Film Education

Last week, I led a discussion with our Literature and Film Society on one of my great passions, classic cinema. I chose the 1942 Hollywood film, Casablanca. It is not one of my favourites, but it is always an enjoyable watch and is more accessible to those brought up on a diet of Marvel and Anime than perhaps many others would be.

Unsurprisingly, none of the students had seen the film before and almost none had heard of it. Even the classic lines, like ‘Here’s looking at you, kid’, fell on fresh ears. I see this as more exciting than depressing - to be able to watch the film unencumbered by a cultural context which has evolved over 80 years.

By the way, they loved the film much more than I thought they would. They were amazed that a film made so long ago could be so good.

So, is there any benefit in students learning about such films?

We can be quite snobbish about Hollywood films. It is easy to see a film as not existing on the same academic plane as, for example, a 1940s novel by William Faulkner. But of course, Faulkner, like so many of his contemporaries, was drawn to Hollywood and you can find his name attached to a number of films from the period, including To Have and Have Not (1944) and The Big Sleep (1946).?

Surely, we should reassess our views?

We live in an age where the moving image dominates - most people would much rather watch a video than read an article on a new topic which they were searching on the web. Knowing something about the history of film seems very relevant.?

Of course, it may be that film is looked down upon, compared to say painting or writing a novel, because it is generally a collaborative process. This is sometimes overcome by focus on the director as auteur. Directors like Truffaut, Scorsese or Kurosawa are praised for their unique styles and approach.?

Whether you believe in the auteur or not, Michael Curtiz, the director of Casablanca, was more a jobing director than anything else. He had been involved in the making of nearly 160 films in four different countries before he directed Casablanca. Unlike a modern director, it wasn’t a particular passion which drew him to this project. Instead, he was assigned to the film because he was under contract to Warner Brothers and William Wyler was not available.

So, what is there to admire in the work of Curtiz and the other members of the Warner Brothers’ stable assigned to this project??

It is the creativity which emerges from the restrictions placed upon which is startling. This is something which can often be overlooked in studies of works of art within any field.?

One of the best examples of creativity emerging from imposed restrictions are the nine B-movie horrors which Val Lewton produced at RKO Radio Pictures during the 1940s. Lewton was given a market-tested title and restricted to a budget of $150,000 and to a running time of 75 minutes. What he was able to do with this is just remarkable. If you don’t know his work, check out Cat People (1942), I Walked with a Zombie (1943) and The Body Snatcher (1945).