1.5.1 Historical context
One reason for universities focusing so heavily on skills for employment within industry as opposed to critical development could be traced back to the origins of film production. From its inception at the end of the Nineteenth Century film production and exhibition quickly became a popular and powerful commercial entertainment form. Attempts to describe films as Art were met with scepticism from both the film industry and the majority of cultural critics who at the time discussed artworks from literature or fine art positions. Even today when describing films as Art, the caveat ‘popular’ is commonly applied as dilution. The debate as to whether films are Art or entertainment or both has never been fully reconciled, which highlights the tension between theory and practice that this thesis is focusing upon.
‘Film’ however has found itself increasingly within a canonical tradition that follows on from Art History and to a greater extent English Literature. In these fields there is a canon that somewhat elevated the popular to the level of Art.
Sauerberg (1997) who has written extensively on the idea of ‘canon’ says:
No doubt the final volume of The Oxford History of English Literature (1963) has contributed considerably to the consolidation in the mid-‐
twentieth-‐century annals of Thomas Hardy, Henry James, George Bernard Shaw, Joseph Conrad, Rudyard Kipling, William Butler Yeats, James Joyce and D.H. Lawrence, as the key figures of late-‐nineteenth and early-‐
twentieth-‐century literature in English (Sauerberg: 05).
Sauerberg also mentions how ‘a literary canon emerges when the need arises for some of that multitude of texts to appear grouped together for specific
purposes’ (1997: 05). In 2012 the latest Sight and Sound ‘greatest films of all time’ poll was announced. This is an oft debated, polemical event in film culture that seemingly results in as much dissent as agreement. However if the amount of response from newspapers, magazines, websites and individual writers is anything to go by it has become something of a key critical canon. It falls into common understanding of canons as preservers of historical tradition by featuring no film produced after 1968 in its top ten. To highlight the dichotomy between art and entertainment in relation to films further one need only examine the top ten rated films at The Internet Movie Database (IMDB), the leading film information site on the Internet, where eight of the ten films were produced after 1966. These are two examples of prominent film ‘canons’ but there are others including the American Film Institute’s list. André Bazin’s writing on film helped canonise certain films and directors, particularly La Règle du jeu (Dir. Renoir, 1939), Ladri di Biciclette (De Sica, 1948) and Citizen Kane (Welles, 1941), through his celebratory linking of cinema to the theatrical and the literary form. His work is regarded by film critics and scholars as laying foundations for the auteur theory that emerged in the 1950s and 1960s first in the pages of French journal Cahiers Du Cinema and later the work of American film critic Andrew Sarris, most notably with his book The American Cinema (1968). The predominance of the films mentioned in these ‘canons’ on contemporary film courses highlights a reliance on the canonical that maintains a distance between contemporary practice and contemporary educational study. Film history is a key module across film studies courses and is commonly one of the few theoretical modules on production courses. This results in canonical works being the focus of theoretical discussion in a far greater number than contemporary texts, which is where film studies as a discipline puts itself in line with traditional Art and Literature courses.
Unlike in the study of fine art or English literature there is no deep historical well for film studies to draw from. There is little reflective space in which to ascertain
the cultural worth of cinema and its divergent types. The emergence of the DVD market as a place where seemingly forgotten films are released and find champions, coupled with the rise of online commentary to accompany film release and re-‐release, has seen the fragile notion of a canon challenged even further. No longer is there the comfort of a few having access to the core, key content of the medium and the tools to discuss and justify inclusion or exclusion.
This also taps into another issue. Films have always been a popular entertainment form, developing technically, artistically and scientifically alongside attempts to validate them culturally through appreciation and critical study. The result has been a conflict between industry and academia that appears sanguine. However, it is actually stubborn and contradictory, and it is fundamental to the split that exists today between the academic and the industrial, the theoretical and the practical.
Also, unlike fine art or literature critical appreciation, the cultural importance of
‘film’ arrived when it was still in its infancy and the relationship to texts was differently factored. Films as texts were at the instant disposal of the critical community as contemporary commercial products upon release but then disappeared. Copies of some texts were destroyed and ‘archives’ were not considered important because films were, as mentioned, regarded simply an entertainment product. Before the emergence of the ‘Cinephile’ in the late 1960s films were viewable in certain instances through archives, libraries and film societies but there was not the culture of preservation that exists today.
Historically there was a gap between critical viewing and reviewing bequeathing a culture of study that could not consistently reference the text, as was the case with paintings or books. The advent of VHS tape recording changed this dramatically, taking this ability to study out of the hands of those solely with access to film societies, archives and libraries by creating the opportunity to pause, rewind, re-‐watch repeatedly. This technological development brought
the study of films in line methodologically with other disciplines. The generation of academics and critics that promoted the canon are now faced with scholars, critics and students with the capacity to challenge the canon through self-‐
directed viewing and a more fluid connection to audiences and readerships which may see academia have to yield to new market and audience demands.
1.5.2 Bringing the film industry into the classroom
The film industry’s relationship with education is a paradoxical one: It needs graduates to fill its jobs yet it has never fully participated in the development of a coherent argument concerning what an ideal film education ought to include. It claims a lack of interest in what academia does, yet it has historically felt threatened by the advancement of appreciation and cultural awareness around the study of films, something addressed in chapter two (section 2.5.1) looking at the history of the British Film Institute (BFI). Despite an apparent disinterest in the approach of academia, the industry has sometimes sought involvement in the education sector, to guide the agenda towards skills and away from theory and analysis. In an interview conducted for this thesis, head of quality at the University of Bedfordshire, Tim Gregory discussed the relationship between higher education and industry in terms relevant to his experience that highlight some of the general issues or challenges.
Gregory (2013 Interview) comments that employers are involved and taken into account in course development ‘right from the overall aims of the approval process’ through to the final event panel. An employer or industry representative is on the final panel and this is where the rigour and appropriateness of the course for learners, including the industrial, professional engagement they will obtain is debated, confirmed and signed off. Throughout the process, employer and industry input ranges from quantitative analysis to questioning proposed content. Gregory (2013 Interview) says they may advise