Film As Film: Understanding And Judging Movies
Victor F. Perkins
Penguin, 1972
V. F. Perkins’ Film As Film is like that invisible little kid in the last bench who stuns the class one day. The smallest of all the books in the pile on my shelf, Film As Film nevertheless offers insights and information that perhaps the others, put together, can’t. Divided into nine chapters, the book discusses broadly about the history of film criticism, importance of form in movie making, criteria for assessment of narrative cinema, issues about authorship of a film and the need for judgment of films. Written with an intention to view films independently as films and not as a mishmash of other art forms, Perkins’ book, to a large extent, shows that “cinematizing” a piece of literature is far from “visualizing” it. Using examples from popular Hollywood cinema, especially those of Preminger, Hitchcock and Nick Ray, he elucidates the role of a director and the importance of mise en scène n a film, without ever making it look like a class textbook.
Perhaps the most surprising of all the chapters, “Technology and Technique”, takes up a subject often ignored by historians and theorists. Perkins illustrates how a study of history of cinema entails a study of not only the history of photography, but also that of projection. He examines how the invention of photography brought in realist concerns (with reality being a unique property of the photographic image) into the already popular projection techniques – from the Magic Lantern to the Kinetoscope. He proposes an interesting argument, emphasizing that cinema existed even before the invention of the camera, whose properties were merely absorbed into the existing techniques. Furthermore, Perkins explores how the advancement in film technology gave directors a wider range of choices and hence provided a better measure of the talent of the filmmaker. Consequently, he argues that technology has never been a huge limiting factor as far as the maker’s vision is concerned, although it made sure that clarity need not imply crudity.
There is another impressive section called “Direction and Authorship”, where Perkins speaks about the collaborative nature of cinema and the role of the director amidst various dissenting voices and thought processes. He cites various examples where the creativity of the director is brutally marred by the norms of the production house and also those where the final product shines much more than one would have expected from the talent of its director. Perkins’ point is not to discredit the director or to prove that it doesn’t belong only to him, but that one must concern himself only with the coherence of the finished film and not with the means used to achieve it. He says: “Provided that a film has its own unity, it seems unimportant whether the unity was evolved through cooperation and compromise within the production team or conceived by one man and imposed on his collaborators.”. He insists that a freedom from the studio system does not necessarily warrant quality and conversely, a director working under the obligations of a contract need not sacrifice his personal vision and style, however alien the content is.
But the USP of the book is clearly the first few chapters where Perkins analyzes the development of film criticism and the dichotomy that subsequently developed between those who insisted that films exploit unique cinematic qualities and those who believed in the capturing of reality without the artist’s abstraction. Though, initially, I found myself supporting the early theories of Rotha and Eisenstein, Perkins manages to convince how most of these orthodox theories were, actually, pulling a potential art form into some sort of scientific practice. It’s amusing to see how divergent these two schools were. One championed cinema that moved closer to reality and the other praised films that moved as away from it. One placed artist as the centre of creation whereas the other, the world. Kracauer’s quote perhaps sums up the entire atmosphere: “…the intrusion of Art into film thwarts cinema’s intrinsic properties”. Perkins distances himself from both the theories and even holds the orthodox one with a bit of contempt.
The second part of the book mainly concerns itself with the understanding and judging of films, based on certain criteria that Perkins suggests. And this is where I found myself a bit disappointed by the otherwise masterful book. Perkins suggests two principal elements when judging narrative cinema – coherence and credibility. The issue of coherence in cinema’s narrative pattern is quite an intuitive one and one wouldn’t at all object to Perkins’ claims. But, additionally, he argues that films must, first and foremost, be true to the world they construct and its actions within them must first be befitting of the reality of that world, strictly obeying causality and rationality. Perkins’ theory limits itself to mainstream narrative cinema and clearly disallows symbols for the sake of symbols, self-reflexivity, Brechtian disengagement and many other modernist principles. Further, it proves weak when trying to judge a bad film. The theory devises a sufficient condition for films to be good but not really a necessary one.
However, Perkins vindicates himself in the excellent last chapter titled “The Limits of Criticism”. He neatly illustrates the drawbacks of the theory and clarifies that it must primarily be used for testifying why a film is good rather than why one is bad (“Within the positive criteria suggested, a critical argument which demonstrates coherence must, other things being equal, take precedence over one which does not.”). This is quite evident from Perkins’ attitude that clearly stands against critics imposing a structure on the filmmakers. One could even say that he considers criticism to be slightly subservient to filmmaking. He seems to be of the opinion that film criticism only enriches itself with movies that push the envelope and can successfully judge only the films that are conventional enough to fall within its established norms. He even mentions at one point that film theory is not the theory of film making but of film criticism. In essence, Film as Film becomes a book that urges one to enjoy a good film for the right reasons, but not one that allows the readers to berate bad films, even for the right reasons. There is nothing more to ask for, especially if you are one who wants to love cinema for what it is and not how it could have been.
Verdict:
June 2, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Wow, you’re reading some really heavy books on cinema! The next logical step for you, I guess, would be to write one ;)
LikeLike
June 2, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Ha… Am much more comfortable reading :)
LikeLike
June 5, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Good choice for your reading and it’s nice to see Victor recognised for what was an important book in the developing field of film studies. He was one of the group of British academics/critics who founded Movie magazine in the early 1960s. It ran for a few years, stopped and then re-emerged in the mid 1970s. The Movies group were heavily influenced by the auteurist approach to Hollywood which came out of the writings of the Cahiers du cinéma critics in the 1950s. As you note, they were not so taken by modernism and they offered a different approach to that in Screen magazine and its adoption of of Marxism, structuralism and psychoanalysis. I’ve got a lot of time for the group but their complete lack of interest in British Cinema has always been a problem.
LikeLike
June 5, 2009 at 9:33 pm
It’s really strange… All I hear of the British cinema during the French wave period is restricted to Tony Richardson or Lindsay Anderson… May be its high time to revive the post-war British cinema across festivals…
LikeLike
June 11, 2009 at 11:05 am
That’s so true. Perhaps you should start one of those dreadful memes on the best, neglected British films released during the French wave.
LikeLike
June 11, 2009 at 11:11 am
That’ll be awesome, but got to put in a lot of effort to grab those films in the first place …:)
LikeLike
July 23, 2009 at 4:29 am
Have you seen the Joe Losey films from the early 1960s? The Servant, King and Country and a little later, Accident, are all films I think that you would find interesting. It’s Losey’s centenary this year, so there is quite a lot of stuff around.
LikeLike
July 23, 2009 at 6:59 am
I haven’t seen Losey’s films… But I am most interested in seeing The Servant… Read some great things about it in The Altering Eye…
LikeLike
March 15, 2017 at 4:23 am
i desperately looked everywhere to find a pdf of this book but nothing found. if you have pdf version plz email me at: salarvand901@atu.ac.ir
i appreciate ur help
LikeLike