|
![]() |
Essays (book reviews) |
Minding Movies: Observations on the Art, Craft, and Business of Filmmaking |
![]() |
Woe to anyone who writes a textbook – or, more
precisely, a successful textbook, one bought and used all over the world. For
alongside the advantages of such success comes an almost inevitable backlash:
whatever the content of the book, and however well it may fulfil its purpose,
it comes to stand for the kind of grey orthodoxy that invites grumbling, rebellion
and rejection.
David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson are the authors of
the textbook Film Art: An Introduction (constantly updated, in print and via the Internet) as well as
a solid guide to global film history. Film
Art is comprehensive and even-handed in its approach; it is neither
polemical (as, for instance, Bordwell’s Making
Meaning certainly is) nor a statement of the pair’s own analytical position.
But, through the odd logic of textbook resentment, all writings of Bordwell and Thompson have come, in some quarters,
to represent a somewhat conservative status
quo in cinema studies. Projected onto them is a phantom power (or menace) over
the field that is vastly overstated.
I too have felt, and publicly expressed (see my 1998 review of Bordwell's On the History of Film Style), some misgivings about the emphases
and exclusions frequently wielded by this powerhouse duo: their downplaying of
interpretation (whether old-fashioned or new-fangled) of a movie’s meaning; or
their rejection of almost any kind of cultural reflectionism that tries to tie cinema into its socio-historical
context. But, just like the turning point at the three-quarter mark of a
typical film narrative (as Thompson outlines it so well in her Storytelling in the New Hollywood), the
couple produced, just in the nick of time, an inspired
move: they started a blog.
Minding
Movies is a selection of pieces derived from Observations on Film Art (www.davidbordwell.net/blog), which has
been running since September 2006. This is an intriguing gamble for a major
university press to take, for it flies in the face of the given wisdom that
people will not want to buy in print what they can read for free on-line; I hope
this book can help set a trend. It comes
in six clusters, covering industrial matters; reflections on film criticism as
an activity; storytelling and style; individual films; cinema understood as an
art; and speculations on the medium’s future.
Those who follow the blog – and it has many loyal fans
around the world, myself included – will not find
anything new here except an informative update-postscript at the end of each
piece. And they may also regret some of the results of the culling necessary to
form this selection: since international film festival reports, for example,
are off the table, the book skews itself towards the mainstream (The Bourne Identity, Slumdog Millionaire,
Babel)
and away from the diversity of world cinema.
It is the tone of the writing that is so striking here, and so different compared to some
earlier works by this pair. As befits a blog, it is looser, funnier,
digressive, essayistic. Its authors are still thumping
the same tubs – their exasperating preference for cognitive psychology over
psychoanalysis, for example – but even the most heated polemics have a
friendlier air. And a dominant concern
of their recent books – the emphasis on craft or practical problem-solving in
filmmaking – finds a more natural expression in the framegrab-friendly setting
of the Internet. (Actually, I have one for them to solve: how to stage a scene
in which some characters sit while others stand? Directors including Sirk and
Preminger made that challenge the cornerstone of their styles.)
Minding
Movies pulls off a difficult trick supremely well. It is, in
its gentle and entertaining way, a pedagogical book – which often makes the
case for Internet writing as a new forum for teaching – but it is rarely stuffy
or superior. Best of all, Bordwell and Thompson enjoy “debunking, zeroing in on
conventional wisdom”. They come up with striking, unexpected stances:
blockbusters are good for the “economic welfare of the country as a whole”; and
sequels are to be celebrated. If this is what cinephiles are today calling contrarianism, then I am all for it.
© Adrian Martin May 2011 |