Film Theory and Criticism. By Leo Braudy and Marshall Cohen, eds. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004, sixth edition. Pp. ix+937, ISBN 0-19-515817-2)

This sixth edition compilation is a primer for film studies grouping key segments of film theory and criticism by fifty-seven contributors. In the Preface (xv-xviii) both editors, Leo Braudy and Marshall Cohen discuss recurring questions in film theory and how film is unique in its “formal qualities… [its] need for enormous capital investment, and its relation to mass audience” (xv). This book gleans all phases of film theory and history from the 1916-1930s formalist period, to the 1960-1970s classical, to the beginning of the 1970s’ systems of meaning phase, and the 1980s’ postmodernist approaches (xv-xvi). There are in each overlapping phases various theoretical breakthroughs which include psychoanalysis, feminism, neocolonialism, and phenomenology (xvi). As an overview, all chapters offer insightful analyses in film studies. In Chapter I “Film Language” (1-133) we learn about the progression of the Russian formalist period in film theory from Sergei M. Eisenstein (13-40) and Vsevolod Pudovkin (7-12) to the structuralist Christian Metz (65-86). We also learn about the iconic and mimetic cinematic coding as described by Stephen Price (87-105). In Chapter II “Film and Reality” (135-282), we learn about Siegfried Kracauer’s realism in cinema and the reproduction of life in film (143-165). André Bazin’s perspective is also illustrated in his essay “The Ontology of the Photographic Image” (166-170) where he discusses the “obsession” of realism through photography and cinema. The image of a world or of Man is reproduced through a lens that conveys a realistic portrait of the subject. This marked “obsession” of realism by Bazin is, according to editors Braudy and Cohen, also shared by Jean Renoir, Orson Welles, and William Wyler. This could fit the docu-fiction and documentary styles of film and is still a very prominent form of expression and exposure of one’s surrounding world. One could say that Bazin’s interests mimic a visual ethnographer trying to reconstruct a setting, dependent on natural events and interactions amongst performers. In contrast to Bazin’s neo-realistic vision of cinema, Rudolf Arnheim’s reflections of cinema as art and self-sufficient form of reality (183-186) as well as Stan Brakhage’s views of visual realism as illusionary (199-205) describe the intertextual meanings of visual codes, inborn signs and other influences affecting the film process. In other words, where some find it vital to recreate and promote natural settings in film to generate a sense of authenticity, others rely on artistic creativity and argue that it is not possible to recreate a “natural” surrounding. The criticism and theoretical approaches are similar to that of folklore collecting and the fieldwork process since ethnographic work tries to capture “natural” life. The theoretical perspectives of film as art and whether they should be viewed as separate are examined in Chapter III “The Film Medium: Image and Sound” (283-404). This section includes psychoanalytic theory especially surrounding the voice and the visual aesthetics of film. While Chapter IV’s “Film Narratives and the Other Arts” (405-553) discusses the art of narrative through film, Chapter V’s “The Film Artist” (55-656) talks about the creation of Hollywood as an “industrialized studio system” (555) after World War I. We learn about Andrew Sarris (561-564) and Peter Wollen’s “auteur theory” (565-580), that is, the author’s meaning in film, revealing his “style” and “basic motifs” (556). Sarris’ own interpretation of “auteur theory” draws on works from Ian Cameron and the “cahiers” critics illustrating how and when a film is “auteur” and when the Director’s meaning truly permeates through his/her films, or whether it is a combination of all artists involved in the final product (561-580). This is specifically explained when Sarris examines “the three premises of the auteur theory… the outer …