590 Reviews Reviews 591

DAVID BORDWELL, The Way Hollywood Teils/1: Siory and Slyle in Modern Movies (Berke-ley: U of California P, 2006). 298 pp.

In 1985, David BordweIl, Janet Staiger, andKristin Thompson published what has sincebecome a dassie: The Classical J-JollywoodCinema: Film Slyle and Mode of Produc-lion to 1960. This magisterial volume-easilyone of the most thoroughly researched andinftuential books coming out 01' Americanfilm studies-tracked the development 01' adistinct, pervasive film style that crystallizedaround 1917. Back then, the three authorsadmitted their somewhat arbitrary decisionto stop their account in the year 1960. This iswhere Bordwell's new projecl Tile Way Holly-wood Teils 1/ comes in. The book takes up thethread the year BordweIl and his co-authorshad cut it off. asking the obvious, yet intrigu-ing question: what has happened since?

er Tod Browning can be seen as a 'genuine'auteur, how important his collaborations werefor his creative output (e.g. with Lon Chaneyor Irving Thalberg), how we should contextu-alize hirn in the B-movie sector-would havebenefitted from a more complex understand-ing of auteurism. if. indeed, lhis is to be themain focus. But does il have to be? I f we aredealing with a 'cult director,' maybe the an-swer has to be yes, but the individual essayssuggest many connections between Browningand the general film culture that go beyond anauteurist framework.Some of these connections-such as the

relation between melodrama and moralily,sensationalism, and the stigmatization of theOther, or the cinema of attraetions and theproduetion ofthrills-are well-researched andfairly common phenomena in the first threedecades of American film history. They couldfruitfully have provided less auteur-centredand thus more systemic approaches to the pe-culiar aesthetic ofTod Browning's films whiehan introduetory chapter could at least havesketched out. This eriticism, however, mustbe seen in perspective. Overall this volume.richly illustrated and lovingly designed, servesas an excellenl introduetion 10 the neglectedfilms of Tod Browning, drawing on a numberof established approaches but also suggestingnew paths to be taken by future researchers.

of a white man who is captivated by an 'orientalbeauty' and thus relies on stereotypical figuresof sexual and racial Otherness, Brandl arguesthat "the film also seeks to subverl and desta-bilise the authority of these myths" (130). In asimilar way, though arguing from a psychoana-Iytic perspective, Elisabeth Bronfen emphasiz-es a sense of ambiguity about one of Browning'sbest-known films, Dracu/a (1931). She inter-prets the figure of Dracula as the "monstrousOther;' to which the culturally and sociallymarginalized are drawn, and which serves as"the embodiment of a rollen kernel at the hearlof the West" (163). Though the eventual victoryover the vampire may indicate the West's su-periority, Bronfen argues that facing up to hisevil power generates adesire for omnipotencethat reaches a similarly all-encompassing, andultimately destructive, quality.Finally, Bernd Herzogenrath develops a

poststructuralist framework for his interpre-tation of Freaks (1932), which, again, focuseson a sense of ambiguity. Drawing on Lacan'sfamous notion of the mirror stage, lhe expe-rience of bodily wholeness is connected ir-revocably to images of the fragmented body,haunting and subverting the illusion of whole-ness. Herzogenrath relates Freaks 10 a longdiscourse on allegorical images of the bodyrepresenting the American nation, and hestresses that the freaks, as a body politic. standfor group strength, not individualism. Thoughthis unusual production was often advenisedas an exploitation film, Herzogenrath sees it asa complex oscillalion belween self-images andimages of the Other.As indicated, one of the few critical points

about this essay collection is lhe choice of Viv-ian Sobchack's research excercise, wrillen as agraduate student in 1974, as the opening, andin asense, frame-establishing piece (Herzo-genrath even calls il the "introduction proper"[12] to the volume). Sobchack seems to antici-pate this critique, feeling obliged to prefaceher artiele with an "apologia for the essay'sindiscriminale delight at every scrap of infor-mation I was able to find" (21). In this respect,by giving shon plot synopses and by drawingon contemporaneous newspaper reviews, theessay is indeed highly informative as an over-view of Browning's work.However, 1 believe the book would have

profited from a more contemporary reassess-ment of Tod Browning's career wilhin the slu-dio system of the 1920s and 1930s. Some of thedoubts that surface in various places-wheth-

München Ch ristof Decker

Apart from an introduction, meticulousnotes, and a useful 48-page timetable of themajor economic and technological changes,the book contains two essays of roughly 80 to90 pages each. The first one deals with story-telling; the second one looks at visual style.Both prove BordweIl as the outstanding narra-tologist and neo-formalist that he iso As always.he displays an intimidating knowledge 01' filmhistory, spolting inftuential shifts in produc-lion and technology and cross-referencing for-gotten films. As always, he rejects over-the-topzeitgeist inferences in favor of a piecemeal ap-proach (whose results, rest assured, will serveas aspringboard for the interpretive somer-saults of many lesser critics). And as always. hewrites eminently accessibly. In the majority ofcases he even manages to ship elegantly aroundthe dangerous rocks 01' ekphrasi.l': those neces-sary, but sometimes tiresome descriptions ofseenes under analysis.In the first essay, focused on storytelling,

BordweIl lists a number 01' reasons for thenarrative innovations 01' contemporary Hol-Iywood. First, the introduction of video andDVD allowed for repeated viewing-andtherefore suggested movies that merit re-cidivism. Second, a generation 01' filmmakersdeeply enmeshed in TV, comic books, videogames, and pulp-fiction novels entered thescene, adapting different storytelling tradi-tions. A third push that got change going wasthe need for distinction. Younger filmmakershad to challenge the superb legacy of the das-sicaJ tradition if they did not want to fall intooblivion. As a consequence, they searcltedfor roads less traveled and beg<ln to push thepremises. Formerly disreputable genres likeerime movies, science-fiction, fantasy and hor-ror films achieved prominence. The narrationbecame more action-driven. The films arecharacterized by "worldmaking": the erealionof rich.layered worlds that could be rummagedfor details. Finally, the 1990s turned out to bean "era of experimental storytelling" (73): nowthere are "puzzle films" like The Sixth Sensein which a misleading narrative plays intrieategames with the viewer; there are "networknarratives" with multiple protagonists such asSilon Cuts; and Ihere are films with scrambledtimeschemes (Pulp Fielion) and even reversed-order structures (Memento).The second essay consists of a long ha rd look

at what Bordweil dubs 'intensified continuoity'-a visual cinematic style that has nOI onlybecome the dominant way movics look in the

United States since the 1960s. but has also beenadopled by many other national cinemas. Fouraestltetic strategies distinguish it from e1assicalcontinuity: rapid editing. use of extreme wide-angle and long lenses. reliance on e10se shots.and constant. wide-rangingcamera movements.Once again he makes you see things that youhave almost certainly overlooked: David Bor-dweil is all eyes-which iso unfortunately. alsoto say that he is not all ears. (1'0 criticize hisiconocentric tendency is more than mere nit-picking, a point that I will return to.)Wlty did this new visual style come into be-

ing? BordweIl weaves an intricate net of rea-sons. The small television box not only favorsmedium shots and dose-ups. bul the distractedviewing position also demands constant visualchange to hold the viewer's attention. Techno-logical innovations like lighter cameras anddigital editing made the prowling camera andshort shot length a much more Iikely option.A younger generation of filmmakers wantedto emulate its proto-intense forefathers (e. g.Orson Welles and Hitchcock). Et cetera.To say lhe least, BordweIl is not an outra-

geous aficionado of Hollywood's version of in-tensified continuity. On the one hand. it couldbe more elegant al;d precisely choreographed:its "aesthetic of broad bUI forceful effects.often showing strain" (180) e1early pales incomparison to the counterpart from HongKong. On the other hand, telling the tale ofintensified continuity also implies chroniclinga narrative of loss: the range of choiee is nar-rowed, exduding other stylistic options. someof which are quite dear to Bordweil. The 10ssis threefold. First, due to a strong trust in fastediting. there is practically no American film-maker lef! who uses long takes in the way, say.Theo Angelopoulos or Michael Haneke do.Second, turning camerawork and editing intoits hallmark, current Hollywood cinema doesnot know how 10 stage actors in space andwork with complex blocking.' Third, actors'performances are more constrained. The de-pendence on shon takes and e1ose-ups privi-leges I'acial expression at the expense of bodypost ure, stance, and movement.

1 This argument is put forward more elab-orately in Bordwell's books On the HislOryof Film Style (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.1997); and Figures Traced in Light: On Cin-cl/llllic SIlIging (Berkeley: U of California P.2005).

592 Reviews Reviews 593

still cling to many (if not all) of rhe classicalfeatures. Reading Bordwell's highly pcrcep-tive but ar times unnecessarily dogged bookone gets the impression: this debate is notover.

However, Bordwell's goal is not only totrack the changes-which he does with vener-able acuity and rigor-but also to underscorethe continuity. It is here that his book becomesmore controversial. Bordweil maintains thatthe principles of the classical system of nar-ration and style are still ftourishing, even ifthe favored choices have changed: "nearly allscenes in nearly all contemporary mass-mar-ket movies (and in most 'independent' films)are staged, shot, and cut according to princi-pIes that crystallized in the 1910s and 1920s"(180). This is, of course, a broadside agai nstthose film critics and historians who dared tosuggest thal some hlms have leH the 'classical'paradigm behind and have turned 'post-classi-cal': from Thomas Elsaesser to Richard Maltbyand beyond.'In these passages. we encounterBordwell's famous penchant for polemics-ahighly entenaining and enlighteningcombina-tion of lucid rhetoric and the boisterous will todefend a position. Apart from his former Uni-versity of Wisconsin-Madison colleague NoelCarroll, there is probably no film scholar writ-ing in the English language today who is morestrongly and eloquently opposed to wish-washrelativism and fuzzy concepls than Bordweil.Granted, BordweIl is slightly less antagonisticthis time. Whoever wants to see him in fullthrottle should go back to Making Meaning:lnference and Rhetoric in rhe Inrerprewrion oICinema (1989), an enormously valuable attackon purely interpretive approaches, or consulthis website (www.davidbordwell.net) wherehe picks to pieces the stilted style and over-blown arguments of Slavoj Zizek.Why is he more restrained this time? A

good guess would be that BordweIl, so deeplysteeped in cognitive psychology, senses that

2 Cf. Peter Krämer, "Post-Classical Hol-Iywood," The OxJord Guide ro Film Studie.I·,ed. John Hili and Pamela Church Gibson(Oxford: Oxford ur, 1998) 289-309; RichardMaltby, Hollywoorl Cinellla: An lnrrorluclion(Oxford: Blackwell, 2003); Thomas Elsaesserand Warren Buckland, Srudying COr/tempo·rary American Film: A Guide 1 0 Movie Analy-sis (London: Arnold, 2002); Robcn Blanchet,Blockbuster: ÄSlhelik, Ökonomie lind Ge-schichte des posrklassiscilen Kinos (Marburg:Schüren, 2003); Eleftheria Thanouli. "Post-Classical Narration: A New Paradigm in eon-temporary Cinema," New Review oI Film amiTelevision Sturlies 4.3 (2006):1 R3-96.

this argumentative batlle is fought on the slip-pery grounds of concept formation. He admitslhat American films "have changed enormous-Iy" (1). But does this merit the introduction ofa newcategory? Bordwellthinksnol. Hismainargument rests on numbers: movies that standouL are few and far between. Fair enough. Yetit does not solve the problem, because filmsthai stick out da exist. One hesitates to pigeon-hole crime movies like Na/llral Born Killers 01'Memenro inta the same category as The Mal-lese Falcol1. just as a drug drama Iike Requiemfor a Dream does not sit comfortably nexl toThe Man wiril rhe Golden Arm. Even if theyrely on someclassical precepts, these new nImsenable very different cinematic experiences-particularly if we take into consideration theafore-mentioned element that BordweIl ig-nores: Dolby (surround) sound, foreground-ing three-dimensionality and immersion.' Thequest ion is therefore: how far can one stretcha category before it turns vague? And: whendoes it become helpfullO introduce a new one?As one classical introduction inta the field hasit, "concepts are critical for perceiving, remem-bering, talking and thinking about objects andevents in the world.''' As pattern-recognitiondevices they help 10 classify novel entities anddraw inferences.One underlying problem is Bordwell's

insinuation that post-classical implies anti-classical (16). This is nol thc case. EleftheriaThanouli, for one. frankly admits the "strongaffiliation of this new paradigm with the clas-sical Hollywood cinema and the sense of his-torical continuity that binds them.'" Bordweilis right when he questions extravagant argu-ments about radieal shifts in general. But whynot grant that some films are post-classical(or whatever not ion one prefers), even if themajority is not? At the very end, Bordwell-unwittingly?-vclltures into this direction:comparing the 'stylish style' of post-1960American cinema to sixteenth eentury Man-

3 Cf. Gianluca Sergi, The Dolby Em: FilII!Sou I1d ;11 ConrCl"I1[Jorary J-Jollywood (Man-chester: Manchester UP, 2004).

., Edward E. Smith and Douglas Medin,Categories (/l1d COl/ceprs (Cambridge, MA:J-1arvard UP, 1981) 1.

, Thanouli L95. Or think of Elsaesser andBuckland's discussion of Die /-Iard as bothclassical and post-classical (Elsaesser andBuckland 26-79).

nerism, he acknowledges the existence of anew stvle. Renaissance and Mannerism did,after ail, mark LWo distinct art historical ep-ochs. Just as Mannerist artists did not throwall prior insights overboard (e. g., cent ral andatmospheric perspective), so do roday's OliverStone, Baz Luhrmann, and Darren Aronofsky Berlin Julian Hanich