The Oxford History of World Cinema (3 page)

exist throughout the world, has been the biggest single challenge in planning and putting

together this book. The sheer diversity of world cinema, the number of films made (many

of which do not circulate outside national borders), and the variety of cultural and

political contexts in which the world's cinemas have emerged, means that it would be

foolish or arrogant, or both, for any one person to attempt to encompass the entire history

of cinema single-handed. This is not just a question of knowledge but also of perspective.

In presenting a picture of world cinema in all its complexity, I have been fortunate in

being able to call upon a team of contributors who are not only expert in their own fields

but are in many cases able to bring to their subject a 'feel' for the priorities and the issues

at stake which I, as an outsider, would never be able to replicate -- even if I knew as much

as they do, which I do not. This has been particularly valuable in the case of India and

Japan, countries whose cinemas rival Hollywood in scale but are known in the west only

in the most partial, fragmentary, and unhistorical fashion.

Giving space to multiple perspectives is one thing. It is also important to be able to bring

them all together and to give a sense of the interlocking character of the many aspects of

cinema in different places and at different times. At one level the cinema may be one big

machine, but it is composed of many parts, and many different attitudes can be taken both

to the parts and to the whole. The points of view of audiences (and there is no such thing

as 'the' audience), of artists (and there is no single prototype of 'the artist'), and of film

industries and industrialists (and again there is not just one industry) are often divergent.

There is also the problem, familiar to all historians, of trying to balance history 'as it

happened' -and as it was seen by the participants -- with the demands of present-day

priorities and forms of knowledge (including present-day ignorance). No less familiar to

historians is the question of the role of individuals within the historical machine, and here

the cinema offers a particular paradox since unlike other industrial machineries it not only

depends on individuals but also creates them -in the form, most conspicuously, of the

great film stars who are both producers of cinema and its product. In respect of all these

questions I have seen my task as editor as one of trying to show how different

perspectives can be related, rather than imposing a single all-encompassing point of view.

HOW THE BOOK IS ARRANGED

An editor's chief weapon is organization, and it is through the way the book is organized

that I have attempted to give form to the interrelation of different perspectives as outlined

above. The book is divided chronologically into three parts: the Silent Cinema, the Sound

Cinema from 1930 to 1960, and the Modern Cinema from 1960 to the present. In each

part the book looks first at aspects of the cinema in general during the period in question,

and then at cinemas in particular parts of the world. The general essays cover subjects

such as the studio system, technology, film genres, and a range of developments in both

mainstream and independent cinema in America, Europe, and elsewhere.

As far as possible I have tried to ensure that each development is covered from a broad

international perspective, in recognition of the fact that from the earliest times the cinema

has developed in remarkably similar ways throughout the industrial world. But it is also a

fact that, from the end of the First World War onwards, one film industry -- the American

-- has played a dominant role, to such an extent that much of the history of cinema in

other countries has consisted of attempts by the indigenous industries to thwart, compete

with, or distinguish themselves from American ('Hollywood') competition. The American

cinema therefore occupies a central position throughout the 'general' sections of the book,

and there is no separate consideration of American cinema as a 'national cinema' along

with the French, Japanese, Soviet, and other cinemas. Coverage in the 'national', or 'world

cinema', sections extends to all the major cinemas of Europe, Asia, Africa, Australasia,

and the Americas. With some regret, however, I decided that in the area of Asian cinema

(the world's largest) it was preferable to concentrate on a study in depth of the most

important and representative national cinemas rather than attempt an overview of every

filmproducing country. The areas focused on are the three major Chinese-language

cinemas (those of the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan), and the

cinemas of Japan, Indonesia, India, and Iran. I also soon realized that almost any way of

grouping world cinemas, and especially forms of grouping based on notions like First,

Second, and Third World, was highly prejudicial; the 'national' or 'world cinema' sections

are therefore simply strung out in a roughly west to east geographical order. This

sometimes means that cinemas that show political or cultural similarities are grouped

together. For example, East Central Europe, Russia, and the Soviet Republics of the

Caucasus and Central Asia are both geographically adjacent and shared a common

political system in the period 1948-90, and are covered in succession in Part III. But

mainland China, which also shared that system (and whose cinema was shaped by similar

ideological imperatives), is grouped with the other Chinese-speaking cinemas of Hong

Kong and Taiwan. In all three parts of the book the journey starts in France, but in Part I it

ends in Japan, and in Parts II and III in Latin America. While the decision to start in

France may be taken to imply a certain priority, the form taken by the journey thereafter

emphatically does not.

The various world cinemas are also dealt with in terms of the time of their emergence on

the world stage. In Part I there are relatively few; there are more in Part II, and a lot more

in Part III. This means that a number of essays in Part II and even more in Part III also

delve back into the earlier history of the cinema in the country concerned. This minor

violation of the chronological structure of the book seemed to me better than pedantically

assigning, say, Iranian silent films to the silent cinema section, rather than to a single,

coherent essay on Iran.

For reasons made clear at the beginning of this introduction, many of the essays in the

book focus on institutional factors -- on industry and trade, on censorship, and so on --

and on the conditions surrounding the activity of film-making, as much as they do on

films and filmmakers. It is also sadly the case that it is simply not possible, in a book of

this size, to do justice to all the many individuals who have played noteworthy roles in the

history of cinema. But the lives and careers of individual artists, technicians, or producers

are not only interesting in their own right, they can also illuminate with particular clarity

how the cinema works as a whole. In a way the story of Orson Welles, for example, who

spent his career either in conflict with the studio system or in attempts to make films

outside it entirely, can tell one more about the system than any number of descriptions of

how life was lived within it. To help provide this illumination, as well as for intrinsic

interest, the text of the book is interspersed with 'insets' devoted to individual film-

makers-actors, directors, producers, and technicians-who have contributed in various

ways to making the cinema what it has become.

The choice of individuals to feature has been inspired by a number of overlapping criteria.

Some have been chosen because they are obviously important and well known, and no

history of the cinema would be complete without some extended treatment of their

careers. Examples in this category -- taken more or less at random -- include D. W.

Griffith, Ingmar Bergman, Marilyn Monroe, and Alain Delon. But there are other people

-- the Indian'megastars' Nargis or M. G. Ramachandran, for instance -- who are less well

known to western readers but whose careers have an equal claim to be featured in a

history of world cinema. The need for different perspectives has also dictated the

inclusion of independent women film-makers (Agnès Varda, Chantal Akerman) and

documentarists (Humphrey Jennings, Joris Ivens) alongside more mainstream directors.

All these examples can be seen as illustrative or typical of something about the cinema

which a more orthodox account of film history might not adequately reflect. But I have

been tempted to go further, and have also chosen for 'inset' treatment one or two

individuals whose careers can hardly be described as typical but which throw light on

some of the rich diversity and occasional oddity of cinema, and the place it occupies in

the world. The result, needless to say, is that alongside the individuals who are featured

there are also many whom readers might expect to be on the list, but for whom a place

was not found. This will no doubt lead to disagreements and occasional disappointments,

particularly where personal favourites are not among the list of those accorded 'inset'

treatment. But it is not possible to accommodate all tastes, and, more to the point, the

purpose of the insets (as I hope I have made clear) is not to be a pantheon of 150 great

names but to illuminate the cinema across the board.

In the first century of its existence the cinema has produced works of art worthy to stand

comparison with the masterworks of painting, music, and literature. But these are only the

tip of the iceberg of an art form whose growth to pre-eminence has been without

precedent in the history of world culture. Even more than that, the cinema is ineradicably

embedded in the whole history of the twentieth century. It has helped to shape, as well as

to reflect, the reality of our times, and to give form to the aspirations and dreams of

people the world over. More than anything else, this book aims to give a sense of this

unique achievement and to illuminate not only the richness of cinema itself but the place

it occupies in the wider world of culture and history.

REFERENCES

Each essay in the book is followed by a short list of books either referred to as sources by

the author or recommended as further reading. Priority has been given to works which are

easily accessible in English; but where (as sometimes happens) no adequate source exists

in English or other major western languages, more recondite sources may be cited. Full

bibliographical references for all works cited are given in the general bibliography at the

end of the book. Besides a list of books, the insets are also followed by a selected

filmography.

In the matter of foreign film titles, no single rule has been applied. Films which have a

generally accepted release title in English-speaking countries are usually referred to under

that title, with the original title in parentheses the first time the film is mentioned. For

films which have no generally accepted English title the original title is used throughout,

followed by an English translation in parentheses and quotation marks on first occurrence.

But in the case of some European and Asian countries, translated titles are used

throughout. The Pinyin transcription has been used for Chinese names, except in the case

of Taiwanese and Hong Kong artists who themselves use other transcriptions. Russian

personal names and film titles have been transcribed in the 'popular' form. thus Eisenstein,

rather than the more correct but pedantic Eizenshtein;
Alexander Nevsky
rather than

Aleksandr Nevskii.
Every effort has been made to render accents and diacriticals correct in

Scandinavian and Slavic languages, in Hungarian and in Turkish, and in the transcription

of Arabic, but I cannot promise that this has been achieved in every case.

1

Silent Cinema 1895-1930

Annette Benson in the British comedy Shooting Stars ( 1928), directed by A. V. Bramble and (uncredited) Anthony Asquith

Introduction

GEOFFREY NOWELL-SMITH

The history of the cinema in its first thirty years is one of unprecedented expansion and