Barbarica

[Q&A, question 6]

"There seems to be a wide gap between film theory and filmmakers today. What do you think are the reasons for such state of affairs and what could we do to bridge this gap?"

DAVID BORDWELL:

When film studies (I'll assume you mean that generally rather than one wing of it, the theory wing) entered universities in the 1970s, a great many young scholars were at pains to distinguish it from production. For one thing, some scholars didn't think filmmakers approached their subject intellectually--they emphasized professional polish at one extreme, personal expression at the other.

For another thing, some trends in film studies depended on the idea that filmmakers didn't really know what they were doing (perpetuating sexist ideas, for instance). The theorist could decipher things that the filmmaker was putting into the films unawares. (I think that this is partly true, not because there's a conspiracy but because any human action's implications outrun our intentions.) At the same time, some production faculty liked to think of themselves as anti-theoretical because the academics usually had no practical experience in making a film. In addition, in some colleges and universities, studies people felt constrained to distinguish what they did as akin to orthodox notions of scholarship, not close to "vocational" or "practical" concerns, as with filmmaking.

I think that the gap can be bridged, especially if film scholars focus their research on the creative choices that filmmakers face in particular circumstances. Even those of us who aren't filmmakers (I've tried, and I shoot lousy footage) can learn from what filmmakers do and don't do. What we bring to the table are historical evidence and a sense of alternatives that some filmmakers may never have considered. Our study of films from different traditions can introduce filmmakers to possibilities in their creative work.

It's worth mentioning that many filmmakers have been very 'theoretical' in their thinking about their work. The classic Soviet filmmakers--Eisenstein,Kuleshov, Pudovkin, Vertov--self-consciously tried to understand what was involved in making a good film. In the avant-garde tradition, Brakhage, Frampton, Kurt Kren, and many others considered film aesthetics more generally.

For my part, most of my work has been about trying to reconstruct the sort of options facing filmmakers at different times and places. We can document those options from paper records and, of course, the films themselves. I find this research perspective fascinating and very fruitful. I also enjoy talking with contemporary filmmakers, as can be seen from some of our books and my blog entries.