Why Study Film Theory?

Why study film theory? It is a question that has perpetuated the discourse long before we began our exploration of the system this semester in Film 201 and that will continue to do so as long as film exists. The question is daunting and has a multitude of answers, but it must be asked in order to understand the importance of the endeavor. While it is impossible to choose one correct answer, I believe that this final paper is the most appropriate arena in which I can formulate my response to this ever present question, “why study film theory?”. Throughout the semester, we have dissected the ideals of several theorists within different traditions, and each serves and important purpose in contributing to our understanding of film theory as a whole. Yet I believe it is the “bigger picture” painted by the similarities of theorists within respective traditions that allows for a more comprehensive understanding of film theory itself. Without the formalists, there would be nothing to compare the realists against, and vice-versa. It is the relationships between these movements that allows for the recognition of the evolution of the medium and its purpose over time. Additionally, by comparing the motivations of filmmakers and theorists from particular traditions, theory serves as a mirror of the social, political, cultural, economic, and artistic climate from which they arose. This reflective quality is not exclusive to film, and can be observed in nearly all artistic productions throughout history. Therefore, in order to elaborate on the above observations and answer the question “why study film theory?”, this paper will accomplish the following: first, a brief discussion of the formative tradition; second, a deeper consideration of the realist tradition (with emphases on Bazin and Jameson); and third, provide an example from eighteenth-century art history to elaborate on the progressive nature of visual arts while drawing parallels to film theory.

The formative tradition is the amalgamation of ideals promoted by intellectuals in an effort to differentiate film from established arts early in its existence. These theorists (whom we have already discussed at length this semester) include Hugo Munsterberg, Rudolf Arnheim, Sergei Eisenstein, and Béla Balázs. They gave much consideration to the purpose, raw material, form, and function of film. While their ideas vary, the formative tradition as a whole is characterized by the belief that film should utilize its unique ability to transform the realities of the world. The cinematic endeavor for the formalists was meant to manipulate reality and turn it into a beautiful, imaginative experience separate from other phenomena. This endeavor, according to the formalists, is what legitimized cinema as an art form. The goal in transforming reality is a sort of escapism for the viewer, in which an audience can have an entirely new experience of their reality by escaping from the world they know into the creative world of cinema. Formalist filmmakers and theorists sought to present the world as it was not. Though theorists’ feelings differ concerning the technical devices of cinema (editing, sound, color, etc…), most of them concur that these are important weapons in the formalist arsenal meant for the purpose of recreating the world in a new, imaginative way. The importance of the early formative tradition can not be understated, and the considerations put forward by these theorists lay the foundation for theoretical discourse on film, as well as catalyzed a new movement in the medium’s history.

The realist tradition came as a reaction to the earlier formalist tradition, and sees significant departures in thought concerning the purpose of film. Antithetical to the formalist belief in transformation is the cornerstone of realism: that film is meant to record life as it is. J. Dudley Andrew states that, “realist film theory is closely linked to a sense of the social function of art… a sense of political aspiration. Realist cinema should not compete with entertainment films, it should provide an absolute alternative, a cinema with a conscience true both to our everyday perception of life and to our social situation” (The Major Film Theories 104). Realists drew inspiration in terms of visual devices to convey this distinct premise. The filmmaker’s creative process, then, is the selection of appropriate scenes and images to convey a particular message. Realist theorists recognize that it is the responsibility of filmmakers to focus images of reality in order to repossess the world around us, rather than try and create a new reality entirely. The rise of realism also witnesses the inclusion of social, political, economic, and cultural realities in film; the medium became an effective message of promoting messages or exposing problems. While realism may seem to indicate strictly nonfiction or documentary films, this is not the case; there is a precedent for fiction films that can be subsumed under the realist tradition.

Arguably the most important writer of the realist tradition is French film critic and theorist André Bazin, credited with being the first critic to dispute the ideals of the formative tradition. Bazin wrote that the purpose of film was a direct reproduction of reality through recorded images devoid of interference from a creative process. He defined his ‘reality’ in terms of a physicist (reality is dependent on visual and spatial reality), and also a psychologist (the mental recognition that something exists in the word). The relationship of these two identifications of “reality” categorize the raw material of film, and serve a vivid, true replication of something that a spectator can recognize as real. Images from photography paint a portrait of the world, and “this inhuman portrait of the world intrigues us and makes of cinema and photography not the media of man but the media of nature” (Andrew, 138). Bazin was a supporter of technical elements such as color sound, and 3D because they contribute to the exact replication of reality and aid in the identification of something as real. Concerning form, he was a champion of simple cinematographic recording as a stylistic triumph, and supports direct documentaries because they are honest in their recreation of dramas existing in nature. Drama is essential in the realist tradition because individual human dramas drive the world around us, and are therefore appropriate filmic subject matter. Basically, Bazin wants the filmmaker to objectively record reality because he believes that the lens does not taint reality, and allows spectators to see a purer version of the world surrounding us. He says that whatever is inherent in the material being recorded will present itself in cinema as it is supposed to be, subsequently governing the style of the film produced. Artistic vision, then, is the artist’s selection of what reality should be recorded, rather than the ability to transform it. The writings of Bazin make another point about why it is important to study film theory- ideas that may seem common sense to spectators and students were at one time novel, and it is theorists like Bazin who concretize these thoughts in a systematic, academic way.

Though he was not necessarily a film theorist or critic, the writings of Fredric Jameson are important in our consideration of film movements as a mirror, as well as the nature of how one movement gives rise to another. Jameson’s “Postmodernism and Consumer Society” is a social commentary that explains the Postmodernist movement, a periodic movement that has two consequences that are essential to understanding what the term implies. First, postmodernism emerges as a reaction against the established high modernism, (i.e. society’s belief in genius, individualism, progression or art and culture) and it the movement itself relies on modernism. It is dependent on the former movement in that artists derive from it both inspirations, as well as insight into what not to do in the creation of art objects. Secondly, the period and style (the term denotes both) witnessed the dissolution of boundaries between high-culture and mass pop-culture. Boundaries between elitism and consumerism, both socially and (particularly) aesthetically, became extremely blurry. Postmodernisms, then, drew inspiration from the commercial landscape of daily life that would have previously been frowned upon by high-culture. During modernism, new artforms seemed to repulse the general public in both form and content, however in postmodernism the dissolution of class lines is apparent in the fact that postmodernisms are commercially successful. This is indicative of the measure of cultural change between time periods. Finally, Jameson makes a point about theoretical discourse as a product of postmodernism. He calls this new hybrid theoretical discourse both a style and “a periodizing concept whose function is to correlate the emergence of new formal feature in culture with the emergence of the new type of social life and a new economic order” (Postmodernism and Consumer Society 129). This new cultural world he acknowledges is the consumer society, the society of the media, and of multinational capitalism.

The art world of eighteenth-century France was dominated by the French Royal Academy (Académie royale de peinture et de sculpture), particularly in the genre of painting. The academy was responsible for the success, and failure, of nearly all painters in France. The academics were responsible for establishing the stylistic notions that were deemed acceptable among the elite class who were the primary consumers of art during this time, and enacted a strict hierarchy of genres for paintings that was the method of judging artists’ works and talent. Academic painting was structural and methodical, and there were strict guidelines regarding the appropriate rendering of forms and subjects. This system had long been established, and many academic painters achieved great success within this system because the style perpetuated by the academy served the tastes of the elite class that constituted the market for paintings. However, nearing the middle of the century, an undercurrent of decorative, anti-academic painting began to gain popularity among artists and lower classes. François Boucher was a brilliant French painter who epitomized a new style that would revolutionize painting in France and catalyze an important movement in the history of art. Boucher was initially accepted into the academy, where he was trained in academic theory and practice. However, as the artist matured he began to paint in a new amorous, effusive way that was absolutely antithetical to academic conventions. Boucher transformed his approach to painting mythological scenes (acceptable subject matter to the academy) from the traditional epic, methodical style taught by the academy to an intimate, passionate, erotic manner. Academics abhorred this, and their criticism, called “anti-Rococo” discourse, actually gave a name to this new decorative undercurrent of art that focused on visual pleasure rather than methodology: the Rococo. Boucher’s new style was appalling to the academics, however it was triumphantly successful amongst not only the upper class (he was named official court painter to Louis XV), but among the general public. While this movement delivered a considerable blow to the academy’s monopolistic hold on the market, it had invaluable consequences in the role of art in French society. The visual culture was no longer reserved for the elite, and the Rococo movement grew to considerable success.

How, then, does this relate to film theory? Film theory, in comparison to history of art, is a relatively young academic discourse. However, much can be learned from a comparison to art history. If truths about the nature of theory, movements, and progression can be seen in an academic study centuries old, than it stands to reason that assumptions and understandings about film theory can be drawn from such a comparison. It is clear that throughout the history of visual productions, progress is made out of reaction of an accepted, established manner. In France this reaction was the Rococo, while in film it is the rise of the realists out of the formative tradition. Furthermore, there is an important parallel to be drawn here about the socio-economic impact of visual artistic movements. Just as the Rococo destroyed class boundaries in France, realism (particularly postmodernism) allowed for the movement of cinema away from a restricted, academic connotation to one of social function and accessibility. The dissolution of class boundaries, in both cases, furthered the medium as a whole and allowed for continued expansion and progress. A truth about successive artistic movements is shared among the formative, realist, academic, and Rococo traditions: each movement depends on the success of its predecessor. It is from existing traditions that new movements draw their voice and inspiration. In essence, art history has foreshadowed the nature and importance of film theory. Eventually, film theory may even be subsumed under the discourse of art history because it is an artistic production that continues to evolve as technology advances and society allows. Film today is the equivalent of painting in the eighteenth century: it is a popular product of artistic expression which serves important social functions, whether it be sending a message or meant strictly for entertainment. To me, I believe this is why we study film theory: because history repeats itself, and in recognizing the continuities, departures, and cycles of artistic productions, we can gain a greater understanding of the nature and importance of artistic movements, filmic or not.