.

18