Post-structuralism and Deconstruction in Film

Post-structuralism is a term that evolves as a result of criticism of the theory of structuralism. The crucial underpinning of post-structuralism lies in the belief there language has some inadequacies. Structuralism, as it relates to the medium of cinema, is derived from displaying communication through visual images. Post-structuralism in its simplest expression is concerned with the concept of what is known as overdetermination. Overdetermination is defined as [an] "implic[ation of] the absence of a break between discourse and the objects of discourse. Overdetermination implies that theory is not separate from reality nor is reality separate from theory" ("Post-structuralism"). In other words, our reality is founded on the premise that we examine what we are taught within the framework of conceptualizations and these conceptualizations are inevitably shaped by our reality.

Post-structuralism has often been deemed a nonspecific name for many contrasting progressions in the realm of structuralism. In learning film, the subject of deconstruction has often emerged. The precise application of deconstruction tends to scrutinize the missed positions in meaning, the minute inconsistencies that claim to support the overall structure. The theory of deconstruction can be explained to have its basis in much of the work of Sigmund Freud and his analysis of thinking. In spite of many endeavors to keep psychology out of cinema study, "it has been seeping [indirectly] into the crevices. The immediate thoughts in relation to deconstruction are that it has been an effective tool in breaking up and separating film's historical periods. Without deconstruction, we would be left with periods in the history of film, approached from the bland perspective that they're basically the same, but with a few twists here and there" ("Post-structuralism and Deconstruction (in film)").  Post-structuralism asks structuralism to define itself as a valid theoretical application in the field of cinema. 

The arrival of post-structuralist thought was a response that accentuated that times past and mores create biases that hamper ones' capability to properly construe core structures in products of civilization. This theoretical foundation promoted the study of cultural products to entail studying both the concrete object and the intellectual systems of information that construct them (Knight; "Post-structuralism and Deconstruction (in film)").  Essentially, post-structuralism asked for structuralism to present the true meaning of what it purported and this could only be acquired through concentrated examination. This lead to the argument regarding biases and contradictions, especially in the world of the cinema.

Many detractors have proffered that post structuralism can be likened to contemporary film theory. Appraisals of contemporary film theory have noted that the Althusserian-Lacanian viewpoints have been enormously drained in conversation. There has been broad displeasure with the second semiology and with the propensity of much of post-structuralism to split into several different areas (Knight). 

The discontent with the second semiology is the association between conjecture and technique in film. The second semiology attempted to "accomplish three things: 1) a theory of subjectivity; 2) a theory of the nature of the cultural artifact as an ideological as well as technical product and 3) a theory of how filmic and other texts could be read to show how social subjects are reproduced, positioned and repositioned by those texts. But these concerns of the second semiology have made it very difficult to raise alternative theoretical and interpretive questions. Second semiology offers film studies [a] constructed series of analogies and metaphors. Film criticism and interpretation [under this framework] have been [what is considered as a] second-order thematic criticism" (Knight). Thus, it has made it very difficult for theorists to deconstruct structuralist films without using second semiology as a metric; hence the reason for the dissatisfaction.

Despite the dissatisfaction, the theory of post-structuralism can be applied to many films. Structuralism adheres to the viewpoint that conclusions are arrived at with mass acceptance of conventions; therefore, post structuralism seeks to find the objectivity in the conventions. Has society truly thought out what it has deemed conventional? Much of the framework of post structuralism has been likened to the ideas of Jacques Derrida, ("Post-structuralism and Deconstruction (in film)").yet with a more relaxed connotation because of the deconstruction factor that is thrown into the proverbial mix.  

The saying nothing new under the sun as mentioned in the book of Ecclesiastes in the Bible is factual in its phrasing. Many of the films that are panned as structural are overly used motifs and therefore, can be deconstructed as such. One particular illustration of this is in the James Bond collection. Each of the films associated with the spy aligns with a similar formula. In an examination of Live and Let Die, Goldfinger, Dr. No, and Casino Royale, one can glean that any of the scenes featured in those movies (i.e. cliffhangers, love scenes, villainous maneuvers) could have been substituted in other movies in the series. These are the deep structures associated with the Bond movies and in analysis, can be deconstructed as nothing but simplistic metaphors that glorify the action-adventure genre and do not allow the audience to break from their conventions about spies and for that matter, Bond. The same can be said for slasher movies. While some slasher horror movies have plot in them, the structures of these tales are simply to see how creative the writers and directors can get with conveying the language of death.

In addition to deconstructing and analyzing Bond films, in an analysis of the structures associated with Disney movies, an interesting undercurrent was unearthed. The Lion King, Beauty & The Beast, as well as Brave,  were analyzed and each of the movies presented conditioning that we are taught to believe at young age. The main characters of each of the movies and most Disney movies for that matter exhibited that men are physically strong, dominant and are the head of the themes that the movies play out.

The vivacious motion pictures of Disney have often been correlated with incredible adaptations of conventional stories, replete memorable characters. Disney products have underscored a combination of imaginative dexterity and methodical wizardry that has become a compelling influence in American cinema. Fairytales and animatronics are a conventional form of escapism and are nonetheless a reaffirmation of Disney towards culture's conviction on its explanations on fairytales that become alluring not only for kids but for the entire family. Disney films have artistic baggage that has become the collective norm for products. Each and every product is presented with a structured voice-over and a humanistic character and advertised as entertainment (Santosa). 

Disney animated films usually have a set of what are known as actants. These are typical characters such as the hero, the donors of the hero, the lover of the hero, the villain, the helpers associated with the villain, and the dominant character such as the elders or parents. Most Disney heroes are presented as hopelessly dependent on their donors. Each actant in the Disney movies has significant elements that are "1) the hero's desire, 2) the chaos, 3)  the hero's clash with the dominant character, 4) the hero's failure to recognize his/her identity, 5) the shell, 6) the hero's task, 7) the donor's contribution, 8) punishment and reward, 9) the hero's ability for self-identification and the fulfillment of his/her desire which leads to 10) happiness. The first and second elements are interchangeable, yet do not influence the flow of the story" (Santosa). This is significant in that every Disney movie has this same structure and it relates to how society has become so entrenched in what Disney presents as animated films. However, looking at the financial analysis of Disney, society loves this formula. This entrenchment has become the conventional theme. When post structuralism deconstruction is probed into films such as Yol, which is the story of Kurdish prisoners in Turkey, there are interesting fascinations that can be analyzed. The script was written by Yilmaz Guney, and directed by Serif Goren, who followed the orders of Guney to a tee in terms of the editing process. Yol, when examined challenges the typical conventions of prisoners and the efforts to stay alive in the aftermath of a coup d'etat. 

Perhaps the importance of Post structuralist synthesis lies in holding Structuralism accountable for its continual purporting of conventions in society. Left to its own devices, structuralism would continue to operate and engender certain aspects inherent in societal mores and norms. Post structuralism unearths these dynamics at work even with the dissatisfaction that Knight noted with the second semiology. The subject of post-structuralism is essential to the discourse on film and its subsequent effect on societal paradigms, ways of thinking and doing. Post-structuralism is a recognition discourse that seeks to apply sight to what has otherwise been hidden from society. Movies are often fashioned with elements that purport falsehoods, mistruths and incoherent correlations that society has often relegated as truth. Post-structuralism seeks to unravel the embedded theoretical foundations and biases that are streamed as reality in the collective consciousness. The structures of texts such as films are how we interpret our reality and thus, how we understand it. While post structuralism is more interpretative in its understanding, it is the bedrock of rationalism in the shifting sands of civilization.

Works Cited

Knight, Deborah. "Reconsidering Film Theory and Method." New Literary History 24.2 (1993): 321-338. Print.

"Post-structuralism." Mount Holyoke College, n.d. Web. 5 May 2013. <https://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/sgabriel/post_structuralism.htm>.

"Post-structuralism and Deconstruction (in film)." IGN Entertainment, 11 Feb. 2012. Web. 5 May 2013. <http://www.ign.com/blogs/lecambrioleur/2012/02/11/post-structuralism-and-deconstruction-in-film/>.

Santosa, Vyrna. "The Grammar of Disney Long Animations: A Structuralist Reading."Journal of Letters Dec. 2003: 187-197. Petra Christian University Archives. Web. 5 May 2013. <http://puslit.petra.ac.id/files/published/journals/ING/ING030502/ING03050205.pdf>.