Abstract
This chapter argues that the development of screen production could be enhanced with a stronger alignment between the academic research sector and the film and television industry, where, at present, knowledge transfer from academic researchers to the wider screen practice community is negligible at best. However, for this to improve, approaches to research need to clearly reflect the specifics of the practice, and demonstrate outcomes that resonate with practitioners beyond the academy. Drawing on a body of practice by the author that includes work in both professional and academic contexts, this chapter will explore the question of what, if anything, marks the practice of screen production as a distinct field of academic inquiry. It will also consider whether specific research methods are required to meaningfully capture knowledge about the field.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
- 1.
Not ‘crossing the line’, also known as the 180° rule, is an approach to filming screen action designed to convey a consistent sense of spatial continuity. It commonly applies to two situations: characters facing each other in dialogue, where observing the rule ensures that it always appears as though the characters are looking at each other when close-ups are intercut; and filming a person or object in movement, where observing the rule ensures that the person or object always appears to be moving in the same direction when different shots are intercut. For a detailed explanation of the rule, see Bordwell and Thompson (2013, pp. 262–264).
- 2.
The diary entry for January 10 about ‘Greg the DOP’ is an example of this.
- 3.
In the original French, mise en scène (pronounced meez-ahn-sen) means ‘putting into the scene’, and it was first applied to the practice of directing plays. Film scholars, extending the term to film direction, use the term to signify the director’s control over what appears in the film frame. As one would expect, mise en scène includes those aspects of film that overlap with the art of the theatre: setting, lighting, costume and makeup, and staging and performance (Bordwell and Thompson 2013, p. 113).
References
Anderson, B. (2014). Encountering Affect: Capacities, Apparatuses [Kindle version]. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
Barrett, E., & Bolt, B. (Eds.). (2010). Practice as Research: Approaches to Creative Arts Enquiry. London: I. B. Tauris.
Bell, D. (2006). Creative Film and Media Practice as Research. In Pursuit of that Obscure Object of Knowledge. Journal of Media Practice, 7(2), 85–100.
Berkeley, L., Wood, M., & Glisovic, S. (2016). Creative Destruction: Screen Production Research, Theory and Affect. Journal of Writing in Creative Practice, 9(1–2), 7–31. doi:10.1386/jwcp.9.1-2.7_1.
Berkeley, L. (2008). How to Change the World [Motion Picture]. Melbourne, Australia.
Biggs, M., & Karlsson, H. (2011). Evaluating Quality in Artistic Research. In M. Biggs & H. Karlsson (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Research in the Arts (pp. 405–424). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Bordwell, D. (2008). Poetics of Cinema. New York: Routledge.
Bordwell, D., & Thompson, K. (2013). Film Art: An Introduction (10th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1980). The Logic of Practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). In Other Words: Essays Towards a Reflexive Sociology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1993). The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1998). Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Brennan, T. (2004). The Transmission of Affect. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1996). What is Philosophy? New York: Columbia University Press.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, FL: Sage.
Deuze, M. (2007). Media Work. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Geuens, J. P. (2000). Film Production Theory. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Geuens, J. P. (2007). The Space of Production. Quarterly Review of Film and Video, 24(5), 411–420.
Gregg, M., & Seigworth, G. J. (Eds.). (2010). The Affect Theory Reader. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Haseman, B. (2006). A Manifesto for Performative Research. Media International Australia Incorporating Culture and Policy, 118, 98–106.
Holland, D., Lachicotte, Jr., W., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and Agency in Cultural Worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kerrigan, S., Berkeley, L., Maher, S., Sergi, M., & Wotherspoon, A. (2015). Screen Production Enquiry: A Study of Five Australian Doctorates. Studies in Australasian Cinema, 9(2), 93–109.
MacDougall, D. (1998). Transcultural Cinema. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Massumi, B. (2015). Politics of Affect [ Kindle Version]. http://www.amazon.com/Politics-Affect-Brian-Massumi-ebook/dp/B013LTCTN2/ref=mt_kindle?_encoding=UTF8&me=. Accessed 17 Nov 2015.
Millard, K. (2006). Writing for the Screen: Beyond the Gospel of Story. Scan: Journal of Media Arts Culture, 3(1).
Nelson, R. (2013). Practice as Research in the Arts: Principles, Protocols, Pedagogies, Resistances. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Pomerance, M. (2008). The Horse who Drank the Sky: Film Experience Beyond Narrative and Theory. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Presence, S. (2012). An Investigation of Affect in the Cinema: Spectacle and the Melodramatic Rhetoric in Nil by Mouth. Frames Cinema Journal, 2. http://framescinemajournal.com/article/an-investigation-of-affect-in-the-cinema-spectacle-and-the-melodramatic-rhetoric-in-nil-by-mouth/. Accessed 14 Feb 2016.
Rosenberg, T. (2000). “The Reservoir”: Towards a Poetic Model of Research in Design (Working Papers in Art & Design 1).
Rutherford, A. (2003, March). Cinema and Embodied Affect. Senses of Cinema, 25. http://senses-of-cinema.com/2003/feature-articles/embodied_affect/. Accessed 14 Feb 2016.
Sainsbury, P. (2003a). Visions, Illusions and Delusions: Part 1. Realtime, 53, 18–19. http://www.realtimearts.net/article/issue53/6972. Accessed 1 Aug 2011.
Sainsbury, P. (2003b). Visions, Illusions and Delusions: Part 2. Realtime, 54, 15N17. http://www.realtimearts.net/article/issue54/7051. Accessed 1 Aug 2011.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.
Scrivener, S. (2000). Reflection in and on Action and Practice in Creative-Production Doctoral Projects in Art and Design: The Foundations of Practice-Based Research (Working Papers in Art & Design 1).
Wood, M., & Brown, S. (2011). Lines of Flight: Everyday Resistance Along England’s Backbone. Organization, 18(4), 517–539.
Wood, M., & Brown, S. (2012). Film-Based Creative Arts Enquiry: Qualitative Researchers as Auteurs. Qualitative Research Journal, 12(1), 130–147.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Berkeley, L. (2018). Lights, Camera, Research: The Specificity of Research in Screen Production. In: Batty, C., Kerrigan, S. (eds) Screen Production Research. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62837-0_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62837-0_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-62836-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-62837-0
eBook Packages: Literature, Cultural and Media StudiesLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)