Integral Cinema Studio: The Methodology Lens

Everything is Illuminated (2005) and the Methodologies that can be Potentially Expressed Within the Cinematic Work

Having previously explored the basic integrally-informed lenses of cinematic perception and expression, which include the HOLONIC, QUADRATIC, DEVELOPMENTAL, STATES, and TYPOLOGY Lenses, and the more advanced ZONAL, ALTITUDINAL, and ENERGETIC Lenses, we now shift focus to that space between theory and practice where we find the constructs, paradigms, and approaches used to examine and enact our world and the world of cinema, using what I am calling the METHODOLOGY LENS. With this lens we can attempt to look at what methodological constructs are behind how we look and how we act, what method or approach we are using at any given moment to comprehend and relate to self, others, and world.

While this lens traditionally is associated with methods of research, the basic process we are talking about here reaches far beyond the scientist looking through a microscope or an anthropologist studying a culture, and includes the business person analyzing market results, the artist taking a unique approach to a subject, and anyone, real or characterized in a creative work, who is faced with a decision. Put another way, every perspective we hold, every choice we make, and every action we take has an individual or set of paradigms or constructs behind it that effects both our understanding of that perspective, choice, and action, as well as the actual process and outcome.

The Big Three of 1st-Person, 2nd-Person, and 3rd-Person Perspectives

In the Integral approach we can use three different frameworks or perspectival arrays, to view these methodological paradigms and enactments. Each perspectival array helps us to explore deeper and more complex dimensions of this domain; from a very simple perspectival array of 1st-, 2nd-, and 3rd-person perspectives (called the Big Three in Integral Theory), to the Quadratic Lens array which adds the 3rd-person-plural perspective, and finally to the Zonal Lens which opens up our perspective to the inside and outside dimensions of these perspectives.

Using a basic Big Three Methodology Lens array we can take a look at how we or a screen character in a cinematic work makes a decision.  For example, do we or the character use a 1st-person inner-intuitive/subjectivity-based, 2nd-person consensus/intersubjectivity-based, or 3rd-person analytical/objectivity-based decision making approach? In the cinema, these methodological constructs can be used in a progressive manner within a character’s story arc to create a deep and felt-sense of character growth or evolution. For example, in the film Everything is Illuminated (2005), the main character is on an investigative quest to uncover his and his family’s history that takes him from a 3rd-person approach or method of collecting both directly-connected and obscure family-related objects, to a 2nd-person communal journey of uncovering shared memories and stories with his travel guides, and finally, to a 1st-person inner reflection and revelation process. This process is intensified by the use of various other cinematic structures that help to echo and deepen these dimensions. ¹

Using the Quadratic Methodological Lens array we can see how this lens can be applied to both content and the creative process itself. For example, if we use this lens to look at the various knowledge domains within the Hollywood movie industry, we could divide the industry into four general knowledge domains or communities within the world of Hollywood movie making, each with their own, often conflicting paradigms, practices, injunctions, and constructs of what makes a “good” movie. There is the Cinematic Artists Community, which tends to view the goodness or success of the cinematic work by how much of the artist’s subjective vision (UL) is successfully translated onto the screen. There is the Cinematic Technicians Community, which evaluates the degree of technical/material/objective (UR) quality of the cinematic work. There is the Cinematic Business Community, which appraises the success of the cinematic work by its market reach and profitability within the economic system (LR).

Finally, there is the Cinematic Analytical Community (critics, historians, and theorists), which evaluates the quality of the cinematic work by the theoretical and historical contextual effectiveness of its cinematic language (LL). Put another way, looking through the Quadratic Methodological Lens array, there appears to be four methodological approaches to evaluating and enacting a cinematic work within the Hollywood system, which can be correlated to the discreet yet interrelated domains of ART, CRAFT, THEORY, and BUSINESS.²

Quadratic Mapping of the Four Methodological/Knowledge Domains of the Motion Picture Industry

In the history of the film industry, conflicts have often arisen between individuals and groups within these domains or communities, and their seemingly contrary social practices/injunctions and the constructs generated by them.³ It does appear that some individuals tend to associate themselves and/or others with one of these domains, seeing a separation between the artist, technician, theorist, and businessperson; while some are able to hold more than one of these constructs as it relates to themselves, others, and their work; and some also appear to be able to integrate all four methodological/perspectival domains.

Chariots of Fire (1981) and the Integration of the Methodologies of Cinematic Creation

An example of this type of methodological integration can be seen in the case of internationally-acclaimed award-winning motion picture producer David Puttnam, whose producing methodology included the finding and nurturing the development of what he perceived to be a story of high artistic and technical quality with cultural and social resonance; along with the bringing together of the best artists and technicians who fit together into a synergistic team; and in conjunction with the creation and management of a safe and creative environment for the cast and crew to work in, within the boundaries of reasonable fiscal constraints.⁴

With this integrally-informed methodological formula Puttnam was able to produce several films that were deemed simultaneously successful by all four of the industry’s knowledge communities. These cinematic works included films like Midnight Express (1978), Chariots of Fire (1981), and The Killing Fields (1984), all of which were considered to be artistically, technically, theoretically, and financially successful works with both cultural and social resonance.⁵

TO BE CONTINUED…⁶

NOTES

¹ In the above example of the film Everything is Illuminated (2005), the Big Three-oriented methodological development of the main characters investigative quest along with its narrative structures is intensified by the use of various 1st person, 2nd person, and 3rd person audio, visual, and temporal structures as outlined in the previous article on the Quadratic Lens. Note that the Big Three collapses the Upper Right (3rd Person) and Lower Right (3rd Person Plural) quadrants into a single 3rd person dimension-perspective.

² The above quadratic mapping of the four methodological/knowledge domains of the motion picture industry into the discreet yet interrelated domains of ART, CRAFT, THEORY, and BUSINESS can also be seen as a quadratic array of two great polarities within the industry, that of ART and BUSINESS, and THEORY and PRACTICE. These polarities are often seen to be in conflict, both within and between individuals and groups in the industry.

³ For more on the historical conflicts related to these four methodological domains of the motion picture industry see, Film History: An Introduction (Thompson and Bordwell, 2009); Movies and Money (Putnam, 2000); and A History of American Movies: A Film-by-Film Look at the Art, Craft, and Business of Cinema (Monaco, 2010).

⁴ David Puttnam outlined his producing methodology in a Master Class in Producing at the American Film Institute in 1985-1986 which I attended, and was elaborated on in personal discussions with him as well. He also shares aspects of his approach and stories from some of his experiences in his book Movies and Money (Putnam, 2000).

⁵ The integrally-informed approach that David Puttnam attempted to use appears to reflect the basic principles of enactment, enfoldment, and nonexclusion that are at the heart of Integral Theory’s methodological framework, commonly referred to as Integral Methodological Pluralism (IMP). Nonexclusion refers to the capacity to "include the valid truth claims of every paradigm but only insofar as they make statements about the existence of their own enacted and disclosed phenomena and not the phenomena disclosed by other paradigms;" enfoldment holds that "all paradigms harbor truth, but some are more encompassing, more inclusive, and thus "enfold" others;” and enactment is the understanding that "no experience is innocent and pre-given; rather each is brought forth or enacted in part by the activity of the subject doing the experiencing. Therefore, one activity, paradigm, or injunction will bring forth a particular set of experiences for a person with one perspectival constellation, and possibly a different set of experiences for someone with a different constellation." These principles allow for the integration of various methods, allowing them to co-exist within a harmonized action-oriented meta-methodology (Core Integral, Advanced Integral, Lesson 4, Methods).

⁶ This topic will be continued in the next article with an exploration of the Zonal Methodological Lens array.