The Essence of Cinema?

Author(s): Noël Carroll

Source: Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic
Tradition, Vol. 89, No. 2/3, The American Philosophical Association Pacific Division Meeting
1997 (Mar., 1998), pp. 323-330
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4320825 .
Accessed: 28/06/2014 08:52

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Philosophical Studies: An
International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.213.220.176 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 08:52:34 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 NOEL CARROLL

THE ESSENCEOF CINEMA?

(Accepted 31 July 1997)

GregoryCurrie'sImage and Mind:Film, Philosophyand Cognitive

Science' is a majorevent in the study of film. It representsthe first
thoroughgoingphilosophyof film in the analytictradition.Covering
such topics as the essence of cinema, the natureof representationin
film, the relation of film to language, the natureof the spectator's
imaginative involvement in film, and problems of film narration
and interpretation,the book adressesa gamut of classical questions
of film theory and answers them, often in surprisingways, from
a perspective richly informed by Currie'simpressive grasp of the
philosophy of mind and the philosophy of language. Even if one
disagrees with Currie'ssolutions to variousproblems,one can only
appreciatethe way in which he has raised the level of analysis and
argumentin the areaof film theory.
I stress the singular importanceof this book, since this session
is called Author meets Critics. However, though I will raise some
questions about the details of Image and Mind, I would not want
to leave anyone with the impression that my admirationfor it is
anythingless than wholehearted.
Like any philosophicalachievement,Image and Mind is open to
dispute. What is perhaps surprisingabout this book is that on so
many topics it seems definitive. This makes the task of an official
critic somewhatdifficult.Nevertheless,I have found one areawhere
I can quibblewith some of Currie'sfindings.Thus,for the remainder
of this essay I will talk aboutCurrie'scharacterizationof the essence
of cinema.
Curriebegins Image and Mind with a discussion of the essence
of cinema. By essence, Currie seems to mean common features
that markthings as films ratherthan somethingelse (p. 1). But I'm
not sure that I am always following this discussion correctly,since,

Philosophical Studies 89: 323-330, 1998.

? 1998 KluwerAcademicPublishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

This content downloaded from 91.213.220.176 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 08:52:34 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
324 NOELCARROLL

at times,it seems to me thatCurriesays he's afterthe essenceof

cinema,andatothertimes,he indicatesthathis accountis stipulative
(p. 4). Also, at still othertimes,Currieappearsto takebackparts
of his accountof the essenceof cinema.Forexample,he says that
cinemais anessentiallypictorialmedium,whilealsoagreeingthatit
alsocontainsnonpictorial likewords.Butthenwhat
representations,
arewe to makeof whole filmscomposedof nothingbut wordsor
numbers?
As I understand him, Curriemaintainsthatessentiallyfilmsare
representations, specificallypictorialrepresentations,
specifically
movingpictures.I takeit thatCuffiethinksthattheseareno more
thannecessaryconditions,sincetheseconditionswouldnot differ-
entiatefilmfrommuchvideoorevenflipbooks.Becauseof this,I'm
a bit uncertainas to why Currieinsistson talkingabouttheessence
of cinema,ratherthanthatof motionpictures.Nevertheless,filmis
how he labelshis topic.
Curriesays:"Filmis a representational medium"andthat"film
is a pictorialmedium;it gives us - exactly - moving pictures"(p. 2).
Thus,I surmisethatforCurrie,x is a filmonlyif it is 1) a moving2)
pictorial3) representation. However,I questionwhetheranyof these
conditionsis a necessaryconditionfor film.If one looksat someof
thestandard textsin filmhistory,onecaneasilyfindcounterexamples
to theassertionthatfilmis necessarilyrepresentational as well as to
theclaimthatit is pictorial.
If we understand by a representation
somethingthatis intended
to standin forsomethingelse, thentherearemanyfilmsthatarenot
representational. One entiregenreof this sortis the flickerfilm -
filmsthatalternateclearandopaqueleader(and/orcoloredleader)
in orderto presenta stroboscopiceffectto audiences.Twofamous
examplesof this sortof film are PeterKubelka'sArnulfRainer -
madebetween1958 and 1960 - and TonyConrad'sThe Flicker,
madein 1966.Thesefilmsdo not representanything.Rather,they
presentvisualstimulation to audienceswiththeintentionof eliciting
certainperceptualstates- like afterimages- from spectators.
Createdin thespiritof highmodernism, thesefilmswerethought
to reveal certainof the conditionsof film viewing. "Flicks"or
"Flickers",you'llrecall,wereoncegenericnicknamesforfilms.So,
thesefilmswere said to provideopportunitiesfor viewersto come

This content downloaded from 91.213.220.176 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 08:52:34 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE ESSENCE OF CINEMA? 325

to understandsomethingabout the generic natureof film. And, in a

less exalted vein, in the sixties, people also attemptedto use flicker
films to induce or to accompanyhallucinogenicexperiences.
The framesin a flicker film need not and most frequentlydo not
contain representationsof anything. The films are generally pure,
nonreferential, visual stimulation. They do not represent. They
present light at a certain pulse. When I was studying filmmaking
at New York University,making flicker films was a standardexer-
cise for masteringfilm rhythm.Moreover,flicker films are printed
photographicallyfor distributionand projectionin the same fashion
that TheEnglish Patient is.
In some respects, flicker films are analogous to what was called
Op-Art.Both flickerfilms and Op-Artarepredicatedupontoying
with the spectator's perceptual apparatusdirectly rather than via
"mediated"representations.Furthermore,just as one would expect
an analytical characterizationof painting not to exclude Op-Art
by definition, it seems problematicto me to exclude flicker films
from the corpus of cinema in this manner.An additionalproblem
with ignoring flicker effects is that they are sometimes incorpo-
rated in commercial films, as in the title sequence of A Clock-
work Orange, not to mention music videos (which are frequently
filmmed). Similarly,the flicker genre is not the only film genre that
is not representational.There are also scratchfilms which may be
printedphotographicallyfor distribution.
A film like Tony Conrad'sThe Flicker not only raises problems
for Currie'sassertionthat films are essentially representational,but
also for the claim that they are essentially pictorial. By "picture",
Curriemeans a visual arraywhose referentcan be recognizedsimply
by looking. A shot of a horse is pictorial inasmuchas I can recog-
nize that it is a representationof a horse simply by looking, sans
any subtendingprocesses of reading, inferringor decoding. Currie
says thatcinematradesessentially in pictorialrepresentations.But if
this means thatall films are necessarily pictorial,then Currie'schar-
acterizationexcludes the rich history of abstractfilmmakingfrom
the order of cinema, since such films do not possess recognizable
referents.
Abstractfilmmakingemerged as early as the 1920s with works
like WalterRuttman'sLichtspiel and Viking Eggeling's Diagonal

This content downloaded from 91.213.220.176 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 08:52:34 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
326 NOEL CARROLL

Symphonie.Since the twenties, abstractfilms have been made by

Haffy Smith, Douglas Crockwell,MarieMenken,MaryEllen Bute,
Norman McClaren, John and James Whitney, Dieter Rot, Jordan
Belson, Stan Brakhage, Derek Jarman, and many others. John
Whitney's Permutations and Len Lye's 1952 Force Radicals are
two of many examples here.
Admittedly,abstractfilmmakingis not the traditionwith which
most people are familiar.But it is a continuous tradition,it has a
position in film historybooks, it sometimes surfacesin the commer-
cial tradition(e.g., the StarGatesequencein 2001), andit has obvious
affinitieswith modernistartin othervisual media includingpainting,
sculptureandphotography.Justas one wouldnot discountBrancusi's
Bird in Flight as sculptureon the groundsthatit is nonpictorial(non-
versimilitudinous)and abstract,it seems equally questionableto me
to frame an account of the essence of cinema that fails to include
somethinglike Brakhage'sTextofLight. Wouldwe acceptan analysis
of the essence of paintingthat failed to acknowledgemost modern
art on the groundsthatit was abstractratherthanpictorial?
Curriemaintainsthathis characterizationof the essence of cinema
is descriptive ratherthan prescriptive.However, since his account
excludes significant portions of avant-gardefilmmaking,it seems
that his view is inadvertentlyprescriptiveor value-laden,proposing
the common viewer's preferencefor movingpictures as a character-
ization of the essence of film.
Yet the aims of abstractfilmmakers- their concern with visual
rhythm and explorationsof visual experience - are recognized as
essential projects in media other than film. Indeed, like certain
abstractionistsin other media, many abstract filmmakerscan be
also correctly interpretedas raising questions about the essence
of their medium by means of film. We don't disenfranchisesuch
abstract/reflexiveaspirationsin othermedia. Isn't it arbitraryto rule
them out of the historyof film by definition?
Currieadmitsthatfilms containmore thanpictures.He takesnote
of subtitles and intertitles(p. 7). So he concedes thatparts of films
may be nonpictorial.However, I think that he does not appreciate
where this concession will lead, since there are whole films that are
comprisedof nothingbut words and numerals.Michael's Snow's So
Is This is a film of sentences;Takahikolimura's I in 10 is a film of

This content downloaded from 91.213.220.176 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 08:52:34 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE ESSENCE OF CINEMA? 327

additionandsubtraction tables.Noraresuchexamplesonlyof recent

A
vintage;Len Lye's Colour Box was madein 1935. Moreover,it
is not the case thatwe can only find exampleshere in the avant-
gardetraditions.Therearemovietrailersthatareall words,as well
as advertizements, filmedfor TV,thatare madeup of nothingbut
sentences.
Such works are createdand projectedby means of standard
filmmakingprocesses.They are photographedand printed.The
avant-garde examples,furthermore, areintelligiblecontributions to
reigningfilmworlddiscussions- aboutsemiotics(andshifters),in
the case of So Is This, andaboutstructural film, in the case of I in
10. In the traditionof filmmodernism,thesefilmsuse the medium
to raisequestionsreflexivelyaboutthe natureof the medium.I see
no reasonto denythattheyarefilms.Whatelse wouldtheybe?But
if filmsarenecessarilypictorial,as Curriemaintains,thentheseare
not films.
Films like these may also raise anotherproblemwith Currie's
conceptionof the essenceof film,sincethesefilmsarestatic.They
arenot movingpicturesbecausethey arenot moving anythings,at
leastas far as the eye can detect.Nor arethese the only examples
of staticfilms.Othersinclude:Oshima'sBand of Ninjas (a film of
a comic strip);MichaelSnow's One Second in Montreal (a film
of photos);Hollis Frampton's Poetic Justice (a film of tabletopon
whichwe see pagesof a shootingscript);andGodardandGorin's
infamousLetter to Jane (anotherfilmof photos).Theseareall films
in the sense thatthey wereconstructedanddisseminatedby means
of standardfilm apparatuses. Theycommanda significantplacein
film historywherethe questionof "Whatis film?"is partof an
ongoingconversationinternalto the filmworld- one addressedby
filmmakers andtheoristsalike.
Moreover,thesefilmsuse stasisas a stylisticchoice.It is thefact
thatthey are films thatmakestheirstillnessa pertinent,if not the
pertinent,featureof the worksin question.Had these films been
slides,one wouldnot remarkupontheirstillness.Movementis not
a stylisticoptionwith slides. But since these worksare films,one
is promptedto ask why thereis no movementin them.Whatis the
point?Anyinterpretation of theseworkshasto offeranexplanation
of whythefilmmakers underconsideration haveeschewedthepossi-

This content downloaded from 91.213.220.176 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 08:52:34 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
328 NOELCARROLL

bility of movement. But if they were not films but something else,
like photos or slides, this question simply wouldn't arise. Stillness
is an integral stylistic feature of these works, one that is crucial to
a correct interpretationand appreciationof them. If they are not
categorizedas films, but as de facto slides or photos, this property,
as a significantpropertyof the works in question,disappears.Thus,
from the perspective of appreciation,it seems to me ill-advised to
discountthese works as films.
The point of many still films is reflexive - to point to aspects or
elementsof filmthatareoftenneglected(like narration in the case
of Oshimaor scriptingin the case of Frampton). Subtracting move-
mentfromthe visualarrayis a way of leadingviewers- or at least
certainkindsof viewers- to thesereflexiveobservations. A concern
with reflexivequestionsis partof whatCurrieelsewherecalls the
"heuristicpathway"of such works.Theseconcernsare evidentin
the historyof filmmakingas earlyas the nineteentwenties.Like-
wise thesefilmsareproducedanddistributed by meansof standard
filmmakingprocesses.So, once again,I see littlereasonto suppose
thatthese are not partof the historyof filmmaking.Indeed,some
thoughnot I, mightclaimthattheseareexamplesof whatwas once
called essentialcinemainasmuchas they are experimentstoward
establishingthe minimalrequirements for somethingto countas a
film.
I mustconcedethatI maybe beingtoohardon Curriein accusing
himof makingmovementa necessaryconditionoff film.In at least
oneplace,he maybe indicatingthatit neednotbe. Inhis stipulative
characterizationof films,he says"theyareproducedbyphotographic
meansanddeliveredontoa surfaceso as to produceor be capable
of producing,an apparently movingimage"(p. 4, emphasisadded).
If the caveat"orbe capableof producing"allows thatthe images
maybe staticandthatentirefilmscanbe static,thenmy preceding
objectionsare misplaced.But since Currieneverclarifieswhy he
has addedthis talkaboutcapabilities,I will let my objectionsstand
untilI hearotherwise.
Of course,if Curie doesmeanthistalkof capabilitiesto accom-
modateworkslikePoeticJustice,thenI haveno substantive quarrel
withhim.Thisseemstherightway to go - to refrainfromclaiming
movementto be a necessaryfeatureof film,butonly to requirethat

This content downloaded from 91.213.220.176 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 08:52:34 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THEESSENCE
OFCINEMA? 329
the relevantimagerybe producedin a mediumwiththe capacityto
delivermovement.2 Thusmyonlycriticismof Currieheremightturn
outto be nothingmorethana reader'srequestthathe hadbeenmore
forthcomingon thisissue.Onthe otherhand,sincehe doesn'traise
theissue of staticfilms,I'm not surehe takesit seriously,whereasI
thinkhe should.
I have intexpretedCurrie'sview as maintainingthat films are
necessarilymoving pictorialrepresentations. However,at certain
points,he indicatesthathis bottomline is thatfilmsareessentially
visual.I amnotcompletelycertainaboutwhatthisis meantto signal.
Butit didatleastmakeme wonderaboutwhetherornotCurriewould
countenancethepossibilityof invisiblefilms?Therearesomefilms
thatnearlyapproachthis limit- like Brakhage'sFire of Waters(a
nightscene occasionallystreakedby briefflashesof lightning[?]).
And thereare partsof films- such as the openingof Frampton's
Zorn'sLemma- withoutanyimages.LikewiseGuyDebord's1952
filmScreamsin Favour of de Sade is almostcompletelyblack,save
fora fewburstsof whitelight.3But,evenmoreradically,I conjecture
thatit mighteven be possibleto makea completelyinvisiblefilm.
Hereis one scenario;therecouldbe others.Imaginea modernist
filmmakerwho has been impressedby the historyof solid black
paintings.He makes an underexposedfilm that looks absolutely
pitchblackin a standardscreeningroom.4On the soundtrack, he
talksabouthowhalfthetimewe watchanyfilm,thescreenis literally
dark.His workis meantto drawourattentionto this fact. Perhaps
he is a bit of an expressionist- he calls his film "TheDarknessof
Cinema".Or,he is Duchampian - he calls it "TheUltimateFilm
Noir". Wouldthis be a film?My inclinationis to say yes as long
as it way madeby cinematicmeansandit is partof an intelligible,
ongoingfilmworldconversation. Is thisa counterexampleto Currie's
assertionthatfilmsareessentiallyvisual?Maybein his response,he
will addressthisquestion.
By way of conclusion,I mustconfess thatI realizethatmany
listenersmay be of the opinionthat I've been raggingCurrie's
accountof theessenceof cinemawithmarginalandirrelevant exam-
ples, drawnprimarilyfromthe historyof the avant-garde. Perhaps
someof you aretemptedto say - "Thatstuffisn't reallyfilm".But
that'sthe issue, andthe pointof my comment.HadCurriesimply

This content downloaded from 91.213.220.176 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 08:52:34 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
330 NOEL CARROLL

saidthathe meantto be talkingabouthow filmstypicallyare,there

wouldbe little meritin disputingwith him at such length.But he
proposesto speakof theessenceof cinema.
Instead,I wouldarguethathe hasonlytalkedaboutcertaintypes
of cinema,albeitthe mostpopularkinds.Thisbelies a certainbias,
frequentamongfilmtheorists,whichcompromisestheirattemptsto
be genuinelydescriptive.Withrespectto the philosophyof art,we
have learntthatoftenproposalsconcerningthe essenceof artturn
outcovertlyto "privilege"
certainkindsof artattheexpenseof other
sorts.I worrythatCurrie'sde factodisenfranchisement of muchof
thehistoryof avant-gardefilmmayalsohavethiskindof untoward
effect. And thatwouldbe unfortunate given the marvelousjob he
hasdoneotherwisein foundingan analyticphilosophyof film.

NOTES
1
Gregory Currie,Image and Mind: Film, Philosophy and Cognitive Science
(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press, 1996). Relevant page references are
noted parentheticallyabove.
2 For furtherdiscussion of this issue, see Noel Carroll, "Defining the Moving
Image",in my Theorizingthe MovingImage (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press, 1996).
3 Also, the filmmakerAlain Resnais has said thathe has always dreamtof making
a film comprisedonly of a sound track.
4 Derek Jarman'sfilm Blue is just that - the screen is blue, with no images,
throughoutits duration,accompaniedby a soundtrack.What I am imaginingis a
film like Jarman's,only all black.

Departmentof Philosophy
Universityof Wisconsin
Madison, WI53706-1475
U.S.A.

This content downloaded from 91.213.220.176 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 08:52:34 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions