I just made the breakthrough in my thesis that I’ve been waiting on for the past year (3~4 months, especially). It brings considerable clarity to my thinking, and I can now envision what I need to do in order to complete my argument.
If only this happened last semester (or even last week!), when I still had time left to actually write the fucking thing!
Anyway, here’s my proposed sectioning. I don’t expect that it will make much sense on the surface.
(But, if you think you disagree with something, you should stop whatever you’re doing and let me know ASAP). Also note that the diagram above is related, but only very opaquely; I mostly included it for the pretty pictures.
- Research question:
- What is depth, and to what extent does it play a role in our understanding—and subsequent appreciation—of cinema?
- Holography (implicitly stores information) as/in/qua depth,
- This shouldn’t be hard to prove; ‘how holography works’ is scientifically established
- All I’m proposing here is to use the word ‘depth’ to describe this phenomenon
- Depth is:
- a property of holograms; it signifies that information is implicit/encoded (A)
- an analogical framework for understanding how meaning emerges from perception (B)
- Cinema (/art/the universe) functions holographically,
- This will need the most elaboration, and is obviously my most contentious claim
- Need to draw support from existing film theory, not (just) science or philosophy
- ∴ The purpose of (cinema is to contain) depth
- Where ‘purpose’ essentially means ‘the inherent outcome’
- Need to provide examples (films, techniques) where cinema exhibits depth
Film.
