The Best Books About Film

[domino harvey]

Can anyone recommend some works that discuss at-length the Catholic League of Decency's influence on and rating system of classical Hollywood cinema?

[Matt]

Can anyone recommend some works that discuss at-length the Catholic League of Decency's influence on and rating system of classical Hollywood cinema?

I have not read them, but Gregory D. Black's books on film censorship are focused on the Legion of Decency and are highly regarded:

Hollywood Censored: Morality Codes, Catholics, and the Movies
The Catholic Crusade Against the Movies, 1940-1975

There are limited previews of each on Google Books: Hollywood Censored, Catholic Crusade

[domino harvey]

Those look great! Love the Amazon comments on the second book too. Thanks Matt

[tojoed]

I have Donald Richie's 100 Years of Japanese Film, which I like a lot. Can anyone recommend any of his other books on Japanese film or film directors? Thanks.

[der_Artur]

Of Richie's books "Japanese Film: Art and Industry" still is the best Book about the history of Japanese Film I have read. Unfortunately it ends with the beginning of the 1960s, so you have to switch over to Desser's "Eros plus Massacre" for the great Japanese New Wave. Can anyone recommend any other book on the "Noberu Bagu"?

[MichaelB]

Those look great! Love the Amazon comments on the second book too. Thanks Matt

I'll need to check with her, but I'm pretty sure I gave my mum the second book as a birthday present - she's a (very) lapsed Catholic who was born in 1939, so I thought it might strike a chord. I only dipped into it, but it seems to be exactly the kind of thing you're after - and she seemed to like it a lot.

Then again, since she's prepared to tolerate a daughter-in-law studying at Berkeley, which I now realise is a breeding ground of socialism, her opinion must be suspect in the extreme.

[der_Artur]

It seems to me that the distinction between "Art House" or "Art Film" and "Mainstream Cinema" is still a standard fare today. But where does this distinction come from, and are there any standard definitions when a film is the one or the other? The Wikipedia article cites no real academic resources that define the term. Are there any articles that try to define the ubiquitous term of "Art House"? Or even better, texts that trace the discourse of what is regarded as "Sophisticated Art Film" in contrast to "Mainstream Entertainment"?

(I know, this sounds like a noob-question, but bear in mind that I am not a film, but an economics student… )

[JonathanM]

Those look great! Love the Amazon comments on the second book too. Thanks Matt

*goes to have a look*

The Legion of Decency labeled the mixing of races as part of the Communist conspiracy, in accord with the personal views of Cardinals McIntyre and Spellman; Spellman, like Sen. McCarthy, a closet homosexual

I think that's what you call a character assassination.

[Jean-Luc Garbo]

It seems to me that the distinction between "Art House" or "Art Film" and "Mainstream Cinema" is still a standard fare today. But where does this distinction come from, and are there any standard definitions when a film is the one or the other? The Wikipedia article cites no real academic resources that define the term. Are there any articles that try to define the ubiquitous term of "Art House"? Or even better, texts that trace the discourse of what is regarded as "Sophisticated Art Film" in contrast to "Mainstream Entertainment"?

You should read Artists in the Audience: Cults, Camp, and American Film Criticism by Greg Taylor. He traces the use of those terms by way of how critics (e.g. Parker Tyler, Manny Farber, and Kael) have used them. It's a great book and it may answer your questions. The discussion of camp is good also.

[der_Artur]

Martin Barker's books cross the boundaries between economic analysis and reception studies (actually, as you seem to do so in your question) - his books on Crash and Judge Dredd have much of interest.

There is also an excellent book on post-war British audiences, which I have but can't remember the title of. I'll check next time I'm at my storehouse (also known as my parents...). It manages to bring in a study of chocolate tastes in Vienna to 'explain' art house tastes.

I forgot to thank you, mainly because soon after I asked here I was told by my professor, that I don't need to cover this aspect. But if you'd find out the title of the second book you mention, it would be great. Sounds like an intriguing read.

@ Jean-Luc Garbo: Thank you, too. I also found a short account in Staiger's "Media Reception Studies", so I have some good starting points.

[Jean-Luc Garbo]

What do you mean by perjorative? The book sounds quite interesting. What would Bordwell have against it?

You should read this essay. Alas, the complete text is not available on Google Books, but you should be able to find the book in a library.

Bordwell’s essay was enlightening and entertaining. I’m glad that you posted that link, Matt. His comments on cultural constructivism, Hall, and Copjec were hilarious. I wish that more cultural conservatives had Bordwell's wit and intelligence when decrying PoMo academic studies.

[King Prendergast]

This "favorite film books" meme thats been making the rounds recently has been entirely disappointing. Seems like most film bloggers have gotten the most out of glorified filmographies. Doesn't anyone read theory or in-depth scholarly works?

[domino harvey]

lololol 95% of blogs are just daily viewing journals or non-majors convincing themselves they don't need a proper education, you've got to be kidding if you think they're going to do any digging deeper than the DVD extras

[psufootball07]

This "favorite film books" meme thats been making the rounds recently has been entirely disappointing. Seems like most film bloggers have gotten the most out of glorified filmographies. Doesn't anyone read theory or in-depth scholarly works?

I read Cohen and Braudy's theory book which brings together the best scholarly film writing, such as Bazin & Eisenstein articles and of course Laura Mulvey and Narrative Cinema. I do tend to prefer the articles by Metz, Kracauer, Sarris among others.

[Svevan]

the Focus On... series that covered genres, directors, and specific films (Blow Up and Seventh Seal are particularly good)

I'm quoting this post from the first page of this thread. I, by chance, acquired the book "Focus on Hitchcock" edited by Albert J. LaValley, featuring articles on Hitch by Andre Bazin, Robin Wood, James Agee, Pauline Kael, Raymond Chandler, Rohmer and Chabrol, Andrew Sarris, and some other names I don't know. It also includes a couple of essays by Hitch himself. Now that I know the "Focus On..." series is actually semi-respected, does anyone have access to a database of all of these titles, especially one that details which authors are included in each volume? A cursory search on Amazon reveals quite a few of these are available on the marketplace for extremely cheap prices (I found "on the Western" "on Howard Hawks" "on Godard" "on the Horror Film" and many others). Considering the wealth of material available here, and the chance that some of these articles could be rare or otherwise unavailable, it seems like a series worth collecting. (on the other hand, I can find a chunk of these articles online no sweat)

Any help/suggestions? Anyone have a couple of these and can reveal what authors contributed?

[ellipsis7]

I have 3 of them - Focus On... Blow-Up, Shoot the Piano Player & Godard, all published 1971-72... The first 2 single film volumes are really excellent, the Godard less impressive in that it is more thinly spread over a decade or so work, and he is notoriously hard to pin down... Blow-Up & Shoot the Piano Player compile a wide range of relatively contemporary critical engagements with the films including Interviews, Reviews, Essays and Commentaries - making up a wealth of material, that in turn represents a form of reception history... They are edited intelligently by film scholars such as Leo Braudy - indeed much of the contents of the Focus on Shoot the Piano Player were so valuable that they were ported into the Rutgers Films in Print 1993 volume Shoot the Piano Player (ed. Peter Brunette) with Braudy's permission... I find the Blow-Up volume (ed. Roy Huss) similarly very useful...

[jdcopp]

The worldcat's list should be exhaustive and you can also discover what libraries you could find them in

[Svevan]

Super helpful. Thanks. Turns out my college has three of 'em.

[Svevan]

Has anyone here sampled more than one edition of Bordwell and Thompson's Film Art and can offer a comparison? I'd like to buy a used copy of whichever edition is best, though the older (cheaper) ones are more tempting.

[King Prendergast]

If you know enough about film to post on this message board then you don't need Film Art.

[Jean-Luc Garbo]

If you know enough about film to post on this message board then you don't need Film Art.

That may depend on if you know more about film history (like me) or film technique. It's still a useful book, though.

[essrog]

Has anyone here sampled more than one edition of Bordwell and Thompson's Film Art and can offer a comparison? I'd like to buy a used copy of whichever edition is best, though the older (cheaper) ones are more tempting.

I have the eighth (current) edition, and used to own the seventh (sold it) -- the differences aren't too significant. The only major change (and I'm taking this from the preface of the newest edition) is that the "Types of Films" section now follows the "Film Style" section. The content within the sections seems pretty much unchanged.

[Svevan]

Prendergast: You can read my posts and judge for yourself. =)

Essrog: Thanks. I may wait for the new edition and pick up the 8th used; I mainly want to get the Fourth because it seems to have the most material removed between editions, according to Bordwell's website.

[cysiam]

Does anyone know if Klinger's Melodrama and Meaning is worth a read?

[Gregory]

It's a reception study, so if that interests you, then by all means it's worth reading. It's just too bad there's still such a severe shortage of real criticism of Sirk. (edit: on Sirk, I meant to say)