non-technical books on filmmaking

[steve hyde]

Let's keep track of film theory books and discussions about these books here.

This book is the best starting point that I know about:

"Film Art: an introduction"
http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0 ... ter_view0/

[sunrise]

I only have fifth edition of this book so my comments are based on that.

"Film Art" is a very important book, but as it promises to be "an introduction" it proves to be no more than that. It is the most extensive walk through the main film making styles with lots of great stills from the actual films. As it will give you a good introduction, the book will have no real opinion on how films are experienced (this is not the purpose of the book, but for a good theoretical discussion it is important).

What I found most useful in "Film Art" was B+T's four "Dimensions of Film Editing", where they split the effects of an edit point between Graphic, Rythmic, Spatial and Temporal relations. This is, however, no more than a rewrite and simplification of Eisensteins theories put forward in "Film Form". So there's a recommendation for those of you who wants to read more...


The book that I have used the most is "Moving Pictures" by Torben Grodal. In this book Grodal describes film from the starting point of how the human brain (and body) experiences film, and how we make meaning from the experience. This, to me, is a very important book since it takes into consideration that in order for a film to make sense you need a human viewer - a point that "Film Art" barely touches.

The critique I have on "Moving Pictures" is that you need a basic knowledge of film theory criticism that is taken for granted in the book. This was taken into acount in Grodal's recent book, but it was only released in Danish. In his writing Grodal criticises a lot of film theory from the last century, and you really need a basic knowledge of these theoretical directions in order to make some real sense of the book.

Other good books include:
Braudy and Cohen: Film Theory and Criticism
Bordwell: Narration in the Fiction Film
Andrew: Major Film Theories
Branigan: Narrative Comprehension and Film
Chatman: Coming to Terms
Anderson: The Reality of Illusion

Many of these are historical writings that later have been criticised by others and should not be read as "the absolute truth". It will help you to make up your own mind though.

michael

[Evan Kubota]

I tend to like books by directors rather than general theory texts. "Kieslowski on Kieslowski" (which may have gone out of print, not sure) is good, as is "Sculpting in Time" by Tarkovsky, as long as you don't take everything he says at face value. I have a copy of "Cinema Eye, Cinema Ear" sitting in the other room which someone lent me. I mostly read novels.. just starting "Dhalgren," which should occupy me for the next month or two.

[sunrise]

I tend to like books by directors rather than general theory texts..."Sculpting in Time" by Tarkovsky, as long as you don't take everything he says at face value.

Interesting point, but books by directors (or editors for that matter) tend to be more about how their own films should be interpreted rather than films in general (Although Wather Murch's splitting of a film edit point into percentage values is good fun and thoughtfull reading coming from a Hollywood editor).

If you are really into Tarkovsky you should read his diary excerpts and compare those with statements from actors, people who knew him and his sister. There seems to be quite a war going on as to who the real Andrei was which is based on his family origins and his sexuality. Tarkovsky himself did all he could to maintain the image of the struggling artist figthing the Soviet censors, which turns out to be not excatly true.

Another great book is Truffaut's interview with Hitchcock. Two great minds talk about film language. It contains the usual Hitchcock clichés, but also some great talks on specific film styles.

michael

[Evan Kubota]

"Interesting point, but books by directors (or editors for that matter) tend to be more about how their own films should be interpreted rather than films in general"

Agreed. Also, the fact that some directors intentionally try to obfuscate the meaning of their films... My reading of general film theory is pretty archaic, probably. The most recent general texts I've read are Eisenstein and Bazin. I usually read papers about specific films or directors.[/i]

[Alex_W]

My best read is 'Hitchcock Truffaut', i guess that would be in the director/critic about another director category.
Film Art is second best, i love it for its comprehensiveness and lucid style.

Another book i would like to recommend is 'Subversive Pleasures' by Robert Stam, where he applies the thoughts of Russian post-everything avant la lettre Bakhtin to film. You can also read some about Bakhtin and more general about film theory in 'Film Theory, An Introduction' by the same author. He also made another one, something like 'A Guide to Film Theory' or something, but i haven't read that one.

Finally i would like to say I'M GETTING SICK OF THEORY! :roll:

[steve hyde]

Finally i would like to say I'M GETTING SICK OF THEORY! :roll:

We cannot escape the resistance to theory because theory is a resistance to accepted notions of truth.


...thanks for the book suggestions.

Steve

[Alex_W]

Finally i would like to say I'M GETTING SICK OF THEORY! :roll:

We cannot escape the resistance to theory because theory is a resistance to accepted notions of truth.


...thanks for the book suggestions.

Steve

hehe, somehow
I'M GETTING SICK OF MOST CULTURE-THEORETICAL TEXTS BECAUSE THEY BORE ME TO DEATH AS THEY CAN'T EVEN EXPLAIN A 'SIMPLE' NOTION LIKE BEAUTY AND I JUST FEEL A LOT BETTER WHILE HOLDING A CAMERA SO SPARE ME THE 200 PAGE NONSENSE ON WHETHER FILM IS A LANGUAGE OR WHETHER MARLENE DITTRICHS LEGS ARE PHALLICAL!! I JUST DON'T CARE ANYMORE AAAAAAHHH!!
just sounded less sloganesque

[steve hyde]

"Interesting point, but books by directors (or editors for that matter) tend to be more about how their own films should be interpreted rather than films in general"

Agreed. Also, the fact that some directors intentionally try to obfuscate the meaning of their films... My reading of general film theory is pretty archaic, probably. The most recent general texts I've read are Eisenstein and Bazin. I usually read papers about specific films or directors.[/i]

Evan, (or anybody) which papers do you recommend? Which journals?

Steve

[npcoombs]

Finally i would like to say I'M GETTING SICK OF THEORY! :roll:

We cannot escape the resistance to theory because theory is a resistance to accepted notions of truth.


...thanks for the book suggestions.

Steve

hehe, somehow
I'M GETTING SICK OF MOST CULTURE-THEORETICAL TEXTS BECAUSE THEY BORE ME TO DEATH AS THEY CAN'T EVEN EXPLAIN A 'SIMPLE' NOTION LIKE BEAUTY AND I JUST FEEL A LOT BETTER WHILE HOLDING A CAMERA SO SPARE ME THE 200 PAGE NONSENSE ON WHETHER FILM IS A LANGUAGE OR WHETHER MARLENE DITTRICHS LEGS ARE PHALLICAL!! I JUST DON'T CARE ANYMORE AAAAAAHHH!!
just sounded less sloganesque

Go and shoot something beautiful then!

You will understand the inevitability of theory when faced by the enigma of the authentic cinematic moment.

[Alex_W]

Go and shoot something beautiful then!

i do, now and then, i think. I have a life besides filmshooting.com, believe it or not

You will understand the inevitability of theory when faced by the enigma of the authentic cinematic moment.

no, i will understand the inevitable limits of theory in describing the arts. There's not a single theory that can explain beauty, pleasure or quality.
This cinematic moment, or maybe Barthes third meaning, or Cartier-Bressons decisive moment, the 'Lubitsch touch', they cannot really be theorized, they can only be described in their own terms, and even then you can only resort to vague statements. Let me get this straight, i love theory ofcourse, i just said i was sick of it. I wish i had a brain for mathematics, everything would be much simpler then.


Anyway, to get back to the books:

That other book by Stam is called 'A Companion to Film Theory', i think it's more in depth than the 'Introduction...'

[Evan Kubota]

"There's not a single theory that can explain beauty, pleasure or quality."

Actually, there is, but it's absolutely transparent and mutable so no one can pin down an objective definition. ;)

I agree with the gist of your statement, that most film theory and critical theory exists to attempt to give names to the unnameable. After all, if the theory described something perfectly, it would be the thing itself...

[Alex_W]

The book that I have used the most is "Moving Pictures" by Torben Grodal. In this book Grodal describes film from the starting point of how the human brain (and body) experiences film, and how we make meaning from the experience. This, to me, is a very important book since it takes into consideration that in order for a film to make sense you need a human viewer - a point that "Film Art" barely touches.

I agree that Film Art, as it is an introduction, lacks in depth discussion of the psychology of watching a movie, but especially in the chapter on narrative form the focus is on the viewer and how he/she makes sense of a narrative by ways of cues and expectations. Also, their distintion between plot (combination of image and sound) and story (plot + the mental construction of all the events into a chronological and sensical whole) stresses the importance of the person watching the film.

[sunrise]

This notion is based on Bordwell's Narration in the Fiction Film which operates with the viewer as a theoretical construcion and not the viewer as a human being. It makes watching a film a mental process that the viewer are aware of, which of course is nonsense. It was, however, ground breaking work freeing film theory from the semiotics and Freudian/Jung Psychology.

Another great book is Murray Smith's Engaging Characters.

michael

[Alex_W]

This notion is based on Bordwell's Narration in the Fiction Film which operates with the viewer as a theoretical construcion and not the viewer as a human being. It makes watching a film a mental process that the viewer are aware of, which of course is nonsense. It was, however, ground breaking work freeing film theory from the semiotics and Freudian/Jung Psychology.

Another great book is Murray Smith's Engaging Characters.

michael

i have always found this 'implied spectator' concept hard to grasp. I too have the idea that Bordwells cognitive stance is a bit naieve after everything that's been written about the unconscious, but the idea that people in part make sense of a movie by following cues and expectations makes a lot of sense to me.