Bordwell-The Classical Hollywood Cinema

AULÁsOJ,F q3

THE ,L el^.ôüe

HOLLYWEDD ONEÌvI Iilmôb4e ci CdÌvlode Prodúction fo196C David Bordwell,Janet Staiger and Kristin Thompson

tâa NervYork

ColumbiaUniversity Press

Part One The classical Hollywoodstyle, 1917-60 DAYIDBORDWELL

Neither normative criticisms nor moÌphologicaÌ description aìonewill eveÌ give us a theory of úle. I do not know if such a theory is necessaÌ$ but if we want one we might do wotse than approach aÌtistic solutions in terms of those specifrcaiions which are talen for granted in a given period,and to tist systematicaìly, and even, if need be, pedantically, úe prioritieB in the Ì'ecoociliation of conflicting demands.Such a procedure will give us a new Ìespect foÌ the cìassicaÌbut will aÌsoopen our minds to an âppÌeciation of non-classical solulions represenl,ing enlìrely freshdiscoveries.l E.H Gombrich

An excesslvelvoovlous ^r

crnema

We all have a notion of the typicâì Holl,'lyood Êlm. The very label carries a Betof expectâtions, often apparently obvious, âbout cinematic foÌrn and style. We ean delìne that ideâ, test ând ground those expectâticns, by using tÌÌe conceptof group slyle. HistoÌians routinely speak of goup style in olhêr arts: classicismor (he Baroquein music. IúpÌessionismor Cubismin painting, Symbolism oÌ Imagìsm in poetry.r Cinema has its own group styles; German Expressionism,Soviet montage cinema, and the French New Wave afford timehonoÌed instances-But to suggestthat HoÌlywood cinema constitutes â gÌoup style seems moÌe risky. In other national schooìs,a handful of filmmakers worked within shaÌply contained historical circumstanceslor onÌy a few yeaÌs- But Hollywood,as an extensive commeÌciaì ent€rprise, ineÌuded hundreds of fiÌmmakeÌs ând thousandsof fiÌms, and it has existedfor oveÌ sÌx If it is a daunting chalÌengeto definea decades. GermanExpressionistcinemaor a Neorcalistone, it might seem impossible to circumscÌibe a distinctiveHollywood'gÌoupstyle.' The historical arguments for the existence of suchstyle aÌe examinedÌateÌ in this book,At this point, a príma facie easefor a 'cÌassicaÌHoÌì1'lvood style'dependsupon criticaÌly exâmininga bodyof films. Supposethat between 1917 and 1960 a distinct ând homogeneousstyle has doroinâted American studio filmmaking - a styìe whose pÌinciplesÌemain quite constantacÌossdecâdes, genÌes,studios,and personneÌ.My goal heÌe is to identify, at several levels of generality, to what extent Hollywood filmmaking âdheres to integral and limited stylistic conventions. rive couÌd stâú with a descÌiption of the HoÌÌywoodstyle derived from HoÌlywood'sown discouÌse,that enoÌmorÌsbodyof statementsand assumptionsto be found in trade jouÌnals,

technical manuals, memoirs, and publicity handouts. We wouÌd flnd that the HolÌywood cinema sees itseÌf as bound by rules that set stÌingenì limits on individuâÌ innovation;that teìling a story is the basic formal concem, which makes the fiÌm studio .esembÌe the monastety's scríptoriúm, the site of the tÌanscription ând transmission of countÌessnaÌTatives; tÀat unity is a basic âttÌibut€ of frÌm form; that the HoÌÌ]'wood film puÌpoÌts to be 'Ìealistic' in both an AÌistotelian sense(tÌuth to the pÌobable)ând a natuÌaÌistic one (truth to histoÌical fact); that the HoìÌywood fiÌm stÌives to conceal its aÌ-tifice through techniquesof continuity and 'invisible' storlteÌÌing; that the fiÌm shouÌd be comprc hensibleand unambiguous; ând that it possesses a fundamental emotionaÌ appeal that tÌansceDds classand nation.ReiteÌâtedtiÌelessly íoÌ at ìeast seventy yeaÌs, sÌÌch pÌecepts suggest that HollywoodpÌâctitionersÌecognizedthemseÌves as cÌeating â distinct appÌoach to film form and techniquethat we cân justÌy Ìabel 'cÌassical.' We aÌe not usedto câlìing productsof American mass cuÌtuÌe 'classical'in any sense;the word appaÌeÌìtÌycomeseasieÌto the FÌenchspeaker.As early as 1925, a trÌench reviewer described Chaplin'sPoy Day \1922) as a ÌepÌesentativeof 'ci-qematiccÌâssicism,'anil a year lateÌ,Jeãii --funoir ìspokeof Chaplin, Lubitsch, and CÌaiè'úe Biõw-rias contributorsto â 'cÌassicâlcinema'of the future, one 'which ovres nothing to t cks, wherc nothing is Ìeft to chance, where the smaÌlestdetaiÌ tâkesits plâceof impoÌtancein the overalÌ psychoìogical schemeof the fr1m.'2It was probabÌy André Bazin who gave the adjectivethe most cuÌrency; by 1939, Bazin decÌâÌed, HoÌÌywood filmmakìng had acquired 'alÌ the chamcteÌisticsof a cÌassicaÌart.'ó It seemspÌ.oper to retâin the term in Engìish,sincethe p nciples which HolÌywoodcÌâimsâs its own Ìely on notions

4

t i'.

II'IIE CIÁSSICÀI HOLL\'WOOD STYLB, 191?.60

of decoÌum, proportion, foÌmal harmony, tespect foÌ tladition, mimesis, seÌf-effacing cÌaítsmanship, and cool controÌ of the perceivels Ìesponse - canons which cÌitics in any medium usually caÌl'cÌassical.' To stÌess this collective ãnd conseÌving aspect of Holl)'wood filmmaking also aÍïoÌds a useful counteÌweight to the iÍtdividualist emphases of auteuÌ cÌiticism. Bazin cÌiticized his pÌotégés at Cahícrs du cinémo by reminding them that the Americân cinema corÌld not be Ìeduced to an assemblyof variegated creators, each arrned with a PersonaÌvision:4 What makes Holl]'wood so much betteÌ úan anytÀing else in the world is not only the quaÌity of ceúain directors, but also the vitality and,in a ceÌtain sense,the excellence of â hadition. . . . The Americân cinemâ is a cÌâssicalart, but rÃ'hynot then admire in it wÌÌat is most admiÌable, i.e., not only the Lâìent of thisor that filmmakêr, but the genius ofúe system.the nchnessof itseveÌ-ügorous tÌadition, and its feÌtility when it comesinto aontact with new elements.

êerves w€ll because it swiftly conveys distinct aesthetia qualities (eÌegance,unity, Ìule-govemed craJtsmanship) and historicaÌ functions (Holly, wood'smle as the woÌÌd's mainstream frlm styÌe). Before there aÌe auteurs, therc are conshâints; before there aÌe deviatìons, there aÌe norms. Norms, paradigms, and standards In the final analysis,we ìoved the AmeÌÌcan cinema becâusethe films aÌl resembledeach other. François Tr-uffaut7

The first, and cruciaÌ, step is to assume that classical frÌmmaking constitutes an aesthetic system that can châÌacterize salient featuÌes of the indiüdÌral work. The system cannot determine every minute detail of the work, but it isolâtes pÌeferred pÌactices and sets Ìimits upon invention. The problem is, in other woÌds, that of defining what Jan Mukaiovskj has caìted aesthetic norrÌrs. WÏen we thinh of a noÌm, especiallyin a Ìegaì sense,we tend to think of a codifiedand inflexible Bazin's poìnt stÌÌÌck the CdÀiers wÌiteÌs nÌost rule. Vvhile Mukaiovskj recognizedthat the forcefully only alter his death, partly becausethe aesthetic noÌÍrs of a period are often íelt by aúists decline of the studio system faced them with âs constrâints upon their freedom, he stressedthe mediocre vorks by such veneÌated filmmakeÌs as noÌms' compaÌative Bexibility. He aÌgued that the Mann, Ray, and CukoÌ. 'We said,' ÌemâÌked âesthetic norm is châÌacterized by its non, Ttuffaut bitterly, 'lhat rhe Amprican cinema pÌactical naturc; the only goal of the aesthetic pleasesus, and its filmmakeÌs aÌe slaves; what if norm is to permit aÌt works to come into they were freed? And from the moment that they existence. This has important consequences; weÌe fÌeed, they made shitty 6Ìms.ú PieÌÌe Kast disobeyingthe aesthetìcnoÌm is not necessaÌiÌyâ agreed:'Better a gooãcínématle salaríe than a negâtive act (may, indeed,be quìte pÌoductive); bad cinémad'auteur.'6 lt ís lhe cinéma de salnrie, and aesthetic norÍns can change rapidÌy ând at least in its enduring aspects,that rcpresents coüsideÌabÌy.Mukaiovski goes on to inventory Hollywood'sclassicism. several diffetent kinds of norms, alÌ of which AlÌ of which is not to sây that HoÌl1,wood's úteÌtMrinewithin the art work. There aÌe xorrns classicismdoes not have dispaÌate,even 'non- deriving fiom Èhe materials ol the âÌt woÌk. classical'souÌces-CertainÌy the HoÌÌywoodstyÌe PoetÌy, foÌ instance, takes Ìanguage as its seeks eflects that owe a good deaÌ to, say, materiaÌ, but languagedoesnot comeraw to the romantic music or nineteenth-centuÌy meÌo- task; it Ìirings alongsnoÌms of everydayusage. drama. Nor do Hollr.wood'sown assumptions Secondly, theÌe aÍe technial norms, basic ffaft exhaustively account for its pÌactice; the pÌactices such as metdcaÌ schemesand genÌe institutioD'sdiscourseshouÌdnot set our agenda mnventions. Thirdly.lhereare prorliral.or .ociofor anaÌysis.The point is simply that HolÌywood politicaÌ norms; e.g.,a characteÌ'sethical vaÌues films constitute a faiÌly coherent aesthetic repÌesentedin the work. linaÌly, Mukaiovskj tÌadition which sustains individuaÌ cÌeation.FoÌ speaksof oesrÀeric noÌms as such,which seemto the purposesof this book, the ÌabeÌ tlassicism, be the basicprincìpÌesofaÌtistic constÌ.uction that

ÁìI EXCESfìI!'DLY OBYIOUS CINEMÁ

form the work. These wouÌd include concepts of uìity, deconrm,novelty, aÌÌd the like.3 Mukaiovskj's work helps us move toìÀ/ard defining the Hollywood cinema as an aesthetic system. Plainìy, the Holll.wood styÌe has frDctioned historically as a set of norms. It might seem Ìash to claim that HoÌlywood'snor'rnshave not dÌasticalÌy changedsince around 1920, but MukaiovskÍ points out that periodsof,cÌassicism' tend towâÌd harmony and stability. Moreover, the idea of muÌtiple norms impinging upon the same work helps us see that iì is ünÌikely that any Hollywood film wilÌ perfectly embody all norms: 'TlÌe inteÌ:reÌations among alÌ these norms, which function as instÌÌrments for artistic devrees,are too complex, too differcntiated, and too unstabÌe for the positive value of the work to be abÌe to âppeaÌ âs virtuaÌÌy identical with the peÌfect fuÌfillment of aÌÌ noÌms obtainingwithin it.,e No Hollywood frìm is the classical system; each is ân 'unstableequiÌib um' of classicaÌnorms. MukaÌovski's work also enablesus to anticipate the paúiculaÌ noÌms which we wiÌÌ encounteÌ. Evidently, classicaÌ cinema draws upon pÌacticâl oÌ ethìco-socio-political norms; I shalÌ mention these only when the particular ways of appmpÌiating such norms âÌe charâcteristic of the classical styÌe. For example, heterosexual românce is one vaÌue in Amerrcan society, but that vaÌue takes on an aesthetic function in the classicaÌ cinema {as, sây, the t]?icaÌ motivation for the principaì Ìine ofaction). Mâterial norms are also presentin l,he cúemâ; when we speak of the 'theatrical' spaeeof early films or of the RenaissânceÌepÌesentatìon of the body as important for classicaÌ cinema, we aÌe assuming that cinema has absorbed certain mâterial noms from other media. SimiÌarÌy, I will spend considerâbletiÌne examining the technicaìnormsofclassicaÌfilmmaking,sinceto â laÌge extent these pervasive and percistent conventions of form, technique, and genÌe constitute the Hoììywood tradition. But in order to uÌÌderstand the underlying Ìogic of the classicaÌ mode,we must aÌsostudy how that modedepÌoys fundamental aesthetic norÍÌs. How, specifrcally, doesHoÌlywooduse such principlesas unity and aestheticfunction?As all these points indicate, the chiefvirtue ofMukaiovskÍ's work is to enable us to think of a groupÊÌm style not as a monolith but aç â compÌexsyslem of .pe.ific forcesIn

5

dynamicinteÌaction. My emphasis on norms should not be takeo to impÌy an iron-clad technical formula imtrrosed upon fllmmakeÌs. Any gmup style offe$ a ronge of altematives. ClassicâÌ fllmmaking is úot, strictly speaking, formuÌaic; there is always another way to do something. You can ìight a scenehigh- oÌ low-key, you can pan oÌ tÌack, you cân cut Ìapidly or seldom. A gÌoúp style thus establishes whât semioÌogistscaÌl a paradigm, a seÌ of elemeÌÌts which can, âccoÌding to rules, substitut€ for one another. Thinking of the cÌassical style as a paÌadigm heÌps us retarn a senseof the choicesopento filmmakers úthio the tÌadition.At the sametiDe. the slyle Ìemainsa unifred system because the paÌadigm offers bounded alíernaliyes, If you aÌe a classical frÌmmaker, you cannot light a scenein sucha way as to obscure the locaÌe entirely (cf. Godardin le goí soooir);you cannotpan or tÌâck without some naÌ'rative or geneÌic motivâtion; you cânnot make every sho[ one sêcond long Ícf. avant-garde woÌks).Both the aÌtemativesand the limitations of the style remain elear if we think of the paradigm as creatiíg funl:tíonal equiva,l.ent6.a cut-in may replacea tÉck-in, or colormay ÌepÌace Ìighting as a way to demârcaìe volumes, because eachdevìce fuÌfllls the samerole. Basic principles goveÌnnot onÌy the eÌementsin the pâradigmbut also the ways in ìÀ'hich the elements may function. Our account of this paradigm mus! also ÌecogÌÌize how redundant it is. Not onÌy are individual devìces equivaÌent, but they often appear togetheÌ. For instance, there are several cuesÍor a flashbackin a classicaÌHolllwood fllm: pensive character attitude, close-up of face, sÌow dìssolve,voice-overnârration, sonic flashback,, music.In any given case,severaÌof thesewilÌ be used togetheÌ. In another mode of film pÌactice, such as that of the Eumpean'aÌt cinema'of the 1960s, the same geneÌal paradigm governsa movement into flashback, but the conventionaì cuesare not so Ìedundant(e.g.,pensiveclose-up but with no music or dissolve)- The classical paradign, thus ofìen Ìets the filmmaker choose how to be redundant,but seldomhow redundant to be. One more conceptionof HoÌlywoodcinemaas a unifredsystempÌaysa paÌt in undeÌstandingthe clâssicaÌstyÌe. This book wiìÌ aÌso Ìeler to a

6

TIIO CTÁSSICALHOLLYÌÌOOD STYLE,IS1?,ôO

'standardized'fiÌm styÌe. In geneÌaÌ, this suggests only adheÌence to norÌns. But the term aÌso irnplies that Holl].wood cinema has been made sìringently uniform by iis dependenceupon a specific economic mode of film pmduction and consumption. CaÌÌing the Hollywood style 'standardized' oÍìen implies that noÌms hâve becomerecipes,routineÌy repeating a stereotyped pÌoduct. Yet the avant-gârde has úo monopoly on quality, and violating a norm is not the onÌy way to achieve aesthetic value. I assÌÌmethat in any art, even those operating within a masspÌoduction system,tàe âú woÌk cân achievevaÌue by modifying or skillfully obeying the prernises of a dominant style.

Levels of generality If the classicaÌstyÌe is a set of norms, we need a way to distinguish greater and lesser degrees of abstraction in that set. A match-on-âctioncut is a classicâÌ convention; so is the pÌinciple of spatiâl cortinuity. But the fiÌst convention is a particular appìicationof the second-Broadly speaking,we can analyzethe cÌassicalHolÌywoodsf,yÌeat three ÌeveÌs. 1 Devices.Many isolatedtechnicalelementsaÌe charâcteristicof cìassicalHoÌlywood crnema: thÌee-pointlighting, continuity editing,'movie music,'centeredframings, dissolves,etc. Such devices are often what we think of as the style'itseÌi Yet we carÌnotstopwith 'HolÌyrvood simply inventoryingthesedevices. 2 Systems.As membeÌsof a pâÌadigm,technicaì devices achieve significance only when we undeÌstandtheiÌ functions.A dissolvebetween scenescân conveythe passageof time; but so cân a cut. To say that the cìassicalHollywood styÌe ceasedto exist when Íirost scenes were linked by cutsis to presumethat a style is only the sum of its devices.A style consistsnot onÌy of recuÌÌent eìementsbut of â set of functions and reÌations deflned foÌ them. Thesefunctions and Ìelationsare estâblishedby a system.FoÌ exampÌe,one cinemâtic system invoìves the constÌuctionof representedspace.In classical filmmaking, Ìighting, sound, image composition, and editing all take as one task the ,

âÌticuìation of space accoÌding to specifrc principÌes. It is this systematic quaÌity that mâkes it possible foÌ one aleviceto do duty for anotheÌ, oÌ to Ìepeaì information conveyedby anotheÌ. Thus employing a cut to link scenes confoÌms to one function defined by classical premises; within this paradigm, there must be somecue for a time lapse between scenes,and a cut may do duty foÌ a dissolve (or a swish-pan, or a shot of a clock's moving haods). The systematic quality of fllm style also sets limits upon the paÌadigm; in repÌesenting space,for instance, ambiguous camera positions and discontinuous cutting aÌe unlikely to occur becausethey violate ceÌtain pÌincipÌes of the system. In this book, we shall assume that any fictional narrative frÌm possessesthÌee systems: A system of nâÌÌative logic, which depends upon story events and câusal relations and parallelismsamongthem; A systemof cinematictime; aod A systemof cinematicspace. A given deúce may work within any or all of these systems, depending on the functions that the systemassignsto the deüce.lo 3 ReÌations of systems. If systems are reìations arong elements, the totaÌ style can be defined as the Ìelation of those systems to each other. Narrative logic, tiúe, and 6paceinteÌact with one anotheÌ. Doesone of them suboÌdinatethe otheÌs? Do aìÌ thÌee opeÌate independently? HoÌp arc the principÌes of one justifred or châÌlengedby another?In the Hollywoodstyle, the systemsdo not play equaÌ ÌoÌes: spaceand time âÌe almost invariably made vehiclesfor narrative causality. Moreover, specific principles govem that prccess. At this teveÌ, even iÌÌegda ties in the various systems can be seen as purposeful.For instance, if we do find a passageof discontinuouscutíing, we can ask whether it is still serving a narrative ftrnction (e.g., to convey a sudden, shocking event). In such a case, the relatioll aurorg systemswouÌd Ìemain consistent êven if the ìndividual deviceor systemvaÌied fÌom noÌmal usage. We can, then, chaÌacteÌize the classicaÌ HoÌlywoodstyle by its styÌistic eÌements,by its styÌistic systems, and, most abstÌactly, by the

ÁN EXCESSWf,LY OB\'IOUS CINEMA

ÌeÌations it sets up anong those systems. No single Ìevel of descriptionwilÌ woÌk. lt is too narÌow to defiìe classicâl norms by deúces, and it is unwarÌantably broad to define them solely by ÌeÌations among systems. (The domination of namativelogic over cinemaljcrime and spâcei. coÌnmonto many styles.) Hencethe importance of the second level, the stylistic systems. The categoriesof causaìity, time, and spâceenable us both to pÌace individuaÌ deviceswithin functionâl contexts and to see the classical styÌe as a dynamicinterplay of severalprinciples.FinaÌìy, no categorical explanaìion of one Ìeve1cân wholly swallow up another. The systematic principle of depicting spâceunambiguousÌy does Ìrot logically entail the use of three-point Ìighting. Those specific devices are the products of diverse histoÌicâl processes;oúer eÌements might do as welì. The specificity of the classical style depends upon all three leveÌs of generaÌityMy âccount heÌe will constÌuct the cìassical stylistic paradigm across several decades, emphasizing the continuity at the second and third levels. But by stressing continuity of function I do not impÌy that the sysr,ems paÌadigmaticrange did not changesomewhat.For example,befoÌe the mid-1920s,the use of high and low angÌes wâs severelycodified:for ìongshots (especiaÌÌyof Ìandscapes),for opticâl pointof-vierp, or for shot/reverse-shotpattems when one person is higher than other. (In shov Ìeverse-shotediting, an imageof one eÌementin the scene,typicâlly a persontaÌking, is foÌlowed by a shot of another elementwhich is spatialÌy opposite the frÌst, typicaìly, a person listening. ChapteÌ 5 fuÌnishes a more systematicexpÌanation. Seethe exampÌesin figs 16-65and 16.66in Chapter 16.) A medium,shotof an object oÌ a human figure would seldom be framed from a sharp high- or Ìow-angÌe.Yet in the lât€ 1920s, HoÌlywood'sspatiâl paÌadigm widened a bit, pÌobabìy as a resuÌt ol the inlluence of ceÌtain German fiÌms, Examples can be foulã in Bulliog Drummond(1929)ând *The Show(192?),which üamaticâlly use high and low angÌes(seefigs 1.1 and 1.2).With the comingoísound,an occasionaÌ odd angle couìd compensâte foÌ what Ìras felt to be an excessiveÌy'theatÌìcal' scene(seefrg 1.3). Throughout the 1930sand 1940s,steep angÌes tooktheiÌ pÌaceâs commonfunctionalequivaÌents lor noÌmaÌ fÌamings in many situations. AcÌoss

?

history, the paÌadigm develops chiefly through changes in the fiÌst level of anaÌysis - that of deüces. This processwiÌl be examined in detail in Parts Three, Four, and Six. Viewers, sehemata, and mental 6ets Consideringthe clâssicalcinema as a systemof norms opeÌating at different Ìevels of generality can seemto cÌeate a Ìeified object, a colossalbÌock of attributes tÀat sâys little about how âlm vieweÌs see films. the language of objectivism is haÌd to avoid, especiaÌlywhen we apply spatiâÌ metâphors like 'levels.' How, then, âÌe we to châÌacterizethe vieweÌ's work, oÌ what E.H. Gombrich calls 'the beholder's share,? An intÌicate and comprehensivetheoÌy of frlm viev/ìng has yet to be constÌucted,and it is not within the scopeof this book to do it. Yet if we want to considerhow the Hollywood frlrn solicits a specifìc way of being understood,we need to Ìecoglize at Ìeast how passive an 'iìlÌrsionist' thmry makes the spe€tatoÌ. IìÌusionist theorists usualÌy insist thaÈonly avant-gardetexts make the viewer perfoÌm an 'active' reading,or force the viewer to ì/ork to producemeaning.rrThe HoÌÌywoodsp€ctatoÌ,it is claimed,is Ìitrre more than a receptacle; few skilÌs of attention,memory, discrimination,inferencedrawing,or hlTothesìst€sting are Ìequired. Now this is clearìy too simple.Classicalfilrns call foúh activitieson the paÌt of the spectator.These âctivities may be highÌy standardizedand compaÌativeÌyeasy to leaÌn, but we cannotassumethat they aÌe simpÌe. Consider, as one probÌem, the Epeetatoras peÌceiver- IÌÌüsionist theory emphasizesthe deceptive quality of projected movementoÌ of shot space:the spectatoris duped into taking image for rcâÌity. As NoéÌ Burch püts it,'spectators experìencethe dìegeticworÌd as envìÌonment.'r2 But recent explorationsin âestheÈicpeÌception and cognition have shown that'ilÌusion' is not simply a matter of fooÌingthe eye.The specraror particípates à $eating the iìlusion- R.L. GÌegory, for instanee,speaksof perceptìonas inferentiâI, which makes'illusion dependentupon eÌÌoÌs of inference: either biologicaÌ'mechanism' errors (e.g.,the pài phenomenon as creatingthe illusion of movement)oÌ cogìitive 'strategy' eÌÌom (e.g., assuming that the whole is consistent wìth

8

THE CLÁSSICAL HOLLYWOODSüA.8, 19r?,60

displayed parts)- Gombrich has âlso shown that visual illusion denands tÀat the specramr pÌopose, test, and discard perceptual hypoflreses based on expectation a-.rd pmbability.l3 FoÌ illusion to work, the spectatoÌ must meet the aÌt woÌk at least half way. If pereeptual illusion reqúÌes somespectatoÌiâl ârtivity. even more is requiredfor rhât iÍÌragina" tive involvement solicited by narÌative. No story tells aÌl. Meir SternbeÌg characterizesfoÌlowing a tale as 'gap-filling,' and just as we project motion on to a succession of frames, so we foÍm hypolheses,make inferences,erecl expectâtions. and drâw conclusionsaboutthe film s charact€rs and actions.ra Again, the spectator must coopeÌatein fulfiÌling the film,s form. It is clear that the pÌotocols which control this activity d€rive fÌom the system of norms operating in the classicalstyle. For example,âÌÌ insistenceupon the primacy of narrative causaÌity is a generâÌ feâture of rhe clãssical syst€m; the viewer translates this norm into a tâcit stÌategy for spotting the work's unifying features, distinguish, ing significant information from ,noise,' sorting the fiÌm's stimuìi into the most comprehensive patteÌn. GombÌich desc bes this process in terms of 'schemata' and 'mentaÌ sets., Schemata are tÌaditional formal patterns for rendeÌing subject matter. Gombdch points out thât the artist cannot simply copy Ìeality; the artist ean onÌy Ìender the model in terms of one schema or anotheÌ.Thus even new shapesÍ,ilÌ be assimiÌâted to categoÌieswhich the aúist has leâÌnedto handle. As Gombrich puts it, ,making precedes matching' the cÌeation of a schema precedes copying the rnodel.l5 After the making, the schemacan be modifiedin eâchparticuÌar caseby Íhe ârlists purpose íusually, the sorl of informaüonthc adisl wantsto conveyr.So [ar. much ot thls rs conBnrentwith Múarovskj." argument:we might think ofthe aÌtist,sschemata as Lechnicalnorrns and Lhe aÌÌist s purpuseas InvolviDg specificâesthetjc norms.But Combrich goes on to show that the schemata and the puìÌ'ose fÌÌnction for the viewer as \À/elÌ. The atist's tÌaining is paÌalÌeledby the spectatÌ,s pnoÌ experience of the visuaÌ world and, especiaÌly, of otheÌ aÌt works. The paìnter's traditional schemataconstitutethe basis of the vieweÌ'sexpectationsor mentnlset:'A style,like a

cuÌtuÌe oÌ climate of opinion, sets up a horizon of expecr€tron, a mental set. which regislers devrafions and modificationsüth exaggeÌated sensitiúty.'Ì6 FoÌ GombÌich, this mental set is defined in terms ofprobâbilities: certain schematâ aÌe more ÌikeÌy to fit the data than otàers. By pairing conceptsÌike schemata ancl mentaÌ sêt, we cân spell out the ways in which the classicalfilm solicits{,hespertator.For instance, one,weÌÌ'knownschemaof Hollywoodfilm editing rs t he shoureveÌse-shot pattem. The filmmaker . has ltus Feadyüohand for represcnlingâny two ngures, groups, or objects within the same Dlace. This s(hema can be fitted to many situaiions, whateveÌ the diffcrencesof 6g!re placemênt, cameraheight, Iighting,or focus;whetherthe image is in widescÌeenratio or not; whetheÌ the ÍiguÌes aÌe fâcing one anotheÌ or not; etc. Because of the traditionbehindthe schema, the viewerin Ìum expects to see the shovreveÌse_shotfieure. especiaÌÌyif the Êrst shot of the combinãtion appears. If the next shot does not obey the schema.the spectâlorthen applie" anoúer, less probable.schemâto Lhesecondshot.The soe('ralor of the classicalfilm thus riffles rhroueh the âl[emativesnormalized by the styÌe,fÌom;osr to leasl,likely. Throughschemata, ih" .ry,". norrn, nol onÌy imposetheir logicuponthe materialbur also elÌcll,parÌiculâractivitiesfrom the viewer. The result is that in describing the cÌassicaÌ sysfemwc âre describinga ser of opeÌat_ions úat tne vÌeweÌ is expectedto perform. To stress the tasks whi;h the fllm alloLsto ihe spectatoraÌÌowsÌ1sto âbandoncertainilìusionsof ouÌ own. We no ÌongeÌ need subscribeto coDv_ thêoÌiesofcinêma,wherebya cel{ainstylesimpil Ìepllcatêslhe real world or normal âcts of perception;schemata,tìed to historicaÌlydefined purposes. always intervene ro gìride us in gÌâsping lhe film. Nor npcd wc imasinp a Svêngâlicinpmâholdrngits audiencein rhrall. The classicaÌ schematahave created a mentaÌ set that stilÌ must be activatedby ând testedagainst any grven fiÌm_ Of course, the cÌassicaÌstyÌe dêfinescenain spectâtorial activiupsas salient. and the hjstoncaldominancê of lhâl stylehas so accustomedus to those âctivities that audiences may find other schematamore burdensome.yet this dynamicconceptofthe viewer'srole aÌÌowsus to explain the very pÌocessesthat seem so excessivelyobvious;as we shall see. even the

ÁN EXCESSI\,'ELYOBVIOUSCINEMÂ

spectaior's rapt absoÌption Ìesults . from a hlaothesis-checking that requires the vieweÌ to meet the film halfway. We can also envrsron altemative viewing praeiices,other activities that the spectatoÌ might bê asked to perfoÌm. The chapt€Ìs that follow, then, suggest at seveÌal points how the norEs of the classical Hollywood styÌe encourage speciúc actiúties on the paú of the spectator.

Style in history Ifyou re not working for BrezhnevSl.udioMosfilm, you are working foÌ Nixon-ParamoÌrnt. . . . YoìÌ foÌget that this sâmemaster has been ordering the same film for frtftyyears. Wínd from the East To constÌuct the clâssical Holllwood style as a coherent system, we also need to account foÌ the styÌe's histoÌicaÌ dimension.In one sense,this entiÌe book tries to do that, by examining the HoÌÌy'woodmode of production, the consolidatìon of the styÌe in a specific peÌiod, and the chânges that the style undeÌgo€s in subsequentyeaÌs. At this point, I must indicate thât my oveÌall descrìptionof the cÌassicalstyÌe appliesto a set of films acrossan extensiveperiod.What historical assumptions underlie such a broadly based analysis? The three ÌeveÌs of genemÌity indicate someof those assumptions.My enterpÌise assumesa historical continuity at the two most abstract levels of styÌe (systems and relations among systems); it assÌrmes,that the most distinct changestake place at the leveÌ of stylistic devices. For exampÌe, thÌough its history HolÌywood ciÌìema seeks to ÌepÌesent events in a tempoÌaÌÌy continuous fashion; moÌeover, narrative logic has generaÌly woÌked to motivate this tempoÌaÌ continuity. What chângesthÌough histoÌy are the various devices for representing tempoÌal continuity such as inter-titles, cuts, iÌises, dissolves,whip-pans,and wipes. By stÌêssing the enduring principles of the cÌassicaÌstyÌe,we Ìosesomespecificdetail, In this part, I shall not rcconstÌuctthe choicesavaiÌabÌe to fiÌmmakers at any given moment. If I say that a scene cân begin by dÌaìring back from a signiíicantfigure oÌ object,that suggeststhât ân

9

iÌis, a cut, and a carnera movement are all paradigmatic alternatiYes- But in 191?, the most probablechoicewould have beenthe iris;.in 1925, tÌìe cut; in 1935, the câméra movemeÌ1t. In discussingthe generaÌ principles of cÌassical style, I shaÌì often pmject the historically variâble deúces on to the same pÌane to show their functionaì equjvâlenr.e. Thjs bjrd s-eye vier.l enables us to map ihe basic and persistent features of the styÌe in histoÍy. The moÌe mtnutê history of the devices themselvesforms the bulk of PaÌts ThÌee, Four, and Six. Historical analysis demands a concept of peúodization. Since we are concemedheÌe with a stylistic history, we cannot presupposethat the periods used ío wÌite political or sociaÌ histoÌ-y will demaÌcatethe history ol ân êÌt. That is, theÌe is no immediate compulsion to deflne a 'cinema of the 1930s'as dÌasticaìÌy different from that of,the 1940s,' or to distinguish pre-WorÌd War II HoÌlywood style from postwar Hollywood styÌe. What, then, wilÌ eonstitute our gÌounds for periodization? NoÌms, yes; but aÌso the film indüstry, the most proximate ând peÌtinent instìtution foÌ creâting, Ìegulâting, and maintaining those norrns. This is not to say that film style and mode of production maÌch acÌoss decadesin peÌfect s]'nchronizâtion. PaÌts TVo and Five wilÌ pÌovide a peÌiodization for the Hollywoodmodeofproduction that whiÌe congruentin some Ìespects,cannot be simpÌy su!ì€Ìimposed upon stylistic history. Nevertheless,we have chosentô fÌame ouÌ study within the years 191760. The earÌier date is easieÌ to justify. StyÌistically, fÌom 1917 on, the classicalrnodelbecame dominant,in the sensethat mostAmericânfiction filÌns since that moment empÌoyedlundamentâÌly simiÌaÌ naÌrutive, tempoÌâì,and spatiâl systems. At the sametime, the studio modeof production had becomeorganized:detaiÌeddivisionof Ìabor, the continuity scÌipt, and a hieÌaÌchicaÌ mânageÌiâl system became the pÌincipal filmmakìng procedures. Parts Trvo and ThÌee detaiÌ how style and industÌy câmeto beso cÌosely synchmnized by 1917.But why halt an analysisof the cÌassicaÌHoÌlj'woodcinernain 1960? The date triggers suspicion.StyÌisticâlly,theÌe É no questionthat 'classical'Êlmsare stiÌl being made, âs PaÌt Sevenwill show.Variants of the Hollywoodmodeof prodüetioncontinueas well.

10

THE CLASS1CÂLHOLLYWOODSTI.LE, 1917-60

There are thus compelling reasons to claim that 1960 is a pÌematuÌe cutoff point. Oo tàe other hond, some critics may assert that this 'classical' period is far too Ìoony; one can see any period aftêÌ 1929 as the breakdown' of the Hollywood cinema (the tensions of the DepÌession, the anguish ofwâr and Cold War, and the competitive châÌÌengeof television). The yeaÌ 1960was chosenfor reasonsofhistory and of convenience.In the fllm industry, it was widely believed thât ai the end of the decade Holllwood had reached the end of its mature existence.?,tis lüas Ilollyroood, the titÌe ofa 1960 book by püblicist Beth Day, summarizes many Ìeasons foÌ consideÌing the year as a tÌìming point. Most production firms had converted their eneÌgies to teìevision, the dominant massenteríainment form since the mid-1950s;many had reducedtheir holdingsin studio ÌeaÌ estate; staÌs had becomeftee agents; most pÌoduceÌs had becoareindependent;the B-film was viúually dead.tTTo Day'saccountwe can add other signsof change-By 1960,â ceÌtain technologicalstate of the art had been reached: high-definition coÌor films, wide foÌmats, ând high-fidelity magnetic sound had set the standaÌd of quality thât continues today. MoÌeoveÌ, other styÌes began to challenge the dominance of cÌassicism. The intemationaìaÌ't cinema,speaÌheaded by Ingmar Bergman, Akira KÌìÌosawa, certâin Italian directors, and the FÌench New Wave, offered a moÌe influentiaÌ and widely dissemìnated alteÌnative to HoÌlywoodthaì had ever existed before. Not that HoÌÌywood wâs signifrcantly shaken(PaÌt Seventries to show why), but the foÌceolthe classicâlnorm wasreducedsomewhatDespite these reasons, it remains somewhat aÌbitrary to see 1960 as closing the classicâl period.We havechosenit paÌtìy becauseit makes ouÌ reseaÌch somewhatmanageabÌewhiÌe still conveyingthe powerfuÌ spread of the cÌassical cinema'sauthority.

tÌre ordinary work is gÌant€d considerable importance, A€ademicism,mainstÌeam,,{ork_s,the canon, trâdition - the history of music, painting, and literature could not do without such cooceptions.I believe,' remarks RonranJaì