Film Form: An Argument for a Functional Theory of Style in the Individual Film

Abstract

Part I: The Different Domains of Style As with other artforms, the initial problem of talking about or form in is complicated by the fact that the concept of can be applied to so many different kinds of things and at so many different levels of generality.(1) One might use style to refer to whole periods of filmmaking, speaking, for example, of the German Expressionist style, or Hollywood studio in the thirties. Or one might apply the concept of to the work of a particular filmmaker's oeuvre, referring, for instance, to the of Stanley Donnen or Yvonne Rainer or Theo Angelopoulos. In these cases, the domain of the concept of fluctuates. That is, what it refers to shifts in terms of the range of things to which it is applied. When investigating a period style, we look at a domain comprising all the relevant films made in a stipulated spatio-temporal region. When considering a directorial style, we look only to the films of the director in question, including, where relevant, films of different stylistic periods. Moreover, the concept of can be mobilized for different purposes and, therefore, can take different directions of analysis. When interrogating a period style, our purpose is to say how all or most of the relevant films are similar, and, therefore, we look for what all the filmmakers under examination have in common. But when analyzing a directorial style, we look to features that differentiate a given filmmaker from other filmmakers - we look for what makes the director appear distinctive. And these different projects, of course, can pull in different directions. In discussing the work of Fritz Lang as a German Expressionist director, we may point to certain features of his work he shares with other directors of the pertinent movement and period, but when speaking of Lang's directorial style, we may omit some of these features, since they do not differentiate Lang from other directors. Because the domains, purposes and directions of stylistic or formal research often diverge, the possibility of confusion - of talking past each other - an easily arise when speaking of film style. Thus, in order to avoid such confusion, it is useful to separate out some of the different usages of the concept of in order to be clear about that to which we intend to apply it. Though other, more fine-grained, distinctions can be made with respect to the concept of style, a provisional cartography of common usages includes what we can call general style, personal style, and the or form of the individual film.(2) Both general and personal refer to groups of film; their domain is a body of work. The or form of the individual refers to a specific film, such as Kundun. General refers to a group of films by more than one filmmaker as in the notion of the Classical Hollywood Cinema. Personal refers to the films of a single filmmaker, such as Edward Yang. The category of general can be further divided into at least four subclasses: universal style, period style, genre style, and school or movement style.(3) If we call the balanced shot outside the planetarium in Nichols Ray's Rebel Without A Cause (Bordwell 244) classical, we are using the concept of in a universal sense, since we will call any such symmetrically poised composition, from any period in history (and, perhaps in any visual artform), classical in this sense. The domain of the concept of when used universally is at least all film. When we refer, however, to the tableau or to the clothes-line of composition of primitive film, though we are talking about a general (and not the of a specific filmmaker), our reference is restricted, with the exception of explicit references to atavisms, to films of the first two decades of this century. The universal concept of applies to all films, whereas the concept of a period applies only to some subset thereof governed by temporal/historical criteria and often by regional (sometimes national) considerations. …