We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
PERSPECTIVES OF A SOCIOLOGY OF FILM only one instance, is utterly unconcerned with what is in this chapter called the sociological perspectives of film. A sociology of film will, and must, be built up irrespective of whether the film industry is controlled by a 'monopolist' or by a state bureaucracy.
So far, our sociological interpretation has been intentionally purely descriptive. But we must now turn to some normative reflections. Here, we take our starting point from the much discussed controversy between Plato and Aristotle about the social impact of poetry. Professor Collingwood has devoted to this controversy a few important pages in his book already mentioned, The Principles of Art. We agree with the facts as represented by Collingwood, but differ from him on their interpretation. 'Tragedy and comedy', Professor Collingwood writes, 'were kinds of poetry which Plato classified as representative. When he wrote Book III (of the Republic), it seems that he intended to admit into his republic a certain kind of drama, more or less Aeschylean ... in character. When he wrote Book X, his view had hardened. All drama must go, and he finds himself left with that kind of poetry whose chief representative is Pindar.'1 The reasons for Plato's attitude towards poetry are easy to understand. He regarded the 'Sophistic' character of all non-mythical poetry as disruptive to the community. A community, a state without myth is doomed. Consequently, Plato himself attempted to create a myth in his Timaeus.2 Aristotle, as compared with Plato, was a realist. He interpreted what he saw.
We follow further Professor Collingwood's analysis:3 'The Poetics (by Aristotle) ... is a defence of poetry for pleasure's sake, or representative poetry. . . .' Aristotle agrees with Plato that Tragedy generates in the audience pity and fear. 'A mind heavily charged with these emotions is thereby unfitted for practical life. . . . Plato proceeds at once to this conclusion; therefore tragedy is detrimental to the practical life of its audience . . . Aristotle inserts one further step in the analysis. The emotions generated by tragedy . . . are not in fact allowed to remain burdening the mind of the audience. They are discharged in the experience of watching tragedy. This emotional defecation or 'purging' (katharsis) leaves the audience's mind after the tragedy is over, not loaded with pity and fear, but lightened of them. The effect is thus the opposite
1 Cf. op. cit. p. 48.
2 With regard to the role of myth in Greek civilisation see my book, Political Thought: The European Tradition, 1942 ed., chapter 1.
3 Cf. op. cit. pp. 5 1 sq.
22