FORMALISM AND LITERATURE
The term ‘Formalism’ is derived from the Russian Literary movement propounded between 1915 to 1935 and can be seen as the “first critical movement in Russia which attacked in systematic fashion the problems of rhythm and meter, of style and composition” (Erlich, 1955, p20). Largely influenced by the writings of two predominant literary figures Victor Shklovsky and Juri Tynianov, this movement was characterised by its emphasis on form and technique as a means of artistic expression. Formalist’s would argue that what defines an object as ‘artful’ is not the content itself, rather, it is the technique used to communicate that content, the form employed to transform that object from an everyday being into something which has a succinct style and system of formal attributes (Dudley, 1976, p80). It is precisely the manipulation of technique which the artist employs that denotes the text’s artistic integrity and allows the development of style and form. Thus, form can be seen as the building blocks or tools unique to an artistic medium for which the artist could implement, manipulate and deviate to construct a narrative. In his examination of classical Russian formalist theory, Andrzej Karcz summarises Tynianov and Shklovsky’s theories and deduces that “both view a work of literature as a dynamic and fluctuating phenomenon and as a intergrated hierarchical system” (Karcz, 2002, p80). In this sense, formalist theory is centered on the artist and the audiences self awareness of the artistic medium. It requires a conscious knowledge of what practices are unique to the medium in order to employ each formal attribute respectively to function as part of a whole. Further, it focuses on how those techniques are structured to impart a perception of an event, object or situation which is unfamiliar or ‘unnatural’ to the audience. The question this now poses is how does this hierarchial system relate to film and the processes of narrative construction.