Bővebb ismertető
1. Introduction
IN VIEW OF the current state of disagreement among film critics about fundamental aspects of the film as an art form, it is perhaps as well to begin this survey with a statement of the two premises on which its critical judgements rest. The first of these is the notion — tacitly assumed by almost all critics — that in so far as the film is an art the creative personality is the director. The second, and more debated, premise is the idea that the film is essentially a narrative medium, like the novel or the play, not simply a visual medium, like painting. Outsiders probably find critical agreement on the first issue as puzzling as dissent on the second. While it is self-evident to the uninitiated that the film tells a story and that this story must be taken into account when an evaluation of the film is made, it is by no means so clear why the director should be accorded pre-eminence among those engaged on making a film. Certainly the odds against a director succeeding in imposing his personality on a film are enormous. Yet the undeniable fact is that great directors do accomplish this feat and all serious film criticism must take this into consideration. Where film critics tend to show excessive zeal, is in seeking to find this personal touch in the most routine of commercial works, with the result that the whole subject of creativity in the cinema is loaded with pitfalls.
The question of the director's exact role in the film is closely linked to the larger question of style. Clearly a director who really creates will possess a unique and easily recognisable style, just as a creative novelist or dramatist does. But the word style can be defined in a number of ways and one must beware of stating, as an apparent corollary to the above, the questionable notion that a director who has a recognisable style is therefore a creator. A much closer definition of terms is needed. On a truly creative level in the cinema style is composed of two elements: a personal