Film History Introduction

Researchers are fond of saying that there is no film history , only film histories.For some, this
means that there can be no intelligible, coherent ―grand narrative‖ that puts all the facts into the
place. The history of avant-garde film does not fit neatly into the history of color technology or
the development of the Western films. For others, film history mean that historians work from
various perspectives and with different interests and purposes.
Film history is more appropriately thought of as a set of film histories, because research into film
history involves asking a series of questions and searching for evidence in order to answer them
in the course of an argument. When historians focus on different questions, turn up different
evidence, and formulate different explanations, we derive not a single history but a diverse set of
historical arguments.
Film historians mount research programs, systematic inquiries into the past. A historian research
program is organized around questions that require answers. A research program also consists of
assumptions and background knowledge. For a film historian, a fact takes on significance only in
the context of research program. Historians in any discipline do more than accumulate facts. No
facts speak for themselves. Facts are interesting and important only as part of research programs.
But facts help us ask and answer questions.
Historians research programs aims to do at least two things. First the historian tries to describe a
process or state of affairs. She asks what and who and where and when. What is this film, who
made it, where and when? In what ways does this director‘s work differ from that of others?
What evidence is there that a studio was nearly bankrupt? Who is the actor in the shot? Who was
responsible for scripts at this company? Where was this film shown, and who might have seen it?
Here the historians problem is largely one of finding information that will answer such questions.
Accurate description is indispensable for all historical research. Every scholar is indebted to
descriptive work for identifying films, collating versions, compiling filmographies, establishing
timelines, and creating reference works that supply names, dates and the like. The more
sophisticated and long lived a historical discipline is, the richer and more complete its battery of
descriptive reference material is.
Second a historian tries to explain a process or state of affairs. He asks, How does this work?
And Why did this happen? How did this company assign tasks, lay out responsibilities, carry a
project to completion? How did this directors work influence other films from the company?The
film historian , like a historian of art or politics, proposes an explanatory argument. The
historian‘s argument consists of evidence to create a believable explanation for an event or state
of affairs.
Most argument about empirical matters-and the history of film is principally and empirical
matter-rely on evidence. Evidence consists of information that gives grounds for believing that
the argument is sound. Evidence supports the expectation that the historian has presented a
plausible answer to the original question. Film historians work with evidence of many sorts. For
many, copies of the films they study are central pieces of evidence. Historians also rely on print
sources, both published(books, magazines, trade journals, newspapers) and unpublished
(memoirs, letters, notes, production files, scripts, court testimony).Historians of film technology
study cameras, sound recorders and other equipment. A film studio or an important location
might also serve as a source of evidence.
Usually historians must verify their sources of evidence. Often this depends on the sort of
descriptive research we have already mentioned. The problem is particularly acute with film
prints. Films have always circulated in different versions. In the 1920s, Hollywood films were
shot in two versions, one for the United States and one for export. These could differ
considerably in length, content, and even visual style. To this day, many Hollywood films are
released in Europe in more erotic or violent versions than are screened in the United States. In
addition, many old films have deteriorated and been subject to cutting and revision. Even modern
restorations do not necessarily result in film identical to the original version. Many current video
versions of old films have been trimmed, expanded or otherwise altered from their theatrical
release format. Often, then the historian does not known whether the print she is seeing
represents anything like and original , if indeed there can be said to be a single ―original‖
version.Historians try to be aware of the differences among the versions of the films they are
studying and try to account for them; indeed the fact that there are different versions can itself be
a source of questions.
Historians generally distinguish between primary and secondary sources. As applied to film,
primary sources usually refers to the people directly involved in whatever objects or events are
being studied. For example, if you were studying Japanese cinema of the 1920s, film, interviews
with filmmakers or audience members, and contemporary trade journals would count as primary
material. Later discussions concerning the period, usually by an earlier historian, would be
considered secondary. Often, though one scholar‘s secondary source is another‘s primary source,
because the researchers are asking different question.
There are different types of explanation in film history:
Biographical history: focusing on an individual‘s life history
Industrial or economic history: focusing on business practices
Aesthetic history: focusing on film art(form, style , genre)
Technological history: focusing on the materials and machines of film
Social/cultural/political history: focusing on the role of cinema in larger society.
This sort of inventory helps us understand that there is not one history of film but many possible
histories, each adopting a different perspective. Typically, the researcher begins with an interest
in one of these areas, which helps him to formulate his initial question.
Nevertheless, such typologies can be restricting if they are taken too rigidly. Not all questions the
historian may ask will fall neatly into only one of these pigeonholes. If you want to know why a
film looks the way it does, the question may not be purely aesthetic; it might be linked to the
biography of the filmmaker or to the technological resources available when the film was made.
A study of film genres might involve both aesthetic and cultural factors, and person‘s life can not
easily be separated from his or her conditions within a film industry or from the contemporary
political context.