bordwell-the classical hollywood cinema

8/13/2019 Bordwell-The Classical Hollywood Cinema

1/84

AULsOJ,Fq3THEl^.eLHOLLYWEDDNEvIilmb4edvlodeiProdctiono196CDavid Bordwell,Janet Staigerand Kristin Thompson

taNervYork ColumbiaUniversity Press


2/84

Part One The classicalHollywoodstyle,1917-60DAYIDBORDWELLNeither normative criticisms nor mophologicadescription aone will eve give usa theory ofle.I do not know if such a theory is necessa$butif we want one we might do wotse han approachatistic solutions in terms of those specifrcaiionswhich are talen for granted in a given period,andto tist systematicaly, and even, f needbe,pedantically, e prioritieB in the 'ecoociliationofconflicting demands.Sucha procedure will giveusa new espect fo the cassicabut will asoopenour minds to an ppeciationof non-classicalsolul ons represenl,ingnlrely freshdiscoveries.lE.H Gombrich


3/84

^rAn excesslvelvoovlouscrnema

We all have a notion of the typic Holl,'lyoodlm. The very label carries a Bet of expecttions,often apparently obvious, bout cinematic fornand style. We ean delne that ide, test ndground those expectticns, by using te conceptofgroup slyle.Histoians routinely speak of goup style inolhr arts:classicism r (he Baroque n music.Ipessionism r Cubism n painting,Symbolismo Imagsm in poetry.r Cinemahas its own groupstyles; German Expressionism,Soviet montagecinema, and the French New Wave afford time-honoed nstances-But to suggest hat Holywoodcinema constitutes goup style seems moerisky. In other national schoos, handful offilmmakers worked within shaply containedhistorical circumstances or ony a few yeas-ButHollywood,as an extensive commeciaentr-prise, ineuded hundreds of fimmakes ndthousands f fims, and it has existed or ove sxdecades.f it is a daunting chalenge o defineaGermanExpressionist inemaor a Neorcalistone,it might seem impossible to circumscibe adistinctiveHollywood'goupstyle.'The historical arguments for the existence ofsuchstyleaeexamined ate n this book,At thispoint, aprma facie ease or a 'cassicaHo1'lvoodstyle'depends poncriticalyexmininga bodyoffilms. Suppose hat between 1917 and 1960 adistinct nd homogeneous tyle has dorointedAmerican studio filmmaking - a stye whosepinciples emain quite constantacossdecdes,genes, tudios, nd personne.My goalhee s toidentify, at several evelsof generality, o whatextent Hollywood filmmaking dheres o integraland limited stylistic conventions.rive coud st with a desciption of theHoywood tyle derived from Holywood'sowndiscouse,hat enomors odyof statementsandassumptions o be found in trade jounals,

technical manuals, memoirs, and publicityhandouts. We woud flnd that the Holywoodcinema sees tsef as bound by rules that setstingen limits on individu innovation; hatteling a story is the basic formal concem, whichmakes the fim studio .esembe the monastety'sscrptorim, the site of the tanscription ndtransmission of countessnaTatives;tat unity isa basic ttibut of frm form; that the Ho]'woodfilm pupots to be 'ealistic' in both anAistotelian sense tuth to the pobable)nd anatuaistic one (truth to histoical fact); that theHoywood fim stives to conceal its a-tificethrough techniquesof continuity and 'invisible'storlteing; that the fim shoud be comprchensible nd unambiguous; nd that it possessesfundamental emotiona appeal that tansceDdsclassand nation.Reiteted ielessly o at eastseventy yeas, sch pecepts suggest thatHollywoodpctitioners ecognizedhemsevessceating distinct appoach to film form andtechnique hat we cn usty abel cassical.'We ae not used o clingproducts f Americanmass cutue 'classical' n any sense; he wordappaety omes asie o the Fenchspeaker. searly as 1925, a trench reviewer describedChaplin'sPoy Day \1922)as a epesentative f'ci-qematiccssicism,'anil a year late,Jeii--funoir spoke f Chaplin, Lubitsch, and Cai'eBiw-rias contributors o 'cassicl inema'ofthe future, one 'which ovresnothing to t cks,wherc nothing is eft to chance,where thesmalest etai kes ts plceof impotancen theoveral psychoogicalcheme f the fr1m.'2t wasprobaby Andr Bazin who gave the adjective hemost curency; by 1939, Bazin deced,Hoywood filmmakng had acquired 'al thechamcteistics f a cassica rt.' t seems .operto retin the term in Engish,since hep nciples

which Holywood imss ts own ely on notions


4/84

t i'.

4 II'IIE CISSICI HOLL\'WOOD STYLB, 191?.60of decoum, proportion, fomal harmony, tespectfo tladition, mimesis, sef-effacing cats-manship, and cool contro of the perceivelsesponse - canons which citics in any mediumusually cal'cassical.'

To stess this collective nd conseving aspectof Holl)'wood filmmaking also aods a usefulcounteweight to the itdividualist emphases ofauteu citicism. Bazin citicized his potgs atCahcrs du cinmo by reminding them that theAmericn cinema corld not be educed to anassemblyof variegated creators,each arrned witha Persona ision:4What makes Holl]'wood somuch bette ananyting else n the world is not only thequaity of ceain directors,but also he vitalityand, n a cetain sense,he excellencef hadition. . . . The Americn cinem s acssicalart, but r'hynot then admire in itwat is most admiable, i.e., not only theLent f hisor that i lmmakr, ut hegeniusofe system. he nchness f itseve-goroustadition, and its fetility when t comes ntoaontact with new elements.

Bazin's pont stck the Cdiers wites nostforcefully only alter his death, partly because hedecline of the studio system faced them withmediocrevorks by such veneated filmmakes asMann, Ray, and Cuko. 'We said,' emkedTtuffaut bitterly, 'lhat rhe Amprican cinemapleasesus, and its filmmakes ae slaves; what ifthey were freed?And from the moment that theywee feed, they made shitty 6ms. Piee Kastagreed:'Bettera goocnma le salare than abad cinmad'auteur.'6 lt s lhe cinmade salnrie,at least in its enduring aspects, hat rcpresentsHollywood's lassicism.Al of which is not to sy that Hol1,wood'sclassicismdoes not have dispaate,even 'non-classical' ouces-Certainy the Hoywood tyeseeks eflects that owe a good dea to, say,romantic music or nineteenth-centuymeo-drama. Nor do Hollr.wood'sown assumptionsexhaustively account for its pactice; theinstitutioD'sdiscourse houdnot set our agendafor anaysis. he point is simply that Holywoodfilms constitute a faily coherent aesthetictadition which sustains ndividuaceation.Fothe purposes f this book, the abe tlassicism,

erves wll because t swiftly conveys distinctaesthetiaqualities (eegance,unity, ule-govemedcraJtsmanship) and historica functions (Holly,wood'smle as the wod's mainstream frlm stye).Before there ae auteurs, therc are conshints;before there ae deviatons,there ae norms.Norms, paradigms, and standards

In the final analysis,we ovedthe Amecancinemabecusehe films al resembledeachother.Franois Tr-uffaut7

The first, and crucia, step is to assume thatclassical frmmaking constitutes an aestheticsystem that can chacterize salient featues ofthe indidral work. The system cannotdetermine every minute detail of the work, but itisoltes peferred pactices and sets imits uponinvention. The problem s, in other wods, that ofdefining what Jan Mukaiovskj has catedaesthetic norrrs.Wen we thinh of a nom, especially n a egasense, e tend o think of a codifiedand nflexiblerule. Vvhile Mukaiovskj recognized hat theaestheticnors of aperiod are often elt by aistssconstrints upontheir freedom,he stressed henoms' compaativeBexibility. He agued that theesthetic norm is chacterized by its non,pactical naturc; the only goal of the aestheticnorm is to permit at works to come intoexistence. This has important consequences;disobeyinghe aesthetc om is not necessaiynegtiveact (may, ndeed,be qute poductive);and aesthetic norns can change rapidy ndcosideaby.Mukaiovski goeson to inventoryseveral diffetent kinds of norms, al of whichtetMrinewithin the art work. There ae xorrnsderiving fiom he materials ol the t wok.Poety, fo instance, takes anguage as itsmateria,but language oesnot come aw to thetask; it irings alongsnoms of everydayusage.Secondly, thee ae technial norms, basic ffaftpacticessuch as metdca schemesand genemnventions. hirdly. hereareprorliral.or .ocio-politicanorms;e.g.,a characte'sethicalvauesrepesented n the work. linaly, Mukaiovskjspeaks f oesrericoms as such,which seem obe thebasicprincpes fatistic const.uctionhat


5/84

form the work. These woud include conceptsofuity, deconrm,novelty, ad the like.3Mukaiovskj's work helps us move to/arddefining the Hollywood cinema as an aestheticsystem. Plainy, the Holll.wood stye hasfrDctioned historically as a set of norms. It mightseem ash to claim that Holywood'snor'rnshavenot dasticalychangedsincearound 1920, butMukaiovsk points out that periodsof,cassicism'tend towd harmony and stability. Moreover, theidea of mutiple norms impinging upon the samework helps us see that i is nikely that anyHollywood film wil perfectly embodyall norms:'Tle inte:reationsamong al thesenorms, whichfunction as instrments for artistic devrees,aretoo complex, oo differcntiated, and too unstabefor the positive value of the work to be abe toppea s virtuay identical with the pefectfufillmentof a noms obtainingwithin it.,e NoHollywood frm is the classicalsystem;each is n'unstableequiib um' of classica orms.Mukaovski's work also enablesus to antici-pate the paicula noms which we wiencounte. Evidently, classica cinema drawsupon pacticl o ethco-socio-politicalorms; Ishal mention these only when the particularways of appmpiating such norms e charcter-istic of the classical stye. For example,heterosexual romnce is one vaue in Amerrcansociety, but that vaue takes on an aestheticfunction in the classicacinema {as, sy, thet]?ica motivation for the principa ine ofaction).Mterial norms are also present n l,he cem;when we speak of the 'theatrical' spaeeof earlyfilms or of the Renaissnce epesentaton of thebody as important for classica cinema, we aeassuming that cinema has absorbed certainmterial noms from other media.Simiary, Iwill spend considerble ine examining thetechnica ormsofclassica ilmmaking,since o lage extent these pervasive and percistentconventions of form, technique, and geneconstitute the Hoywood radition. But in order touderstand the underlying ogic of the classicamode,we must asostudyhow that modedepoysfundamental aesthetic nors. How, specifrcally,doesHolywood se suchprinciplesas unity andaesthetic unction?As all thesepoints indicate,the chiefvirtue ofMukaiovsk's work s to enableus to think of a groupmstyle not as a monolithbut a compex yslemof .pe.if ic forces n

I EXCESfI 'DLYOBYIOUSCINEM 5dynamic nteaction.My emphasis on norms should not be takeo toimpy an iron-clad technical formula imtrrosedupon fllmmakes. Any gmup style offe$ a rongeof altematives. Classic fllmmaking is ot,strictly speaking, formuaic; there is alwaysanother way to do something. You can ight ascenehigh- o low-key, you can pan o tack, youcn cut apidly or seldom. A gop style thusestablishes wht semioogistscal a paradigm, ase of elemets which can, ccoding to rules,substitut for one another. Thinking of thecassical style as a paadigm heps us retarn asenseof the choicesopen o filmmakers thio thetadit ion.At the same iDe. he slyle emainsunifred system because the paadigm offersbounded alernaliyes, If you ae a classicalfrmmaker, you cannot ight a scene n sucha wayas to obscurethe locaeentirely (cf. Godard n lego soooir); ou cannotpanor tck without somena'rative or geneic motivtion; you cnnotmakeevery sho[ one scond ong cf. avant-gardewoks).Both the atemativesand the limitationsof the style remain elear if we think of theparadigm as creatig funl:tonal equiva,l.ent6.cut-inmay replace tck-in, or colormay epaceighting as a way to demrcae volumes,becauseeachdevce fufllls the same ole. Basic principlesgovennot ony the eementsn the pradigm utalso the ways in 'hich the elements mayfunction.Our account of this paradigm mus alsoecogize how redundant it is. Not ony areindividual devcesequivaent,but they oftenappear togethe. For instance, there are severalcues or a flashbackn a classicaHolllwood llm:pensive character attitude, close-up of face, sowdssolve,voice-overnrration, sonic flashback,,music. n any givencase, everaof thesewil beused togethe. In another mode of film pactice,such as that of the Eumpean at cinema'of the1960s, he same geneal paradigm governsamovement into flashback, but the conventionacuesare not so edundant e.g.,pensive lose-upbut with no music or dissolve)- The classicalparadign, thus ofen ets the filmmaker choosehow to be redundant,but seldomhow redundantto be.Onemore conception f Holywood inemaas aunifredsystempaysa pat in undestandingheclssicastye. This book wi aso eler to a


6/84

6 TIIO CTSSICALHOLLYOOD STYLE,IS1?,O'standardized' im stye. In genea, his suggestsonly adheence to norns. But the term asoirnplies that Holl].wood cinema has been madesringently uniform by iis dependenceupon aspecific economic mode of film pmduction andconsumption. Caing the Hollywood style'standardized' oen implies that noms hvebecome ecipes, outiney repeating a stereotypedpoduct.Yet the avant-grde has o monopoly onquality, and violating a norm is not the ony wayto achieve aesthetic value. I assme hat in anyart, even those operating within a mass-poductionsystem, e wok cnachieve vaueby modifying or skillfully obeying he prernisesofa dominant style.Levels of generalityIf the classicastye is a set of norms,we need away to distinguish greater and lesser degrees ofabstraction in that set. A match-on-ctioncut is aclassicconvention; so is the pinciple of spatilcortinuity. But the fist convention s a particularappicationof the second-Broadly speaking,wecan analyzehe cassicalHolywood f,ye t threeeves.1 Devices.Many isolated echnicalelementsaecharcteristicof cassicalHolywoodcrnema:thee-point ighting, continuity editing,'moviemusic,'centered ramings,dissolves, tc. Suchdevices are often what we think of as the'Holyrvoodtyle' tsei Yet we carnot topwithsimply nventorying hesedevices.2 Systems. s membesof a padigm, echnicadevices achieve significance only when weundestandhei functions.A dissolve etweenscenes n convey he passage f time; but socn a cut. To say that the cassicalHollywoodstye ceased o exist when irost scenes werelinked by cuts s to presumehat a style s onlythe sum of its devices. styleconsists ot onyof recuent eements ut of set of functionsand reationsdeflned fo them. These unctionsand elationsare estblished y a system.Foexampe,one cinemtic system nvoves theconstuction f represented pace. n classicalfilmmaking, ighting, sound, mage composi-, tion, and editing all take as one task the

ticuation of space accoding to specifrcprincipes. It is this systematic quaity thatmkes it possible fo one alevice o do duty foranothe, o to epea information conveyedbyanothe. Thus employing a cut to link scenesconfoms to one function defined by classicalpremises;within this paradigm, there must besomecue for a time lapsebetween scenes,and acut may do duty fo a dissolve (or a swish-pan,or a shot of a clock's moving haods). Thesystematic quality of fllm style also sets limitsupon the paadigm; in repesenting space, orinstance, ambiguous camera positions anddiscontinuous cutting ae unlikely to occurbecause hey violate cetain pincipes of thesystem.In this book, we shall assume that anyfictional narrative frm possesseshee systems:A system of native logic, which dependsupon story events and cusal relations andparallelismsamong hem;A systemof cinematic ime; aodA systemof cinematicspace.A given dece may work within any or all ofthese systems,dependingon the functions thatthe systemassigns o the dece.lo3 Reations of systems. If systems are reations

arong elements, the tota style can be definedas the elation of those systems to each other.Narrative logic, tie, and 6pace nteact withoneanothe. Doesoneof them subodinateheothes? Do a thee opeate independently?Hop arc the principes of one justifred orchlenged y another?n the Hollywoodstyle,the systemsdo not play equa oes: space ndtime e almost invariably made vehicles ornarrative causality. Moreover, specificprinciples govem that prccess. At this teve,even iegda ties in the various systems canbe seen as purposeful.For instance, f we dofind a passage f discontinuousuting, wecanask whether it is still serving a narrativeftrnction (e.g., to convey a sudden, shockingevent). In such a case, he relatioll aurorgsystemswoud emain consistentven if thendividualdeviceor systemvaied fom nomalusage.We can, then, chaacteize the classicaHolywoodstyle by its styistic eements,by itsstyistic systems, and, most abstactly, by the


7/84

eations it sets up anong those systems. Nosingle evel of descriptionwil wok. lt is toonarow to defie classiclnorms by deces,and itis unwarantably broad to define them solely byeations among systems. (The domination ofnamative ogic over cinemaljc ime and spce .conmon o many styles.)Hence he importanceofthe second level, the stylistic systems. Thecategoriesof causaity, time, and spceenableusboth to pace ndividua deviceswithin functionlcontexts and to see the classical stye as adynamic nterplay of severalprinciples.Finay,no categorical explanaion of one eve1cn whollyswallow up another. The systematic principle ofdepicting spceunambiguousydoes rot logicallyentail the use of three-point ighting. Thosespecific devices are the products of diversehistoicl processes;oer eementsmight do aswel. The specificity of the classicalstyle dependsupon all three evesof generaity-My ccount hee will constuct the cassicalstylistic paradigm across several decades,emphasizing the continuity at the second andthird levels. But by stressing continuity offunction I do not impy that the sysr,emspaadigmaticangedid notchange omewhat. orexample,befoe the mid-1920s,he use of highand low angesws severelycodified: or ong-shots (especiayof andscapes),or opticl point-of-vierp, or for shot/reverse-shotpattems whenone person is higher than other. (In shoveverse-shotditing, an imageof one eement nthe scene,ypiclly a person aking, is folowedby a shot of anotherelementwhich is spatialyopposite the frst, typicaly, a person listening.Chapte 5 funishesa moresystematicexpana-tion. See he exampesn figs 16-65and 16.66 nChapter 16.) A medium,shotof an object o ahuman figure would seldom be framed from asharp high- or ow-ange.Yet in the lt 1920s,Holywood'sspatil paadigm widened a bit,pobaby as a resut ol the inlluence of cetainGerman fims, Examples canbe foul in BulliogDrummond 1929)nd *The Show 192?),whichamaticlly usehigh and ow anges see igs 1.1and 1.2).With the comingosound,an occasionaodd anglecoudcompensteo what ras felt tobe an excessiveytheatcal'scene see rg 1.3).Throughout he 1930sand 1940s,steep angestook hei pacescommonunctionalequivaentslor noma famings in many situations.Acoss

N EXCESSWf,LYOB\'IOUS CINEMA ?history, the paadigm develops chiefly throughchanges in the fist level of anaysis - that ofdeces.This processwil be examined in detail inParts Three, Four, and Six.Viewers, sehemata, and mental 6etsConsideringhe clssicalcinemaas a systemofnorms opeating at different evels of generalitycan seem o ceatea eified object,a colossalbockof attributes tat sys little about how lmviewes seefilms. the language of objectivism ishad to avoid,especialywhen we applyspatimetphors ike 'levels.'How, then, e we tochacterize he viewe's work, o what E.H.Gombrich calls 'the beholder'sshare,?An inticate and comprehensive heoy of frlmviev/nghas yet to be constucted, nd it is notwithin the scopeof this book to do it. Yet if wewant to considerhow the Hollywood frlrn solicits aspecifcway of being understood,we need toecoglize at east how passivean 'ilrsionist'thmry makes the spetato. Iusionist theoristsusualy insist thaonly avant-garde exts makethe viewer perfoman 'active' reading,or forcethe viewer o /ork to producemeaning.rr heHoywoodspctato,t is claimed, s itrre morethan a receptacle;ew skils of attention,memory,discrimination,nferencedrawing, r hlTothess-tsting are equired. Now this is cleary toosimple.Classicalilrns call foh activitieson thepat of the spectator.These ctivities may behighy standardized nd compaativeyeasy tolean,but we cannotassumehat they ae simpe.Consider,as one probem, the Epeetator speceiver- Isionist theory emphasizes hedeceptive quality of projectedmovemento of shotspace: he spectators duped nto taking image forrcity. As No Burch pts it,'spectatorsexperencehe degeticword as envonment.'r2But recent explorationsn estheic eceptionand cognitionhave shown that'ilusion' is notsimply a matter of fooing he eye.The specrarorparticpates $eating the ilusion- R.L. Gegory,for instanee,speaks f percepton s inferentiI,which makes'illusion dependent poneos ofinference:either biologica'mechanism'errors(e.g., he pi phenomenons creating he illusionof movement)o cogitive 'strategy'eom (e.g.,assuming that the whole is consistentwth


8/84

8 THE CLSSICALHOLLYWOODSA.8, 19r?,60displayed parts)- Gombrich has lso shown thatvisual illusion denands tat the specramrpopose,test, and discard perceptual hypoflresesbased on expectation a-.rd pmbability.l3 Foillusion to work, the spectatomust meet the atwok at least half way.If pereeptual llusion reqes somespectatoilrtivity. even more is required or rht iragina"tive involvement solicited by narative. No storytells al. Meir Sternbeg characterizes olowing atale as 'gap-filling,' and just as we project motionon to a succession of frames, so we fomhypolheses,make inferences, recl expecttions.and drw conclusions bout he film s charactrsand actions.ra Again, the spectator mustcoopeate n fulfiling the film,s form. It is clearthat the potocols which control this activitydrive fom the system of normsoperating in theclassicalstyle. For example, insistenceuponthe primacy of narrative causaity is a generfeture of rhe clssical systm; the viewertranslates this norm into a tcit stategy forspotting the work's unifying features,distinguish,ing significant information from ,noise,' sortingthe fim's stimui into the most comprehensivepatten.Gombich desc bes this process in terms of'schemata' and 'menta sets., Schemata aretaditional formal patterns for rendeing subjectmatter. Gombdch points out tht the artistcannotsimply copy eality; the artist ean onyender the model in terms of one schema oranothe.Thus even new shapes,il be assimi-ted o categoieswhich theaist has lened ohandle.As Gombrich puts it, ,making precedesmatching' the ceation of a schemaprecedescopying the rnodel.l5 After the making, theschema anbe modified n echparticuarcase yhe rl ists purpose usually, the sorl of

informaonhc adisl wants o conveyr. o ar.much ot thls rs conBnrent i th Marovskj."argument:we might think ofthe atist,sschemataas Lechnical orrns and Lheaist s purpuseasInvolviDgpecificesthetjcorms.But Combrichgoes on to show that the schemata and thepu'ose fnction for the viewer as \/el.Theatist's taining is paaleledby the spectat ,spno experience of the visua world and,especialy, of othe at works. The panter'straditional schemataconstitute he basisof theviewe'sexpectationsr mentnlset:'Astyle,likea

cutue o climate of opinion, sets up a horizon ofexpecrtron,a mental set. which regislersdevrafionsand modificationsth exaggeatedsensitity.'6 Fo Gombich, this mental set isdefined n terms ofprobbilities: certain schematae more ikey to fit the data than oters.By pairing concepts ike schemataancl mentast, we cn spellout the ways in which theclassicalilm solicits ,hespertator.For instance,one,we'known chema f Hollywoodilm editingrs t he.shourevese-shotattem. The filmmakerhas ltus Feadyohand for represcnlingny twongures, groups,or objectswithin the sameDlace.This s(hema can be fitted to many situaiions,whateve the diffcrencesof 6g re placemnt,cameraheight, ighting,or focus;whether heimage is in widesceen atio or not; whethe theigues ae fcingoneanothe or not; etc. Becauseof the tradition ehindhe schema,he viewer num expects to see the shovrevese_shot ieure.especiayf the rst shot of the combintionappears. If the next shot does not obey theschema. he spectlor hen applie" anoer, lessprobable. chemo Lhe econd hot.Thesoe('ralorof the classical i lm thus riff les rhroueh thel[ematives ormalizedy the stye, om;osr toleasl,ikely.Through chemata,h" .ry,". norrn,nolony mposeheir ogicupon hematerial uralsoelcl l ,pariculr ctivi t ies rom he viewer.The result is that in describingthe cassicasysfemwc re describing serof opeat_ionsattne vewe is expectedo perform.To stress the tasks whi;h the fllm alloLs o ihespectator ows 1s o bandon ertain lusionsofou own. We no ongeneed subscribeo coDv_thoies fcinma, hereby cel{ain tyle impilepl lcats he real world or normal cts ofperception; chemata,ed to historicalydefinedpurposes.always intervene ro gride us ingsping he fi lm. Nor npcd wc imasinp aSvngli inpmholdrng ts audiencen rhral l .The classicaschematahave createda menta setthat stil must be activatedby ndtestedagainstany grven fim_ Of course, the cassicastyedfines enain specttorialctiviups s sal ient.and hehjstoncal ominancf lhl stylehassoaccustomed s to thosectivities that audiencesmay find other schematamore burdensome.etthis dynamicconcept fthe viewer's oleaowsusto explain the very pocesses hat seem so

excessively bvious;as we shall see.even the


9/84

spectaior's rapt absoption esults . from ahlaothesis-checking that requires the viewe tomeet the film halfway. We can also envrsronaltemative viewing praeiices,other activities thatthe spectato might b asked to perfom. Thechapts that follow, then, suggest at sevealpoints how the norEs of the classical Hollywoodstye encouragespecicactities on the pa ofthe spectator.Style in historyIfyou re not working for BrezhnevSl.udio-Mosfilm,you are working fo Nixon-Paramornt.. . . Yo foget that this smemaster hasbeenordering the same ilm for frtftyyears.Wnd from the EastTo constuct the clssical Holllwood style as acoherent system, we also need to accountfo thestye's histoica dimension. n one sense, hisentie book tries to do that, by examining theHoy'woodmode of production, the consolidatonof the stye in a specificpeiod, and the chngesthat the style undegos n subsequentyeas. Atthis point, I must indicate tht my ovealldescrption f the cassical tye applies o a set offilms acrossan extensive eriod.What historicalassumptions underlie such a broadly basedanalysis?The three eves of genemity indicate someofthose assumptions.My enterpise assumesahistorical continuity at the two most abstractlevels of stye (systems and relations amongsystems); t assrmes,that the most distinctchangesake place at the leve of stylistic devices.For exampe, though its history Holywoodciemaseeks o epesent events in a tempoaycontinuous ashion; moeover,narrative logic hasgeneraly woked to motivate this tempoacontinuity. What chnges hough histoy are thevarious devices for representing tempoalcontinuity such as inter-titles, cuts, iises,dissolves, hip-pans, nd wipes.By stssing the enduring principles of thecassica tye,we ose ome pecific etail, n thispart, I shall not rcconstucthe choices vaiabeto fimmakers at any given moment. If I say thata scene cn begin by daring back from asigniicant igure o object, hat suggestsht n

N EXCESSI\,'ELYOBVIOUSCINEM 9iis, a cut, and a carnera movement are allparadigmatic alternatiYes- But in 191?, the mostprobable hoicewouldhave been he iris;.in 1925,te cut; in 1935, the cmra moveme1t. Indiscussing he generaprinciples of cassicalstyle,I sha often pmject the historically varibledeces on to the same pane to show theirfunctiona equjvlenr.e.Thjs bjrd s-eye vier.lenables us to map ihe basic and persistentfeatures of the stye in histoy. The moe mtnuthistory of the devices hemselves orms the bulkof Pats Thee, Four, and Six.Historical analysis demands a concept ofpeodization. Since we are concemedhee with astylistic history, we cannot presupposehat theperiods used o wite political or socia histo-ywill demacate he history ol n t. That is, theeis no immediate compulsion to deflne a 'cinema ofthe 1930s'as dasticay different from that of,the1940s,' or to distinguish pre-Word War IIHolywood style from postwar Hollywood stye.What, then, wil eonstitute our gounds forperiodization? Noms, yes; but aso the filmindstry, the most proximate nd petinentinsttution fo creting, egulting, and main-taining those norrns. This is not to say that filmstyle and mode of production mach acossdecadesn pefects]'nchroniztion. Pats TVo andFive wil povide a peiodization for the Holly-woodmodeofproduction hat whiecongruent nsome espects,cannot be simpy su imposedupon stylistic history. Nevertheless,we havechosen fame ou study within the years 1917-60.The earier date is easie to justify. Styistic-ally, fom 1917on, the classical nodelbecamedominant, n the sensehat mostAmericn ictionfilns since that moment empoyed undamentlysimia narutive, tempo,and spatilsystems.At the same ime, the studio modeof productionhad become rganized: etaieddivisionof abor,the continuity scipt, and a hieachicamnageil system became the pincipalfilmmakng procedures. Parts Trvo and Theedetaihowstyleand ndustycme o beso coselysynchmnizedy 1917.But why halt an analysisofthe cassica olj'woodcinerna n 1960?The date riggerssuspicion. tyisticlly, hee no question hat 'classical'lmsare stil beingmade,s Pat Sevenwill show.Variants of theHollywoodmodeof prodetioncontinueas well.


10/84

10 THE CLASS1CLHOLLYWOODSTI.LE, 1917-60There are thus compelling reasons to claim that1960 is a pematue cutoff point. Oo te otherhond, some critics may assert that this 'classical'period is far too oony; one can see any periodaft 1929 as the breakdown' of the Hollywoodcinema (the tensions of the Depession, theanguishofwr and ColdWar, and the competitivechenge f television).Theyea 1960waschosenor reasons fhistoryand of convenience. n the fllm industry, it waswidely believed tht ai the end of the decadeHolllwood had reached the end of its matureexistence.?,tis las Ilollyroood, the tite ofa 1960book by pblicist Beth Day, summarizes manyeasons fo consideing the year as a tmingpoint. Most production firms had converted theirenegies to teevision, the dominant mass-enterainment orm since he mid-1950s;manyhad reduced heir holdings n studio ea estate;stas had become tee agents;most poduces hadbecoare ndependent; he B-film was viuallydead.tT o Day'saccountwecan add othersignsofchange- y 1960, cetain echnological tateofthe art had been reached: high-definition coorfilms, wide fomats, nd high-fidelity magneticsound had set the standad of quality thtcontinues today. Moeove, other styes began tochallenge the dominance of cassicism.Theintemationaa't cinema, peaheadedy IngmarBergman, Akira Kosawa, certin Italiandirectors, and the Fench New Wave, offered amoe influentia and widely dissemnatedaltenative to Holywood ha had ever existedbefore. Not that Hoywoodws signifrcantlyshaken Pat Seven ries to show why), but thefoceolthe classicl ormwas educed omewhat-Despite these reasons, t remains somewhatabitrary to see 1960 as closing the classiclperiod.We havechosent paty becauset makesou reseach somewhatmanageabewhie stillconveying he powerfuspread of the cassicalcinema's uthority.The ordinary firrlFim histodanshave not generayacknowedgedthe place of the typrol work- In most filmhislorics,masterworksand innovtions isemonumentaly out of a hazy terain whosecontousemainunknown. n othe arts, howeve,

tre ordinary work is gantd considerableimportance, Aademicism,mainsteam,,{ork_s,hecanon, trdition - the history of music,painting,and literature could not do without suchcooceptions. believe,' remarks RonranJa


11/84

eader vrill recognize qualities pesent rn manyother films.Ir one sense, he concqptof goup style simplymakes manifest what we and Holywood itsetflready know.' Concepts like noro, paradigm,stylistic altematives, levels of systmic function,periodization, and schemata ae, from tispespective,simpy tools in making our habitualintuitions expicit. But these conceptsalso enableus'to reveal the pattmed and stable quatity ofou assurnpiions.The conceptscan showthat theclassicacinema has an underlying logic which isnot apparent from our common-senseeflectionupon the flms or fom Holywood'sown discourse

AN EXCESSIWLY OB\,'IOUSCINEMA 11about them. The theoretic co4cepts ntoducedin this chpter are iodispensible to gasping theclassicl style's sytematic quaity. Armed withttrem, ve can go on to examine how that stylecharctristically organizes cusality, time, andspace.he next five chapters, hen, should trigger cgrlaindjd r.ru:he readerwi recognize omefamiliar filnmaking practics.Bu these chpteFalso seek to explain in a systpoaticway howthesepracticeswork togethe to ceate a distioclfilrn style which, like Poe,s purloined letter,'escapes servation by dint of being qxcessivelyobvious.'19


12/84

Storycausality ndmotivation

There are several ways of analyzing fictionanarative cinem; the approach aken herecan bebroadlycaled ormaist.As Chpte 1poposed,nanative fim consistso three systems:naatveogic (defiaition of events, causa eations andparallelisms betweenevents), he representationoftime (order, duation, epetition), and the epe-sentationof space composition, ientation,etc.).Any given technica pamete (e.g., sound,editing) can function within any or a of thesesystems. Lighting or camera movemeDts caemphasizeaausalysignifiantobjectwhile ndow-ing the representedspacewith depth nd volume.Offscrcen oundcanoprteas a nartivecuse,can wok to specify dution, or can define anunseen pace.n sho,whie this accounr rresseswha Mukaovsky calls technical norms, thetechniquesare not simpy isolatd devicesbutathe functional componentsn the thee basictma systems. narative frlm seldom eats its systemsasequals.The RussianFomaist critics suggestedthat in y text or t.adition, a certin component- tl],e dominnnt - subordinates others. ,Thedominnt,'wites Jakobson,may be definedasthe focussing omponent f a wok of at: it rules,delermines,nd lransforms th remajningcomponents.t is the dominantwhich guranteesthe integrity of the stuctue., This integritydeseveso be seen as a dynamic one,with thesbordinated actors constanty pulling againstthe swayof thedominant. n Hollywood rnema,aspecific ot of na-rative ausaityopeates s hedominant,making emporaland sptial systemsvehcesor it. Thesesystemsdo not always estquietly unde the sway of narative logic,but ingeneal the causal dominant ceatesa markedhierarchyof systemsn the cassical irrr.Anothe distinction cuts acoss these thrcesystems.Most ilm theorists ecognize difference't2

between the naative mateial of a fim (theeventso actions,the bsic story) and the mannein which that material is represented n the fllm.The Russian Formaist litary citics dis-tinguished between fabula ('stny') and,syuzhet('plot'),and thoughout his book,we will use thestory/plot distinction in a senseakin to that of theFormaists.2 Story' wil refer to the events of thenarative n the pesumed spatil, tempora,and causal reations. 'Plot' w1l refe to thtotality of formal and styistic mateias in theflm. The plot thus includesall the systemsoftrme, spce, nd causalityactualymanifested nthe film; everylhing from a flashback slrucrureand subjective point-of-view to minutiae oflighting,cutting,and camemovement. he plotis, in effect, the fim before us. The stoy is thusou mental construct, a strctue of infeclces wemal


13/84

achaacte,The adventues ftese haactesaecseda frIm. Wnd ron theEast'Plot,'writes Francis Patersonn a 1920manuafor aspiringscreen$/ite6,is a carefuland ogicworking out of the aws of causeand eflect, Themee sequence f events wil not mke a pot.Emphsismust be laid upon causality and teaction ad eaction of the humn wi1.'3Herc inbef is the pemiseof Hollywoodstory construc-tion: causality, conseqenc, psychoogicamotivtions, he drive loward overcomngobstaces ndachievinggos,Chacte-centeed- i.e., personalor psychological causaity isthe armatueof the classicalstory.This sonds so obvious tbat we need toemember tht narrative causlity could beimpersonswe.Naturalcausesfloods,eneticinheritance) ould orm te basis o story ction,and in cinemawe mighi think of the work ofYasujiroOzu,which installs a :natura' hythm orcycleo life at the center of the ction. Causalitycould lsobe conceiveds socia causity finstitutions nd grouppocsses.oviet ilms ofthe 1920s emain the centra modelof cinematicttempts o eprcsent just schsupmindividualhistoiclcausality.O one could conceive fnative caubaityas a kind of impersonadetminisrn,n which coincidencend chanceleave he individual ttle freedom f personaction. Th postw Euopenat cinem oftenelies pon this sot of narative causaity, asBazin ndicatsn elation o Besson's;ory o/dContryPriest(1950):Eventsdo indeed olowone anothercmrding to necessary lder, yetwithir a famwork of accidentalhappenings.'aHol'wood rlms ol muse include cuses ofthese impersonal types, but they are amostinvariaby subodinated to psychologicalcausality. This is most evident in the cassicllm's use of histoical causality. Piere Sorlinpointsout that cassica ims truicay presenthistoical events as uncused;a wa simplybreaksout, disxpting charcters'ives very muchsa natualdisaslemighL. }enhislory s seens caused, hat cause s traceable o a psycho-logicallydefined ndividua. (chief nstancehereis Thz Br'h of a Nalion [1915], which linksfuconstructionabuses o the ambitionsof AustinStoneman.) hus the classic ilm makeshistory

STORYCUSIITY AND MOAVTION 13unknowable pat rom ls effctsupon ndividualcharactes,s an od Russian grsaysat theend of *Boalaka (1939): And to thin that ittook the Revoution o bring us together.'J Impersona causs y initate o abuptlyatter a line of stoy ciion which thenproceedsypersona auses, stom may maroona gloupofcharactes, ut then psychological ausity akesover.A war may sepaate ove, but then theymust eact to tht condilion. Ccincidencesespecialy dangeous in this context, andHolravood rule-books insist upon confiningcoincidenceo the initi situation. Boyand girlmay meetby accident,but they cnnot rely uponchance o keep hei acqua.intncelive. The terin the lm a coincidence ccus, he weke t is;and it is very unikey that the story wil bercsoved y coincidence.We seehere the nfluenceof te wel-madeplay (e.g., the mischnce hattigges the inhigue in Scibe o Sadou)and theappel o Aristotelian notions of pausibility andpobability. Unmotivated coincidences dooccasionay mp up in Hollywood fins. *flreCourageof Cornmonplace197) dels with amnerr' strike, and the frm's protagonist, theminesuperviso, il notyied o the stikers.Hedeclarcs:Something'sot to happen.' he nextday,a rnne olapsesy ntual causes.A morecaiefil scenastwoud have made disgruntedforeman sabotge he n)ine.) O, iL +ParachuteJurnper1933),t is not unmotivatedo have heromanticcouple ist meet by accident,bt in theast scenehey meet. gainby sheerchance.Mostoften, though, coincidences motivatedby genre(chancencountersreconventionsfcomedy ndmeiodrama). nd 'coincidental'encountersmay bepreparedcausay. n +Porol der (1940), lecmokedCrsydonmust encounte he govnmentagents at a. cafe, so the sipt motivates theeneounteras probabe.His secetary asks whyCrydoneatst the cfeso often, and he answeft:'O fends of the FBI eat herc.'If the chaacte must act as the pme causalagent, he or she rnust be defined as a bundle ofqualties,or haits. Scenpaymnuals demandthat a chacter's rats be clearly identiedandconsistent th o)e another. Sources or thispradice,of cose, goback very far, but the mostpertinntonesae the models or characterizationprcsent in iteratue and theate. From thenineteenth-{enturymeodrama'sstockchacter-


14/84

l{ II{ECLASSICALOLLYWOODT"ILE,9tr 0izations, Holywoodhas borrowed h need forshply deineated ard unambiguous tits.6(Some of melodrama's japes,such as certamethnic tnes, the old maid, nd the viinouslawyer, get reincamated in the Holywoodcinema.)From the nove comes rhat lan Wattcals a 'formal ealism': chractersare indivdualized il.Jr articularraits.Lics, r taes.Whhighlighrs. o instance.he impoftance f theunrque poper nme(Micawber,Mol Flandes)whichcreates geal.er inglrlrity f personalitylhan t}le Etereotypedamesof the melodrama(Paddyhe rishman, onathanheyankee).Thepopular shofi story acted as malel fornrrowngsuch n.lividulizedcharactiztionofied limits. The nov.l can explore rrranlchaackr raits and traceex nsive.hracterchange, ut the dominnt esthetic f the shortstory in the y.. . 1900-1920equied thtthe write ctechraclmwith few traits ndthen focus hoseupona fewkeyactions.Theshortslory in a sense truckn avpmge elween hexel haraclernes of rhmelodramnd hedense omplexity f the reaistnovel,nd thisaverage appeled t the cassical Iolywoodcinemduring ts formative ears. Chpter14wil tracehow hepopulr hortstorybecnremodel or Hollywood ramaturgy.)t ws ouspossibeor FrankBorzageo cim n 1922ht

'Today n th picturswe have the od meo-dramatic ituationsittedout decentlywith tuecharacterizations.'i' The classicalilm's presentation f charactertraits ikewiseolows onventionsstbshednealier heoreticalnd itsf forms.Characterswi_beypedby occupationcops rs 11yy,gg,gender, and ethnic identity. To these J,?es,indir idualizpd.raits readded. osLmporranL,a .hara(Lers made consistpntundle f a fenslieni rai ls, whichusuallydepend pon hecharactesafaLiveunction.t is hbusinessofte film's erTosition to acquaint us with thesetraits and to establishtheir consistency_ t thebeginning of *Soatnga (198't), a rrulousgrandfather els anothechaacte (anus) howhsdar-rghterasbecomeigh andmighrysrnreBhewent ,oEurope.Weseeher almost mmedt_ately, and her snootybehavior s consistentwithhis desciption.A the stat ol *Coso0948),police officers discuss Pepe,ssusceptibiity towomen; e nerl scenentroducs epe,singing

about women and fate to a adieDceof aalmiringwomen. SoDetimes, as in ilorna Doone (1928\and +Wuthaing Heights (r9A9), the m bo.osthe novelistic devic of intoducing us Lo Lhechrattes in childhood; the lrdy.formedpnnctpat rits we obsevewill crrvover into thedul lives- More comnonly, the charact.sslie trail.s are indicted - by an erpositorynue, ty other characles,descriplion_ snd thphtral appeaance ofthe chtacter conms theselraits as salient. I suchways. he spectaror ormsclea fisl impressions about the charcl,ersashomogeneousdentities.The mportance of characte consistency can beseen-ln.thelr sysLem.which ras crucil factorrn lot,y_woodhlm produclion.Ah,hough in theunlted 5lts. the etical slar systcrn BocsDcfio-Lhe arty 1800s.t wasnotunlil the priod191.2J917hat f i lm companiesgdn onsistendyr0 orrlerentrateheir products y mans f stars.sUn the q,hole,the str reinforcpd he i.endenrytowrd strongly profiled and unifred chacter-rzl ion.Mx Ophuls prarsedHol jywood abi l i ryto Fve.t.heactor an al redy_exst ng peEonlrtylvth- virch to work rn Lhe i lni .ro he stai , l ikelhe icl .ronalhrctr. l redy da seL t sl lcntri ls wbichcoudbe matched o he dmands l.the story. n describing he minsof / tycs aMoleWo..B.idplg4gt.Hawkssuggredhat onescendrd not coalesceunti he discovered hescene'sattitude': .A mn ike Cay Grant woudbe mused' - that is, the star,s taits anil thechaacte's raits becme somorphic.rtIn his book Sars,Riard Dyer has shown hortrthe 'roundness' of the novelistic charcie islacking in Hollywood flm characferizationndtaces this lack to the need for berfect fi betweenstI and roe.2 It is also tire case hat thecassicl ilm both lrades upon lhe pnor con.noial ions f the srr and masks heseconnola_tions, pesenting the sta as characte as f ,fothe first ime-'13For exampe, the star rnayportmy chractr who grous into the sta,spe$oa. In Meet John Doe (1941) the selfishpitcher John Willoughby becomes the rusrrcideaist John De becauseWilloughby was, rnlatent form, Gary Cooper to ben with. Wediscove he Gary Cooper personaafresh. evenwhlle knowing (ht it was thee befoe he sLarl.This is pehaps the most commonepresent chracter change n the wy tocssical


15/84

cinema, since it lfrns a bsic consistencyofcharackrhaits-'Guys ike youendup n the stockadesooner rlter.' singe ine in *Irom Here to Etemtl(1953) shows horv strongy classicl charactetmits are ied toction.Fatso's emark olows sfight with Maggio,andsosumsup Maggio'sact ofdefiance-But the 'guys ike you' assumesMaggioto be a 6xed identity, a prmanent t}?e (thehotheadedbucke of athorit . Moeover, hattype is defined not only by traits but by deeds.Maggio will mntinue to act accoding to t]?e.That hedoesndeed indup n the stockadeoesnot make Fatso a pophet;his remak simplyacknowledgesheclose auselationbetweencharacte's traits and ctions; tits ae onlyatent causes,actior$ the effects of taits. Weeason,as screenwitingmanuals emind us, romcaus to effect and vice,versa; the writer'sprccedueo'fo?shadowind s nothing morc hanpreparinga cause or an eventua ffect.If charactcrsre o become gents f causty,their traits must be affirmed in speechandphysicalbehavior,he obsewable rojectionsfpesonality.{hie filmscanntirey do withoutpeope. oyrvoodinpmrrerpsupona drs-tinction betwen movenent and action.Movement, ritesFreilerick amer,r

is merelymotion. ction s usualy heoutwardexpessionf nner elings., . For nstance,onemightwite:'Thewhirringblades ftheelectrcarcasedhewndorv uriains oilutter. The mnsated t the mssivedeskfinished is momentousette,seaedt, andhastned ut topost t.' The whirring fan andthe fluttering cutaingivemotionony - theman'swritirg the etterand king t out opost ovides ction.It is of actionhatphotopaysrewrougnr.Palmer's sceneprovidesa precise hnotheicalalternative to the classicstyle (one tht Ozuwi actualize n his shoLs f objects nterruptiDgpssagesfcharacterad on r.Holl).woodincm,however, emphasizes ction, 'the outwadexpressionof inner feeling,' the litmus test ofchrar[er onsis(ency.vena simplephysicaleaction - a gesture, n exprssion, wideningofthe eyes - corstuctsharcrerpsychologynccordancewith otler infomation- Most actiors

STORYCUSLITYNDM(] TVATION 5m the classical rlmpoceed, s Bazin put it, .fmmthe commonsenseupposition ht a necessarynd unambiguous cusal reationship exrstsbetrveen eelings and their outwad manifesta,tions.'5

Hol).woodcineDaeinforces he individuauryand consistecyof eeh chacterby meansorecuent motiG-A charcterwill be taggedwitha detail of speech r behorthat defrnes xuJortrait. For example,he nouueau irhe IJpshawnacongHghbrux (1935)s associatedrfth hiseraving for tomato uic and eggs,a sign of hisodinry tastes-The falenwoman' n *Womano/the Worl. (1925) s definedby her exotic awoo,executedat a ove's eq\esL..ln *Mr. Skeffrngton1944i.Frnys l ightinessE ronveyed y herhabit of mentioninga luncheonergagemBt thanotherwomanbut then lwaysstding he up.The motif may ssociateit'rahaacte witl anobjcto ocae.The heoineo +Th.eTger.sCoat(1920)s associatedith apainting hatcomparesher to a 'tawny ige skin.' n *His Doube ife(1933), anell meetsa womanwho alks of hergarden whie the soundtmck plays 'CountryGardens';nce e hasmied her; heyarc seensitting n hergarden.Consistencyf charactesconveyedy repetinghe motif hough he m.With a minor chaacte, he motif may be aunninggg hataidseasy dentifiction,swhenonesodern *f,eIlostJ JeoJ 1949) s beencuious aboutwhat a Scotsmanwears unde hisklts andat the endpeelsunde he kits to frndout.For mjo chmcterc,he motif selves o maksignificanstagesof siory action. n *.4Losr rady(1934),he olderman ells Marion hat shemusface ife 'with banners flying,' nd the motifdgfineshis prideandsetsgoa o her.Onceheye mried,,he phasebecomes bond beteenthem.At the film'sclose,after having decidecl otto leavehim, Marion says: Nothing io be afraidof, no moe ghosts- bannesflying ' A similuseof another ine, I can ake it onthe chin,, unsthfough *S/b, Peopre1928)cing the heroine'screr s a movieactess. n aPrnceof Plalers(1954), Junus Booth drlnkenly orders anaudienco wait ten minutesandhe,ll give them'the damnedestKing Lear you ever saw. Thename is Booth ' Ater his son Ned becomesaractor,hecalDts n unuly crowdby pmmising,thedamnedesl ichard ou ever saw.The namp s


16/84

16 Tnr CLASjSICALoLlyivooD syr.4 1917_60Boo^thlWhen, t the film.s end.Ned dcides .openormdespjttr is wifes death.he e4lains, fiename s Btill Booth , The tiny word til, confirmsthat the father's defiant attitude prsists in theson,and Ned hs not changeda bit.Once defined as an individua thmugh tritsand motifs, the character assurnesa caLa roebcuse of his or he desires- Holywoodcharacters.- especialy protagonists.arc goal_oriented. The hem desires somethiDgnew tohts/hrsitualion, or lhe hro seets o estoreanoiginal 6tate of affairs. This o\/es6omething tolat nineteenth-century theate, s seen lnterdinnd Brunetire,sdictum t]L he renlrarlw of the drama is tht of confiict ising fmmobshres to the chacter's desirs That is v/hatmay be called ill, to set up goal,anil to diect_ eveything toward it.tr pliny the sta systemIsosupportcd his tendencyby insistingupon strongly.chaacterized protgoni. Te goatonenLed ero, ncmated in DouglasFairbanks,MryPiford, and-Wil l iam . Harl ,wasqurckly)dentrlied s a distingxihing trait of thcA^mflcaninema. n 1924,a Cermar ritic woreo the Hot,)"/ood haracter s. ihemnofdeeds.rn rhe trsl ct his go is ser; n the lst act heeaches it. Everlthing that iniervenes betweenll:sc t'o acrs. s tst of stengii..r?Throughl y years, h caim genery heldeood. n

: t.h" ,.tt4.i.:hqinKid t1929t,rho h"m resrvesnnrs, n dhood.Lo ip to Alsk, makpa fotunp,and com ck o mary his sweeri . n olthe pol icemnn .Sh Thp Ocropart93?/ ows:'wF rogonna l.h hal O.topus ndget ha[ i f i_yhousand dollar rewad. JJe mmlganlpm{gonisl f in rr.an Rom.,Lcpg44t has oumrng deslr to mnufacturesteel. In ,Myhouot?.Bruner.te1947). h herodclares:Allmy llle I wanted o be a hrd_boiledetective..Theleenagehproineof "CrdgerrI959) statsher aimot attactng a hndsome boy on the beach. It iseByto see_n te goal_orienl.edrol,gonistrenec on o[ n deologf of American indivi_oul|sm and enlerprise, bul it is lhe peculiaraccomplrshmento[ the classicl cinema lotranslat this jdeology into rigomuschaln ofcusend effect. Other charctesget defined by gols.Melooram's ormuls of hero versusvillajn, never toohory fo HollJ.wood, ependsuponue ciash ofopposedpuposes.Even when the oppositiousare

nol. bsolrte,car.ters goals producc causlcruns. Uharactersmay have romplementaryorj:fr":", soals. In rslu?epstahesWinturl,_]l: *"", Jenny comes nlo a bettjng parloraro arurounces,heroal to buy a racehor6e,, woroutsseehowht canserve heir owna rns tohx:r-l, ""q.^:11k" money). n .rndnaporisp"ed] 1939), racedriver'sirtfriend ntso y a omcand amily;h el lshcr that she,l lgtDo[nller he has put his brother throu6l collegeuoals becometent eIeds in the cauial s.ries::l:y sh"ape ur expcttionsby narrowing rheange ol al{,emahveoutromesof the ction,rual(rngpersooal hracle tits and gols hecuses acionshas ed [o a dramatic form filyspecric o Holywood The classical fim has alrest wo tnes f act ion, othcausal ly nnghesmegoupofcharactrs. most nviablr,one0r these ljnes of aclion invov.s heterosexuat:iT:",:".':1" Thrs.s. of course, or starttnsl" y, ,1" one. undreditms n the UDS,nrnetyLive nvolved omnce n at east onc lin('o. aclron, whi le ighty-f ivp mad at thepnnclpal- l ineof actron. crpenplay nuals {rsslove as. h lhem with geareb[ humh appalLnaracle ails arc ofLpnassignedlong gnderrnes,.$ving male and femalpchara"r rhosequrrr los eemedappropnate.to hpir roles nromance.To win the love of a man or wornanDc.omeshp tsoal f many hrctcs n ctassrclms. In thrs emphasis non htrosxulovc,r0rrywood onrinuFsrdrLions temming romrr chrvaln. romace, hc bourgeois ovet,anoaneAmercanmeodrama.We somtimes hink of a play,s scond in ofacLronzs n independenlubplor. uchs a comrrrove nrrbelweefl prvants. lassical o lywoodrlnm, o ever,makes h secondin ot a.t incusltyetated o tle rcmntic.t ion. nstead fp11ng any hamctcrs hroughparl lel rnes lacr0n, hpHol l ] ,ood i lm nvolvescwcharacerstn severa ntc-nlependentctions.For xample,n"ftl,fros? 1933), he protgoni6t ries to solvamurder whre wooing one of the suspects.0melrmes, as in Lhc love_Lringlstory, thesccond lne ol aclionalso nvolvs romance.Morecommonly, the second line of action involvesnolhrsort o[ctivity _ busine"s,spying,spots,poltrcs.,crrme.ho\d usiness_ ,ny u. iu,ty. nsho, which can prode a goal for l.hchracLer.Ln Sarologarl93?,. the protgonisr Duke musl


17/84

n Col fmm her frncHatley and he msthe her grandfather to obtain a successfuracehose.n *SkarnooBil, Jr. (1928),he sonfls in love with the daughter of the townentepreneuwhile tryng to showhis father ththe can savethei steambot ie. aHgh Tme(1960) pesents a middle-aged businessmansetting out to pove that he cangduate romcollegeand faling in love in the pmcess:n hisvaedictory peech, e ooksot at thewomanandsays: If thee's an,'thing man can't achievebyhimsqlf hshouldn't esitate o oin with someoneelse.' he tight binding of thesecondine of actionto the ove interest is one of the most unusuqualities f the classicainema, iving he ilm aviety of actions nd a senseof compehenstvesocia 'elism' that earie drarna achievedthrough the use of paralel, Ioosely etedsubplots. This specific form of unity is welldescribed y Allan Dwan: If I constrrcted storyand I had four chaacters n it, I'd put them downasdotsand f theydidn'thook p nto riangles,fanyof lhemwere eft dangling ut herewithuta signiicant eationship o any of the rest , Iknew had to discrd them bcausehey're adistraction.'r3Psychologica causality, presented throughdefined haracters cting o achieve nnouncedgols,gives he cassicarlm its characteisticprogression.The tllvo lines of actionadvanceschinso cause nd elct.The haditionof thewel-made lay,as reformuatedat the end of thenineteenth centry, survives in Hollywoodscenarists'acdmicnsistenceupon omulas foExposition,Conflict, Compicaion, risis, andDenouement-fhe moe pedanticrulebooksciteIbsen, William Archer, Brander Matthews, rdGustav Feytag. The more homelyadce is tocrcatepoblems hat the chaactesmust sove,show lem trying to solve hem, and end with adefrniteresolution. The conventions f the well-made lay- stmngopening xposition,aftlesofwits, thrusts and counter-tusts, extemeeverssof founes,and rapid denoemeDt arcappear n Hol)'wooddramaturgy, Jdal aedefined n elation to causeand effect.The fimprogssesike a staircse: Each sceneshoudmakea definit mprcssion,accomplishe hing,nd advance the narrative a step Deare theclimax.'rs ction rig8es ecl.ion:ach lephasan effect which in turn becomes newcause.2o+

STORYCAUSLT NDMOTIVTION 1?Chpter6 1 show how the construction f eachscene dvancs ach ine of action, but for row asinge ilm wi stand as an instaDc theoveralldlmmica f causeand effect.aTheBla.h Hand (1949)begins n New YorkLittle Itly in 1900.The Maa mrde a lae'yer,and hisyoungson Gio vo\,vso 6nd the mudees.This becomeshe oveching goal of the frlm.Eight years late, Gio retums from Italy andbegirso investigate.He goes o the hotel wheehis father was kiled and is told that h can findthe night clerk with the helpof the banker Serpi.WhenGio visits Seryi's bank, he meets sablla,and in a prolonged scene sevea goals getarticulated:Gio decaes ht he rvnts to be alawye, she suggests oming a Citizen's Leagueto fight the Black Hand, and a romanticattachment s defined between the coupe. Giocontinues o investigate the nght cle, but hefinds hat the Mafia hve kiled him. The romanceis here a $bsidiy ine of action; the twoprincipaausainesareGiosdrive or revngcand the civic im of driving out the Ma6a. Bthlines are advancedwhen Gio and Isbela orm aCitizen's ,agre.As Gio putE l 'If I haven gotany eads,' makesome.' his itiative spksan immediateeaction: he Maacaptureandbeat Cio, nd the Leagedissoves. he nextMa6aoutrage,he bombing fa shop, lunges iontoan aince ith the policeman oei-Theybring hebombeo tial and Gio'sega ainingtums upvidencehat leads o thebomber'seingdeported.Sine he is also one of the men whokilled Gio's the, Gio is brought stepclose ohis initial goal.The bombels trial causesGio to hit upon anew, legel wy to achieve his goal.He suggeststhat Borelli go to Ity to check on iegalimmigration;, he information rill enable he cityto depo many Mafiosi. In Italy, Boreli findsthat the banke Serpi has a eiminl record. nnothecounterthust, the Mafia kil Boreli -but not befoe he mails Gio th ncriminatingevidence,Fom now on, carseand effect, actionnd reaction,alternate swily- The New Yorkgangkidnaps sabella'sbrother Rudy n orde tosilenceGio; remvedng Rudy ths becomes newsho*-ange goa. Gio discovers vhere Rudy isimprisoned,but he is himself captured-He nowealizs hat Serpi arranged the murder of hisfathe. Serpi'sgang acquire Borelli's documents,


18/84

r8 TIIECLSSICAI,{ollr'trooDsTyLE, 9170but before heycn dstroy hem,Gio mngsotouch off a bomb n thei hideout.In the melee,Gio fights th Seryi and rccovers he evidence.At the filn1's end, Gio has achievedboth hispersonal oaland hemmmuty'sgoa_ hiswasaccomplishedhough a seriesof causallyinkedshot-term goals (aw studies,Citizen,s ,ague,immigration investigation,kidnapping) hat grewout of severalmutulydependentinesofaction.This processs at work n virtuly everyclssicnartive fim.*TheBIa Hand.exemplifies owthe cassicastory constiutes segmentof a lrge cause,efectchain.The beginniDg, s ChapterB wilshow, ntoducess to an ahedy-mongctionwhich has first cause,a distant but specifiedsource.Gio'sTathers killed becausee wanrs odivrlge is knowedgef theMafia o thepolice.)\{hat ofthe end? heending s,mostsimply,heast effect.t tooshould ejustifred usally- rescreenplaymanual asks about the charactersi'\&hat s heirmentalattitude n thebeginning fth story? Just what tlaits are responsibeotheir stmggleand conflic{?How dothese raits ofchracter^_d to the soving of the potpobem?''?|ust as the scene fre of the well,msd pay shows the hero tiumphiB overobstacles,he classica ol1woodim hasa ,bigscpnp -herc attFrs rcsetLIdefinitely ncc nd

toral l 'zzn tlhe Blaeh ard, he omanceinp faction s hardly n doubt;he stmomentsimplyceebratehe couple's nion. The samethinghappensn the ast woshots f*t Srord,s oirrt(1952): 1)The musketeels,avingrestoedhemonchy, hout,Long ive the King '; 2)Careand D'Artagnanembrace.n other films, suchasHi Girl Fridalt (1939),he romncene of ctionis unresolveduntil the film's last moments. neither case, heendingneednotbe happy'; t needonybe a definitc onclusiono the chainof cuseand eff.ct.Ths movement uom cause to eect, in thesevice of overchinggos,partly expaiswhyHollywood opizescontinuity.Coincidencendhaphazardlyinkedevents ebelievedo aw thefilm's unity and dsturb the spectator.Tightcausaity yields not only consequenceulcontinuity, making the film progess smoothleasily,with no js, no waits, no deay6.,23gowing bsoptionalso issues rom the stedilyintensifying charactercausality,s the spectamr

recails alientcusesndanLicipas ore r lesslrkly l lcts. heending ecomeshe cutminatioDofthe spclal,ojisbsorption,sall lhe causagapsget filed.The fundmenl.lleniludeandinearjty of Hol],.t,voodarrtjvecuminare nmetaphorsf Lnitting. inking,and filing.LewisnernaneloquenUyums p thisestheticCaemustbe aken hatevery ole s pluggpd;[naD very oose tring stied ogeLher;thatevery.entance ndexit sfullymotivated.ndtnat heyare notmdeorsome boushcontived esoq that everycoinc,idencessncientlymotivatd o make t credible; atthee s noconflictbt\peen hathaseoneonbcfore. hat sgoing ncurren y, anwharwilhappenn [he uture;hat here scompleteconsistency etween reseDt ialoguendpastaction that nobaffiing questionarks are etoveat the endofthe picture o detract fomtheaudiencet pprecitionf t.What woud nrtive cinema withoutpersonlizedausatiorbe like? We have sorieexmpesin MiksJancs, zu,RobetBesson,Soet frlmsof the 1920s),ut we can frnd r.rr.ners.ErichVonStroheirn,s reed.0924)hows hat Naturaist ausal chemes ncompatibevith heclassicalmodel: he charactersannotachievetheirgoas, ndcausaitys n thehands f nrueand nol pcople Frum anolhernglF. Brecht-umnatrons upon Aistotelin damatugysuggest hat causlity coudbe taken out of thepowerof the individual chaacter.The attenrronand nterestthat the spectator rings to cusalitymust be diected iowad the law goveming memovementsf the msses.,2st is alsopossibleoview Beeht's theoes s leading toward ana$ative ,arhichntemrptstheactionto representarl ionshct mighthave appened,hus evalinglhe determinism hat underlies sychologicallymotvatd ausality n the cassical arr,rl,ive.26Evenwhenpersonalcausationemainscentral toa film, however.here s still l,hepossibilityofming it moe ambigxous nd less lrnear;charactersmai lack clear


19/84

MotivationUnderstandingassical torycusaityakesustowardgraspingowa cassicalm unifiestself.Genenly speaking,his unity is a mtter ofmoriotion..Motivations the prmess y whichrrative ustifies ts story matei d epot,spresentationof tht stoy matedal. If the frmdepicts fiashback,he umpback n time canbeattributed to a chacte's memory; the act ofrememberjnghusmoivaleshe lashbckMo[ivationmy be of severa ots.z? ne iscompositanal:ertaineementsmustbepresent fthe story is to pmceed_ story involng a theftrequires causeor the theft andan objecto bestolen. The classica ausI factorswe haveeviewed onstitte ompositionl otivaron.secondsort of motivation is reolrsticmotvation.Manynrative elementsejustifiedongoundsof verisimilitude.n a frlm set in ninetnth-CenLuy.ondon.he ss1s,p1ata,costumes,tc.wil typicaly emotivatedeaisticaly. eaisticmotivationextends o what we wil considerpausiblebout the nanadiveaction: n *eBlcF1ond, jo'squest or rcvenges presentedas'relistc,'givenhjs personity nd crcum-stances. Thirdy, we cn identfy ntertextLatmotivation.He.e the stoy (o the pot's epre-sentation f it) is stifredon the gounds f theconventionsf certincasses f art works.Forexample,wec.1en ssume hat a Ho1"woodimwlcndhappilv impy .cau"cr isa Holywoodfilm. The star can aso supply intertextualmotivation:f MrleneDietrich s in the ilm, wecn xpccthat a som ojntshewil l singacabet song.The moit commonsort of rnter-textua motivation is genefic. Spontaneoussinging in film musical may have littecompositional realistcmotivation,but it is

justifred by the conventions f the genre.23hreis, finally, a rat specia6ot of motivation,arttstt:motuatinn,which I shal discussater.It shorldbe edent that sevel lTes ofmolivrion ycoopteo JUst_ifyny givenitem in th nnative. The flashbackcould bemotivted compositionally (gtving us essentialstoy iorntion), realisticaly (proceedingloma chacter's memory), nd intertextually(occuning in a certin kind of frlm, say a 1940s'woman'smelodrama').Gio'ssearch or reveuges

STORYAUSAUTYNDMMIVTION 19ikewise ustified as compositionllyecessary,psychologicIyplausible, and genericalyconventionl-Multipe motivation is ore of themost charactristicqaysthat the classica ilmunifiestseeTheHol\'wood ilm uses ompositonalotiva-tion osecurea bsic coherence.Compositionamotivtion is fumished by all the pinciples ocausality I have rcady mentioned - psycho-logicq traits, go orienttion, romance,and soon.Realisticmotivtion tjTicaly cooperateswiththe compositionasort. When Fatso alludes toMaggioas Guysike you,' he film appeals o theadience'sense f a cultuallycodilied }?e. AtcerDn moments, eafutic motivatiol carroverride nslmotivation.n T-Men ( g4g),aTteasury agent passing counteeit. money lstrappedbecuse ne conterfeiter ecognizeshebill as the work o a man in jail. This iscoincidental, ut the film's semidocumentypmoguemotivates his as rcisticr t talyhappened'n the caseponwhichthe fim wasmodeled.More commonly, compositionamotvtonoutweighsealistic motivation. rard Genetthasexplainedhat in poetcshclassiclheoryof he vrasemblableeperdspona distinctionbetweenhings s they are and things as theyshoulddealy e;ony he ttcrare6t for a isicimittion-2en Hoywoodnema, erisimiitudetrsually supportscomposition otivation bymkng he chain o causaity eemplausibe_Reaism, ritesonescenarists' anua, eists inthe photoplay merely as an auxiliary tosignificance not asan objectn itseifl,3orancesMarion caims that the strongest illsion ofeaity comes rom tight crsamotivation: ,Inode that the motion picture my convey theillusion of rcality that audinces emand, hescenaiowiter stessesmotivation , tat is, hemakes cea a chmcte,s eason fo doigwhatevehe does hat is important.rClassieaHollr'wood arrative thusoften uses eaismas analibi, a supplementaryustifiction for matealaledy motivated causaly. When th pnoto-grapher-heroof Feor l{rinlow (1954) s ttackd,he uses fiashbulbs to dazzlethe intnrder: theealistic motivtion (a photographerwould'natualy' think of flshbulbs) einfoces thecusalorre hemstdelay he attcker somehow).Or, as Hitchcock put it 'It's really a matter of


20/84

20 THE CLSSICAI-HOLLI'WOODSL1E, 191?-60utiling you mateial to the frIest damaticertent,'32htertertal, particularly generic,motivatoncan also occasionally un afou of compositionmotivation. If Marlene Dietrich is expected osing, he song can be moe o less causlymotivatd. I Bsby Bekeley's musicals, thestory action ginds to hat when lvishnusicalnumber akes over.The meodama enreoften fiouts causal logic and relies shamelesupon coincidence.n +Mr. Sheffrngton1944), orinstnce,FannyndGeorgewatch a wa newseelald just happen to see her lost bother in it.Comedyuatifreseven a noniegetic commentay,suchasthe drawing of an egg used o symboizethe failedshowin Thz Band.WogonO953).Yetobviously such operations do not radicallydisuifythe films, since each genre creates tsovrn ues,and lhe sPectatoudgesny givneemeDtn the light of its appropriatenessogenericconventions,On the x'hoe, gene c motvtion coopeateswith carsal,o compositionI,unity. GeDesaein one respectcertain kinds of stoies, endowedth l,heir own particular logi. Lht does nol'contestpsychologiccasality o goal-orient-tion. ('IheWesternerseeks evenge, he gangsterhero seekspower and success, h chons girworks or the big beak.) Multiple motivtioncausalogc einforced y generic onvention sgain normal operatingpocedure.A simpeexample from the histoy o Holly-wood lighting shows how compicated theinterpayof various kinds of otivation cn be.Lighting was of course strongly motivatedmmpositionally: saient causal factors - thecharactels- had to be clealy visible, whieminor elements e-9., he ear 'als f a set)hadt be essprominent. As usua, his compositionalneedoveroderealism,' so that i8ht souceswereoftennot ustified reaisticaly.iExamplesof suchunealistic ighiing \'ould be the edge ighting ofguresor day-for-night shooting.)But aftr themid-1920s,ighting was coded eneiclyas weI.Comedywas lit trigh-kd (that is, with a hightio of keypus6lI ight t fill light alone),whiehorror and crime 6lrns wre lit 'low-key.'33 'relatter pactrce was consideedmorc tealistic,'sinceone could ustify harsh lowkey lighting ascoming rom visible sources n the scene e.g-,alamp or candle). By meals of this generie

associationwith 'reaism,' frlmmaers began oapply low-key lighting to other genes-Sik'6melodraDs f the 1950sare sometimesit in asombe ow key, ivhie Billy Witde's l,ore in teAfcrnton (1957,elrctedconment or using low-key lighting for a comedy.3ahus the ppeal otealism' changed omegeneicconventios.Specifyjnghese hee rypeso[ motivationancaify 6ome muky naative issues id thecassicacinema. For exampe, overtly psycho,theapeutic films of the 1940s might seem'unclassicl' in that they pesent inmnsistentchacte ction. The neuotic and psychoticchaactes of Shadaa of a Doubt (19431,ThELodger (1944\, Spe bound (\945), Ttu Locket\1946t, et 1., would-seem evidence or lessline,morecomplexelationbetweenmind andbehavior han that opeting in earlier cssicfilms. In his nalysisof'Feudian' fimsol thepeiod, he &ench ctic Mac Vernethasshownthat such lms nonethe less espcted lasscadramaturgy.3sWe can subsumehis explanationsto the types of motivation we hve aeadyconsidercd.First, psychonalj'ticexpanations f' chaacter behvio were motivated as a new'ealism,' a scientifrcally justified psychoogy.(Thatsucha teism' was tsef a vgarizationoFreudian conceptsdoes not ffect its sttus sverisimilitudeor the period.)Secondly,ertainaspects f psychoanalysisitted genericmodels.Holywood ilms stessedhe cathrtic methodofpsychoanalyss not important fo Feud afte1890) ecusefits anaogyo conventionslthemystery film. The doctois qustioning reclspolice interrogations (the patient as witness ocook who woDt talk). L:ike the detective, hedoeto must reveal the secret (the tuma) andextct heconfession.necouldadd o Vemetsaccount that the subjective ponts of view andexFessionisticdistoions in many of thse ilmsaso hark back to genecaly codified reatmentsof madness n the cinema of the 1920s.Mostimportant,the nrlgarizedpsychoanalltrcconceptsin the fims o the 1940srespected he c.salunity equied by compositional motivation. InThe lnchet, Shudou of a Doubt, Guast n theHouse (1944\, Speltbound.,Citian Kene (1941),and others, e chidhoodauma functionsas hefist cau6e in what Vemet calls 'a ineardeteminismof chidhood i6tory.'36 his is not tosay that such. fims do not po6e impoant


21/84

soul,'

rrrtive problems. t weneed o ecognizehtHollyrvood'suse of Freudian psychologywashighly sective and distorting, hirnming andthinning psychoanlyticonceptso fit an xistingmodel of clear chaacteizatonand causality.This can be seen in &ings Rou (1942),whichovetly thematizespsychoanalysis s a acrence(the protagonistgoeso Vienn study is newdiscipline)and yet ends ith chorussinging, Iam the masterofmy fate, I amthe captainof my

SIORYCAUSUTY NDMOTIVATTON Imuch to cameramen as to Fed Astaire, BusteKeaton, or Sonja Henje.3s n the silent cinema,complex and daring lighting effects; in the soundcinema, depth of 6ed nd byzantine cameamovements; n all peiods, exploitation of specialeects - all testify to a psit of virtuosity foits om sake,even f only discening minority ofviewers might take notice. During the 1940s, foexampe,here was something ofa competition osee holv compicated and engihy the cinemtogaph coud mke his tcking shols.a0 Thisimpusecan be seennot only in famouslms likeope (1948) ut also n vey minor fims th onestiking shot, such as *Coso (1948), at theelimax of rdhich the came smoothly follo/s thehero, moves down an airyort crowd, picks up theheoine (fig 2.1), foows her nio the pane (figs2.2 o 2.4),and settlesdown besideher seat,whilethe heo gets arrested outside (fig 2.5). Ii isprobable that such casua splendors offered by thHolywood film owe a get deal to its mixedpaentge in vadeville, meodram, and othespectcle{entered ntertainments. Nevertheless,digessionsnd llshes of virtuosity emain forthe most part mtivated by narrtive causality(the Casoexample) o genre (pagentry in thehstorica fin, costume in ihe rnusica). Ifspeclacles not so molrvalcd, ls function asartistic motivation wil be isolated and iter-mittent.Atistic notivation can emphsize h altifr'cialty of other rt woks; this is usulyaccomplished through the venerabe practice ofpaody. Hol)'wood has, of course, neve shnkliom parody. n nim{rl Croc?rs 1930),GouchoMarx shows up the solioquys in StraageInterlud,e, while Helizapoppn (1941), Olsonand Johnsonmock Kdne Rosebud led. In *M1Fawte Brpnette (194?), Ronne Johnson telsSam McCoudhe wants to be a tough detectiveike AIan Ladd;McCloud s payedby Aan Ladd.Parody need not ways be so clearly comic. Atthe climax o ?ie Strrdo Murd.er Mrtery (1929),the Hollywood montage sequence is parodiedwhen the dircctor explains at gunpoint v/hat wihappenafter he kils Tony: 'Quick fade out. Next,headlines in the morning papers.' The foo/ingexchange from The Locket (1946) parodies theaready mannered conventios of the psycho-n\"tic film of the 1940s. The doctols fe hasjust retumed from a movie.

I have aready suggstedhat compositional,generic,and ealisaic motivtion do not lwayswork in perfectunison,and sha examinesomet]lica dissonancesn Chapter . But thesearcexcepton.Nomay, ny eementof a classicafrm is justi6ed in one or more of theeway6.1{hen t is not, it my be subs-mableo yetanother sort of motivation, one usualy (ifawkwardly) called 'artistiC motivation-By thisterm, RussianFomlist criticsmeant o pointoutthat componentmaybeustifredby its power ocal attenton to the systm within which itoprates.This in tun presupposeshat caingttntion t a work'soin artfulness s oneaim ofmany a'tistic traditions - a presuppositionhatchallengeshe nofion hat Holywoodreates n'invisibe' o'trrsprent' epesentatronalregime.Within specificimits,Holywoodimsdondeed mpoy rtisticmotivationn oe, as heFormistswoudput it, t0 makepalpbleheconventionaityf art.37Hollywoodhas eageryemployed pectacle ndtechnica virtuosity as means of rtisticmotivation.Sho\rman6hip'onsistso a mnsider-abeextentof mking the udience ppreciateheriifrciaity of what is seen.Ea tlkies wereespecialy rone o sp n a song or the sightestreasons. distant histoicalperiodoftenserves s petext for pageanty, eowd scenes,andasciviousdancing. Hoywood oducersallottedtime and mony o reate esponsesuehas thattriggered by the costumesn The GrcotZiegfeLd(1936):The designernd the producer f thepicture felt tht the erTenditue was more njustifred when the first ppeance of thecostues bmught exclamtionsof deight fromthe audience.'33'lgrant technical virtuosity cn socontribte o spectace.WhatParker I er caledHolll.wood'snarcissism f energy' ppliess


22/84

22 TIIECLSSICLOLLYWOODTYLE,91?-6{Nancy: hada wonderfuime. 'm lgoosepimples-.Dr Blair: A meodrama?Nancy:Yes, t wsghastly.You ought o seet,Henry.It's abouta schizophrenic hokillshis wife nddoesn't now tDr Bat (lsughing)i 'm afid that woudn'tbemuchof a treat for me.Nncy:That'swheeyoute wrong.You'dneverguesshow t turns out. Nowit may notbesoundpsychoogically,ut the wife's athe sone fthe. .Dr Bair:Darling, oyoumind?Youcan ellmeater.When an at wok uses artistic motivtiontocll ttention to its own paticular pineiplesof

constructon,heprocesss called aying bare hedece.'a*Holll'wood ilrns oten flaunt aspects ftheir own working in ths way.a2n AnqetOerroodu,ay 1940),a drunken pywight agees ohelpa sicidallyncinedmangetmoney nd husto 'ewte' th man's last act.' The plr.wrightthen ooksout at the audience nd saysmusingly:'Our presentpot problem s money:' n vonStroheim's FoosWiues 1922),the susceptibleMrs Hughes eadsa book,Foolis,L Vrues, y oneErich von Stroheim. n Hs GirI Frl.aj J939],, sWaltestarts ast-taking idy intostayingwitlthe nwspaper, he begins o mimic a uctioneeJspattel tis not ony mocks Waterbutforegounds speechhythm as a centa devrcemthe filn. The show-businessmilieux of themusca ilm make t especially ikey to bare tsdevices. re 'You were meant fo me' number nSingn' n thz Ran (1952) howsDon tockwoodstginghis own spontaneousongl he wy hesetsup romantic ighting,mist, and backdropsallsattention to the conventionastaging of suchsongs.An evenmore lagnt taing of this deviceoccus n 'Somewherehere's a someone'n SroIIs Born (1954),Cssical ils are especially ikely to bare hecntral p nciple of causa lineaity- L *OneTouchof Nature(191'71,hen he hero succeeossa bseball payer, an expository title dryyemarks: In the couse humnevents,we comeogiclly o thedeeidinggameof a Woldt Series.,In 'The Miraclc Wonrn {l93tr, a despairinglwiter is about o comitscidcbecuse,angeceiveda rejectionslip from ZieglerCompany,e

eclans: fve bied therna lmm to Z. Whatcome6fte Z?' He hers an evangeli6t's adiobroadcastand resolveso try againt What comesalter Z? A ' *A 'Ioman of the yorld. (1925),contansan arnusing image of the story,s o\,nurwinding.Neathebeginningofthe frlm, two oldwomen iLoD orch ockes ossipingndknittitrg,wln thelr baltsol yn smaller ach imc weseethm. A the film's end, e cDerashows techismcking, nowempty,and heyam a gone.Hollywood'suse of arfistic motivation rmDts considerablelertnesso he vicwer:n orer oappreciatecertain moments, nemustknow andemembeanothefilm'sstory,o star's habitualrole, o a 6tndadtedrnique-To someexrenLatistic motivation develops connoisselshipntheclassicalspectato. et mostatistic tralitiorsshowoff their fomal spcificityn someway. Wemust ask what limits classical inema mru$esonafistic motivation. Generaly,momentsof pureatistic otivation se raie and brief in classicalfims.Compositionalmotivation eavsitte roomfo it, while gneicmotivationtenrlsto accountfo _mnylagrant stances.ndeed, ring thdevrcc asbecomenost onvenlionln certamgenres.Comedies remore ikely to contnsucho/rp scnss haL n f e Rood oUtopn t1g4bt,in whichBingCrosby ndBobHop.,.rr5l,;n*crosshe Alaskanwilds,see he paramont oeoin thedisl,nce.ikewise,hemelodramas likeyio ronlina shor ike hat n Ttu Founrarnheo(1949),n which wochacterstandat opposDeedgesof the lrame (fig 2.6) whie the womanasses:This is not atie but agrfbetweenus.' InHsGrl Firlay,W aletcandescibeBuce(RalDhB.l lamji as ookingike RlphBpuamy. ut inSunris. ot Canpobcllo tg60r, no on noticesFDR'sresemblanceo the sameacto.Preston Stuge6's*Sin of Harold,Did.Iebock(1947) permts - us to watch compositionlmotivtion tke artistic motivation fiImly rnhand.The opening cene f r,heilm is sileni andis announcedto be fom Harotd Llovdt ?zFreshman.B this faily ove.treminder of thewok's conventionity i undemined by thecove inselio; o ots Dot fiom the orisinalfi.|m.These nterposedhots. llmedby Sluiges,show.businessnanatrhing he fool,ball ame.lhe busDessmns mmpositionllyeceb$ary,sincehewi offer lrolda ob n the next srene,but remotivatingThe Freshmans pening lo


23/84

ceate shoothcaus in betweenhe t1,oilmstorcs down he silent segment's istinct,plplyconventionaquaities.1reclassical inema, hen, doesnot serthticmotivation constDtly llmugh the m, as Orudoesh An AutumnAfternoorL1962)o sSrgei

SIORY CUS,{LTTY ND MOTIVI'ION 23Eisensteindoes n Ieun thz Terrible(1945\.tt lo.snotbare ts dces epetedlyand systematiclly,asMichaelSnowdoes n La rgion centmlc 196?)o Jn-LucCodaddoes Lgo.uveui peu.tkt uz)(1980).Compositionalmotivation fo the skeofstory cau6ality emains dominant.


24/84

Classicalarration

A fim's story does not simply shine foth; asviwers,we constructt on the basis f the plot,the materia actually before us. he cassicalguidelines for this construction are thosepdncipesof causality and motivt ionalreadysketchd ut in Chapter2. A frn's lot usualymkes those guideinesappicabe y trans-mitting sty infomation.This aspect f pot I6hallcall ndrrdrton.Holywood'swn discouse ssought o imitnrationo hmnipull ion[ h.mpr,s nJohn Cromwe's emark that, he mosteIectivewayof telinga storyon the screens to use hqcameraas the stoy,teler.'lAnd the cassicfilm'snanation tself ncouragess to see t aspesentingn apparenlysoid fictionawordwhich has simply been fimedfor our benefit.AndrBazindescribeshe cssicaim sbeinglike aphotogtapheday; hestoryevenis eemoexistobjectivey, hile he camereemso do nomore hal giveus the best viewandemphasizethe ight things.u ut narrationcan n facrorawuponany film technique s ongas he echniquecan transmit stoy infomation_Convesations,figureposition,acaexpressions,ndwel-timedencounteseteen haractersl functionjust snarratonally s do cameramovements,uts,orbumtsof music.Fom this standpoint, assical arration alsunder the jurisdiction of al the types ofmotivation lredysrveyed-n a classcalim,narrtion s motivated ompositionaly;t worksto constucthe story n specific ays.Nanationmay also be motivated geneicaly, s wnenperformers in a musica sing diectly to thespctatoor whena mystery filn v'ithhodssomecr1cilstory informtion. Nanation is lessoenmotivated'realisticly,' lthough he voice-overcommenfry in semidocumentry iction fiImsmight nsist hat the storyaction sbasedn fct.

rtisticay motivated narration s very rre incassicl iImsand neveroccus n a purestate. Anon-classical irector like Jean-LucGodard can'lay bare' a film's narrational princpes,as doesthe beginning f Tout Daben 1972),n whichnonymousoices ay th altemativewaysofopening the fim, hifing cast and cew, ndfinancing the film. But {,hn a cassical 61mwants o cal ttntion o the bapability'of itsnaration,t mustcrete contexthat motivatesbaring th deviceby oter means as we- Forinstance,n sceneafter steneof *Tfu Man WhoLaughs (19281, he ;aration conceasGwyn,.plane's deformed mouth from us {by veis,stBtegicaly lced umiture, etc.).But in onescene,he narratiorays be his verypttem-Dinghisstage ct,Gwynplaineooks ut at usand delbemteyevealshis deformity; hen aclowr n his act sowy ovels t gan. he shotthussragesheact of revelation ndconcealrnentthat hasbeencental to thenarraton houghout.However, his bring of the devic s patymotivated y reaism(Gwynplaines on stsge,revelinghis defomity o an udienen thefiction) and by causal necssty for the story topruceed, woman n the udiencemust seehismouth nd take pity upon him)- We encounteagin th familia multipe motivationof thecassicaext.We coud ollow olywood'seadnd simpylabel such ca.efuly motivated narrtion'invisible.' olywood'sride n conceledtisryimplies that naation is impeceptibleandunoblrusive.di i ingmustbeseamless,amera-work 'subodinated o the luid thought of thedrmticaction.'3Some heoristshavecalled theclssicastyle transparent and illusionist, whatNol Burchhas called the zero-degeelyle oflming.'{ his s to say hat classicalechniquesusually motivatedeompositionly. he chain of


25/84

cuse nd eectdennis hat weseea coe-upfa importntobjector that we follow characteinto a room.'lvisible' may suficeas a oughdescriptionofhow itte mosi viewe$ notice echnique,but itdoesnotgetus vey far if wewant to analjz howcl,ssicaliltrs work. Suchconcpfslay down hecorstructednatur of the style; transparenteIectdoesnotencouage s to pobebeneth tssmooth surlace. The term is also imprecrse_'Invisibiity' can refer to ho$rmuch e nartontels us,upon what authority it knowso tells, orin what way it els. tange of dierentpmblems of narration i5 packed into ths'invisibility.'How:.then o chctezecassicalnarration?Meir Sternberyhasput foth a cler theoy thatwill prove useful.s Stenberg suggests thatnaration (o the narrato) cnbe chaacterizedong hree specta.6A nrration s moe or lessself-colJcious:hat is, to ageto esserdegeit dispays ts recogition that it is pesentinginformation to an udience.Call me Ishmae'maks he nanato asquiteself,conscious,sdoesa chaacter'saside to the audience n anElizabethan lay. A novelwhichempoys diists narrtor s fr ess ef-conscious.econdly,rrrtion is moe or lss knowledgeablz.Theomniscientpeker f Vanl Fair rcvels n hisinmenseknowedge,whie the correspondntsnn epistof' nove know much ess.As theseexampessuggest, the most eommonway oflimiting a darrto's knowledges by making aparticular character he nnator. Ths the lssueof knowledge nvovespoint-olview. Thirdly, anamation s-moe o sscommrrnicafie.hgterm refers to how willing fhe nartion is toshare ts knov.ledge.A diarist might know ittlebt tl all, while n oniscient narator likeHenry Fieding's in Tom Jonesmay suppressagreatdel of inforrtion.Someof Becht'splaysusepojectditles vrhichprcdict heoutcomeof ascene'saction: this is ess suppressive han anormal ay'snaaLion, hich ends minimizpits ownomniscience.TStemberg'shreescales nbesummaizedn aseiesofqustions.How aware s the naration oaddre6sing he audience?Hov much does thenaation know? How willing is the narratlon rotell usrvhat it knows?Stemberg's ategorieshelp usanalyzecassica

CTSSCL RMTION 25&ration quite prccisely. n the cassirarlm,thenration is oDniscient, bt it ts thatomniscience ome owad moe t somepointsthan t others. These luctutinsae systematic.In th openingpassages l the film, the narrationis moderatey sf-conscious and oyertlysuppressive. s the film poceds,he arratronbecomes ess sef-consciousatd morc cotrmuncative.The exceptios o .these endenciesarealsostricty codified.The endof the film mayquicky essd the naation's omnsciercendelf-consciosness.The modestnarrionClassical narration usually begins before theactiondoes.Ti:ue, hecreditsseqrenceanbe seenasa.realm f grzphirpdy, n opening hich srelatvely oppn Lo non-narrfion lmenls.{Certainyt is in credits.sequencesht abstactcinema has had its nost significant inflnceupon the classicstyle.) Yet the .a6sicalHolywoodlm typcalyuses he ceditssequenceto initiate the film's nration. Even hse orty toninetyseconds nnotbe wasted.Fuhernrre, rnihesemoments he naration is sef,consciouso ahigh degree.Musical ccompanimentlredysignalsthe presence f this nntion, and otenmusicalmotifs n this overlurewill recu n thefim proper. he ,ilewill mostprobaby ameordescribehe main character .Mrceyl981,*Gidaet Ir959l, *Kne of the Rodeo 1s28\ orindicate the nture of the ction (+GoingHghbrow l933l, *npdct [1949]). f not, the titlecansuggest he ocaleof the actiJ\ *AiLuentureIstandI1947l, Wutheringers 19390, morifn the film (*pplazse t929], +Batnlahatt939l,o the time ofthe action(+TheNight Hol.dsTerroru9551).The credts that ist the cast maynfocehe ite (e.g., TheKnEand. haChnrusGr[ 11937],starring Fernand Gravet and JoanBlondell),but they v..il certainly introduceefi m'snanative hieachy. Protagodst,secondaryprotagonisl,opponenLs. nd other majorcharacteswill be denotedby the order,size, andtlme onscenof vaous acto6' name.Somefilms strcngthenthis linkage by ddingshob ofthechaactes o thecedits, n whichthe amountof the sereen surface character is alotteiindicates the chaacter,s impoarce (fig 3.1).


26/84

26 TECLASSICAT,iOLLl'tVOODTyLO, 91?0(Compare he flattening effect of sedits whichmake no distinction among mjo actors ndwak-onprts, such asthe 'deinocatic'ceditsofJ-Maie Staub and DanileHuilets NorRemnciled.11964l.)Even the studio logo, theMGM lion or the Paramountmomtain,has benanalyzedasa narrationlhansition.s Thecreditsae thus highly self-conscious, erplicityaddressedo te audience.In the sientpeiod, mny ils wentno furtherthan tese cues, laying he credit sequencegainst black bdckgoundsor a stanrdizeddesigr(e.g.,cutains,pllas, or pictue frames).Somecredits sequences,oweve,used art tites'whose designs depicted signicant narativeelements.Wilim S. Ht's *ffu Narow Tral(1917),o. instance, isplysts oedts againstpaintingof a stagecoachodup.By the 1920s,6uchart titles weemmmonlyused or exposition(see fig 3.2). Lettering could aso indicte thepeiodor setting of the story, prcticepmbbyinfluenced by playbills and illustated books:narration renderedas lpography. In the 1920s,$dits sequncemight ppar over lovrrgimages e.g., Merry-Go-Round.[1923])or fi;g1,1be animated e.g., ltu SpeedSpoohI1?/.I). Tyrcsound cinema canonizedhis stylized ,narrativ-ization'of the creditssequence,ssigning arangeof iunctions.The credits cananticipatea motif to appernthe storyproper. n *Wonn of the World \1925),he pmtagonisfsscandalousattoo is pesenred san abshact design under the credits; in +ffuBlach Hand (1950),a stietto foms the back-gTound o the titles. Cedits' imagery can asoestahlish he spce f the upcomingaction,as oothe snowy i trees n *Th.eMichigon Kd, ,]'g2B)or the city view in *Cdso1948).Creditsofunfleunt the narrationt omniscience nd tatalizeus 'itr glimpsesoI ction to come.As early as*The Royal Pauper (1917),$/e find the Feditssummzing the rags,to-richesstoy action bydissoving tom a shot of the st, dressedas apoo girl, to a shot of her werineexDensivclothes.Thierry Kuntzel hs sho how rneopningcet sequence f ?lre Most DongerousGome1932), shotofa handknocking t a door,stgesn important gestureof the eruuing filrnand articipatesseveralmotifs in the settingandaction. hecredits equencef BringingUp Baby(1938rpresnts ticl.-figur.man, wan, and

leopard ngagedn sctjonshat will eppearnthe film; *SrreepsfalesWrrnar(1939)emplo,.shesamrstrategy(see ig 3.9).As Knt?l potnBou[,such sequencesre explicitly nrrl.ionl:heunknownhandknoing aL he doocnonly bthe viewe's, givingan dealized epesenttionofthe ewe/s entry into the fim.s Such overtaddess o the spectator an sobe seen n thosestil-life coEpositionsof book pges or albumleavesumedby unktown andse.q..ppnorsetl933l, Eary to Looh At lLsasl. -ptal Gntl94ll). In the postwar eriod, ireci addressncedits sequnces oud aso be aJcompisheilthrough a voice-ove aator. In suchways,mecedits sequence launts both the narration,omniscience nd its ability to suppesswhateverit tikesLike credits, heearlysrenes fthe acton anreval he naation quitebodly.Bfoe1925, hefilm.mightopcnwithasymboic rologue. ockedDy rroosnct tjmrsonas .vis;onaryscenes fHeavenrHell .oftheFates eavingumanivesin their web.I0 Se,or example.ig 0.4, oirTheDcuil Bai tgl?l.rMoreofren,i tent i tmssmpyusedexpositoryites o anounchesaint eaturesof thenration.I the soundea,oiher lm techniquesake on this oe oftoregoundinB he nrration. Afte the credits,*Pannersin Crime 1928)evealsa city andscapeand an inte-title, 'Gangstesand Gun War _ ACilySkepedn Crime see gJ b,.Suddnlyhetltlp shatl^rs s hands holding guns beakthmu8hto 6re directlyat the audienceip frgs3.6 and3.7).At th

bordwell-the classical hollywood cinema

Documents