Film Criticism

Mark l. Schaefermeyer
T
I here'smuchmoreto criticizingafilm thanjust decidingwhetherone
likesit or not. This is thecentralpoint of thefollowing essayby Mark J. Schae-
Reviews fermeyer.A Jilm critic and professorof communications studiesat Virginia
beginsby drawing a crucisl distinction
.
Polytechniclnstitute, Schaefermeyer
Movie betweenreaiezning moaiesandJilm criticism.Moaie reaiews,he says,aredi'
VI ^

rectedtotaardthegeneralpublic,primarily to helppeopledecidewhat mouies

critics to see.By contrast, film criticismis rurittenprimarilyby uniaersityacademics
journalsandreadbyacademics
Film to bepublished
andotherscholars in specialized
and professionalfilmmaker s.
Schaefermeyer outlinessomeof themain theoretical approaches criticscur-
rentlyuseto analyze He
t'ilms. breaks film criticism down into threebroadsub-
categories-semiotic, structuralist,andcontextual-andexplainsthepremises
and specit'ic methodologies of each.Semioticstudies,asyou haaelearnedfrom
"Mastersof Desire"
earlierreadingsin this text (seeespecinlly lack Solomon's
in Chapter2 andArthur AsaBerger' s semiological analysiso/Cheersin Chap-
ter 3), analyzesymbolicstructuresand relationships. Structuralistmethodol-
"to
ogy attempts imposeits own orientationor structure"-for instance
mythic,or political,or sociological-onaJilm. Finally,contextunlcriticslook
at a moaiewithin a specificcontext,suchas its directorialstyle,its narratiae
type,or its historicalposition.
As y ou read thissurueyoffilm cr it icism,thinkabout whichapproachmost
closelyresembles your own wayof interpreting film. Are you a buddingsemi-
otician,t'inding symbolic meaningsin l-auren Bacall'scigaretteorArnoldSchwqrz'
enegger' s biggunTAreyoua politicalstructuralist, t'inding andeconomic
social
implicationsin a film's plot and characterizationT Are you a contextualist,
Iookingfor the hallmarksof a director'sstyle or for the waysthe conaentions
 522 Movrns

of a genrearemetor broken? just to "knowwhatyou like,"

Or areyousatisfied
withoutapproaching film from a moreacademicallycritical position?

The place occupied by movie critics in the popular media is perhaps

stronger today that it ever has been. The success of Gene Siskel and
Roger Ebert in moving from PBS to syndication with their self-described
movie review program is evidence that the medium is not without those
who are paid to pass judgment on it. Paperback books that describe and
rate all the films available on television abound; local news protrams
often have a critic of their own or regularly utilize a video version of
the syndicated columnist. Major news magazines and large city dailies
regularly review films; even the smallest of newspapers offers a column
discussing the film industry's latest releases. In some cases, movies
are reviewed a second time when they are released in videocassette
format.
And yet these instances of criticism are only part of the effort that
goes into analyzing film. This reading puts into perspective the act of
film criticism while providing an overview of the critical approaches
currently being used. The bulk of this essay will focus on academic crit-
icism versus the more popular media forms. The general public is aware
of and utilizes criticism that is more aptly termed moaie reaiewing. Movie
reviews are meant to recommend or not recommend particular films to
the potential viewing public. In one sense, the popular media critic is a
consumer watchdog keeping a wary eye on the film industry's attempts
to obtain the viewers' dollars.
Distinguishing the popular media form of criticism from academic
or scholarly criticism is not to suggest that the former is unscholarly or
a poor cousin to the latter. Movie reviews are meant for a specific audi-
ence, and they perform a specific function: to assist consumers in choos-
ing what films to see. For the most part, movie reviewers rely on such
categories as plot, characterization, or strength of the actors' perfor-
mances to arrive at their assessment of the film (this is probably a
holdover from the early beginnings of such criticism when reviewers of
this new medium generally were drama critics taking on additional du-
ties). In most casestoday, reviewers'closest comments regarding purely
filmic qualities are related to a director's use of particular techniques.
In contrast, academic critical pursuits are directed toward publica-
tions intended for fellow academicians and/or filmmakers. Their pur-
pose is to foster a better understanding of film as a medium and as an
art form. Hence scholarly criticism of film invariably touches the medi-
um's history, functions, practitioners, techniques, or aesthetics. In most
 Scrratrsnvrvsn . FIttvt Cnrrrcrsvt 523

cases, such criticism attempts to answer questions about the film's his-
tory and other issues in order to further our knowledge about art, our-
selves, and the world.
Sidney Pollack (1986), director of the critically acclaimed and suc-
cessful fllms Out of Africa andTootsie, has stated that each film is a rev-
elation of the director's perceptions about how the world operates. Each
film is thus a communication of the director's overall vision of the
world. Those who seek to understand a film implicitly seek under-
standing of what the director has communicated. In many cases, what
is communicated is not always obvious to the viewer or the critic. Close
analysis is necessary to reveal, interpret, or merely aid the viewer's un-
derstanding.
There are a variety of methods and critical models imposed on films,
all of which propose to answer specific questions about those works of
"meant" is not an ap-
art. Indeed, the question of what the filmmaker
propriate query (many critical theorists have long ago abandoned the
quest for artist's intent). Rather, the meaning of a film is just that: what
the film (or work of art) communicates. The film's meaning, then, de-
pends on how it is perceived, by whom, and with what particular per-
spective(s).
This situation appears to indicate that film meanings vary and
therefore criticism as a method for arriving at that meaning must be
fruitless pursuit. Quite the contrary is true. Works of art will often hold
different meanings for people because of their varied experiences and
backgrounds. Hence, each viewer approaches a film with different sets
of expectations and prejudices, as well as a distinct worldview and
knowledge base. The variety of critical perspectives allows each indi-
vidual to explore the perspective most meaningful to that person. More
important, for those of us studying the mass media, an additional gain
from the variety of critical perspectives used to analyze film is the dif-
ferences that are highlighted and what those differences tell us about
ourselves, others, and the human condition in general.
The remainder of this reading will. . . review the various types of
film criticism, with examples for each type of criticism. Although no
particular perspective should be viewed as more useful or proper than
any other, no doubt each reader will find one or two of those discussed
to be more functional than the others. The key is that no perspective
should be dismissed out of hand; each has its own merits as well as
faults. Like the cinematic works of art they attempt to analyze, some crit-
ical methods work for us, and others do not. To aid us in our under-
standing of film as a mass medium and as an art form, it is necessary to
be acquainted with the basic theory and the tools utilized by critics of
film.
524 Movrrs

Critical Methods in Film Criticism

Each of the critical approaches to film discussed here falls within

one of three categories:

Semiotic: realist, formalist, rhetorical, mise-en-scdne.

Structuralist: mythic, political, feminist, psychoanalytic, sociologi-
cal, phenomenological
Contextual: auteur, genre, historical.

Grouped within the semiotic category are methods that tend to focus on
the meaning of the filmic signs (shots and shot transitions), the rela-
tionship of these signs to other filmic signs, or the effect of the signs on
the film viewer. Methods that fall under the structurnllsf category seek
to define and understand the structures into which individual films
and/ or from where they are derived. Those under the contextualhead-
ing focus on aspects of film in the context of other aspects of film.

Semiotic Studies

The most logical place to start in the review of critical approaches

with a semiotic impetus is with both the realist and formalist traditions
within film theory. The realist tradition focuses on the use of film to re-
present reality based on the power of photography's ability to render
the real world objectively (Bazin 1967). Bazin argues that long takes,
depth of focus, location shooting, sunlight, and the use of nonprofes-
sional actors all contribute to a film's realist aesthetic. In his analysis of
Visconti's La Terra Trema (1971), Bazin discusses how the film is "real"
by virtue of the manner in which the narrative is presented: without the
trappings of montage (where reality is fragmented through such tech-
niques as close-up shots and excessive editing). "If a fisherman rolls a
cigarette, he [Visconti] spares us nothing: we see the whole operation; it
will not be reduced to its dramatic or symbolic meaning, as is usual with
montage" (Bazin 7971.,p.43).In a review of De Sica's BicycleThief,Bazin
praises the realist use of location shooting (nothing has been filmed in
the studio) and actors without any previous experience in theater or film
(Bazin 7977,p.52).
Analyses using the formalist approach have a different focus. Be- 11
cause of his influence on the early history of filmmaking, the Russian
filmmaker and theorist Sergei Eisenstein is most often linked (above
other theorists) to film's formalisf tradition. Eisenstein's theory of di-
alectical montage is influenced by the Japanese hieroglyph, as a pictor-
ial representation of language symbols, and by Hegel's dialectic. First,
Eisenstein believes that the ]apanese language was built on the princi-
 Scuerprnvmysn . FItv Cnrrrcrslr 525

ple of montage. For example, the picture symbol fot a dog plus the sym-
"to "two hi-
bol for mouthmeans bark" (1949,p.30). The combination of
eroglyphs of the simplest series is to be regarded not as their sum, but
as their product, i.e., as a value of another dimension, another degree;
each, separately, corresponds to anobiect, to a fact, but their combination
corresponds to a concept. From separate hieroglyphs has been fused-
the ideogram" (Eisenstein 19 49, pp. 29-30).
Eisenstein theorizes that film relied on the same process: a shot com- 72

bined in the editing process with another shot created a new concept.
Paralleling this approach is the influence of Hegel's dialectic. Thesis and
antithesiscombine to form a synthesis-a new concept that is no longer
reducible to those ideas that in combination make up the editing (aswell
as any other art form). Montage is the collision of independent shots
(shots that are opposite to one another) (Eisenstein 1949, p.49)' Mean-
ing in film, then, evolves from the juxtaposition of film shots that man-
ifest conflict. The differences might be in lighting, shot composition,
shot length, conflict of volumes, lines, movement of objects, or some-
thing else. Excluding Eisenstein's philosophical and political (or Marx-
ist) orientation, the basis of his theory is film construction: shot plus shot
plus shot . . . Hence, any critic interested in how the shots of a film are
"mean"
combined to would essentially be conducting formalist criti-
cism.
Ted Perry's essay (1970)onMichaelangelo Antonioni's film L'Eclisse 13
argues that the meaning of the film depends on certain cues given
within the film. In distinguishing between what he callsfact context and
aalue context, the author argues that the film's meaning is born of the for-
mative forces within the film (p.79).Perry's analysis relies heavily on
the notion of combination. The value context (the attitudes, impressions,
and values by which the film frames the fact context) influences the
viewer's reading of the fact context (the elements that represent the ac-
tions, objects, and events of the physical world depicted in the motion
picture images). This analysis reflects the formalist tradition in its focus
on meaning that is built upon the combination of shots.
A third type of analysis within the semiotic orientation is rhetoricnl t4
in focus. This type of criticism examines the film as a rhetorical artifact
that exhibits intentional meaning and structure. It is an approach based
on traditional notions of rhetoric as a means to persuasion. Often rely-
ing on critical models from other disciplines, the rhetorical criticism of
film deals with the communicative potential of film.
"Image
In and Ambiguity: A Rhetorical ApproachtoThe Exorcist,"
Martin Medhurst (1978) examines the key images in six of the film's
episodes in order to define the film's central stance: a rhetoric of choice.
The author argues that certain recurring images combine in clusters to
526 Movrrs

"Humans
foster the contention that people have choices to make: must
choose between the forces of good and the legions of evil. . . . They must
consciously will the good and then by a step of faith act on that choice.
This is exactly what Damien Karras does in the climax of the film. He
consciously chooses to assert that Regan will not die and then proceeds
to ace on the basis of that assertion" (Medhurst 1978, pp.90-91).
Medhurst (1982) has also analyzed Alain Resnais' Hiroshima, Mon 76
Amour as a film about the problem of knowing reality. In essence, Med-
hurst's analysis is traditionally rhetorical in his focus on the filmmak-
"cinematic "Resnais has built into the film the very para-
er's statement":
dox which forms its thesis. . . . Resnais has been able to take his thesis
and transform it into a cinematic resource. . . . To know reality, Resnais
seems to be saying, is no easy task" (Medhurst 7982, p.370). Clearly in
evidence is the rhetorical quest concerning what the filmmaker means.
Both of the Medhurst essays ostensibly rely on examining and inter-
preting the filmmaker's message.
The final type of semiotic-oriented criticism relys onmise-en-scine- 77
the environment of the film, which is created by its lighting, sets, cos-
tumes, movement, and any other features that comprise the scene as
photographed by the camera. Film analysis that focuses on these ele-
ments and on the expressive function of the individual shots is the ba-
sis of mise-en-scdne criticism (Stromgren and Norden 1984, p. 265).
Mise-en-scdne criticism lies in the boundary zone between formalism
"largely
and realism; it is concerned with stylistic or expressive quali-
ties of the single shot. . . in contrast to Bazin's perception of the long
take as a transparent realism . . . and in sharp distinction to Eisenstein's
herding of all expressive categories under the single umbrella of mon-
tage" (Nichols 7976, p. 311).
One notable example of mise-en-scdne criticism is Place and Peter-
"Some
son's Visual Motifs of Film Noir" (1974).Here, the authors define
visual style by utilizing the technical terminology of Hollywood. Their
analysis reveals a style reliant on low-key lighting, night-for-night pho-
tography (versus day-for-night where the scene, shot in the bright sun-
light of day, is manipulated to create an illusion of night), depth of field
(the entire shot is in focus), and antitraditional camera setups and an-
"The 'dark
gles: mirror' of film noir creates a visually unstable environ-
ment in which no character has a firm moral base from which he can
confidently operate. All attempts to find safety or security are undercut
by the antitraditional cinematography andmise-en-scDne"(Placeand Pe-
terson, p. 338).
All of these types of criticism have semiotic underpinnings: each at-
tempts to understand and/or interpret the meaning of cinematic signs,
the relationship of cinematic signs to each other, and their meaning to
 Scnaertnvnvrn . FItvr Cnrrrcrspr 527

the viewer. Therearenot always clear-cutboundariesbetween the vary-

ing elements.However, the distinctive featuresof the type are clear:The
pti*u.y focus is on cinematic features and the use of film theory. This
is contrary to the structuralist studies,which utilize literary-cultural fea-
tures. They are, in effect,extracinematic(outside of cinema).

Structuralist Studies
There are severaltypes of structuralist methodology. Eachmethod
attempts to impose its own orientation or structure on the film; eachar-
guesthat the fiim exhibits particular featuresof the societywithin which
it is produced.
ihe mythic approach assertsthe presenceof one or more specific 21
myths that, by virtue of their preeminence,are found (or likely to be
found) in a society'saestheticartifacts.Dale Williams's essay(1984)on
the religiousnature of StanleyKubrick's 200L:A Space Odysseyisan ex-
ample of criticism that uncovers the meaning of the film by defining its
-ythic overtones.Using the theories of Kenneth Burke (1969),williams
argues thaL200l revolvesaround the concepts of order and redemption,
sairifice and rebirth, self-denial, and communion with God (Williams
1984,p.321). Similarly,Martha Solomon(1983)arguesthat British-made
Chariotsof Firewassuccessful in the United Statesbecauseit reflectstwo
contradictory facets of the American dream-what Fisher (1973)calls
the materialistic myth and the moralistic myth. The film's success,in
part, is due to its reaffirmation of both competing myths for an audience
iikely to follow, individually, one or the other. Chariots,according to
solomon, functions both mythically and metaphorically in its depiction
of a series of successful,archetypal quests by the film's mythic hero
characters(p.275).
Thepoliticalapproachto criticism is likely to focus on films and their
relationshipto the areasof history,ideology,economics,and socialcrit-
icism.jeffrey Richards'sessay(1970)on FrankCapraillustrateshow the
films of a single director can contain political undertones. In this case,
Capra'sfilms reflectidealsof the populist party: self-helpand individ-
ualism versus political machines and big government. Richards finds
the presenceof Capra's emphasisof populism in the motifs of anti-
intellectualism, wealth, pursuit of happiness, and the quintessential
good neighbor. Capra's films in the postwar era castaside thesethemes
b"cause the world had progressed,and the forces of organization had
won out.
Thefeminist perspectivein criticism has gained sufficient status as
a category,though it could be argued that its impetus is political in na-
ture. Most of the feminist critics analyzefilms' treatment of women as
528 Movrts

they support or negatethe role of women in contemporary society.For

example, Diane Giddis (1973)explores a woman's dilemma (the fear
that love representsloss of autonomy) in her analysis of Klute. Giddis
finds that the film reflectswoman's need to love and make a deep emo-
tional commitment-a commitment unnecessary,to the same degree,
for men. ConstancePenley (1973)analyzesIngmar Bergman'sCriesand
Whispersin the perspectiveof Bergman's other films. Penley'sanalysis
runs counter to the majority of the film's reviews; she seesCriesas an-
other example of Bergman's excessiveportrayal of woman as victim,
temptress,evil incarnate,and earth mother.
Psychoanalytic and sociological
criticisms are likely to use models of
analysisfrom acceptedtheoristsor contemporary socialconcerns.Rush-
ing and Frentz (1980),for example, derive their analysis of The Deer
Hunter from the psychologicaltheoriesof Carl Jung.In a sociologicalcri-
tique, the critic usessociologicalconcepts,such as class,status,interac-
tion, organization and culture, to analyze a film. They may also use the
perspectiveand language of social movements.
Finally, tll.ephenomenologicalapproachto criticism is concernedwith
the manner in which viewers perceive the film and/or its images (al-
ways, however, in relation to the whole) (seeAndrew 7978).An exam-
ple of this type is janiceSchuetz'sanalysis(1975)of TheExorcisf . Schuetz
utilizes the symbols of yin and yang from the I Chingas a paradigm for
explaining the viewer's perceptionsof the film. Shearguesthat the film
"presents reality in an organismic way, showing goodness and evil,
doubt and faith, despair and hope, secular and sacred. . . as realistic
representationsof an integratedreality" (pp. 100-101).In addition, the
imagesare sufficiently ambiguous to permit viewers to attribute mean-
ing basedon their own frame of reference(p. 101).

Contextual Studies
The three types included here-auteur, genre,and historical-have
in common the study of film(s) within a specificcontext:directorial style
(in its broadestsense),narrative type, and impact on or development of
the film industry and/ or the film as art form. Examplesof eachtype are
readily available in single texts, film periodicals, and collections of es-
says.
The most controversial of the three types is auteurcriticism. Auteur
theory assumesa certain amount of directorial autonomy in film pro-
duction regardlessof the fact that film is a product of producers,screen-
writers, cinematographers,actors,musicians, film editors, and others.
The film's creation and the stylistic choices made are assumed to be
thoseof a single person-the director. Auteur criticism, then, focuseson
 Scnesrrnvrrvun . Fnlt Cnrrrcrsv 529

film directors and the style manifested in two or more of their films. Di-
rectors such as Alfred Hitchcock, Charles Chaplin, John Ford, Howard
Hawks, and Orson Welles have indirectly generatednumerous auteur
studies.No doubt, and not far off, there will be studies of GeorgeLucas
and StevenSpielberg.
Andrew Sarris(1968)usesauteur theory to rank various directors.
Relying on three criteria-technical competence,stylistic identity, and
commr]nicability of worldview-he estimatestheir worth as directors'
john simon,s analysisof Ingmar Bergman (1.972)is an auteur study that
iooks at four filmsthat Simon thinks representBergman'sbest work up
to the early 1970s.IanCameron' stwo-part essayon Hitchcock (7972a)
is another example of auteur criticism. It analyzesa specific feature of
the director's overall style, his ability to createsuspensein his films:

Having arrived at sucha disturbing,view[everythingis a potential

threatl Hitchcockparadoxicallyrelishesit and lovesmorethan any-
thing to torturehis audiences by makingthemfind the mostinnocu-
o.,, ihing alarmingso that he cin surpriseand terrify themwhen the
(Cameron
realthreit is revealed. 1972b,p.3$.

By examininga single fllm,TheManWho KnewTooMuch,Cameron

validites his auteur assumptionsabout Hitchcock's style. Another typ-
ical example of auteur criticism is Michael Budd's essay(1976)on visual
imagery
'Geirein john Ford'sWesterns.
criticism focuseson the narrative structurescommon to film:
Westerns,war films, musicals, gangster films, and so on' This type of
criticism also categorizesfilms according to specific characteristics.
Thus, to be able to classify an object,to know where it fits, is a meansto-
ward understanding it better. we are then able to analyze a certain film
"how the director of that
basedon how well ii fits a particular genre and
work used the elementsof the genre-its conaentions-to make a state-
ment unique to that film" (stromgrenand Norden 1984).(Foradditional
commentson genre criticism, seeKaminsky 7974;seealso the extensive
bibliography of genrestudiesin Cook 7981,pp. 691'-692')
Fr:naliy,'histirlcalstudies inevitably analyzethe entire scope_ofthe 3 1
film's development.Cook (1981),Ellis (1985),Giannetti and Eyman
(7986),and Mast (1986)are fine representativesof historical criticism.
In addition, studiesof particular studios (Buscombe1975;Gomety1976)
analyze the film industry from economic, political, or corporate per-
,p".iirr"t or the impact of new technology. A relativ-ely new annual
"Current Researchin Film: Audiences,
slries edited by Bruie A. Austin,
Economics, and Law," publishes original essays on corporate struc-
ture, film financing, legal issues,marketing and promotion strategies,
and others in an attempt to provide a place for those critics whose
530 Movrns

interests and work lie outside of the scope addressedby existing film
journals.

Conclusion

There is a danger in establishing category systems.Inevitably ex-

amples of criticism exhibit featuresappropriate for more than one type
of critical method. fudgment as to the correct placement of each of the
exampleshere is left up to the reader.However, no apology is made for
the classificationcontainedwithin; what theseessaysaccomplishis typ-
ical of the category they exemplify. Nor are they to be considered ex-
amples of superior criticism. In some cases,they createas many ques-
tions as they answer.
There will continue to be a need to analyzethe best, worst, and av-
erageoutput of the film industry. Although the ultimate arbiter for judg-
ing a film's successmay be its box office receipts,those with expertise
should continue to analyze film with the expresspurpose of better un-
derstanding it as a mass media art form. Critics of both kinds, public
and scholarly, can always hope that filmmakers, and ultimately audi-
ences,will benefit from their efforts.
From the oppositeviewpoint, thosewho practicefilm criticism have
no monopoly on perfection. Critics must continue to read other critical
analysesof film in order to improve their own craft. Like the student
in a public speaking course, critics benefit from witnessing the suc-
cessesand blunders of other critics. New methods are tried and either
validated or rejected.In a rapidly progressingworld, there is comfort in
the thought that our critical stance and methods also continue to
progress.

References

Andrew, Dudley. 1978."The Neglected Tradition of Phenomenologyin

Film Theory." WideAngle2:44-49.
Bazin, Andr6. 1967.What Is Cinema?Vol. 1. Translated and edited by
Hugh Gray. Berkeley:University of California Press.
1971.What Is Cinema?Vol. 2. Translated and edited by Hugh
Gray. Berkeley:University of California Press.
Budd, Michael. 1976." A Home in the Wilderness: Visual Imagery in
"
fohn Ford's Westerns. CinemaIournal 76:62-75.
 Scn-nnrsnvnytn . FILra Cnrrrctsvr 531

Burke, Kenneth. tg6g. A Rhetoricof Moti1es.Berkeley:university of Cal-

ifornia Press.
"Notes on Columbia Pictures Corporation,
Buscombe,Edward. 1975.
1926-1941."Screen16. Reprinted in Nichols 1985:92-108'
"Hitchcock and the Mechanics of Suspense'"
Cameron, Ian. 1972a.
MoaieReader.New York: Frederick A' Praeger.
lg72b. "Hitchcock 2: Suspenseand Meaning." Moaie Resder'
New York: Praeger.
Cook,David A. 1981.AHistory of NarratirteFllm.New York: W' W' Nor-
ton.
Eisenstein,sergei. 1947.TheFilm sense.New York: Harcourt Bracejo-
vanovich.
1949.FiIm Form: Essaysin FiImTheory.Translatedand edited by
]ay Leyda. New York: Harcourt, Braceand World'
Ellis,JackC. f gSS.A Historyof Film.2d ed. EnglewoodCliffs, N'j': Pren-
tice-Hall.
"Reaffirmation and subversion of the American
Fisher, walter. 1973.
Dream." Quarterlylournal of Speech59:760-1'67.
Giannetti, Louis, and scott Eyman. 1986.Flashback:A Brief History of
Film. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall'
"The Divided Woman: BreeDaniels in Klute'" Wo-
Giddis, Diane. 7973.
menandFilm,nos.3-4. Reprintedin Nichols1976:194-207'
"Writing the History of the American.Film In-
Gomery, Douglas. 7976.
dustry: Wuttt". Brothers and Sound." Screen17' Reprinted in
Nichols1985:109-119.