Reviewing David Bordwell's On the History of Film Style

‘On the History of Film Style’ comes across as a very attractive book. The cavalcade of pictures aids a lot in a vivid understanding as the book opens interestingly with pictorial explanations, placing its perspective as exciting and simple. It begins by answering the over-debated opening question of whether the historiography of film style is important or not. I agree with the author’s view that it is important and that this approach with style in center is not formalistic though a bit empirical, which is obvious and normal as that’s the nature of most of the theories of human sciences. The book narrates the history of films not as a record but the story of evolution of an art form. As you go on to read it, your anxieties and questions are answered gradually. Though there is very little in the book about the era after the introduction of sound, it is fair as the author makes it clear in the introduction only. Sound films were predicted to have no stylistic development which is a rather regressive view and there is not sufficient effort on author’s part of correcting that view. Seldes reflects his time’s anxiety about the introduction of talkies. Sound was not considered to be critical to the development of style of film. But to think of it, has not the introduction of sound made it more realistic and saved the actors from theatric over-dramatic expressions they had to use to make the message clear? The book gives you all the perspectives to look from, and hence is quite an open and influent book. The discussion about the IMR involving the Bourgeois ideology behind the reproduction of reality and many other debates in the History of Vision could have been better researched and refined. At times the book gives the feeling of being over-stuffed with interpretation which becomes detrimental; so there is a want of more quotations.

One gets a sense of history while learning the interesting working of camera- technical or manual. In some of the chapters, few points are revised rather redundantly. Yet all these flaws seem to be time specific. Different levels of maturity approach every era which has different problems and hence different views. My view will always be biased towards post-modernist view. When such views and terms become hurdles in the way of achieving a common or more precise history, they inevitably do such violence, has been shown adequately through the ‘back and forth’ approach. One senses the efforts at the standardization of shots so that we recognize emotions or targeted meaning through the standardized angle, but it comes across as a very restraining main stream technique. A director’s mind or style is not a linear development. It goes back and forth and evolves thinking innumerable things. So, history of style can never be linear; it will always be scattered, and forcefully linked one. It almost seems like every theory, and every movement has always existed. The book is not self-reflexive in some ways; the meta-history does not emerge out of the book. The ‘problems and solutions’ method seems an over-simplified and technical view at style history like most others, yet it is a type of history I would like to read. Commoli’s argument is very denaturalizing and systematic. It problematises the over simplified independent technical view of film style:

‘’If there was ever a discourse that deserves to be called disordered and confused, anchored in the "middle way" and "common sense," proceeding not from historical or dialectical materialism but from an empiricism that is totally blind to the ideology that it speaks, it is that ... which is the discourse- of-the-technicians, pure positivism and objectivism.’’

One more interesting approach, the ideological view accounts for many developments but becomes dogmatic and over-embracing. Brodwell’s following point mentions that simply and clearly.

‘’Stated starkly, the ideological demand that an image must exhibit depth carries no instructions about how to stage or shoot or light a shot, since there are many ways of doing these things that will create a sense of depth.’’ This could be discussed further on up to where Comollis’ point won’t be proved faulty but short and as unaccountable as many other views as it won’t capture the finer details.

Everything is there in the back of the mind of director whose insight and perception make him an artful creator. So no point of view can serve as a good enough lens to historicize film style. The sixth chapter of the book is full of details about staging and camera angles, making you realize how hard it must have been to guide attention and center the visual narrative. Nothing seems more interesting than connecting the shots; staging a shot is refueled with such interest by the book that old scenes now look new and hard found. And then finally the camera movement takes its baby steps- with long lens, focus, pan and zoom.

Overall, the book sketches out the early stylistics of films as clearly and as openly as possibly. I would recommend it as a satisfactory stylistic book on early film development, especially for those who are planning to research on the film style.

 The book left me thinking about some questions- Can’t problem/solution and ideological view be unified? Why can’t a movie be adapted into a novel when vice versa happens all the time?

Reviewing Arnheim’s ‘Who is the author of a film?’

It is hard to tell what and who did Arnheim have in mind while writing this nine page article.

We might wonder who the real author of a film is. Director or the script writer? A film uses more than just words, making director a lot more important. Arnheim proves film making to be a very ‘director’-ial endeavor. He explains how a different media warrants a different type of author or creator. Authors are not writers but organizers. Now being a totally different media, films have their artist in director who can be called not a writer but the ‘’organizer.’’ A scriptwriter’s task is definitely very crucial and indispensable for a good movie but it is the vision of the director which matters when words are rendered visual. That is the director’s job and totally his world and work field.

Creative process is visual; effort is filmic from the beginning. Role and operation of montage is always there.

Splitting up of functions between the director and scriptwriter is mandatory as are many jobs in so many systems. One man cannot handle it all even if he has the merits and is multi-talented. It is just not feasible.

Writers have learnt more and more over time about the filmic process and keep in mind the film aesthetics while writing a script. So, they have their share too in authorship.

Arnheim in this essay might be generalizing because the equation between authorship of a scriptwriter and director is always a variable and hence different for each movie.

The suggestion and advocacy of the point that a writer should be creative as a director too is correct. But this might lead you to think that he shall still have his own views and that might prove as much dividing and distracting as fruitful and consolidating.

And that’s the next point he comes to: The question of partnership- individualist and collectivist.

An anticipated argument says that necessary unity is achieved when all the work is done by one mind but the social structure of a movie needs contribution from everywhere. It is not a one man adventure, so it is feasible too that multiple minds might make it good and has been proved time and time again that two points of view hold broader views and fresher perspectives.

Only one mind might make it a visually dogmatic film you think and even that is discussed in next argument.

I agree with the collectivists’ notion of work ethic who recommend collective work.

The pyramid of dependency model analogy seems redundant and inaccurate.

The end tells precisely where the question in first place should have been left at. We understand it’s a collective effort and the share of authorship changes from movie to movie and that’s where the query should be left at. There does not have to be an ultimate, universal and singular answer for everything. I find some of the questions very esoteric. The whole article follows that same redundant line of discussions. The discussion seems to my mind of very little consequence.

Who are these devotees of tidy setups! Creation is mainly manifold. In this post-modernist era, nothing is tidy, art in the least.

This is one of the simplest but least instructive and most redundant works I have read till date and that too by Arnheim.