Issues in European Cinema: an academic reading

As Ginette Vincendeau explains in her article, “Issues in European Cinema,” French and other European cinema has long been defined as art cinema dominated by famous auteurs. She notes that the full study of European cinema, besides these famous directors, is only a recent development. One recent film that does take a look as this history is Olivier Assayas’s film Irma Vep, made in 1996.
In this film, Assayas both mocks and pays tribute to the old ideas of auteur theory. He respects the old standard, but also questions its relevance in the contemporary film world. He references many of the facets of European cinema that Vincendeau uses in her article.
A tribute used to celebrate a major auteur in French cinema comes in Assayas’s choice of casting Jean-Pierre Leaud, who portrayed several characters based on Francois Truffaut in the famed director’s films. Truffaut is a major figure in film history, especially in France. His name certainly is synonymous with the French New Wave and 1960’s European cinema in general. Truffaut was one of the Cahiers du Cinema critics who most strongly supported the auteur theory. His career, in fact, became a testament to his theory.
Vincendeau takes Truffaut’s theory of autuers and gives a list of the best directors in Europe’s history, putting him in the second-highest category (444). By making the director in the film a reference to a famous French master filmmaker, Assayas clearly draws a connection between Rene (the director) and the traditional, artistic-minded cinema that pervades French history.
As he pays tribute to it, Assayas also mocks the auteur system as Rene loses control of his sanity. He is clearly a director in decline, unable to keep up with the new film language. He flips out on his wife, develops a crush on lead Maggie Cheung, and ends up with a very peculiar version of Les Vampires. His instability shows how the pressure of controlling too many aspects of the film may unhinge a filmmaker, especially one as detail-oriented as the greats. Assayas thus may be saying that one person cannot possibly handle all the aspects of filmmaking, which nearly goes against the auteur theory.
Assayas uses an interesting character to spell out some of the thoughts of the new generation. The young man interviewed during the shooting speaks of art cinema as a dead form. He yearns for big Hollywood productions with action and star power. His attitude goes against the old views on cinema in Europe. Vincendeau sees these old views as art cinema with an aversion to Hollywood (444). Instead of artists, the fan wants to see pulp. This is a very key moment to the film.
Nationality is also an important part of this film and Vincendeau’s article. Many European films today have a mix of funds and talent from foreign and domestic sources (Vincendeau 442). The important casting call in the film within the film is Maggie as the title character. Many of the characters in the film question Rene’s decision to use her. The original film, a series, is a French classic with a famous French silent actress. The story, as they remind Rene, calls for a rough French prostitute. Having a Hong Kong star of Martial Arts films in this role confuses them. This relates to Vincendeau’s claim that fewer European films today use actors from just one nationality (442). Rene wants to use Maggie because he sees her as a new approach to the old story. She represents a battle between the traditionalists and the progressive filmmakers.
The idea of nationalism is also important for Stephen Crofts in his article, ‘Concepts of National Cinema.” Crofts points out that films today mix not just nationalities, but also cultures very easily (386). European cinema was once very nationalistic, but with international co-productions, the barriers have been broken (Crofts 389). Assayas works to do that, while honoring the old tradition with the characters who question Maggie.
In all, Irma Vep touches on a number of subjects in modern European (and especially French) cinema. Assayas weaves a film that says that perhaps the art film is dead and filmmakers must move on, or perhaps the new generation needs to respect it. He manages to present several sides to it, and in the end, the audience is left to decide for themselves if the final product is a work of art or nonsense done by an old hack.


The split between narrative and avant-garde cinema began as soon as narrative cinema developed. As Roberta Pearson notes in her article, “Transitional Cinema,” films began moving towards a narrative structure around 1907 and they years after (29). Filmmakers came up with changes in the cutting from shot to shot and the distances uses to accommodate better storytelling (Pearson 29). Editing and writing especially involved in this period, helping the audience identify with the characters and progressing the story (Pearson 31). Companies began releasing different types of film, foreshadowing the many genres that would exist (Pearson 33). In the early 1910’s, studios began releasing films that lasted several reels, as the first attempts at features were made (Pearson 38).
In 1910, the major film companies in America joined together with a few major foreign distributors to form the Motion Pictures Patents Company, or MPPC (Pearson 25). “The Trust,” as it was called, controlled most of the industry, but it could not last long (Pearson 27). Some of their independent rivals joined together to make their own competing trust, and these two groups dominated film for some years (Pearson 27).
As more companies moved toward the narrative form, characters became important and the star system developed. Studios formed and the major ones were beginning to grow. Meanwhile, some filmmakers saw film as a definite art from that had to stay pure. Through their experiments, they kept alive the idea of cinema as art, especially avant-garde art.
As A. L. Rees explains in his article, “Cinema and the Avant-Garde,” there were many approaches to art cinema (96). The cubists were interested in rebuking narrative, but many other different artists joined the alternative movement (Rees 96). Some filmmakers like Carl Dreyer and F. W. Murnau saw film as a way to preserve cultural traditions in art (Rees 96). Some filmmakers like Luis Bunuel and Dziga Vertov straddled the line between narrative and abstraction (Rees 97). Some filmmakers wanted total chaos and full abstraction, and some saw it as a new kind if painting (Rees 98).
Instead of engaging audiences and keeping their interest in a story, some filmmakers tried purposely to disrupt audiences and their worlds (Rees 103). There were different approaches to it, but they all fought the developing narrative structure.
A closer look at Bunuel and Jean Cocteau’s films shows how artistic-mided directors could fight the narrative structure without denying it completely. Bunuel’s Un Chien Andalou follows no real story and makes sudden shifts in setting and imagery. Its dreamlike quality combats logical, narrative structure. His documentary, Land without Bread, mocks narrative stories about real people by including likely staged moments, playing around with the audience’s view of the townspeople, and ignoring certain parts of life in the area. Even when Bunuel is trying to make a point and tell somewhat of a story, such as in The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie,” he does it in a surreal style that goes against typical storytelling.
Cocteau’s films may include stories, but they do not always have a logical structure. His version of Beauty and the Beast involves many dream and fantasy images, and it resolves very whimsically (perhaps unexpectedly). His “Blood of a Poet” follows less of a pattern, using unreal situations and a lack of sense to create a dreamy mood.
Avant-garde cinema sought to make atypical uses of film as film became a mass product. The avant-garde filmmakers rejected this idea and sought to make cinema as art, pure and free of illusions (Rees 96). Today, artistic filmmakers continue what the original rebels created.


WORKS CITED

Crofts, Stephen. “Concepts of National Cinema.” The Oxford Guide to Film Studies. Ed. John Hill and Pamela Church Gibson. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1998. 385-394.
Pearson, Roberta. “Transitional Cinema.” The Oxford History of World Cinema. Ed. Geoffrey Nowell-Smith. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1996. 29-42.
Rees, A. L. “Cinema and the Avant-Garde.” The Oxford History of World Cinema. Ed. Geoffrey Nowell-Smith. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1996. 95-105.
Vincendeau, Ginette. “Issues in European Cinema.” The Oxford Guide to Film Studies. Ed. John Hill and Pamela Church Gibson. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1998. 440-447.