What do you think?
Rate this book
用鋼筆戰鬥的《電影筆記》：楚浮、高達、侯麥等電影大師的搖籃，探索現代電影藝術的六十年旅程
告別平庸的電影、謹慎的批評、與呆滯的大眾！
一群為現代電影戰鬥的先鋒，與一本開創電影史的影癡雜誌之故事
除了專家之外，我們誰都不尊敬、不跟隨、不閱讀、不感興趣、不喜歡。——楚浮
我們已經勝利，因為以下原則已經被大眾接受：希區考克的電影就跟阿拉貢的書一樣重要。因為我們，電影的作者已經確定進入了藝術史。——高達。
我們都是黑格爾派。我們相信我們對電影的評斷具有歷史性——侯麥
黃建業（台北藝術大學副教授）、孫松榮（台南藝術大學副教授）專文導讀
焦雄屏（電影監製）、鴻鴻（導演）、譚家明（導演） 聯合推薦
[本書特色]
※首度完整呈現史上最具影響力的電影雜誌，六十年來的大破大立
一本 30 頁的月刊能有如何的爆炸力？在歷史上，《電影筆記》既代表了其時代，也是時代中的麻煩製造者……
※認識新浪潮大師創作面的新角度，探究現代電影美學內涵的絕佳參考書
楚浮、高達、侯麥、夏布洛等人一手寫影評，一手拍電影；巴贊、希維特等人引入精神分析、結構主義等理論賦與電影美學；新寫實主義、民族誌電影如何成為新經典……
※搭配十八張經典黑白劇照，包括：
高達《斷了氣》《賴活》、比利懷德《日落大道》、約翰˙卡薩維蒂《面孔》、法斯賓達《瘟疫之神》、侯麥《春天的故事》、約翰˙休士頓，《亂點鴛鴦譜》等……
《電影筆記》——史上最具前瞻性的電影書寫與行動，更是孕育與啟發歷代電影大師的搖籃。
《四百擊》裡，年輕的尚—皮耶˙李奧桀驁不馴地凝視攝影機；《斷了氣》中，楊—波 ‧ 貝蒙與珍˙茜寶走在巴黎香榭大道的跳接剪接；《死刑台與電梯》中，邁爾士．戴維斯的爵士樂敘說電梯裡的戲劇…… 這些經典畫面的出現，都要追溯至《電影筆記》這本電影雜誌的誕生與美學主張！
一九五一年創刊的《電影筆記》，是電影史上最具影響力，全球影癡奉為聖經的電影雜誌。《電影筆記》打造電影「第七藝術」的美學基礎，率先提出「攝影機鋼筆論」、「作者論」、「場面調度」等今日朗朗上口的批評概念；首批編輯團隊更一手寫影評一手拍電影，孕育出電影大師楚浮、高達、侯麥、夏布洛等，寫下二十世紀電影史最輝煌的「新浪潮」。
本書作者以豐富的歷史細節，鮮明的觀點，清晰地呈現《電影筆記》六十多年來走過的破壞與重生。以黃色封面登場的《電影筆記》，曾是真正的「戰鬥刊物」，編輯團隊高舉推翻舊品味霸權、攻擊主流的好戰精神，交出有想像力且犀利的電影書寫，改變了全世界製作電影的方向與觀看電影的方法。
在不同階段裡，《電影筆記》深入思考電影產製的本質，並以獨特的觀點與品味拓展電影的全球地景，一度還投身政治活動。《電影筆記》全力追尋新電影，探索美國文化的影響，大眾喜好與菁英主義之間的平衡，影評人與電影工作者的關係等議題。《電影筆記》所採取的批評工具，都構成了我們認識電影文化與理論不可或缺的背景知識。
如果有電影值得熱愛與推崇，如果有電影讓你相信，並教你認識人生，或教你如何拍攝人生，你就該拿起你的攝影機鋼筆寫這些電影的事——這就是《電影筆記》的先鋒大師，用滿腔熱血為我們做的見證。
一群為現代電影戰鬥的先鋒，與一本開創電影史的影癡雜誌之故事
除了專家之外，我們誰都不尊敬、不跟隨、不閱讀、不感興趣、不喜歡。——楚浮
我們已經勝利，因為以下原則已經被大眾接受：希區考克的電影就跟阿拉貢的書一樣重要。因為我們，電影的作者已經確定進入了藝術史。——高達。
我們都是黑格爾派。我們相信我們對電影的評斷具有歷史性——侯麥
黃建業（台北藝術大學副教授）、孫松榮（台南藝術大學副教授）專文導讀
焦雄屏（電影監製）、鴻鴻（導演）、譚家明（導演） 聯合推薦
[本書特色]
※首度完整呈現史上最具影響力的電影雜誌，六十年來的大破大立
一本 30 頁的月刊能有如何的爆炸力？在歷史上，《電影筆記》既代表了其時代，也是時代中的麻煩製造者……
※認識新浪潮大師創作面的新角度，探究現代電影美學內涵的絕佳參考書
楚浮、高達、侯麥、夏布洛等人一手寫影評，一手拍電影；巴贊、希維特等人引入精神分析、結構主義等理論賦與電影美學；新寫實主義、民族誌電影如何成為新經典……
※搭配十八張經典黑白劇照，包括：
高達《斷了氣》《賴活》、比利懷德《日落大道》、約翰˙卡薩維蒂《面孔》、法斯賓達《瘟疫之神》、侯麥《春天的故事》、約翰˙休士頓，《亂點鴛鴦譜》等……
《電影筆記》——史上最具前瞻性的電影書寫與行動，更是孕育與啟發歷代電影大師的搖籃。
《四百擊》裡，年輕的尚—皮耶˙李奧桀驁不馴地凝視攝影機；《斷了氣》中，楊—波 ‧ 貝蒙與珍˙茜寶走在巴黎香榭大道的跳接剪接；《死刑台與電梯》中，邁爾士．戴維斯的爵士樂敘說電梯裡的戲劇…… 這些經典畫面的出現，都要追溯至《電影筆記》這本電影雜誌的誕生與美學主張！
一九五一年創刊的《電影筆記》，是電影史上最具影響力，全球影癡奉為聖經的電影雜誌。《電影筆記》打造電影「第七藝術」的美學基礎，率先提出「攝影機鋼筆論」、「作者論」、「場面調度」等今日朗朗上口的批評概念；首批編輯團隊更一手寫影評一手拍電影，孕育出電影大師楚浮、高達、侯麥、夏布洛等，寫下二十世紀電影史最輝煌的「新浪潮」。
本書作者以豐富的歷史細節，鮮明的觀點，清晰地呈現《電影筆記》六十多年來走過的破壞與重生。以黃色封面登場的《電影筆記》，曾是真正的「戰鬥刊物」，編輯團隊高舉推翻舊品味霸權、攻擊主流的好戰精神，交出有想像力且犀利的電影書寫，改變了全世界製作電影的方向與觀看電影的方法。
在不同階段裡，《電影筆記》深入思考電影產製的本質，並以獨特的觀點與品味拓展電影的全球地景，一度還投身政治活動。《電影筆記》全力追尋新電影，探索美國文化的影響，大眾喜好與菁英主義之間的平衡，影評人與電影工作者的關係等議題。《電影筆記》所採取的批評工具，都構成了我們認識電影文化與理論不可或缺的背景知識。
如果有電影值得熱愛與推崇，如果有電影讓你相信，並教你認識人生，或教你如何拍攝人生，你就該拿起你的攝影機鋼筆寫這些電影的事——這就是《電影筆記》的先鋒大師，用滿腔熱血為我們做的見證。
232 pages
First published August 3, 2009
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews
Want to Read
March 25, 2013Conversation with Not earlier this morning:
- So what do you have against Spring Breakers? You like Russ Meyer.
- Russ Meyer is good. There's no need to remake him.
- But this isn't a remake. Everyone just says Harmony Korine is the person filling that role in the contemporary scene, making trashy arthouse movies about girls with big boobs.
- He's crap.
- Cahiers du Cinéma gave him a great writeup.
- They're crap too.
- But you didn't read a word of the article.
- I looked at the ads. You can always tell from the ads if something's crap.
- So what do you have against Spring Breakers? You like Russ Meyer.
- Russ Meyer is good. There's no need to remake him.
- But this isn't a remake. Everyone just says Harmony Korine is the person filling that role in the contemporary scene, making trashy arthouse movies about girls with big boobs.
- He's crap.
- Cahiers du Cinéma gave him a great writeup.
- They're crap too.
- But you didn't read a word of the article.
- I looked at the ads. You can always tell from the ads if something's crap.
November 27, 2017
The title explains what the book is about. Cahiers du cinema has been the most influential film journal ever published – and, as its editorial direction changed from the 1950s to the 1970s, its influenced continued and changed. In England, for instance, the most important film journals of the 1960s (notably Movie) were deeply indebted to the 1950s Cahiers du cinema, while the most important film journal of the 1970s, Screen, continued many of the ideas first raised in Cahiers du cinema during the late 1960s. Emilie Bickerton’s book is a clear introduction to these changes and the ideas behind them. If at times it seems a little superficial, that is entailed in its being a ‘short history’. The moral of the study is that a journal is more than a collection of interesting articles: it gains a power and relevance through a general sense of editorial purpose. (Of course, that purpose has to be interesting and the right one at the right time, as was the case with Cahiers du cinema. And, as shown by the journal in the 1970s, if the purpose becomes too narrow its readership will also become narrow.) Although it may still publish many notable articles, the great failure of the journal over the past 30 years is that it lacks any sense of purpose. But Bickerton has another criticism and this is the weakest aspect of her study: Cahiers du cinema now praises the wrong films. Maybe Bickerton has a coherent aesthetic, but within the space of her study she seems to be conflating her personal tastes with objective valuations. A member of the New Left Review editorial board, she too often seems to be an equivalent of the Leftist critics of the 1950s who Cahiers du cinema were pitted against. Cahiers du cinema enabled a revaluation of Hollywood films because they looked at the individual works with fresh eyes, rather than just seeing a mass of reactionary Hollywood product. Bickerton also seems unable to see the trees for the wood. She has, for instance, no truck for any praise of 1970s Hollywood: while accepting that the present adulation of the decade by much film criticism should be unpicked, Bickerton’s blanket dismissal seems crude. One can have doubts about Apocalypse Now, but to be unable to differentiate it from E.T. is worrying. And if Hollywood is to be dismissed on political grounds, I find it puzzling why we should then accept the vague religious mysticism of Andre Tarkovsky’s work.
November 24, 2009
No, this is not a gossip filled book on one of the most important film journals that's out there in any language. Well, I should say it used to be the most important film magazine in the world. Now it is just another film magazine.
When it first started it was sort of like Punk Rock. Film obsessed French geeks just wanted to breathe in and out of film history, aesthetic, and production of cinema. In a very fast speed and slightly academic manner, we get the early years turning into the May 68 Mao political years - and then afterwards, it sort of becomes just your typical film review magazine. Cahiers du Cinema nevertheless is sort of a symbol of when cinema was important. i say was, because I feel cinema was perhaps the art medium of the 20th Century. It is no longer that important.
When it first started it was sort of like Punk Rock. Film obsessed French geeks just wanted to breathe in and out of film history, aesthetic, and production of cinema. In a very fast speed and slightly academic manner, we get the early years turning into the May 68 Mao political years - and then afterwards, it sort of becomes just your typical film review magazine. Cahiers du Cinema nevertheless is sort of a symbol of when cinema was important. i say was, because I feel cinema was perhaps the art medium of the 20th Century. It is no longer that important.
May 11, 2026
You have to celebrate a book that calls itself a short history and actually succeeds at both words. Concise with a strong pov, this a great cheat sheet to help you say "actually," at dinner parties
Key ideas that stood out:
- The initial Cahiers theology was a modernist art-making project that was intentionally pro-aesthetics, anti-politics. Easy to forget given the later maoism. Don't buy it fully though, I still hate Howard Hawks no matter how aesthetically consistent his bullshit films are
- On the other hand, I buy whatever Rivette and Rohmer are selling. Too bad the former defenestrated the latter. My impressionable ass agrees with both of them - I naively valourise both Rohmer's timeless classicism and Rivette's contemporary paranoia
- Yes it's sad how Cahiers became irrelevant but does it matter? I suspect most readers may be surprised Cahiers even stayed afloat beyond c. 1970.
Key ideas that stood out:
- The initial Cahiers theology was a modernist art-making project that was intentionally pro-aesthetics, anti-politics. Easy to forget given the later maoism. Don't buy it fully though, I still hate Howard Hawks no matter how aesthetically consistent his bullshit films are
- On the other hand, I buy whatever Rivette and Rohmer are selling. Too bad the former defenestrated the latter. My impressionable ass agrees with both of them - I naively valourise both Rohmer's timeless classicism and Rivette's contemporary paranoia
- Yes it's sad how Cahiers became irrelevant but does it matter? I suspect most readers may be surprised Cahiers even stayed afloat beyond c. 1970.
February 7, 2023
A short introduction. Definitely skimmed over more than it should. Would have preferred a break down of all the major articles from each period and more details. The writers own takes on the history were often all over the place. I agree that films do often come too quickly canonised but Bickerton if I catch you attacking Assayas or his film Irma Vep again, you will find yourself on the receiving end of a Jean Claude Van Dame kick to the temple.
February 15, 2023
The literal last line of this was shockingly corny, but everything leading up to it was great. I was fully bracing for a dull, academic read when I picked this up but it's written in a very accessible manner and the author does a great job parsing out what makes the life of this journal so interesting and influential. A shame that there don't seem to be more books from this author, as I certainly enjoy the way they write about film history and would definitely pick up another.
April 20, 2023
Emilie Bickerton crafts a concise and definitive history of the monumental French journal Cahiers du Cinema in her small book published by Verso. Some terrific strands were dissected throughout including the journals relevancy globally and within French film culture as well as rifts throughout its history between editors like André Bazin, Eric Rohmer, Jacques Rivette and Serge Daney.
The return of Hollywood in the 70s also became one of the central concerns of the journal and Bickerton narrates the volatile history of these moments with great detail.
Not to be missed!
The return of Hollywood in the 70s also became one of the central concerns of the journal and Bickerton narrates the volatile history of these moments with great detail.
Not to be missed!
March 7, 2022
“If there are films to be loved and championed, films you believe in and that teach you about life as well as about how to film life, you pick up your stylo-caméra and write about them. You do not trouble yourself with what the market or public thinks it wants: states of mind, obstinate and conservative views can be transformed if you show, through writing, the nature of films passing on the screen.”
September 22, 2022
I liked it! I learned a lot.
Read
August 28, 2010There is plenty of material in the life cycle of Cahiers du Cinéma to make a history of the journal completely absorbing, but this is more of a one damn thing after another report of events. One editor succeeds another, circulation goes up, circulation goes down, the journal becomes politicized, the journal becomes commercialized. The book mentions concepts (the auteur, mise-en-scene, Maoism, etc.), theorists (Bazin, Althusser, Deleuze), and dozens of films and filmmakers, but each is only briefly sketched or sometimes just name-checked. (The variety of different kinds of contemporary distribution for movies that Cahiers has had difficulty coming to grips with (according to the book) does have the satisfying consequence that I was able to add a bunch of new material to the Netflix queue as I read along).
Most fascinating is the account of the journal in the late 60s and early 70s when it basically stopped being about film and became an organ of a variety of fashionable forms of Marxist social criticism (with no film stills!).
Most fascinating is the account of the journal in the late 60s and early 70s when it basically stopped being about film and became an organ of a variety of fashionable forms of Marxist social criticism (with no film stills!).
July 18, 2020
An instructive history of the journal, its major contributors, preoccupations and films of significant concern throughout the various incarnations of the publication's existence. The concision, seamless but not overabundance of quotations, and sourcing also make the book a worthy read.
I had to knock my score down a star because the author's point of view is either not clear or not compelling enough to catch my attention.
I had to knock my score down a star because the author's point of view is either not clear or not compelling enough to catch my attention.
August 22, 2022
Meh kinda lame I wanted more godard drama
October 15, 2023
The first 30 pages are all you really need.
July 4, 2026
The French periodical Cahiers du cinéma is legendary for being a meeting point, in the 1950s, of several French cinephiles who would soon make their own films and launch the Nouvelle Vague: Jean-Luc Godard, Jacques Rivette, François Truffaut, Eric Rohmer, etc. It is occasionally mention in books on films that after this, Cahiers went in a weird Maoist direction, and after that, one doesn’t really hear much about it any more. This short history, written circa 2008, takes the reader through a half-century of Cahiers, from its founding and heyday to what the author presents as a long period of decline and irrelevancy.
The book is most straightforward an account when it deals with the early years and the preceding 1940s context, reminding one that Cahiers was one of a whole ecosystem of such magazines, and also drawing my attention to Rohmer’s pre-Cahiers activity that I hadn’t known of.
When she wrote this book, Emilie Bickerton was already on the editorial board of New Left Review, i.e. she was part of the same political movement as Tariq Ali et al. That does not mean approving of Cahiers’s most militant era. Far from it, this period is presented in an unappealing light for anyone who likes reading about cinema:
But once Bickerton gets into the late Seventies and Eighties, this book takes on a more strident turn. She sees the direction that Cahiers turned then as just one symptom of a broader betrayal of historical French leftism by the effete, Reagan-friendly leftism of Mitterrand. This reader started to feel that this history of Cahiers was being subsumed into some larger political struggle that the author was accustomed to waging. The book also suddenly becomes more opinionated about films: I think a lot of fans of art cinema will agree with Bickerton that the Hollywood blockbusters which 1980s Cahiers celebrated are drastically different and inferior to the kind of films the magazine had explored before. They may quibble, however, with her disapproval of the cinema du look, Stanley Kubrick, and Mike Leigh. I’d actually like to read some film criticism by this author, but such potshots ring oddly in a brief history of a magazine like this.
Another downside of the book are factual errors, of which I’ll give just a few examples. In discussing the inclination towards Hollywood fare of Cahiers ca. 1980, Bicker speaks of the magazine being unable to give “more than a few lines to Rivette’s Va savoir”, but that Rivette film is from decades later, after the turn of the millennium. Nearly immediately thereafter, she writes of Batman appearing on the cover of the “September 1981” issue as an example of the concerns of the same era, but that cover (of Tim Burton’s film) appeared nearly a decade later in 1989. Finally, in describing the sort of work that Godard was doing in the early 1970s, Bickerton uses the supermarket tracking shot from Tout va bien from an example, but this (like most of the film) was famously directed by Jean-Pierre Gorin while Godard was incapacitated in the hospital, and Gorin gets no acknowledgement here.
The book is most straightforward an account when it deals with the early years and the preceding 1940s context, reminding one that Cahiers was one of a whole ecosystem of such magazines, and also drawing my attention to Rohmer’s pre-Cahiers activity that I hadn’t known of.
When she wrote this book, Emilie Bickerton was already on the editorial board of New Left Review, i.e. she was part of the same political movement as Tariq Ali et al. That does not mean approving of Cahiers’s most militant era. Far from it, this period is presented in an unappealing light for anyone who likes reading about cinema:
By 1973, the journal would be almost unrecognizable, transformed into an austere thick booklet with no photographs and making scant reference to film, instead mapping out the urgent strategies to be undertaken on the ‘cultural front’. The issue published at the end of 1973 lacked even a date. This phantom issue epitomized both resurrection and nadir: in three years Cahiers had moved from triumphantly regaining its financial independence to completely retreating from the world of contemporary cinema. Editors now operated in an area of cultural struggle which they had partly fabricated, espousing Marxist-Leninist slogans at every turn.
But once Bickerton gets into the late Seventies and Eighties, this book takes on a more strident turn. She sees the direction that Cahiers turned then as just one symptom of a broader betrayal of historical French leftism by the effete, Reagan-friendly leftism of Mitterrand. This reader started to feel that this history of Cahiers was being subsumed into some larger political struggle that the author was accustomed to waging. The book also suddenly becomes more opinionated about films: I think a lot of fans of art cinema will agree with Bickerton that the Hollywood blockbusters which 1980s Cahiers celebrated are drastically different and inferior to the kind of films the magazine had explored before. They may quibble, however, with her disapproval of the cinema du look, Stanley Kubrick, and Mike Leigh. I’d actually like to read some film criticism by this author, but such potshots ring oddly in a brief history of a magazine like this.
Another downside of the book are factual errors, of which I’ll give just a few examples. In discussing the inclination towards Hollywood fare of Cahiers ca. 1980, Bicker speaks of the magazine being unable to give “more than a few lines to Rivette’s Va savoir”, but that Rivette film is from decades later, after the turn of the millennium. Nearly immediately thereafter, she writes of Batman appearing on the cover of the “September 1981” issue as an example of the concerns of the same era, but that cover (of Tim Burton’s film) appeared nearly a decade later in 1989. Finally, in describing the sort of work that Godard was doing in the early 1970s, Bickerton uses the supermarket tracking shot from Tout va bien from an example, but this (like most of the film) was famously directed by Jean-Pierre Gorin while Godard was incapacitated in the hospital, and Gorin gets no acknowledgement here.
June 15, 2024
A frustrating whistle-stop tour through the once-influential, now-toothless film journal, Cahiers du cinéma. The most interesting part of the history of Cahiers — the first ten years, when key figures at the magazine included Bazin, Rohmer, Truffaut, and Godard — is covered in around 30 of the book’s 150 pages. The rest is dedicated to chronicling the Maoist period and ultimate decline, with constant comparisons made to the glory days that Bickerton singularly fails to give justice to in those first 30 pages. Reading this book was a demystifying experience. One gets the impression that to be a fly on the wall in the offices of Cahiers would’ve been deeply frustrating and unpleasant; Bickerton certainly captures that air of snobbery and pretension in this account, crowbarring in her own (often, chuckleheaded) prejudices, and presenting them as universally accepted truths. I found certain passages to be informative and interesting, but found myself yearning for depth and detail. The rest was just a slog, and on more than one occasion, I threw this wasted opportunity of a book across the room.
April 11, 2023
Very valuable as a well researched history of an important filmic institution. It quashes some simplified misunderstandings and gives clarity to the many phases of Cahiers.
When historicising, this is excellent, written with clarity and detail. At points, editorialised statements sneak in but take on the same objective and historical tone. Filmic opinions from the writer are canonised in a text that has a main purpose of informing. I’m not expecting objectivity in anything, all historical tales are choices and interpretations. However, I don’t need a random comment just labelling the 1996 film Irma Vep as ‘tiresome and pointless’.
I say this not only because I personally love the movie but also because it is widely acclaimed and treasured. This comment is of a piece with a few littered throughout and should at least be couched with reference to general views. I guess the issue is that these statements are used to found conclusions about the state of Cahiers at certain points.
This is a small quibble, though, and a rarity.
When historicising, this is excellent, written with clarity and detail. At points, editorialised statements sneak in but take on the same objective and historical tone. Filmic opinions from the writer are canonised in a text that has a main purpose of informing. I’m not expecting objectivity in anything, all historical tales are choices and interpretations. However, I don’t need a random comment just labelling the 1996 film Irma Vep as ‘tiresome and pointless’.
I say this not only because I personally love the movie but also because it is widely acclaimed and treasured. This comment is of a piece with a few littered throughout and should at least be couched with reference to general views. I guess the issue is that these statements are used to found conclusions about the state of Cahiers at certain points.
This is a small quibble, though, and a rarity.
November 13, 2020
Really great and succinct, breaks up the long history of this esteemed journal in a wonderful way. A respectable introduction that brings out footnotes and other sources to continue one's journey into cinephilia.
I also really appreciate the political fidelity that this book has with the original young turks of the Cahiers. A powerful appreciation of film beyond academicism or corporatization runs strong throughout the book, and any tearful laments at the loss of Cahiers' once powerful editorial message is contextualized within larger post-68 politics and the neoliberal turn in France at large.
I also really appreciate the political fidelity that this book has with the original young turks of the Cahiers. A powerful appreciation of film beyond academicism or corporatization runs strong throughout the book, and any tearful laments at the loss of Cahiers' once powerful editorial message is contextualized within larger post-68 politics and the neoliberal turn in France at large.
August 31, 2023
《電影筆記》小史，自雜誌誕生的文化背景一路寫到如今到商業化取向，爬梳雜誌本身的定位、編輯群批評標準數次轉移背後的歷史環境並帶到法國電影產業的一些制度變革。本書主題明確，寫作自制，以雜誌的走向為主軸，諸如文化圈整體氛圍、政治經濟變動等等要素，僅在必要時精簡提及，但閱讀本書後亦可建立1950-80的法國文化圈、電影（雜誌）社群的初步印象，為之後深入了解打下基石；同樣地，對《電影筆記》所推崇或貶抑的作品、新浪潮自己端出的成果，本書皆不多加分析，僅給出（《電影筆記》編輯們的）結論，以旁證雜誌自身的批評取向，讀者不應誤抱期待。然，本書作者前幾章寫及電影時語調中立，直到1970年後期《電影筆記》的「商業化轉向」後，作者開始對雜誌予好萊塢大片、法國年輕導演的評價摻入自身的價值判斷——作者對《鬼店》的正典化顯然略有不滿，稱阿薩亞斯《迷離劫》貧乏無意義、《新橋戀人》花俏無深度——卻又無論據支持，連帶作者於書末對現今《電影筆記》的悲觀總評——迎合觀眾（與好萊塢）、不敢批評、喪失戰鬥跟拓展電影可能的前線意義、空有名頭初衷已矣——之說服力也稍打折扣。但這並不妨礙本書作為一本簡短綜述的完成度，文筆清晰、主題有趣，有效勾勒《電影筆記》發展歷程的大致輪廓。
April 18, 2019
Este libro realiza un recorrido completo por una de las revistas de referencia del cine francés, atendiendo al perfil de sus principales autores y a los avances políticos y sociales, reflejados en los cambios ideológicos y epistemológicos que también atañen al cine desde los años 40 hasta la actualidad.
August 14, 2021
A short classic and (in some ways) a great introduction to the history of film theory and film criticism. It all started with Cahiers du Cinema. Before that it was Graham Greene or fan mags. This short volume is so good, and so well written, that's I'm re-reading it and even getting excited about that.
Read
April 25, 2024Absolutely sped through this, which I rarely do with non-fiction. It's refreshing to read about film theory, criticism and technique in the context of writers and filmmakers who actually put their money where their mouth is - a document of what it means to *do* radical art, and not just talk vapidly about doing it.
July 8, 2021
A very interesting overview of perhaps, the most important publication about Arthouse cinema in the western hemisphere, with a light tone and some useful insight, Emilie Bickerton maps out the whole chronology of events and the reasons why the journal has received the praise it's known for.
January 3, 2023
No famous Cahiers beefs or fun stories, just facts about how the magazine changed over time (stuff you can just read on wikipedia in 5 minutes). Great for gleaning movies to add to Letterboxd watchlist though 👍
May 19, 2021
Okay quickie history, but miss me with that “art goes beyond politics, therefore the Red ‘68-‘75 turn was just as bad as the glossy Cahiers turn” bullshit.
August 22, 2021
Interesting; depressing; inspiring
Read
November 30, 2022how am I supposed to write a bookreport about this
April 17, 2023
hon hon hon j'adore godard
August 5, 2023
Suprisingly a lot of the books is used on periods after the New Wave auteurs left it, which I found a little dissapointing.
December 31, 2023
Put four french leftists in a room come out with five different film magazines
April 13, 2025
I liked this now I want to read the actual Cahiers du Cinema
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews