رهيافتي پديدارشناختي هرمنوتيك نسبت به سينما

A Hermeneutic-Phenomenological Approach to the Cinema

فهم پديدارشناسانه سينما، در حوزه فلسفه سينما قرار مي گيرد. در پديدارشناسي متعارف، وابستگي سوژه و ابژه به يكديگر مطرح مي شود، اما در روش پديدارشناسي هرمنوتيك هيدگر، به نوعي دوسويه سوژه ابژه كنار مي رود و جاي خود را به در عالم بودنِ دازاين مي دهد. بر همين اساس، پديدارشناسي هيدگر متقدم، راهي براي فهم امكانات وجودشناسانه دازاين مي شود. پديدارشناسي در نظر هيدگر متاخر، بدل به امكاني براي انديشيدن مي گردد و در واقع شيوه اي هرمنوتيكي را براي تفكر در ظل تاريخ وجود شكل مي دهد. گادامر لوازم پديدارشناسي هرمنوتيك را در تفكر هيدگر بسط مي دهد و با آموزه هايي چون رد تفكيك صورت از محتوا در فهم اثر و توجه به عالم، تمهيدات مهمي را در اين روش، ايجاد مي كند. در پديدارشناسي متعارف سينما، ديدگاه هايي واقع گرا يا نشانه گرا در باب چيستي فيلم و نحوه درك مخاطب بيان م يشود. در نگاه پديدارشناسي هرمنوتيك، با نفي تفكيك صورت از محتوا و توجه به آموزه عالم و تكنيك مي توان سينما را به مثابه عالم منكشف از مجلاي تكنيك سينمايي فهم كرد.

“Phenomenology of film” could be defined in the field of philosophy of film, which itself is a growing subfield of contemporary philosophy of art. According to current essay, it is clear that Hermeneutic- Phenomenology, declaring by Heidegger and expanding by Gadammer, has more possibilities for thinking in contrast to the classic Phenomenology, growing by Husserl and many of his followers. Hermeneutic-Phenomenology in the line of the unity of Heidegger’s thought shows the unity of the relations between man and Being in a resonating way. Attending phenomenology of art in Heidegger reveals proper notions (such as world) which could be used for phenomenologically thinking about the truth of cinema. Gadammer, too, applies Heidegger’s phenomenology of art as a model of understanding, but not exactly going on his way. Some inquiries using phenomenology for film theory such as Allan Casebier, Daniel Yacavone and Malin Wahlbergs attempt to show not enough succeed, because of the problems such as lack of illuminating the cinema in itself, lack of paying attention to the cinematic capacities of other theories, and lack of passing the current subjective way of thought. Criticizing many views about Heidegger and film also shows rare attention to the way in which Heidegger suggests to think, and instead using Heideggerian concepts to define cinema. Some of these views including many philosophical essays about thin, red, line are only attempts to show probable philosophical as well as poetic capacities of cinema and not examining and declaring the way these capacities absolutely may be. While some other writers as Robert Sinner brink pay attention to cinematic technique more and try to clear a Heideggerian point of view according to his opinions about technique, arts, poetics, etc.; he also cannot explain how the cinema has the ability to be poetic, while his interpretation about Heideggerian poesies is awfully wrong. But, following Hermeneutic-Phenomenological way to think about cinema, attending inspirations from Heidegger in concepts such as technology, world, Dasein, world-picture etc. helps to enclose the truth of cinema. This essay comes close to cinema in a hermeneutical manner, to see cinema, movie or film -as what it really is – and not from the viewpoint of its theories. Therefore the authors explicated Heidegger’s main viewpoints about Gestell, Gebild etc. and came close to the truth of it. Although this may not be enough, and the cinema should be interpreted according to its history. Finally, using Gadammers term, game, unfolds cinema as a technological world, sharing by both filmmakers and viewers, considering a determinate culture - a definitive world - for ordinary viewers of movies, who look for entertainment in watching motion pictures. This article does not necessarily deny the probable capacity of movies for representing several thoughts and values - regarding Heidegger’s authentic Dasein or world - after the mentioned conditions.