Skip to main content

Screen vs. Movie: The Great Divide in Film Studies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Structure of Complex Images

Part of the book series: Palgrave Close Readings in Film and Television ((CRFT))

  • 193 Accesses

Abstract

For over four decades, film studies has found itself divided between two distinct camps, an opposition represented by the different goals, methods, and interests of the British film journals, Screen and Movie. If Screen has stood for critical theory and Movie for aesthetic evaluation, their quarrels have often replicated those between Continental and Analytic philosophers, which, as Richard Rorty noted, profoundly affected the shape of academic careers. How did Screen manage to supplant Movie? What institutional factors encouraged film studies to embrace theory? Why did the work of V.F. Perkins, Movie’s most important writer, get neglected, especially in the United States? How can Wittgenstein writing help us understand what Perkins and the Movie group were up to?

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    On this point, see Andrew Klevan, “Guessing the Unseen from the Seen: Stanley Cavell and Film Interpretation,” in Contending with Stanley Cavell, ed. Russell B. Goodman (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), pp. 118–139.

  2. 2.

    Douglas Pye usefully observes that “A key factor here was availability. Initially, the Movie writers sought out films in cinemas all over London: they had no other access to them. Earlier cinema was largely unavailable to them. Under these circumstances, the accuracy of reference in Movie is amazing.” While I would not dispute Pye’s argument (after all, he was there), I would point out that long after VHS and DVDs made everything available, V.F. Perkins continued to write about Sirk, Welles, Ophuls, and Lang. Tastes form early.

  3. 3.

    Douglas Pye responds to the first question by saying, “Not the cinema in general but perhaps some ways in which many movies might be approached.” To the second question, he proposes that while “another movie would be different, at least some aspects of the approach should be transferable.” My experience with American undergraduates, steeped in theory, makes me less sanguine about the ready transferability of his (and John Gibbs’s) approach.

Bibliography

  • Adorno, Theodor, et al. 1977. Aesthetics and Politics. Trans. Ronald Taylor. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, Richardson, and Malcom Turvey. 2001. Wittgenstein, Theory and the Arts. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barthes, Roland. 1977a. Image—Music—Text. Trans. Stephen Hearth. New York: Hill & Wang.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1977b. Roland Barthes. Trans. Richard Howard. New York: Hill & Wang.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1985. The Responsibility of Forms. Trans. Richard Howard. New York: Hill & Wang.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1986. The Rustle of Language. Trans. Richard Howard. New York: Hill & Wang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, Walter. 1979. A Small History of Photography. One-Way Street, 240–257. Trans. Edmund Jephcott and Kingsley Shorter. London: NLB.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1983–1984. N [Theoretics of Knowledge, Theory of Progress]. The Philosophical Forum XV (1–2): 1–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1999. The Arcades Project. Trans. Howard Eiland and Kevin McLaughlin. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bordwell, David. 1989. Making Meaning: Inference and Rhetoric in the Interpretation of Cinema. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breton, André. 1974. Manifestoes of Surrealism. Trans. Richard Seaver and Helen R. Lane. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, Ian, ed. 1972. Movie Reader. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavell, Stanley. 2005. Cavell on Film. Ed. William Rothman. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolven, Jeff. 2017. Senses of Style. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, Arthur Conan. n.d. The Complete Sherlock Holmes. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckert, Charles. 1985. The Anatomy of Proletariat Film: Warner’s Marked Woman. In Movies and Methods Volume II, ed. Bill Nichols, 407–429. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, James C. 1982. Ethics Without Philosophy: Wittgenstein and the Moral Life. Gainesville, FL: University Presses of Florida.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eliot, T.S. 1975. Selected Prose of T.S. Eliot. Ed. Frank Kermode. New York: Harvest-Harcourt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fann, K.T., ed. 1967. Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Man and His Philosophy. New Jersey: Humanities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foote, Shelby. 1989. Conversations with Shelby Foote. Ed. William C. Carter. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freud, Sigmund. 1989. The Freud Reader. Ed. Peter Gay. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedrich, Otto. 1986. City of Nests: A Portrait of Hollywood in the 1940’s. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, Catherine, and Stephen Greenblatt. 2000. Practicing New Historicism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, John, and Douglas Pye. 2005. Revisiting Preminger: Bonjour Tristesse (1958) and Close Reading. In Style and Meaning: Studies in the Detailed Analysis of Film, ed. John Gibbs and Douglas Pye, 108–126. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godard, Jean-Luc. 1972. Godard on Godard. Trans. Tom Milne. New York: The Viking Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammett, Dashiell. 1987. The Maltese Falcon. San Francisco: North Point Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, James. 1987. Romantic Comedy in Hollywood, from Lubistch to Sturges. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, William. 2002. The Varieties of Religious Experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klevan, Andrew. 2000. Disclosure of the Everyday: Undramatic Achievement in Narrative Film. Trowbridge: Flicks Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2005a. Notes on Teaching Film Style. In Style and Meaning: Studies in the Detailed Analysis of Film, ed. John Gibbs and Douglas Pye, 214–227. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2005b. ‘What Becomes of Thinking on Film?’ (Stanley Cavell in Conversation with Andrew Klevan). In Film as Philosophy: Essays on Cinema after Wittgenstein and Cavell, ed. Rupert Read and Jerry Goodenough, 167–209. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2012. Living Meaning: The Fluency of Film Performance. In Theorizing Film Acting, ed. Aaron Taylor, 33–46. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kracauer, Siegfried. 1995. The Mass Ornament. Trans. Thomas Y. Levin. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2000. Theory of Film. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kronman, Anthony T. 2007. Education’s End: Why Our Colleges and Universities Have Given Up on the Meaning of Life. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, Robert Emmet, ed. 2001. John Huston Interviews. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCabe, Colin. 1980. Godard: Images, Sounds, Politics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1985. Tracking the Signifier. Theoretical Essays: Film, Linguistics, Literature. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malcolm, Norman. 1994. Wittgenstein: A Religious Point of View? Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, Samuel. 1987. A Gaudy Spree: Literary Hollywood When the West Was Fun. New York: Franklin Watts.

    Google Scholar 

  • McPherson, James. 1996. Drawn with the Sword: Reflections on the American Civil War. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, Meaghan. 1988. Banality in Cultural Studies. Discourse 10 (2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulvey, Laura. 1985. Visual Pleasure in Narrative Cinema. In Movies and Methods Volume II, ed. Bill Nichols, 303–315. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murdoch, Iris. 1977. Under the Net. New York: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, Bill, ed. 1976. Movies and Methods. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, Victor. 1972. Film as Film. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1990. Must We Say What They Mean? Film Criticism and Interpretation. Movie 34 (35): 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1992. In a Lonely Place. In The Book of Film Noir, ed. Ian Cameron, 222–231. New York: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2005. Where Is the World? The Horizon of Events in Movie Fiction. In Style and Meaning: Studies in the Detailed Analysis of Film, ed. John Gibbs and Douglas Pye, 16–41. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porte, Joel. 2001. The Problem of Emerson. In Emerson’s Poetry and Prose, ed. Joel Porte and Saundra Morris, 679–697. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ray, Robert B. 1995. The Avant-Garde Finds Andy Hardy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2008. The ABCs of Classic Hollywood. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohdie, Sam. 1972. Review: Movie Reader, Film as Film. Screen 13 (4): 135–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rorty, Richard. 1982. The Consequences of Pragmatism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2007. Philosophy as Cultural Politics: Philosophical Papers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schatz, Thomas. 1988. The Genius of the System: Hollywood Filmmaking in the Studio Era. New York: Pantheon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taussig, Michael. 1987. Shamanism, Colonialism, and the Wild Man: A Study in Terror and Healing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, David. 2010. The New Biographical Dictionary of Film. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toles, George. 2001. A House of Light: Essays on the Art of Film. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vendler, Helen. 1997. The Art of Shakespeare’s Sonnets. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willey, Basil. 1953. The Seventeenth Century Background. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, Linda. 2000. Discipline and Fun: Psycho and Postmodern Cinema. In Reinventing Film Studies, ed. Christine Gledhill and Linda Williams. London: Arnold.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, George M. 1986. Narration in Light: Studies in Cinematic Point of View. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1965. The Blue and Brown Books (BB). New York: Harper Torchbooks.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1970. Zettel. Trans. G.E.M. Anscombe. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1980. Culture and Value (CV). Trans. Peter Winch. Chicago: University of Chicago Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2001a. Philosophical Investigations (PI). Trans. G.E.M. Anscombe. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2001b. Wittgenstein’s Lectures: Cambridge, 1932–1935. Ed. Alice Ambrose. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ray, R.B. (2020). Screen vs. Movie: The Great Divide in Film Studies. In: The Structure of Complex Images. Palgrave Close Readings in Film and Television. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40631-8_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics