Burnaford review - January 2011
Cognitive Theories chapter
Comments
This chapter is extremely well-written, informative and worthy of serious
study by teachers interested in engaging film in classrooms. So often we limit
ourselves to the ‘how to’ without thinking seriously about the theory related to
meaningful practice. This chapter provides such context.
The introduction is clear and concise and lets the reader know exactly what
the chapter is about, as evidenced by these two statements:
One of the most important things we, as educators, can do is to approach teaching screen media as seriously
as we do literature.
…a deeper understanding of the theories behind screen media would serve as a valuable foundation from
which to form a lesson plan.
The subtitles are helpful as well and guide the process of the chapter nicely.
Recommendations
Per my comments above, there are subsections that are strictly ‘how to’ and
don’t engage cognitive theory at all (i.e., Creating Tension). It may be there, but if so,
it is so subtle that it may well be missed by the teacher-reader. I would suggest
being more explicit in all the subsections about the cognitive process being engaged
by the film-making at that point. For example, how does ‘creating tension’ in film
relate to the cognitive processes of anticipating, predicting, making mental images
of the future?
The author begins that process, but stops short:
A shot of relatively longer length preceding or following a sequence of short shots not only allows the
viewer’s mind to process the images on screen, but also lends greater power to the longer shot. The longer
shot stays on screen longer than any of the other, shorter shots so it grows in importance and also stands out
in the mind of the viewer because it is different from the shots around it. Make the audience want
something by not giving it to them and you will be able to lead them down the golden path with you.
Admittedly, I am not familiar with the Kuleshov Effect, nor am I a cognitive
scientist. Perhaps I am not clear that the entire chapter is based on the Kuleshov
Effect? If so, that point gets lost in the middle of the chapter and seems to reappear
on p. 6 in the section on the Kuleshov Effect. This was confusing.
Finally, the Conclusion needs a bit of work to ‘match’ the quality of the
Introduction and middle sections of the chapter.
Rating for Publication
Publish with minor revisions.