Review
Reviewed Work(s): Film Theory and Criticism: Introductory Readings by Gerald Mast and
Marshall Cohen
Review by: Jonathan Buchsbaum
Source: The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 38, No. 4 (Summer, 1980), pp.
475-477
Published by: Wiley on behalf of The American Society for Aesthetics
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/430339
Accessed: 30-12-2016 09:45 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
The American Society for Aesthetics, Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism
This content downloaded from 14.139.186.178 on Fri, 30 Dec 2016 09:45:52 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Reviews
475
MAST, GERALD, AND MARSHALL COHEN, eds. Film
the investigation of many sign systems.
Theory and Criticism: Introductory Readings,
Christian Metz, the most articulate and pro2d ed. Oxford University Press, 1979, 877 pp., lific proponent of film semiology since the mid$25.00 ($8.95 paperbound).
60s, is represented by a single article he wrote
The second edition of Mast and Cohen's Film
in 1966. In this article, Metz attempts to adapt
Theory and Criticism offers an excellent intromethods of structural linguistics, derived from
duction to the thoughts about film expressed
Saussure, to the study of film. After considering
by a wide variety of writers. The editors film
have as language, he concludes that film is not
streamlined the selections of earlier texts, allowa natural language, like English, lacking noning inclusion of more contemporary topics.
meaningful minimal units (phonemes), the
Notwithstanding some curious editing and
economy of double articulation, and the arbiomissions, the new anthology easily eclipses intrariness of linguistic signs. But Metz argues
scope and value the few competing texts.
that larger units of organization in film, narraIn terms of organization, the new version fol-tive arrangements he calls syntagmas, can be
lows essentially the same format as the first, studied fruitfully as higher-order structuring
dividing the space equally between theory andsystems, so long as one limits the study to denocriticism. It categorizes theories according to thetation alone, the site of literal meaning, connoconcepts: film as a mimetic art, film as lan- tation being the aesthetic level "superimposed"
guage, the unique properties of the medium, upon denotation. Gilbert Harman responds by
and film's status in relation to the other arts.
insisting on the inextricability of denotation
All of the by now well-known theorists who
and connotation. The viewer, or analyst, cannot
wrote before film was established as an aca-
use denotation alone to isolate the syntagmas,
demic field are represented, from Munsterberg,
for he must rely on connotation to decide the
through Balazs, Eisenstein, Arnheim, Bazin,
and of denotation, a precondition for dismeaning
Kracauer. The introductions to each theory
covering syntagmatic boundaries: "So Metz's
section observe the crude but standard dichotdefinition of denotation/connotation cannot be
omy between "first generation" theorists who
used for his purposes."
emphasized film's unique properties to distinMetz also maintains that, historically, film
guish it from the other arts (Munsterberg, Eis- has displayed a propensity for narrative. For
enstein, Arnheim), and the "second generation" him, this observation authorizes his exclusive
of realists who accepted film's proximity to re-concern with narrative film. Alfred Guzzetti
ality and promoted that characteristic as film's criticizes this narrative bias, which he traces to
essential aesthetic value (Bazin and Kracauer).
Bazin's position on realism, and illustrates how
Probably the most developed recent trend in
Metz's syntagmatic system has difficulty explainfilm theory has been the application of semio- ing film practice that subverts conventions of
logical method. Its appearance has sparked concinematic narrative (e.g., Godard). In later work,
siderable and acerbic controversy, a dialogue
Mast and Cohen have tried to reproduce in
necessarily abbreviated form. Inspired by the
Metz expands his project to encompass many
other systems of articulation in film, which he
calls codes. He stresses the abstraction of these
speculations of Barthes's influential semiologcodes, their existence being independent of
ical criticism of the late 50s and early 60s, schol- their instantiation in the material of film. Guzars in disparate disciplines tried to explore
zetti also indicts Metz for this abstract formulasemiology's potential contribution to their retion of codes, for it removes film from the
spective fields. However, semiology depended
world of experience and economics.
so exclusively on structural linguistics as a
Given only the one early text by Metz, semimodel, initially, that it remains unclear whether
ology appears to have little to recommend it.
in fact semiology is merely a branch of linBoth Guzzetti and Harman address issues raised
guistics or structural linguistics represents the in later work, which, unfortunately, is not repremost mature branch of a still nascent larger
sented. In that work, Metz has modified his
science of signs. The bias of the natural lanearlier comments on the centrality of narrative
guage model may be simply inappropriate to
and visual codes, suggesting that a film's entire
This content downloaded from 14.139.186.178 on Fri, 30 Dec 2016 09:45:52 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
476
RE VI E W S
system of signifying, its "textual system," is a
central topic of study, rather than the various
codes taken in isolation. The "textual system"
is the work performed in a given film on the
available codes, shifting the focus from an inert
Surprisingly, the book fails to consider the
most recent development in film theory, the pos-
constellation of codes to the process that a film
sible contributions to film study of Freudian
psychoanalysis, particularly as it has been reinterpreted by Lacan. According to this highly
speculative theory, cinema must be thought of
follows in its use of codes. Thus Metz has not
in two senses: the economic institution that
only refined his initial work of analysis, but
draws spectators into the theaters, and the psyalso recognizes the necessity of synthesis, which chological institution ("the social regulation of
he regards as the system governing the producthe spectator's metapsychology") that guarantees
tion of meaning. He acknowledges the influence
the fascination of the spectators. The film
of modern French literary criticism here (Julia viewer somehow experiences an artificial regresKristeva et al.).
sion to an earlier psychic state, Lacan's celeHarman and Guzzetti also assert that semiolbrated "mirror phase." Certain similiarities beogy has produced no substantive results, extween the young child (six to eighteen months)
cepting the classification of syntagmas, whichseeing himself in the mirror and the spectator
looking at the screen suggest to these critics that
on balance is more confusing than illuminating.
cinema spectator identifies with the camera
No doubt the appeal of semiology stems from the
a
desire for rigor in film study, now that film as
is a "transcendental subject." This identificadefining itself as a discipline. Consequently,
tion binds the viewer in a particular relation-
Metz's writing abounds with disclaimers about
ship of belief in, love for, and understanding
its tentativeness; but after three books, one
of the film. This account aims at describing
might reasonably expect more concrete results.
the manner in which film "places" the spec-
In view of criticisms of semiology's practical
tator, and has implications for the ideological
value, then, the anthology might have bene-
effects of film. Other critics, of course, question
fited from several examples of semiological crit-
the necessity and value of resorting to psychic
cism to test against the theory. Raymond
mechanisms to explain our understanding of
Bellour and Peter Wollen have produced semi-
film. Perhaps we choose most likely logical in-
ological criticism far less abstract than Metz's
ferences, consciously and rationally.
theoretical writing, and could correct the im-
Of the theorists represented, only Parker
pression of semiology's valuelessness left by
Tyler adopts a psychoanalytic approach, claim-
Harman and Guzzetti.
Fortunately, Mast and Cohen have included
ing that unconscious desires are the common
elements that seep through the collective proc-
a chapter from a recent book on the semiotics
ess of filmmaking into the final film. His criti-
of film by the Soviet scholar, Jurij Lotman.
cism excavates these latent neuroses and psycho-
Abjuring the maze of structural linguistic term-
pathic traits. Unfortunately, a serious editing
inology introduced by Metz, Lotman proffers
mistake excises exactly two pages in which he
a model of film based on its amplification or
adumbrates his assumptions and his method, a
rejection of conventions. These two poles de-
mixture of Freud and Frazier.
fine a "field of structural tension" between
The absence of models posing psychological
"life itself," as in Italian neo-realism, and ex-
analogues results in the exclusion of any dis-
treme stylization, as in melodrama. Neo-realism
cussion of film as dream (or daydream), a con-
demands great cinematic culture to appreciate
sistent topic for various writers at least since the
the rejection of conventions, whereas melo-
surrealists, who believed films were uniquely
drama relies on a broad range of cultural con-
qualified to reproduce the structure of dreams.
ventions. Lotman has outlined not only a useful
Langer, Sparshott, and Metz have compared
approach to film history, but also a theory that
seems able to accommodate those modernist
their experience of film viewing to dreaming,
but Mast and Cohen have not devoted any space
films on the frontiers of narrative that Guzzetti
to their thoughts on this obviously tempting
finds Metz's theory incapable of processing.
metaphor.
This content downloaded from 14.139.186.178 on Fri, 30 Dec 2016 09:45:52 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
477
Reviews
one's
appreciationof
ofthe
thefilms
filmsand
and
encourage
encourage
Regarding
Regardingthe
thesections
sections
onon
criticism,
criticism,
Mast
Mast
andone's
and appreciation
careful,
analytic
analyticcriticism,
criticism,thereby
thereby
expanding
expanding
Cohen
Cohen have
haveorganized
organizedthe
the
criticism
criticism
by by
kinds
kinds
ofcareful,
of
"our
sense of
of the
thepossibilities
possibilitiesofof
art"
art"
(Braudy).
(Braudy).
film,
film, authorship,
authorship,and
andthe
the
ways
ways
film
film
cancan
be"our
be sense
Given the title of the book, it is unfortunate
understood
understoodasasa aproduct
product
ofof
social
social
determinadetermina-
tions. In their introductions to the criticism sec-
that Mast and Cohen have not exploited opportions, Mast and Cohen often neglect to refer tunities to pair theoretical approaches with
the reader to relevant texts for further study, critical applications. As already mentioned,
an essential function of a textbook of this nathere are no samples of semiological criticism
in film. Barthes's essay on Garbo has been
ture. For example, in the comments preceding
chosen from his collection of Mythologies, but
the section on authorship, known as auteurism
in the literature, the editors do mention the
there is no material drawn from his proposed
method for reading his criticism. Yet that intwo most important early texts by Truffaut and
fluential essay ("The Myth Today") lays out a
Bazin (which are inexplicably missing from the
complex system of denotation and connotation,
volume), but do not provide suggestions for
evaluating case studies of the problems of central issues in the disagreement between Metz
authorship, such as the debate over Citizenand Harman. Even though comedy and animation have been rich terrain for psychoanalytic
Kane waged by Kael, Bogdanovich, and Carringer.
Auteurism, as a critical policy (often mislabelled a theory) of the 50s and 60s, sought to
show that film, particularly commercial Hol1ywood film, merited serious consideration.
criticism, the articles on comedy and animation
give no hint of themes of infantilism and sadism. Wollen's structuralist reformulation of auteurism is truncated before he explicates his
method of combing a director's films for the
distinctive system of shifting antinomies that
Against the charge that its collective paternity
characterizes
precluded the presence of individual artistic
his oeuvre.
Repairing this separation between theory and
expression, auteurists polemicized that the very
criticism would require adding yet more mastrength of a true auteur's artistic personality
terial
could prevail over uncongenial conditions
to to a book already nearly 900 pages long
and two inches thick. At a negligible sacrifice
inscribe an artistic signature. After auteurism
of comprehensiveness, Mast and Cohen might
had succeeded in stimulating serious critical
have excluded undistinguished articles on aniattention, it had served its purpose. But its
commitment to the uniqueness of personal in- mation, nonfiction film, and independent film,
spiration confined its purview to "classic" films, topics essentially irrelevant to the core issues
or flawed films documenting the trials endured dealt with in the other selections. Despite these
by the embattled artist, vestiges of a nineteenth- problems, however, teachers will find the book
indispensable in any introductory course for
century Romantic model of the artist.
Recently, genre study has emerged as a sig- some time.
JONATHAN BUCHSBAUM
nificant supplement and antidote to auteurism.
The very persistence of genres testifies to their Queens College of the City University
continuing relevance for audiences. In articles of New York
new to the second edition, Leo Braudy and
John Cawelti defend the importance of genres
because they express deeply felt cultural prob UNRAU, JOHN. Looking at Architecture with
lems, such as the conflict between personal and Ruskin. University of Toronto Press, 1978,
institutional morality, or the challenge posed by 180 pp. + ills., $15.00.
socialized norms to personal expression. Both In his voluminous writings on the visual arts,
writers emphasize the role of conventions in in-John Ruskin seldom attempted to separate his
terpretation, their particular deployment and own prejudices-his commitments to a number
transformation over time. While such criticismof social and religious causes-from his critical
risks oversimplifying the manner in which films pronouncements. His rather rigid views of morreflect cultural patterns, the strategy can enrich ality and religion colored his early judgments of
This content downloaded from 14.139.186.178 on Fri, 30 Dec 2016 09:45:52 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms