Abstract
By the end of the 1950s it was a truth as widely acknowledged in Britain as in France that British cinema was moribund, and it was from that time onwards that film culture in Britain began to take its lead from France. The French influence was felt on film criticism, film theory and, to a degree, on film exhibition and production. It was partial at first but, thanks to the activities of the journals Movie and Screen, it had become widespread by the middle of the 1970s and was no longer confined to the cinema but embraced the fields of politics, literary criticism and education. However, the French influence was always felt selectively and usually used polemically: as frequently seems to have been the case in Britain,3 groups of intellectuals exploited France and the French tradition to point up what they most disliked about their own culture and what changes they wished to bring about. This means that the impact of French film culture in Britain cannot be properly understood without some knowledge of the British cinema in the immediate post-war years.4
We knew we had an authentic British tradition; we hated it.
Ben Brewster
I taught myself French by reading Cahiers du cinéma.
V. F. Perkins
BAZIN. En quoi, d’après vous, la médiocrité du cinéma anglais est-elle exemplaire?
RIVETTE. Cinéma anglais, c’est-à-dire cinéma de genres sans que ces genres aient une nécessité profonde. D’une part il n’y a pas, comme à l’intérieur du cinéma américain, des genres ayant leur justification propre comme le western, le policier … d’autre part, ce n’est pas non plus un cinéma d’auteurs, puisque personne n’a rien à dire. C’est un cinéma boiteux, un cinéma entre deux chaises. Un cinéma purement fondé sur l’offre et la demande. …
(1957)1
One is hard put to find, in the whole British cinema, any real ‘authors of films’, total creators capable of moulding a subject after their own personal vision and of looking at the world and its people with fresh eyes: like a Jean Renoir, a René Clair, a John Ford, an Orson Welles, an Eisenstein, a Dovjenko. The only true ‘revelations’ of the British cinema since 1945 have either been silenced, for all practical purposes, by the hostility of the British film industry or have departed to America.
Louis Marcorelles (1957)2
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Cf. Christophe Campos, The View of France from Arnold to Bloomsbury (London: Oxford University Press, 1965).
This account owes a great deal to Margaret Dickinson and Sarah Street, Cinema and State: The Film Industry and the Government 1927–84 (London: British Film Institute, 1985).
Cf. Charles Barr, Ealing Studios (London: Cameron and Tayleur, 1977); and
John Ellis, ‘Made in Ealing’, Screen, 16.1 (1975) 78–127.
A fascinating article by Luc Boltanski, ‘America, America. Le Plan Marshall et l’importation du “management” en France’, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, 38 (May 1981) 19–41, documents the mistrust in which the United States was held in France in the early 1950s and serves to correct Jim Hillier’s view in his introduction to Cahiers du cinéma: the 1950s (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1985) that America was almost universally well regarded. British intellectuals were more pro-American than the French were.
This was the position of the Film Appreciation school, whose maître à penser was Roger Manvell, and it was reflected both in the programming of the National Film Theatre and in the work of the BFI Education Department. There were, of course, technical reasons why early sound cinema should have appeared naïve and clumsy. Cf. Jean-Pierre Jeancolas, 15 Ans d’Années Trente (Paris: Stock, 1982) pp. 52–5. André Breton’s opinion, shared by many artists, was that sound cinema represented ‘une régression désolante vers le théâtre’.
See, for example, Ian Cameron, ‘Films, Directors and Critics’, Movie, 2 (Sep 1962) 4–7; and
Raymond Durgnat, ‘Standing up for Jesus’, Motion, 3 (Autumn 1963) 25–8 and 38–41.
Lindsay Anderson, ‘Angles of Approach’, Sequence, 2 (Winter 1947) 5–8; Gavin Lambert, ‘British Films: Survey and Prospect’, ibid., pp. 9–14;
Lindsay Anderson, ‘British Cinema and the Descending Spiral’, Sequence, 7 (Spring 1949) 6–10, and ‘The Director’s Cinema?’, Sequence, 12 (Autumn 1950) 6–11 and 37.
Cf. François Truffaut, ‘Une certaine tendance du cinéma français’, Cahiers du cinéma, 31 (Jan 1954) 15–28, where an attack on the pre-eminence of screenwriters is launched. Other similarities between Sequence and Cahiers du cinéma might be observed in the close attention paid to how films are made. Cf.
Lindsay Anderson, Making a Film: The Story of ‘Secret People’ (London: Allen and Unwin, 1952).
Lindsay Anderson, ‘Free Cinema’, Universities and Left Review, 1 (1958) 51–2.
Richard Hoggart, ‘We are the Lambeth Boys’, Sight and Sound, Autumn 1959, pp. 164–5.
Cf. Richard Findlater (ed.), At the Royal Court (Ambergate, Derbys: Amber Lane Press, 1981).
Cf. Penelope Houston, ‘Room at the Top’, Sight and Sound, Spring 1959, p. 51.
Quite the best account of the politique des auteurs is to be found in Peter Wollen, Signs and Meaning in the Cinema (London: Secker and Warburg, 1969). The American critic Andrew Sarris popularised as ‘auteur theory’ a version which consisted in the selection of so-called ‘pantheon directors’. There is a considerable difference between the two.
This caused a furore which prompted Bazin to defend his young colleagues thus: ‘De ce que leur érudition n’est pas fondée sur les mêmes critères de valeur que celles des critiques chevronnés ou anglais n’enlève rien à leur efficacité’ (‘Their effectiveness is not impaired just because their erudition is not based on the same criteria of value as those of established or English critics’) — ‘Comment peut-on être Hitchcocko-Hawksien?’, Cahiers du cinéma, Feb 1955, p. 18. The Hitchcock interviews were also published in book form: Eric Rohmer and Claude Chabrol, Hitchcock (Paris: Editions Universitaires, 1957).
‘Défence et illustration du découpage classique’, Cahiers du cinéma, Sep 1952; repr. in Jean Narboni (ed.), Jean-Luc Godard par Jean-Luc Godard (Paris: Pierre Belfond, 1968) p. 29. The passage may be translated thus: ‘To quote Fénelon, I seek “a sublime so familiar that everybody might be tempted to think he could have achieved it without effort.”’
See Claude Brémond, Evelyne Sullerot and Simone Berton, ‘Les Héros de films dits “de la Nouvelle Vague”’, Communications, 1 (1961) 142–77.
Geoffrey Nowell-Smith, ‘A New Cinematic Language’ , Oxford Opinion, 45 (1960) 24–6.
Cf. Allen Eyles, ‘Focus on Exhibition’, Motion, 2 (Winter 1961) 13–19 and 38. Artificial Eye, Cinegate and the Other Cinema are all distribution companies which came into being as a result of this shake-out in film distribution, and each specialises in one section of the art market (e.g. new German cinema, new American cinema, Latin American and Third World cinema).
June 1962 to July–Aug 1963 (monthly): Spring to Autumn 1965 (3 issues, quarterly); Spring 1968; Winter 1968; 1969 to present (annually). See also Ian Cameron (ed.), Movie Reader (London: November Books, 1972).
See I. and E. Cameron, The Heavies (1969);
I. Cameron and R. Wood, Antonioni (1968);
R. Wood, Arthur Penn (1968);
I. and E. Cameron, Broads (1969);
I. Cameron (ed.), The Films of Robert Bresson (1969), and Second Wave (1970);
R. Wood, The Apu Trilogy (1972).
Mark Shivas, Oxford Opinion, 38 (Apr 1960) 38–9; and Ian Cameron, Movie Reader. p. 36.
Ian Cameron, ‘Films, Directors and Critics’, Movie, 2 (Sep 1962) 4–7.
V. F. Perkins, Film as Film (Harmondsworth, Mddx: Penguin, 1972).
Cf. Ed Buscombe, Christine Gledhill, Alan Lovell and Christopher Williams, ‘Why We Have Resigned from the Editorial Board of Screen’, Screen, 17.2 (1976) 106–9; and B. Brewster, E. Cowie, J. Halliday, K. Hanet, S. Heath, C. MacCabe, P. Willemen, P. Wollen, ‘Reply’ , ibid., pp. 110–16. Brewster was unofficially editor from 1973 and officially from 1974.
Laura Mulvey, ‘Visual Pleasure and the Narrative Cinema’, Screen, 16.3 (1975); Colin MacCabe, ‘Realism and the Cinema: Notes on some Brechtian Theses’, Screen, 15.2 (1974) 22.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1988 Ceri Crossley and Ian Small
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Forbes, J. (1988). French Film Culture and British Cinema. In: Crossley, C., Small, I. (eds) Studies in Anglo-French Cultural Relations. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-07921-6_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-07921-6_10
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-07923-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-07921-6
eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)