Ideology: the views of the world put forward as personal belief, ethical values etc.
When a filmmaker makes a film, some of his or her own beliefs, values and ethics will inevitably be present within it, i.e. what they believe will be reflected in the narrative of the film. Analysing the narrative structure can help us work out what this ideology is.
In a narrative, equilibrium is ‘normal’ and disequilibrium is ‘not normal’.
Look again at the equilibrium and disequilibrium of your film.
What is classed as ‘normal’ (equilibrium)?
What disrupts that ‘normality’ (the enigma)?
What events or states of being does disequilibrium (non-normality) involve?
Does the final equilibrium (the resolution at the end of the film) differ to the original equilibrium at all, i.e. has the main character’s ‘normality’ changed in any way? If yes, how has it changed?
Is there a moral message?
As we saw before, Todorov believed that every narrative contains a transformation.
In other words, he believed that the state of equilibrium at the end of the film is reached by a change (i.e. it is not the same as the equilibrium at the start of the film).
Think about the film you applied Todorov's theory to.
What change can you identify in this film?
How does this link to ideology?
Other narrative pages:
Introduction
Todorov and Narrative Structure
Propp and Character Functions
Levi-Strauss and Binary Opposites
When a filmmaker makes a film, some of his or her own beliefs, values and ethics will inevitably be present within it, i.e. what they believe will be reflected in the narrative of the film. Analysing the narrative structure can help us work out what this ideology is.
In a narrative, equilibrium is ‘normal’ and disequilibrium is ‘not normal’.
Look again at the equilibrium and disequilibrium of your film.
What is classed as ‘normal’ (equilibrium)?
What disrupts that ‘normality’ (the enigma)?
What events or states of being does disequilibrium (non-normality) involve?
Does the final equilibrium (the resolution at the end of the film) differ to the original equilibrium at all, i.e. has the main character’s ‘normality’ changed in any way? If yes, how has it changed?
Is there a moral message?
As we saw before, Todorov believed that every narrative contains a transformation.
In other words, he believed that the state of equilibrium at the end of the film is reached by a change (i.e. it is not the same as the equilibrium at the start of the film).
Think about the film you applied Todorov's theory to.
What change can you identify in this film?
How does this link to ideology?
Other narrative pages:
Introduction
Todorov and Narrative Structure
Propp and Character Functions
Levi-Strauss and Binary Opposites