Categories
Theories, Policies and Practices

My Teaching Practice – Meeting with my tutor group

In presenting to the group in our first seminar together, I offered some background to my practice and how it has influenced my thinking in regards to teaching and learning. In preparation for the session, I had done some reading, looking for something that chimed with my approach as a new teacher. A chapter from Film Pedagogy Cinema Journal; Spring 1997 stood out for a few reasons.


In ‘Theory to Practice: Integrating Cinema Theory and Film Production’, Frank P. Tomasulo explores the rift between practitioners and academics in film. He uses a quote from Lev Kuleshov early in the article, someone I have referenced early in my introductory teachings on editing. “Teaching filmmaking without being cognizant of fundamental cinematic theories demeans film craft to the mere level of an amateur workshop. And the opposite: studying film history and theory without a corresponding experience in the elemental aspects of filmmaking leaves theoretical research without a solid basis, forcing students to plunge into abstraction.” This highlighted for me the delicate balance within arts education between practice and theory.

Kuleshov is widely regarded as the ‘father of film theory’, yet his work as an experimental filmmaker is what I first introduce to the students, namely his experiment now known as ‘The Kuleshov Effect’, where the same image of a man’s face is juxtaposed with alternative imagery, each one creating a new response from the audience.


Frank Tomasulo also refers to an anecdotal experience of the filmmaker Hal Roach responding to a question from a student about whether they use any ‘Film Theory’ language in their practice. “Roach asked the student to describe some of the theories… When Roach heard about the Freudian notion of substitution, part of the dream work, he said, “Well, we didn’t call it ‘substitution.’ We called it ‘the old switcheroo.’”


This resonates with me as in my work with students and technicians when teaching filmmaking practice, one of the obstacles to overcome throughout the process is the matter of language. Both technical and academic language can create a barrier for learners, as they may feel that without fluency in this language they will not be up to the task. I always feel the key process at this point in the learning experience is one of demystification. Most of my students would be unfamiliar, at the start, with both theoretical and technical film languages, but have their own fluency in the reading of film as an object. This is what I look to ‘unlock’ first in my introductory sessions with my students.


In reflecting upon this and on the presentations of the other members of my tutor group, a few general themes emerged in relation to the position of the teacher in the Arts:


Demystification

  • The language of a discipline can make the world of the professional seem a distant thing to a student. I have consistently learned that much of what I have aspired to in life has been only a few short steps away, despite feeling like an impossible place to reach because of a new language that must be learned.

Pastoral Care and Assessment

  • In my non-marking roles, like many technicians, I have seen very different relationships and therefore very different student personalities presented to marking and non-marking staff. In a non-marking role the chance of developing a much less formal relationship with the student allows for an area that seems to be given little or no recognition or importance. How can we knowhow a student is really doing if they are guarded because they do not wish to admit they are struggling in front of the person who will ultimately give them their grade.

Practice / Theory for the practitioner/lecturer

  • Given more weight above; are we neglecting the importance of the ‘expert’ in the room when focussing on the mode of teaching rather than the exposure to the nature of the professional? A balance needs to be struck in these cases.   

Technical innovation

  • A moving framework of access/context points. Does change in technology change our view of attainment or discovery? And of teaching itself?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *