A Mission Statement (Rant)

It is fair to say that the term ‘film studies’ carries a lot of stigma. It seems that of all the university courses that are available today, Film Studies is one of the most jeered at. A vast majority consider film to be a source of entertainment, not a subject worthy of critical attention, not even a subject. Meanwhile those who are truly passionate about film and want to learn about its history, development and intricacies, those of us who are marginalised by this common consensus, are forced to do so as a group of outsiders. We are kidding ourselves about the academic merit of our chosen subject, we are going against the grain, we all wear berets.

As a former film student I have gotten quite good at defending my passion for film and my decision to study it. Whilst at university, people would tell me that I just sat around and watched films all day. I would reply by saying things like ‘a film is a text just like a novel is a text. Yes, the specifics of interpretation and analysis are different but the overall concept is the same.’ Sensing my lack of enthusiasm for being ridiculed, at this point most people become a little more accepting. But bearing in mind that my rehearsed reply is true, why is it that English Literature enjoys a status as one of the most prestigious university courses on offer in Britain and enrolment on most Film Studies courses involves only the ticking of a box?

I remember a brief conversation that took place between a fellow student and one of my lecturers not a month into the course. In what I now recognise as being preparation and character building for the many inevitable jibes that were to follow, my tutor went student to student asking them why they had decided to study film. This particular student said that his family had told him that Film Studies was a ‘Mickey Mouse’ course and his reply was ‘I love Disneyland’. Although it shouldn’t have, this angered me. Perhaps at this point he didn’t have the understanding or vocabulary to sufficiently fight his corner, but to not try!? Offering little more than complete submission to the slandering of his chosen course seemed both dismal and ominous to me – sure enough he lost interest and opted for a different course. He had neither the interest nor the passion to sustain the focus and drive to study film at university level.

I think it is true that many decide to study film because they believe that it will be an easy ride. Although I would not expect any favours for saying so, my course was plagued by students who did not take their studies seriously, especially the first year. Fortunately many of these people drop out, the ones that don’t just seem to get by, what they expect to be born of their lack of effort I do not know. Are these people the reason that Film Studies is not taken seriously? I find it hard to believe that this is the case; surely most other courses suffer the same burden. In truth, I don’t expect to find any answers in posing this question, nor do I assume that by writing this I will change anyone’s opinion. I will be satisfied in simply raising some points to support my view.

Last summer saw the release of Christopher Nolan’s ‘Batman’ sequel, The Dark Knight. The film made over 67 million dollars in its first day. By the end of Sunday the 20th of July the film had made $158,411,483 making it the biggest opening weekend in the history of cinema. To date the film has made almost 1 billion dollars worldwide, an amount it is likely to achieve thanks to it's recent re-release. So far only three films have managed to reach this landmark – Titanic, Lord of the Rings: Return of the King and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest – but it certainly looks like The Dark Knight may be a fourth. All signs point towards an increase in box office receipts for many different types of film and soon enough the ‘billion dollar film club’ will be much less exclusive. My point? That the film industry is mammoth and reliant entirely on a regenerative flow of customers who pay money to watch films; almost everyone you know has at some point funded the prosperity of the global film industry.

Cinema has evolved from a miniscule attraction in Nickelodeons on the side of the street to the now dominant form of entertainment throughout the world. Its impact is biggest in the west, but with Bollywood continually growing in popularity and Hollywood’s interest in Asian cinema, alternative cinemas are beginning to prosper. This year, more people will watch The Dark Knight and Wall-e than read any single book. These two films, amongst many others, will make more money than any single book, making for their respective studios more money than any single author.

Given cinema’s dominance as an art form, is it not strange that so little attention is paid to its academic merit? Given its position as one of the most financially sound industries of the western world, why is it not pertinent to discuss the practices of film production, distribution and exhibition in an economical sense? The study of film takes all of this into account; not only does a film student learn how to appreciate and understand the aesthetic and thematic qualities of a film, he or she also learns how cinema can provide a commentary on real world issues. A film often exists as more than just the sum of the images and sounds that make up its whole; films exist in a broader context, whether it be social, cultural, historical or political in nature. It might be obvious to the majority of viewers that Oliver Stone’s World Trade Centre or Peter Greengrass’ United 93 offer a reflection on the historical and political issues raised by the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001 because these attacks provide the impetus for each film’s narrative – it is explicit. Is it as obvious that John Boorman’s Deliverance has something to say about the incompatibility of rural and urban mentalities or the effects of industrialisation on an unindustrialised community? Is the uninformed audience aware of Michael Haneke’s scathing attack on gratuitous Hollywood violence in Funny Games U.S. Have these films even reached a significant audience?

For my argument to bear any significance relies entirely on the willingness of the cinema-going public to want to seek out what lies beneath the glossy exterior of contemporary Hollywood film. A film, like a book, is capable of meaning many different things to many people, but this requires thought. Multiplex cinemas nationwide are packed with Hollywood features that are designed to entirely eradicate thought from the experience of watching a film. Unfortunately, for most people these films spell both the beginning and the end of their knowledge of cinema and these films do little to breed a mentality in which film is something that can be seriously thought about. The majority of cinema-goers to which these Hollywood blockbusters are directed are unaware of or disdainful towards foreign films. When I went to see The Orphanage I was warned as I bought my ticket that it was a subtitled film, a fact which I already knew. Is it really the case that cinemas are willing to exhibit foreign films but then find it necessary to warn the people that go to see them of the fact that they aren’t in English? Unfortunately it seems so, and given this fact it is unsurprising that Film Studies is given little credence as a worthwhile venture for the academically astute.

The dichotomy of cinema and literature is one of great importance to my argument. The relationship between the two is dichotomised because it seems to me that most people think of the two art forms as opposed in some sense. Whereas literature is worthy, film is not; the study of words on a page is infinitely more scholarly than the study of the moving image. The fact is that the two go hand in hand. Specifically in Britain there is a long tradition of literature inspiring film, and visa versa. Gothic novels have long provided the inspiration for the horror genre, period novels are effortlessly translated into heritage pictures and one need only look as far as the James Bond franchise for an example of an organic and cohesive relationship between literature and multi-million pound grossing action films. To view this relationship as a dichotomy is to separate the two art forms, even to pit them against each other, but this is simply not the case. The unwillingness of individuals to accept film as an academic enterprise causes assumptions to be made about film itself; films are viewed as simplistic whereas literature is complex when in fact both are mediums of entertainment which lend themselves to thorough study.

Arguably, if the study of literary technique is considered complicated enough to be worthwhile at a high level, the study of film is even more so. Literature encompasses narrative, prose and dialogue amongst other things in order to tell a story. Film does exactly the same, the only difference being that what is conjured up in the mind of an author has to be translated into something visually tangible in a film. The process by which this is achieved is infinitely more in depth and demanding than the mechanics of imagination, to which limits are only imposed by the imaginer. Hundreds, even thousands, of people work on any one film, each of them contributing to the final product. Writers, directors, actors, cinematographers, producers and editors may make up the group of people who have the majority of artistic control over a film but so many more are consulted and involved, so many more assist and support, both financially and artistically, that it is impossible to give credit to one or a few over all others. Cinema is undoubtedly more complex than literature and therefore it offers more scope for study as it is made up of more components. Undoubtedly the written word garners a greater prestige given its history, which dwarves that of the cinema, but in time the history of cinema will gain the same historical prowess. At this point in time the history of cinema is manageable; those who take an interest are capable of learning all there is to know about its conception and development - is this not an enticing prospect?

For those that take a reductive view of Film Studies, those that recognise only the study of a film itself, the textual analysis of any one film’s aesthetic and thematic qualities is just one area of study – there are many more. During my time at university I studied a plethora of individual subjects, many of which could have been developed and extended into courses of their own. Throughout my three years I learnt about film history, film analysis, film narrative, authorship and genre, alternative cinemas, independent cinemas, contemporary American horror, screenwriting (both for film and television), British cinema, independent cinema, Hollywood (pre and post 1950), and film theory. I read countless articles and books related to these topics and more, ranging from discussions of gender roles and racial stereotyping in American film to psychoanalytic and phenomenological theory. We do not ‘just watch films’.

Film has been around for over 120 years. In this time it has evolved further than the written word has managed in its thousands of years. The cinematic medium thrives on the emergence of new technologies as well as the artistic innovations of individuals; the written word lacks this dimension. From whichever angle, whether artistically, commercially or economically, the film industry has now without question surpassed its literary counterpart. This is why the study of film is relevant; it offers scope.

More importantly, the study of film is necessary because there are people in the world who want to study it. They do not fit the description that the aforementioned majority have in their minds, they are simply people who consider film to be an important art form; one that inspires and intrigues, one provides more than just a couple of hours entertainment on a Friday, Saturday, or more recently, a Wednesday night. To us, a film is capable of being worth one hundred times the amount that we pay for a cinema ticket because we understand and appreciate films in a way that so many others do not.