The Art With the Uncertain Name: Film Literature in 1910s America (original) (raw)
Related papers
Media Education, 2022
Based on the analysis of film studies concepts (in the context of the socio-cultural and political situation, etc.) of the first decade of the existence of the journal Cinema Art (1931–1941), the authors came to the conclusion that theoretical works on cinematographic topics during this period can be divided into the following types: - ideologized articles by Association of Revolutionary Cinematographers activists (1931–1932), emphasizing the dominance of "truly revolutionary proletarian cinema" and an uncompromising struggle with the views of any opponents; - ideologically reoriented articles (1932–1934), written as a positive reaction to the Resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (of Bolsheviks) “On the restructuring of literary and artistic organizations” (1932), many provisions of which (in particular, a clear indication that that the framework of the proletarian literary and artistic organizations) have become a direct threat to the existence of the Association of Revolutionary Cinematographers; in articles of this kind, activists of the Association of Revolutionary Cinematographers — until the liquidation of this organization in early 1935 – tried to prove their necessity and loyalty to the “general line of the Communist party”; - Articles containing sharp criticism of "groupism" (including among the Association of Revolutionary Cinematographers), "enemies of the people", etc. (1935–1938); - theoretical articles attacking various types of formalistic phenomena (primarily in the field of montage) in cinema and culture (1931–1941); - theoretical articles opposing empiricism, "documentaryism", naturalism and physiology, vulgar materialism, aestheticism, "emotionalism" on the basis of Marxist-Leninist ideological and class approaches (1931–1941); - theoretical articles defending the principles of socialist realism in cinema (1933–1941); - theoretical articles criticizing bourgeois film theories and Western influence on Soviet cinema (1931–1941); - theoretical articles aimed primarily at professional problems of mastering sound in cinema (in particular, the dramaturgy of sound, music), editing, image, film image, film language (for example, the cinematic possibilities of the “zeit-loop” effect), cinema style, genre, entertainment, construction script (plot, composition, conflict, typology of characters, typology of comic devices, etc.), acting, etc. (1931–1941); - theoretical articles balancing between ideology and professional approaches to the creation of cinematic works of art (1931–1941).
There were periods when, in film schools and among film devotees, this book was cast aside as hopelessly outstripped by the progress of film art. If this is no longer the case, it is because the book has changed its character. Its relation to the films of the twenties, from which it took most of its examples, was that of a handbook of physiology to an actual human body moving in the light of day. At the same time, however, it was also a survey of these early productions, of their experimentation in the medium of silent imagery. This, of course, cannot be the book's relation to the films that were made after its publication during the subsequent fifty years. What, then, justifies its persistent presence?
There were periods when, in film schools and among film devotees, this book was cast aside as hopelessly outstripped by the progress of film art. If this is no longer the case, it is because the book has changed its character. Its relation to the films of the twenties, from which it took most of its examples, was that of a handbook of physiology to an actual human body moving in the light of day. At the same time, however, it was also a survey of these early productions, of their experimentation in the medium of silent imagery. This, of course, cannot be the book's relation to the films that were made after its publication during the subsequent fifty years. What, then, justifies its persistent presence?
Our first thanks go to Leslie Mitchner of Rutgers University Press for commissioning this volume and believing in it from the outset. We also give our deepest thanks to Dana Miller for a superb typing job; to Jerry Ohlinger for the many stills that grace this volume; to Michael Andersen for his assistance with the bibliography; to Dennis Coleman for help in research; to Virginia Clark for tirelessly checking facts and copyediting the first draft; to Eric Schramm for an excellent job of copyediting subsequent drafts; and to David Sterritt for a thorough and meticulous reading of the final text.