Teaching Film Studies

1996 has been - and will contfurue to be, as we are reminded on every hoarding and film prografirme - the Centenary of Cinema, and certainly in box office terms, the popularity of film has never been stronger for young people. Yet Fikn Studies as a school subject, once regarded as a potentially radicalising discipline, has in recent years received little critical attention. How has it fared over the past two decades, both in terms of developments in acadernic theory, and of the pedagogic implications of curiculum change for classroom teaching? How has it accorrurrodated the challenges of the extraordinary growth of Media Studies, and what sorts of experiences does it now offer for students? In thls article, Patrick Phillips, of the Iong Road 6th Form College, Cambridge reflects back over his own development as a teacher of Film Studies. Ln2096, the British organisers of the Bi-centenary of Film, looking out from their virtual reality towers or underground bunkers, may well choose February 23rd as an appropriate day for celebration. If they ask what was happening one hundred years ago, they will probably find a rich archive documenting the simultaneous opening of three films which will provide them with a measure of the vibrancy and diversity of popular cinema and, even more revealingly, its cultural centrality in 7996. on this day, apparently without any collaborative planning between three competing distributors, Trainspotting, Casino and Sense and Sensibilitywere released. For weeks leading up to this day, the three films were exposed in a vast range of media. Their release was guaranteed to be - in both the marketing and cultural senses - an event. The Film Studies teacher goes into overdrive. Here we have the powerful low-budget Channel 4 movie alongside a three hour Hollywood genre-star-allteur package of blockbuster proportions, alongside an art house/popular cross-over'heritage' love melodrama. The Film Studies teacher, of course, is not in any way fazedby this surfeit of riches. He knows where he's coming from. He has his method. He has his purpose. It all began a long, long time ago when... (Cue flashback,/ voice-over)
... as a teacher of English in the late seventies, I began to worry about what I was doing in teaching texts. This worry focused on both method and purpose. Indeed, there was a methocl: a peculiar mixture of that formal analysis called Practical Criticism and a Leavisite

requirement to evalllate and discriminate according to some rarefied criteria. There was a stubborn refusal to contextualise the work being studied in any particularly significant way; while the requirement for personal response more often than not seemed like a form of intimidation. The purposewas to expose people to 'great works' which would sensitise them as individuals in moral and aesthetic judgement, emphasising at the same time the source of these texts in a romantic model of individuai inspiration and genius. At university I found this amounted to little more than the privileged activity of reading canonised books and talking about them. As a secondary teacher, it quickly became clear to me that this was not an activify I wished to perpetuate. I needed a method which placed the text and the act of reading in a more self-reflexive, critical framework and which moved away from spurious evaluative criteria. And this method must serye a larger purpose than that of textual appreciation.

Of course, I am referring to the age before the dawn of Critical Theory in Literature Studies was visible to most
classroom English teachers, the age before, say, the publication of Catherine Belsey's Citical Practice in
1980.
r

At this time I could not imagine my quest for a Method and a Purpose within the borders of English Studies. I was vaguely aware that outside and between the walled enclaves of O and A level English, much new territory was being opened up and disputed. I ventured out to have a look, and found people passionately committed to new ideas, to the politics of culture, to different kinds of text. Back copies of Screen Education (in its relative lucidity) and Screen (in its relative impenetrability) gave ' me a sense of the particular urgenry of those working in the area of Film Studies. Much of the work I was now exploring had been developed before or during my time as an undergraduate student of English, and I found this disconcerting; that the work was centred largely on mainstream commercial film, I found wonderful.

In October, 1982 I enrolled on a part-time MA in'Film and Teievision Studies in Education' at the London University Institute of Education - a course which has over fifteen years provided one of the major transit camps and re-education centres for English teachers.

The English & Media Magazine No, 35 Autumn 1996

29

Structurralist Film Studies

During the early 80s, the method I had been searching lor was clearly defined whichever way one turned in Film Studies: structuralism. The text as product of a process of selection and construction based on conventions was not new to an English teacher. Vhat was new was the emphasis on the commodity, material form of the text, and the recognition that the process of selection and construction is dependent on a range of determinants which go far beyond the factors one might (then) have considered in studying a litgrary text in the A level classroom. Auteur approaches which emerged in the pages of Cabierc du Cinema in the 1950s and which contributed so much to the early development of Film Studies had seemed to provide a bridge with the study of literature. How hard critics had been encouraged to work to excavate the 'authoring' ptresene of a film director, to discern the 'signature'. By the time I arrived in Film Studies, this approach was being met with hostility, even derision. Certainly the idea of a film 'author'who, despite the industrial, collaborative nature of film production, was considered to have the determining influence on a film was too close to the model of individual genius I was in full flight from. However, it seemed possible to integrate the film'author'into structuralist criticism. Robin \food's 60s studies2 which essentially discriminated between directors on the basis of evidence of individual intuitive artistry were now treated very cautiously. It was no longer appropriate to define creative genius in terms of achieveme^t despite the commercial production system of Holllwood. The 'genius of the system' seemed an altogether more positive approach, and one which didn't perpetuate the high versus popular cultural discourse. In fact auteur study had become 'permissible' as a result of the work of Peter'\Tollen and others in the early 70s. The auteur could now be defined in terms of definable structures, recurring pattems across a body of work. \tr7ith structuralist party member zeal, we ensured that John Ford the auteur stnrcture was our focus, not John Ford individual genius. To be fair, the kind of practical criticism which was encouraged by the auteur approach did, in its requirement for close reading, lead to a much finer understanding of film form, the 'syntax' and 'vocabulary' of film.

course, this takes the study of frilm into the wide contested spaces of political activity. To study the narrative shape of, say, a Western, particularly its resolution in relation to the disruptions which have

gone before, and the powerful forms of containment and excess within generic conventions offered a critical approach to the film as symptomatic of a complex range of political, social and cultural forces. This was reading with a method and a purpose. This was heady stuff
indeed!

The 'grand narrative' of structuralism was rooted in three inter-connecting deterministic theories. Saussurian linguistics told us that language does our thinking for us. 'We operate within the limits of its vocabulary and syntax. In terms of film, the formal operations of film 'language' were hugely powerful in controlling, or at least containing, audience response. To this was added Lacanian psychoanalytic theory, which equated the experience of cinema with the mirror stage of early

childhood, when we seek to compensate for a fundamental 'lack' by seeking our ideal selves in the other. Thii mirror self must by definition be a misrecognition since the other cannot reflect our

'complete' self. Thus was articulated an explanation both for the 'escapism' of the moving image and the political 'effects' of this escapism, a distorted sense of reality. The third influence, interwoven with Lacanian theory by Althusser, was Marxism. As an 'apparatus', cinema could be considered to operate on behalf of corporate capital in order to promote hegemony. One outcome of this structuralist phase was Colin MacCabe's proposal that within a narrative there may be different voices or discourses, but that these function in an organisational hierarchy so that one dominant discourse has an efficacy over all others.s Another was Mulvey's proposal that the gaze of the camera is fundamentally male.a Certainly there was a method and a purpose. However, it seemed closer to reactionary attitudes to popular culture such as those of the Frankfurt School than to a positive engagement with the film experience. Crucially, ihere was as yet no model of spectatordship other than a view of the individual as locked into the vice-like grip of deterministic textual and industrial mechanisms, the rather frighteningly termed'Cinematic Apparatus'. Meanwhile, on the shop floor, teachers collaborated to produce the first Film Studies syllabus for secondary schools and FE colleges. Unsurprisingly, the 'mature' O/ A level, offered from the mid 70s to the late 80s, did not adopt the more esoteric contributions of Lacanian Marxism. However, the emphasis on the film industry and on the structures which gave identity to genres and auteurs were very influential. Here is a flavour of the questions appearing on the O,/A examination during the 80s: . \rho are the major creative contributors to the production of the visual sryle of feature films, what do ihey do and how might they collaborate during the various stages of the production process? . 'Women as fully rounded characters have almost completely been left out of film...that is, women have always been present in films but not in characterisations any self-respecting woman could identifu with.'Discuss this comment with reference to the representation of women in the films you have studied.' . rJTith reference to a 'political' film you have seen, such

Methods and Purposes

The more obvious structuralist approach was indeed on text, specifically narrative and genre. The formal patterns of film narrative and the conventions of genre were both obvious and of fundamental importance' One could emphasise not only textual operations but the relationships between, on the one hand, the film and industrial production, and on the other, the film and audience gratification. Narrative studies were influenced by the 'grand nanatives' of Propp and Todorov who sought the limited number of variations which underscored all stories. Genre studies were influenced by, among others, Levi-strauss's anthropology. Binary analysis opened up different genres very productively but also allowed the emergence of recurring pattems across genres which were superficially quite different from one another.

Vhat these structuralist approaches also encouraged was the engagement with myth, particularly in the ways
in which myths function to negotiate or 'manage' the
fundamental contradictions within a culture. And, of

30

The English & Media Magazine No. 35 Autumn 1996

as'Z' or'State of Siege', give an account of the

arguments for and against using a commercial film to

convey political ideas.

The problem of stars

However, one key area of Film Studies defied structuralist containment: stars. However hard one tried to define them in terms of recurring performance features (structures) and to place them within the film industry machine, stars belonged to audiences. In Lacanian terms stars may indeed hav-e offered the 'misrecognition' of the ideal sglf or; perhaps, a misrecognition of the very possibility of possessing the ideal'other'. However, in practice it was much more difficult to extract stars from the common sense discourse of personal response. Richard Dyer's work on stars from 1979 till the present5 offers an excellent record of the tension berween theory and fan, between academic and popularVaysrcf 'making sense' of film and particularly film pleasure.
Feminist work in film theory, initially influenced by Lacan and other structuraiists such as Laura Mulvey,

industry, areas which to a large efient had already been mapped out by the O/A and consolidated and developed by the A Level. However, the A Level appeared to demand a degree of sophistication and maturify scarcely consi'sibnt with the requirements of an enthusiastic seventeen year old wishing to inform a natural enthusiasm for film. Here is a flavour of the questions set on Paper 1 of the first A Level syllabus in the second half of the 80s: o V/hat is the difference between 'uatcbin9 a film

and'readin$ a film?

Critically appraise the concept of 'pleasure'in relation to our understanding of cinema as a social institution o Discuss, with one or two examples of each, the concepts of connotation and mediation in the film text o Explain how the mechanisms of distribution and exhibition, and of journalism and criticism, come to define 'arl cinema' and/or 'erperinxental film as
'

altematiud or' minoritjl.

This wasn't English Literature; this wasn't for the fainthearted!

quickly moved into qualification and reiection. In different ways 70s structuralism seemed to exclude women - rather as Mulvey's proposition about the 'male' camera excluded women. The work of Kaplin, Kuhn, Gledhill and others involved looking at alternative textual strategies and, implicitly or explicitly,
at audience response. It is hardly surprising that the main focus for women critical theorists throughout the 80s was on making sense of the act of spectatorship. Post-structuralism in the 80s was an inevitable and necessary reaction against the theoretical determinism of the previous ten years or so. Actually 'Post' structuralism did not reject the power of the 'cinema apparatus' so much as add additional complexities. Yes, the majority

During this period post-structuralism merged into

postmodernism and theory became increasingly engaged in pleasure. There was a shift away from questions of manipulation and deterministic effecs towards pluralism, and a delight in diversity of response. Cultural Studies became increasingly focused on symbolic activity - not just that of the message-maker, but of the audience in making meaning. Fan culture, the appropriation of media by different cultural groups, the ethnographic study of how people actually consume media products - these did not reach into Film Studies, except via a rather uncomfortable shuffling around the study of stars.

of an audience was still considered likely to respond in a fairly uniform way but this was now seen as having at least as much to do with the cultural formation of the audience as it was the physical form of cinema and the textual operations of the film. However, Cultural Studies influences on much film teaching tended to remain implicit. Teachers do not easily let go of control mechanisms, and 70s structuralism was about little else. Certainly in Higher Education structuralism continued to provide methodological clarity and a sternly critical purpose for some time after the emergence of a more circumspect, lighter touch in film theory.

And then there was Media Studies

Media Studies has, obviously, offered far less detailed study of film. Yet the understanding of some of the broader cultural and social issues which underpin Film have, arguably, emerged much more clearly in GCSE and A level Media Studies work. The film industry could now be placed alongside other media organisations in an overview of the methods of corporate capitalism; notions of independent' and'alternative' media could place film alongside music or print media; the 'effects' of film (and film-as-video) could be contefiualised within broader debates about media regulation and the study of moral panics; debates about 'popular' and 'high' culture could embrace debates around the status of film; the politics of representation could come centre stage; realism could be theorised across a range of media forms. More striking even than this comparative, contextual approach was the opportuniry to engage with film through practical work. Learning about film form through storyboarding and group video productions, leaming through doing, has been far more extensive in A level Media Studies than in A level Film Studies.

The dawn of A Ievel

The first A-level in Film Studies which emerged in 1986 seemed designed to propel the successful student straight from A-level into, at least, a Masters. Its intellectual rigour and breadth of knowledge required may have been a conscious pre-emptive strike against sceptical colleagues working in other subject areas. In fact the A Level was neither particularly informed by structuralism nor was it averse to 'great works' and 'great auteurs'. Citizen Kane essentially had the status of a 'set text', while a choice from a pantheon of 'great auteurs'was a major component. The study of 'alternatives' to Holllrvood broadened the range of films studied, though it also risked reinforcing an illusory manichean divide between American commercial and European art cinemas. The difference between this new subject and English was most obviously marked out by an emphasis on the formal qualities of film such as editing and mise-en-scene, and on the operations of the

Of course, much is missing in Media Studies. Srudents cannot attain the same level of understanding of film form through a relatively superficial study of one genre, or a limited package on the Holl)'wood studio system, or African or Indian Cinema. There is neither the body of knowledge nor the sophistication of Film Studies. However, the emphasis on diversity, plurality, creativity and pleasure in Media Studies may one day in an historical survey leave Film Studies looking like, well,

The English & Media Magazine No. 35 Autumn 1996

31

Old Labour in the bright new Blair world. Make what you wish of thig comparison.
Spectatorship studies in the 1980s took on a gteater

centrality, especially among women critics. However, this remained the study of the interaction between the individual and the screen in the darkened space of the cinema auditorium, and the emphasis remained on psychoanall'tical theory. There was little interest in the srudy of people consuming films socially, that is as audiences, nor in the fact that this social consumption would more likely than not be in front-of a video recorder. The work of, for example, tren Ang, looking at how people actually watch TV doaps and whf was not an approach adopted by Film Studies. There has been some shift in this direction in the 90s. Gomery's 1992 Shared Pleasures,T about audiences and movie theatres in the US, is a good example of the development in a social history of cinema; Jeanine Basinger's A'Voman's View- How Hofu,wood Spoke to lVomen 1930- 1960 (799r" explores the range of reasons women went to the Cinema, specifically to watch the so-called'woman's movie' and how they actually consumed the experience. Basinger writes 'I am always astonished at how so much writing about old movies assumes that the audience believed everything in them. Of course we didn't. Ife entered into the joyful conspirary of moviegoing.' The O/A examination disappeared in 1988. The syllabus remained popular and successful to the end and retains good memories for participants, either in the classroom or in cramped rooms at the BFI on Charing Cross Road where Mode 3 exam papers were worked on collaboratively. GCSE Film struggled alongside Media Studies alternatives but was always marginalised. It disappears this summer, along with other Mode 3
GCSES,

In fact Alevel Film Studies is increasing its student entry despite the enormous nation-wide popularity of Media Studies, and this increase is in the sixth form sector as well as the established FE market. It thrives despite requiring a greater grasp both of theoretical issues and of skills of comparison and synthesis. It thrives despite very little emphasis on production work. It thrives without formally requiring an emphasis on personal response, pleasure or the significance of specific films within broader culture. Its strengths are that it offers a much more detailed and coherent focus than Media Studies. For schools and colleges lacking the resources or expertise for practical work, Film Studies is viable, while departments which do want to offer practical work can do so over a fwo year course. Most of all its strength lies in the focus it provides for young people who wish to become better informed about the meclium which has asserted itself in the 1990s as our central and dominant art form. At the multiplex or the video store

lilm is not only a source of casual escapism; it matters.

It's what people talk about, engage with. Trainspotting, Casino and Sense and Sensibilitywill offer opporrunities for the study of film form and spectatorship, for the study of finance, production, distribution and exhibition and for the study of the interplay of genre, star and aLlteur. Trainpotting and Sense and Sensibility will, in addition provide a resource for the study of representation in the context of British Culture. All these approaches are intellecttrally challenging and productive. In'learning outcomes'speak one would have no problem in providing a range of admirable statements. However, there is, aryuably, still little opportunity for the kind of audience study associated with contemporary Cultural Studies. There is little opportunity for the personal voice and for the locating of that voice among others.

Film Studies Matters

Both at GCSE and at A level, the most likely study of Film will be within Media Studies. For example, it will be possible on the new Cambridge modular Media Sttrdies A level to do fwo production modules (33o/o ) on film related activities, do a module specifically focusing on a film in the context of institution and audience (160/o) and to choose rwo film topics from three on the examination paper (220/o). However, if a Media Studies course is being offered in a school or college with this degree of emphasis on film, why not choose to teach the Film Studies A Level instead? \fith the proliferation of Film Studies course in Higher Education. the answer can no longer be that Film Studies has yet to achieve academic credibility. Neither can the answer lie in any impenetrability in the A level Film Studies syllabus as it

In the classroom I have sought and found the method and the purpose I could not find in reading books and talking about them. I remain strong in my faith in the integrity and clarity of Film Studies as a discipline. But there's sometimes a little dryness in the mouth, a yearning for something sweet. Maybe its just the ascetic hallucinating about a big bag of popcorn, a fizzy drink, the anticipation of the fan, the pleasure of expectation. Do I really just want to watch films and talk about them?
Surely not.

Patrick Phillips
References
1. Catherine Belsey, Critical Pfactice, Methuen 1989. 2. See for example Robin Wood, Howarcl Hauks, RFI 1968. 3. Colin McCabe, 'Realism and the Cinema: Notes on Some Brechtian Theses', ScreenYol. 1),No 2,1974. 4. See Laura Mulvey 'Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema', Screen Vol. 16, No 3, 1975. 5. Richard Dyer, Stars, BFI 1979.

now exists. Following a revision to the Film Studies A Level in 1990, out went 'set texts' and named auteurs, and there was a conscious attempt to connect different aspects of the subject. For example, the approach to Holl)'wood demands an analysis of the interaction of genre, star and auteur rather than their isolated study. The emphasis in the British Cinema study is on representation and the placing of individual lilms within their cultural context, obviously demonstrating the influence of Cultural Studies. Unusually, the A level has been able to retain a 4oo/o coursework element. One of the four coursework submissions can be a practical piece designed to demonstrate the student's appreciation of film form.

6. Ien Ang, lVatcbing Dallas. 7. Gomery, Sbared Pleasures 1. 8. Jeanine Basinger, A Woman's Vieu
'Women
193O-196O.

Houi H()llyuoocl Spohe to

32

The English & Media Magazine No. 35 Autumn 1996