Mary Le Gierse
German 524
David Bordwell:  “The Art Cinema As A Mode of Film Practice”

November 11, 2004

In this essay, Bordwell tries to persuade the reader that art films “constitute a distinct branch of cinematic institution [and]…that ‘art cinema’ possess[es] a definite historical existence, a set of formal conventions, and implicit viewing procedures.” (774) From a historical perspective, contemporary art cinema has its origins in German Expressionism, Neue Sachlichkeit and French Impressionism.  The Neorealist films of the 1940s and 50s “may be considered the first postwar instances of the international art cinema.” (775)  In Film Art:  An Introduction, Bordwell and Thompson define the films of the Neorealist movement:  “The ambiguity of Neorealist films is…a product of narration that refuses to yield an omniscient knowledge of events…Neorealism’s tendency toward a slice-of-life plot construction gave many films of the movement an open-ended quality quite opposed to the narrative closure of the Hollywood cinema.” (486) Based on this definition of Neorealist filmmaking and Bordwell’s classification of Neorealist films as part of “art cinema,” it seems clear that his concept of “art cinema” is related to notions of 1) ambiguity, 2) lack of omniscient narration, 3) depictions of the world drawn from a variety of viewpoints (i.e. slice-of-life plot construction) and  4) unresolved endings.  Indeed, it is through the discussion of these four elements in “The Art Cinema As A Mode of Film Practice” that Bordwell argues that “art cinema” can be viewed as “a distinct mode of film practice.” (774)

While films exemplifying the “classical narrative cinema,” which can be traced to “studio feature filmmaking in Hollywood since 1920” (775), include “cause-effect logic[,]…narrative parallelism [and] psychologically-defined, goal oriented characters” (775), art films stress “realism, authorial expressivity [as well as] psychologically complex…characters…[who] lack defined desires and goals.” (776)  Art films are realistic because they confront the problems of reality such as “alienation” and “lack of communication.” (776)  The kinds of realities highlighted by art films can reflect an examination of settings and characters using “documentary factuality,” which often results in the “intrusion of an unpredictable and contingent daily reality” (777) in the film.  In contrast, art films can also focus on reality by connecting with the “subjective reality of complex characters” (777), who can be considered “psychologically sensitive individual[s]” (777) because “they seek the aetiology of their feelings…[and] tell one another stories:  autobiographical events, fantasies, and dreams.” (776-777)

Although the reality depicted by art films tends to highlight troubled characters who wander and lack concrete goals, it would, according to Bordwell, not be correct to think that art films lack force or structure.  For him, “the author [of the film] becomes a formal component, [the author is]  the overriding intelligence organizing the film for our comprehension.” (777) The influence of the author in the organization of the film is present in order to lead the viewer to the recognition of “stylistic signatures in the narration…[or sign that the film is] the work of an expressive individual.” (778)  Yet the role of the author as the organizer of the film could seem to conflict with Bordwell’s idea that art films attempt to “loosen[]…causal relations.” (774).  How is it possible that the art film can be a symbol both of openness, i.e. lack of defined goals, lack of goal-oriented characters, lack of functions which “advance the narrative” (775) and also manifest a strong sense of  purpose because of the role of the author in constructing this chaos?  Bordwell’s proposed solution to this tension involves the concept of ambiguity and the open-ended narrative.  In Bordwell’s eyes, art films are ambiguous because it is not clear if episodes in the plot are meant to be read as motivated by the character or the author.  If there is a gap in the plot, the viewer ought to first ask if it can be connected to a character.  If this does not seem to yield light on the reason for the gap, the viewer should then consider this break as motivated by the author in order to make a comment using the plot and characters as metaphors.  However, freedom is given to the viewer to make the decision about how to interpret the gaps in the plot, either as part of a character’s personality or eccentricity or as inserted by the author in order to get a message across to the audience.  In my view, Bordwell’s concept of ambiguity corresponds to the ability of each individual viewer to decode the thought process which has generated the film.

In light of the role of ambiguity in art film and the room for individual interpretation which is produced by this ambiguity, I think it is necessary to mention a third element which makes art film what it is.  In Bordwell’s essay, the art films emerge because of a particular relationship between the plot and characters in the film and the author who organizes the way the plot moves and the way in which the characters act.  Bordwell maintains that ambiguity arises because there is no single or universal interpretation of the relationship between the content of an art film and its author.  The concept of art film championed in this essay remains incomplete without a discussion of the role of the viewer in art film.  A viewer is needed to watch the film, to recognize the ambiguity and to try to interpret what this ambiguity could be symbolizing.  There will be as many different interpretations of the ambiguity in art films as there are viewers.  But is it always the case that ambiguity in a film classifies it as an art film?  Is this classification based truly or only on the formal principles which Bordwell uses to separate art films from classical narrative films?  Or is this judgment also ambiguous and open to the interpretations of viewers?  At the end of the essay, Bordwell says that some films combine formal principles from both classical narrative cinema and art cinema.  What are the lines of distinction between classical narrative films, art films and films “in between” and who or what is the authority which produces notions of distinction?