INTRODUCTION

The argument is only that the social sciences have a contribution to make to the study of film. Critics have been arguing since Plato and Aristotle about the proper role of the arts. It has been overgeneralized that Plato was satisfied with excellence in form, whereas Aristotle was more insistent that any form of art have a significant and worthwhile message or purpose. Various forms of criticism since have tended to emphasize either the form or the function ever since. Interestingly the social sciences may have a "new" contribution to make to the ongoing dialectic of this form and substance. For their differences Plato and Aristotle were both idealists, both defenders of rational apprehensions of truth. For several score, if not hundred, years science has increasingly become a reality check on said rational apprehensions of truth.

C.P. Snow is most commonly associated with distinguishing the new dichotomy of art and science (the two cultures). The ancient concerns of Plato and Aristotle for form and function are now more closely associated with the concerns of the artist. In an article for the American Educational Research Association Elliot Eisner has identified points of basic divergence between scientists and artists. These will be discussed later in this work in some detail, but the last of his points argues that scientists tend to be preoccupied with the search for truth whereas artists are more concerned with the search for meaning. Another way of realizing this distinction is that scientists are more concerned with 'proximate' causes whereas artists with 'ultimate' causes.

Snow has been rightly criticized for the oversimplification of the dichotomy between scientists and artists, but the pervasiveness and repeatedness of conflict between scientists and artists lends credence to his generalization. This disparity is helpful here because it helps clarify the limited but sometimes profound role the social sciences can play in film criticism.

John Dewey has said that criticism is the reeducation of perception. On occasion, especially for "significant" films, knowledge from the social sciences can make a particular contribution to understanding both a film's form and function.

This journal has been created as a forum for social science perspectives on film, particularly on the films themselves, not their impact on audiences and society, not as cultural artifacts, but rather as self contained, artistic wholes. However, it is hoped that any ensuing discussions will break down not only some of the barriers amongst the social sciences, but also with students from and of the arts in the belief that Plato was right, knowledge is one, and that the sharing of ideas about film across disciplines will lead to deeper understanding of the truth, of the meaning, of the beauty of some films.

Certainly it can be said the every film has a psychology, a sociology, politics, economic implications. But just as certainly some films have more serious content than others. To date those social scientists who have focused on films (and of their affects) have focused on films noted, whether comedies, dramas, etc., for the seriousness of their purpose. Different academic disciplines have had their own group of films to which they have the most to offer in a full explication of individual movies.

The movie "Country," whose dramatic premise is centered around changing farm prices, invites an economic perspective on costs, benefits; market changes; and government fiscal policies for a full understanding of the circumstances Jessica Lange and Sam Shepherd face in losing their farm.

The movie "Stand and Deliver," which is set in a southern California public high school, invites an educational perspective andparticularly an understanding of the concept of the self-fulfilling prophecy, the idea that students can rise to the level of expectation.

The movie "Silkwood," which is based on a real person and an actual event, invites an historical perspective in distinguishing the movie's facts and fictions.

The movie "The Verdict," which is centered around a court case, causes critics to wonder how much artistic license is warranted in misrepresenting certain legal practices in the course of sustaining plot.

Movies such as "Rocky IV," "Red Dawn," "The Russians are Coming," which portray Soviets as key characters, invite a political science perspective in sorting out myth from reality with regard to the Soviet Union.

A movie like "Ordinary People," which centers around a family's ordeal over the loss of a brother and son, should probably be consistent with what is known about the psychology of the post trauma stress disorder.

Films like "Diner," "Stand and Deliver," "Mystic Pizza," that delve into the interrelationships of groups of friends, suggest the issues raised by sociologists about the functions of the peer group.

Films like "Eight Men Out" and "Matewan" may be understood much better from social science commentary and criticism of American individualism.

I frankly doubt that the understanding of most films is particularly improved by a social science perspective. Does it matter that the actual river in the "African Queen" really ran to the sea and not to the lake. Is "Top Gun" better understood as anything more than escapist entertainment? Is "Buckeroo Banzai" going to quit being one of my favorite films because I can't think of any social science perspective that makes me appreciate it more. Is "Body Heat" best understood as a movie about the legal system? This is not meant to be a journal that loses the entertainment value of movies in its quest for a deeper, more satisfying comprehension of serious films. The movie reviews in this inaugural issue are not meant as to other forms of criticism. The reviews do communicate significant insights particular to the social sciences, and a lot of joy in the appreciation of movies. The general thought is that movies are best when they are technically great, thematically significant, and when meant to be accurate about human behavior--truthful.

Which social science disciplines have the most to offer in the analysis of any particular film, much less which concepts from that field are most salient? The answer is in what Joseph Schwabb has called the polyfocal conspectus. One must consider all the conceptual lenses available and have the wisdom (or good fortune) to choose a perspective that captures the most robust interpretation or insight.

BACK