EUROPEAN CINEMA

Modern Languages Paper XII

Course Description

This is an optional paper, which can be taken by students in Modern Languages during their final
year. It is different from most other paper XIIs in topic and teaching method, in that it is not
language specific.

The course covers main trends in European cinema from the 1920s to now. By ‘European’ is meant,
roughly, those countries that have an official language taught within Modern Languages at Oxford,
and which are geographically in Europe. This norm excludes Great Britain, Latin-America and North
Africa, and includes Poland and Greece. The course follows the development of European cinema by
covering examples of avant-garde silent film, classical narrative cinema, various types of New Wave
cinema of the sixties and seventies, as well as other more recent trends in film form represented for
instance by Michael Haneke or Pedro Almodóvar.

Scope and Norms

The focus of the lectures is interpretative. The overarching teaching aim is that students should be
able, in the exam, to interpret a cluster of films in narrative and stylistic terms, and to situate the
interpretation within an appropriate (historical or theoretical) context of scholarship. The relative
weight of historical material, theoretical argument, and stylistic analysis may vary: students are free
to choose an approach that has either an historical, or a stylistic, or a theoretical focus. Lecturers
situate each chosen film within a relevant historical and theoretical context, that is, within a
particular area of scholarship. Students are encouraged in the exam to do the same.

Since the course is defined neither by a particular country, period or method, its core is the analysis
of film narrative and filmic representation as they evolve through the following phases and in
different national contexts:

1 Silent cinema, avant-garde movements: focus on Russia and Germany

2 Classical narrative cinema: focus mostly on France

3 Break with classical narrative cinema in Italian Neo-realism

4 Examples of New Wave films: focus on France, Germany, Russia, Spain or Greece

5 Other Modern Cinemas, including examples of films that use film narrative conceptually (Trier,
Haneke) and/or of films that are grounded in spectacle (Demy, etc.)

1
Reading

In the course of the thirteen weeks of teaching, students will be presented with a range of historical
and theoretical topics, each accompanied with its own reading suggestions. As a general frame
around these topics the following reading list is suggested as a guide. Each student is encouraged to
read some of these general introductory texts alongside the lectures - both in order to acquire a
solid understanding of film history and of film form, and in order to be able to choose an area to
write about in the exam.

General Reading

Bazin, André, What is Cinema? Vol. I and II, Berkeley, University of California Press, 2005

Bergfelder, Tim ed., The German Cinema book, London, BFI, 2002

Bondanella, Peter, Italian Cinema, from Neorealism to the Present, New York, Continuum, 2002

Bordwell, David & Thompson, Kristin, Film Art: an Introduction, New York, McGraw-Hill, various ed.

Delgado, Maria & Fiddian, Robin, Spanish Cinema 1973-2010: auteurism, politics, landscape and
memory, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 2013

Eisenstein, Sergei, The Film Sense, London, Faber and Faber, 1986

Evans, Peter, Spanish Cinema: the auteurist tradition, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1999

Hayward, Susan, Cinema Studies, the key concepts, London, Routledge, 2013

Nowell-Smith, Geoffrey, Making Waves: new Cinemas of the 1960s, New York, Bloomsbury, 2013

Kracauer, Siegfried, Theory of Film: the redemption of physical reality, New York, Oxford University
Press, 1960

Temple, Michael ed., The French Cinema Book, London, BFI, 2004

Indicative Film List

The scope of the course is determined by the geographical definition of European Cinema above and
the conception of film history divided into five periods and types of film. The following is not a
definitive but an indicative list of directors that clearly belong within the scope of the course. They
are listed below according film period: 1. Silent cinema: Fritz Lang, F.W. Murnau, Sergei Eisenstein,
Dziga Vertov; 2. Classical French Cinema: Jean Renoir, Marcel Carné, Henri-Georges Clouzot, Jacques
Becker ; 3. Italian Neo-realism: Roberto Rossellini, Vittorio de Sica, Luchino Visconti; 4. New Wave
Cinemas: Jean-François Truffaut, Jean-Luc Godard, Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Werner Herzog,
Andrei Tarkovsky, Victor Erice, Carlos Saura, Theodoros Angelopoulos; 5. Other Modern Cinemas:
Luis Buňuel, Pedro Almodóvar, Andrei Sokurov, Michael Haneke, Lars von Trier, Jacques Demy.

2
Teaching

The course is taught over two terms, Michaelmas and Hilary. In Michaelmas, teaching consists in the
screening of eight films preceded by a lecture, which both introduces the film and uses the film to
present broader themes in European film history. In Hilary term, the teaching runs from weeks 1-5
only. This term, the screenings and lectures are accompanied by seminars. The group of students is
normally divided into three smaller groups and each student is allocated to one group. The size of
each group should normally not be more than 6-7 students. Students are expected to attend all
lectures and seminars, since they constitute the full amount of teaching.

Each week, the group discusses together with the seminar leader a number of scenes from the film
that is screened during that week. The discussion is introduced by student presentations. Each
student has to give one such presentation. The presentation must focus on a significant scene from
the film, explain why it is significant within the whole of the film, and suggest points for further
discussion. The presentation is meant to provide each student with the opportunity to practise
detailed film analysis, which is one of the skills required for the exam. The seminar leader gives
detailed feed-back on each presentation. The presentation should not last more than 5-10 minutes,
so that there is ample time both for discussion and feed-back.

In addition, each student must write one trial essay of 2000-3000 words. The topic of the essay
should be taken from a past exam paper (available on the ‘oxam’ database). The essay should focus
on one single film. Normally the film chosen will be one of the films screened during the course. The
essay must be handed in by Friday of week 3. The seminar leader returns the essay with feedback
during the seminar of week 4. The purpose of the essay is twofold. First it is a chance for the
students to practise critical writing on film. Second, it is an opportunity for the students to test how
they structure an answer to an essay question on film. The seminar leader gives feed-back both on
the structure of the essay and on the quality of the film interpretation.

Exam

On the Friday of Week 5 a set of seven to eight questions are made public on Weblearn. Students
then have four weeks to write a 6-8000 word essay on one of these questions. Each question is quite
broad, as none is restricted to a particular country or period. The questions are framed so as to
accommodate all the areas of film studies, and of film history, covered in the course during that
academic year. Students have to choose one of the set questions, and they can do so with reference
to their own chosen set of films. The films can belong to cultures that the student does not study.
For instance, it is possible to study French and Spanish, and to write about Russian and German
cinema. When quoting from the film, the student can quote the subtitles or, if the language is known
by the student, the dialogue. Normally an essay will cover a handful of films – one or two films
would be too few to make an argument and a large number such as ten would make the essay into a
general survey. As students of Modern Languages are primarily students of literature and history,
there is no expectation that the students should possess highly specialised knowledge of film history,
or be able to demonstrate a very technical use of film terms. Students are encouraged to use basic,
commonly used terms of film description. A small set of definitions of basic terms follows, which are
all very clearly defined and developed in the book cited above by Bordwell and Thompson.

3
Basic Film Terms

Frame: the spatial unit of film, the border of the film image at any given time

Shot: the smallest temporal unit of the film image. A shot may have a variable frame (if the camera
moves). It lasts until there is a cut.

Cut: the physical border between two shots

Montage: the organised and meaningful relation between shots. (cf. Eisenstein)

Frame scale: The distance of the camera defines a type of shot. The three basic types are:
establishing shot, medium shot and close-up. Normally, the establishing shot shows a setting; a
medium shot shows a number of characters together; and a close-up shows a face. There are
various gradations between these three.

Narrative: The story of the film consists of a plot defined by character relationships and a sequence
of events (cf. Bordwell and Thompson)

Mise en scène: the visual rendering of a story, and specifically, the spatial composition of anything
appearing within the frame

Realism: a photographic and narrative rendering of social life and the physical environment. (cf.
Bazin and Kracauer)

Spectator: the viewer considered as actively involved in the film’s creation of meaning (cf.
Eisenstein)

Indicative Descriptors

A first-class essay will show an intelligent and precise use of relevant scholarship, and demonstrate a
nuanced and convincing film interpretation. The essay question will have been answered very
convincingly. The concepts that are used to interpret the films, and the detailed observations made,
mutually support each other.

An essay awarded a mark in the sixties will show a good grasp of the relevant scholarship and
present a coherent and quite detailed interpretation. The answer to the question will be clear and
satisfactory. The essay will show that the candidate has a good understanding of film form, an
adequate understanding of film history, and is able to argue convincingly.

An essay that is awarded a mark in the fifties will show some general film historical knowledge, but
fail to present an entirely convincing interpretation and answer to the question. Thus, an essay that
fails to get a 2.1 is often characterised by some gap in the argument, a misunderstanding of the
question, or grave shortcomings in film historical knowledge. It is rare that marks are awarded in the
fifties, and students often get first class marks in this paper.