What do you think?
Rate this book
Filmish: Un viaje gráfico por el cine
Este libro es un viaje apasionante por la historia del cine en siete capítulos temáticos. Un original ensayo gráfico que sirve para iluminar las ideas que se esconden detrás de nuestras películas favoritas.
El alter ego dibujado del autor, Edward Ross, nos presenta en cada capítulo un tema particular -como el cuerpo, la arquitectura, el lenguaje- y examina para ello una muestra ecléctica de hitos cinematográficos, de Ciudadano Kane a La jungla de cristal, del Viaje a la luna a Inception, y más allá. Ningún aspecto escapa a su lúcido análisis: la censura, el diseño de decorados, la raza y la hegemonía, la propaganda, la sexualidad, etc.
El cómic que te hará conocer todos los secretos del séptimo arte.
Reseñas:
«Una delicia de principio a fin... Un genial soplo de aire fresco en la literatura cinéfila.»
James Smart, The Guardian
«Entretiene, informa y dispara el debate.»
Pete Redrup, The Quietus
«Un libro ameno, sorprendente y formalmente inaudito.»
Mark Cousins, director de The Story of Film: An Odyssey
«Una carta de amor ilustrada a la fascinación por el cine.»
Amy Salter, CultureFly
«Te deja con una larga lista de películas que te gustaría volver a ver o disfrutar por primera vez.»
The Observer
«Un ensayo iluminador, accesible y sumamente entretenido.»
The Library Journal
«Una novela gráfica fascinante que le da a los fans lo que a menudo les faltas a los estudios teóricos sobre el cine: entusiasmo genuino y amor por la materia.»
denofgeek.com
«Un sorprendente y ameno volumen que aborda los entresijos del séptimo arte en siete (quizá no sea una coincidencia) capítulos.»
Álvaro Soto, Diario de León
«Filmish es un ensayo alucinante que se sirve del lenguaje del cómic para explicar con claridad cómo funciona el séptimo arte, señalar a cuántos niveles opera y articular por qué el cine es el medio creativo por excelencia de la modernidad.»
El Boomeran(g)
«Filmish es un ensayo en viñetas que cuenta con una documentación exhaustiva (más de 340 películas referenciadas a lo largo de 195 páginas). La obra, dibujada en un elegante y efectivo blanco y negro, logra trasladar con éxito mucha información válida al lector.»
Daniel García Nieto, El periódico de Aragón
«Es la exposición sistemática, ordenada y razonada de una serie de tesis sobre la evolución del séptimo arte, el cine, a lo largo de su historia, acompañada y complementada por viñetas que refuerzan gráficamente las ideas que expone su autor.»
Carlos Carretero
200 pages, Paperback
First published November 10, 2015
75 people are currently reading
1561 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 288 reviews
November 18, 2019
In this graphic form, Ross introduces film theory and history through seven different lenses (🤓), or graphic essays: The Eye, The Body, Sets and Architecture, Time, Voice and Language, Power and Ideology, and Technology and Technophobia. Each graphic essay is *full* of detail and film references, from every genre. Special focus on visual storytelling techniques, the use of time, space, visual markers, and thematic and comprehensive notes to "cue" the viewer what is happening in screen.
In this age of "Peak Television" where many of the best serial television and streaming shows have the same writers and budgets as films, there is a lot of crossover for the big and small screen.
The narration and style reminded me of another graphic history that I really enjoyed a few years back, Out on the Wire: Uncovering the Secrets of Radio's New Masters of Story with Ira Glass, with the author/illustrator serving as guide through history or the process. So glad to see more offerings of this type - solid enough for a textbook, but very readable.
For the lit and film crit crowd, as well as those that are into graphic storytelling! 🔍 And you better believe I was LOVING the 20 pages of endnotes and bibliography at the end!
In this age of "Peak Television" where many of the best serial television and streaming shows have the same writers and budgets as films, there is a lot of crossover for the big and small screen.
The narration and style reminded me of another graphic history that I really enjoyed a few years back, Out on the Wire: Uncovering the Secrets of Radio's New Masters of Story with Ira Glass, with the author/illustrator serving as guide through history or the process. So glad to see more offerings of this type - solid enough for a textbook, but very readable.
For the lit and film crit crowd, as well as those that are into graphic storytelling! 🔍 And you better believe I was LOVING the 20 pages of endnotes and bibliography at the end!
October 29, 2018
Imagine taking a film class by graphic novel. That would be the perfect conceit for Filmish by Edward Ross. Ross builds a de facto history of cinema via the cinematic lexicon of: eye, body, space, time, voice and language, power and ideology, and technology and technophobia. His examples of the uses of each of these areas are useful, but it seems as if his writing style is similar to that of a college student who over-annotates and, at the same time, relies too strongly on a few sources [This is particularly visible in the first two chapters which repetitively use a book by Laura Mulvey cited on pp. 17, 19, 20, 22, 28, 33, 42, and 54, as well as another by Francesco Casetti cited on pp. 9, 13, .28, and 29.]
Another problem is that both Ross and his sources seem to look for discrimination at every turn. For example, p. 137 reads: “In The Jungle Book (1967), racist dehumanization manifests literally in the orang-utan King Louie, whose African-American-sounding voice sings about wanting to be ‘human, too.’” But Louie Prima, the actual voice of King Louie, was Italian-American. If there was anything African-American about the performance, it was the influence of another Louie, Louie Armstrong, which is heard in Prima’s gravelly voice and trumpet-playing years. One page earlier, Ross suggested that Belle of Beauty & the Beast was a typical Disney princess, needing to be rescued and longing for marriage (p. 136). But, Belle is something of the village’s intellectual, always reading books, and she spurns the “prize catch” of stereotypical manhood early in the film.
Similar problems appear when Ross criticizes Hollywood for letting the military review scripts before the military commits equipment and personnel to assist in a film (p. 142). Horrors! The next thing you know, Disney-Lucasfilm would want to review every action figure or toy manufactured by Hasbro, every article printed in Star Wars Insider, and every collectible manufactured to look like a light saber or a Darth Vader helmet. Oh, wait! Disney-Lucasfilm does require that review, as did Warner Brothers over all Harry Potter merchandise and Looney Tunes merchandise.
Then, after talking about the insidious power of media to sanitize criticism of those in power or support some establishment agenda from pp. 131-148, Ross reverses direction when he writes about censorship and fervently states that any relationship between media violence and real-world violence is unfounded (p. 149). He does back off any causal connection on p. 150, but still asserts that film and media contribute to Islamophobia, homophobia, and genocide. Hmm! Like it both ways much?
Similarly, in the final chapter, Ross cites a source as stating that H. G. Wells’ fascination with a ruling intellectual elite (remind anyone of Plato’s “philosopher kings?”) and the utopian possibilities of technology are a thinly veiled advertisement for fascism (p. 150). That would be startling news to the author of The Time Machine where the power of technology runs amok in a dark future full of Morlocks or that same author who gives humankind a warning about the abuse of technology driving one insane (The Invisible Man).
So, despite clever comic art representations of famous scenes from famous films and despite a useful and attractive bibliography, Filmish was not the joy I thought it would be. It is more about ideology than cinematography.
Another problem is that both Ross and his sources seem to look for discrimination at every turn. For example, p. 137 reads: “In The Jungle Book (1967), racist dehumanization manifests literally in the orang-utan King Louie, whose African-American-sounding voice sings about wanting to be ‘human, too.’” But Louie Prima, the actual voice of King Louie, was Italian-American. If there was anything African-American about the performance, it was the influence of another Louie, Louie Armstrong, which is heard in Prima’s gravelly voice and trumpet-playing years. One page earlier, Ross suggested that Belle of Beauty & the Beast was a typical Disney princess, needing to be rescued and longing for marriage (p. 136). But, Belle is something of the village’s intellectual, always reading books, and she spurns the “prize catch” of stereotypical manhood early in the film.
Similar problems appear when Ross criticizes Hollywood for letting the military review scripts before the military commits equipment and personnel to assist in a film (p. 142). Horrors! The next thing you know, Disney-Lucasfilm would want to review every action figure or toy manufactured by Hasbro, every article printed in Star Wars Insider, and every collectible manufactured to look like a light saber or a Darth Vader helmet. Oh, wait! Disney-Lucasfilm does require that review, as did Warner Brothers over all Harry Potter merchandise and Looney Tunes merchandise.
Then, after talking about the insidious power of media to sanitize criticism of those in power or support some establishment agenda from pp. 131-148, Ross reverses direction when he writes about censorship and fervently states that any relationship between media violence and real-world violence is unfounded (p. 149). He does back off any causal connection on p. 150, but still asserts that film and media contribute to Islamophobia, homophobia, and genocide. Hmm! Like it both ways much?
Similarly, in the final chapter, Ross cites a source as stating that H. G. Wells’ fascination with a ruling intellectual elite (remind anyone of Plato’s “philosopher kings?”) and the utopian possibilities of technology are a thinly veiled advertisement for fascism (p. 150). That would be startling news to the author of The Time Machine where the power of technology runs amok in a dark future full of Morlocks or that same author who gives humankind a warning about the abuse of technology driving one insane (The Invisible Man).
So, despite clever comic art representations of famous scenes from famous films and despite a useful and attractive bibliography, Filmish was not the joy I thought it would be. It is more about ideology than cinematography.
February 12, 2018
This plays out like a short introductory college course on film history and film theory, with the lecturer and his PowerPoint presentation adapted to graphic novel form and each section of the book coming off as a separate class session. There is nothing in-depth here, but it is a decent overview.
I have a quibble that as an artist Ross can barely pull off the likeness of the celebrities and actors around whom the book revolves. Fortunately, he provides endnotes that include identifications of most of the people portrayed in the artwork.
On a broader note, the book highlights a sort of catch-22. By justly disparaging the dominance of white males in the film industry throughout its history and drawing attention to underrepresented peoples here and there throughout the book, Ross made me conscious of how many of his examples for film concepts then do come from movies made by white males. I'm not shaming or blaming, but instead wondering how inclusivity effects how histories and analyses of this nature can be balanced when dealing with times that were so unbalanced.
I have a quibble that as an artist Ross can barely pull off the likeness of the celebrities and actors around whom the book revolves. Fortunately, he provides endnotes that include identifications of most of the people portrayed in the artwork.
On a broader note, the book highlights a sort of catch-22. By justly disparaging the dominance of white males in the film industry throughout its history and drawing attention to underrepresented peoples here and there throughout the book, Ross made me conscious of how many of his examples for film concepts then do come from movies made by white males. I'm not shaming or blaming, but instead wondering how inclusivity effects how histories and analyses of this nature can be balanced when dealing with times that were so unbalanced.
December 22, 2019
Враження чудові, ніби у коміксовій подобі прослухала [законспектувала] в університеті ввідний курс в історію кінематографу. Однозначно деякі стрічки будуть переглянуті, деякі будуть побачені вперше (наприкінці Кіношно знайдете фільмографію, буде що переглянути), але кіно мною вже точно не буде сприйматись так, як раніше.
December 23, 2015
This was a fantastic journey through film divided into 7 chapters exploring the following aspects of film: The Eye; The Body; Sets & Architecture; Time; Voice & Language; Power & Ideology; Technology & Technophobia.
I've always been interested in film history and the art of film making and cinema, and this was indeed enlightening and quite educational as well. The graphics are beautiful, and I loved the different illustrations of films and characters that we've known and seen our whole lives and are instantly recognizable. I loved how he took different films and studied them, not only mentioning them once, but mentioning them again whenever it applied throughout the different chapters. Films like The Shining and 2001: A Space Odyssey and Jurassic Park and A Clockwork Orange and King Kong and Die Hard and The Matrix are just a fraction of the movies mentioned and used as examples to showcase different aspects of film making throughout history.
It is very interesting, and highly entertaining, and many films I hadn't yet watched have been added to my "To Watch" list with a new outlook on how they're made.
Excellent book for all lovers of film. More books like this need to be made. I would love a version of this book made about music for instance.
I've always been interested in film history and the art of film making and cinema, and this was indeed enlightening and quite educational as well. The graphics are beautiful, and I loved the different illustrations of films and characters that we've known and seen our whole lives and are instantly recognizable. I loved how he took different films and studied them, not only mentioning them once, but mentioning them again whenever it applied throughout the different chapters. Films like The Shining and 2001: A Space Odyssey and Jurassic Park and A Clockwork Orange and King Kong and Die Hard and The Matrix are just a fraction of the movies mentioned and used as examples to showcase different aspects of film making throughout history.
It is very interesting, and highly entertaining, and many films I hadn't yet watched have been added to my "To Watch" list with a new outlook on how they're made.
Excellent book for all lovers of film. More books like this need to be made. I would love a version of this book made about music for instance.
May 18, 2018
В основе своей эта книга - комикс о том, что важно в кинематографе, как в исскустве. Работа со временем, герметичность кадра, актерская игра. Я надеялся, что это будет хорошим введением в кино для ребенка. Не сложилось.
Хорошие намерения автора рассказать об основах кино разбились об его ещё более хорошие намерения быть в тренде расовой, гендерной и прочих корректностях и борьбы за справедливость.
Результат получился посредственный: пятая доля книги повествует о расовой несправедливости, засилии мужского взгляда, ксенофобии и прочих грехах как о свойствах кино. Повествует языком пропаганды. Что ещё хуже, это всё не вынесено в отдельный раздел, а равномерно размазано по книге. Из-за большого объёма этой темы пострадали другие, остались не раскрыты важные вопросы именно кинематографа, а не американской его школы.
Но и учебника толерантности тоже не получилось. "Белый, цисгендер, гетеросексуал" - это ведь заявляется как общая проблема культуры. Зачем тогда здесь про кино?
Не надо мешать научпоп и пропаганду, фигня выходит.
Хорошие намерения автора рассказать об основах кино разбились об его ещё более хорошие намерения быть в тренде расовой, гендерной и прочих корректностях и борьбы за справедливость.
Результат получился посредственный: пятая доля книги повествует о расовой несправедливости, засилии мужского взгляда, ксенофобии и прочих грехах как о свойствах кино. Повествует языком пропаганды. Что ещё хуже, это всё не вынесено в отдельный раздел, а равномерно размазано по книге. Из-за большого объёма этой темы пострадали другие, остались не раскрыты важные вопросы именно кинематографа, а не американской его школы.
Но и учебника толерантности тоже не получилось. "Белый, цисгендер, гетеросексуал" - это ведь заявляется как общая проблема культуры. Зачем тогда здесь про кино?
Не надо мешать научпоп и пропаганду, фигня выходит.
February 12, 2016
This was an interesting book, an introduction to film theory in graphic novel form. Ross has a pleasant clear-line style that serves the material well. The book is divided into chapters, each dealing with a different theme--"The Eye", "The Body", "Sets and Architecture", etc. His examples are well chosen, and his footnotes at the back of the book add further details and suggest even more films for the curious. The book is, perhaps, a touch on the light side--think of it as Film Theory 101--but it's definitely an interesting read, even if you think you know the subject in detail already.
January 20, 2021
це моя перша така пізнавальна річ у коміксах. цікаве поглинання і подання інформації. незручно із примітками. то завше тобі приходиться перегортати сторінки вкінець і розбираися яка і що пояснює на тій сторінці.
та як для людини, що знає про кіно багато, було доволі нудно. інформація про кіно в дуууже загальних рисах.
врешті, книга хороша, справді.
та як для людини, що знає про кіно багато, було доволі нудно. інформація про кіно в дуууже загальних рисах.
врешті, книга хороша, справді.
July 7, 2018
Disclaimer: I read this book in its Russian translation*. So perhaps some of my discontentment stems from the fact that the Russian title translates as 'How films work. Theory and History of Cinematography.'
*(For this reason, my quotations from the book may not be exact.)
However, I strongly believe that this book could've been called anything and my general impression would be the same.
If I had to guess the title of this book based on its contents these would be my guesses:
'White Hetero Men and Why They are to Blame'
'Transphobia and the Patriarchy — The USA is bad!'
'Ban muscular men from the big screen!'
'MY Political Views down YOUR gullet! Also: maybe something concerning some
motion pictures I once saw.'
This is not a book by a film director, writer, or even critic. In fact, I suspect as to whether it's even written by someone who loves movies. All that I /can/ say about Edward Ross, judging by this book, is that he's seen a lot of films. As to whether or not he's qualified to talk about these movies is a matter of opinion.
Ross believes that Aladdin promotes hate against Arabs when all the main protagonists (Abu excluded) are of Arab descent.
Ross claims that Back to the Future's view on time travel is fatalistic as opposed to Terminator's "you are the master of your own destiny" viewpoint.
Back to the Future Part 3, end of the film, I quote:
So much for research.
In the chapter 'Ideology and Power' Ross first examines how transphobia, sexism, homophobia, racism, etc. inhabit the most innocuous of films. In the same chapter, Ross talks about how violent films shouldn't be banned because the modern audience doesn't interpret everything they see at face-value. He cites facts about how children who've witnessed on-screen violence show no signs of an increased tendency for violence.
The crescendo of this double-think comes at the end of the chapter: Ross states that we still can't deny the power of film, and although films can't incite violence, discrimination, islamophobia, and genocide, they play their role in forming our worldview and strengthening the status quo.
So which is it?
* * *
I was expecting information that would help me better understand the art of motion pictures, some sort of theory that would help me understand the art of cinematography on a deeper level.
Instead, this book is brimming with heavy-handed, self-contradictory and closed-minded political correctness that made me want to throw away the book on more than one occasion.
Ross goes so far as to explore the topic of 'Male Objectification'. The opening quote to this line of thought is a quote from Steve Neil 'Where a woman is regarded, a man is tested.'
Sure. Okay. However, the spin Ross puts on this quote, in my understanding, is that men shouldn't be tested.
"The demonstration of a man's body doesn't interrupt the narrative"
Well, it bloody well shouldn't, otherwise, we'd either be here all day.
"[A man's body] is always shown in action, with an emphasis on physical power and dexterity."
What exactly do you want?! 120 minutes of uninterrupted tea sipping and chitchat between five obese geriatrics?
(More importantly, what do you think the general audience wants? Because I'm willing to bet that heroic displays of physical prowess get a lot of people excited.)
"From Westerns to Superhero films, the male body takes a hit so that others do not suffer."
This is heroism. Stories are about heroism. Joseph Campbell's ever-spinning corpse shall be the foundation for a perpetual motion machine that shall power the male objectification power plants of the world.
* * *
But I persevered, god did I persevere, in the vain hope that there would be light at the end of the tunnel, that this was all just some mad fever dream and we'd soon skip over the author's radical political views and get onto something substantive. But, in the words of Smash Mouth's 'All-Star'
Ross addresses his views on women, people of color, and all other genetically inferior individuals* that clearly can't stand up for themselves. Clearly, these sub-humans, need to be protected and victimized by the double standards of a white dude. It is without an iota of doubt that these poor, disabled people that constitute about 80% of the world's population need a strong and deceitful voice to protect them from the harms of the White Devil.
(*I'm being sarcastic, don't lynch me, please.)
In my opinion, the problem with Ross' political correctness is that it doesn't inhabit one chapter but permeates the whole book. It leaks into every theme, derailing whatever was being discussed into neo-Marxist, post-modernist ideas that I strongly disagree with.
Ross pushes forward ideas that ride the self-righteousness of hardcore liberalism all the way to the top of the horseshoe, where it meets the fascism the book itself reviles. He's so drunk on the notion of open-mindedness and the superiority that it supposed guarantees that he's practically given himself papal infallibility.
It's like Ross simultaneously wants a police state directed against the majority of the USA and a communist utopia for the minority. Ross's ethos goes against treating people differently and segregationist ideology, but he goes against his own words and treats Hollywood with a great deal more criticism than he does Nollywood.
Ross briefly heaps praise on the Nigerian film industry, although I'm willing to bet that there's plenty of muscly men, objectified women, and conservative ideals.
Times like these, I foster suspicions that radically left spokespeople are more racist than any centrist or conservative. Underlying Ross's treatment of women, people of colour, etc. as fragile glass objects that should only be praised is perhaps the assumption that these groups of people are somehow inferior, and are of such low status, intellect and capabilities that they cannot defend themselves or make their own case, that Nigerian film-makers are so infantile and vulnerable that even one word of criticism would be sacrilege. Conversely, by blasting so much flak at Hollywood, the subtext is that Western Culture is strong enough to take it.
I may be reading too far into this, but the implications of this twisted worldview are chilling.
Admittedly, there are moments of respite, when the author mentions some interesting themes worth considering. But any actual theory of deconstruction or what makes a film good* is well beyond the scope of this book.
*(Though there are myriad examples of what constitutes a bad film.)
At its best, this is a glorified '100 movies you should see!' list. Except half of them are brought up as examples of patriarchal Hollywood white-man evil.
With all this said, I will begrudgingly admit that Ross makes some good points. The facts behind the Pentagon's subsidizing Hollywood are thought-provoking. But these aren't the kind of things I expected to read about in a book placed on the same pedestal as Scott McCloud's 'Understanding Comics'.
I forced myself to see this book to the end because I thought it beneficial to expose myself to a worldview radically different from mine. I gave this book a fair chance, several fair chances and it never failed to disappoint.
The book's saving grace is that the art is nice and clean. This does little to save the content.
Final rating: 1 star. Avoid.
Addendum: I apologise to Edward Ross if my review seems antagonistic or hateful. I bear the author no ill-will. It's my understanding that a lot of work went into this, as with any work of literature.
Ross has a right to his opinion and, likewise, I have a right to mine. The crux of the problem is that I spent 19 dollars and several hours on this book and the end result was strongly unenjoyable.
I see that a lot of other readers really enjoyed this book and more power to them. Explained above is my experience with this book, my opinion of it and the reasons for which it is largely negative. If you're short on time and my reasoning seems fair, avoid this book. If it seems that I've made a poor case of my opinion, who am I to stop you?
Edit (later today): I've just started reading Jordan Peterson's '12 Rules...' in which I found this quote that perfectly encapsulates my experience with 'Filmish':
*(For this reason, my quotations from the book may not be exact.)
However, I strongly believe that this book could've been called anything and my general impression would be the same.
If I had to guess the title of this book based on its contents these would be my guesses:
'White Hetero Men and Why They are to Blame'
'Transphobia and the Patriarchy — The USA is bad!'
'Ban muscular men from the big screen!'
'MY Political Views down YOUR gullet! Also: maybe something concerning some
motion pictures I once saw.'
This is not a book by a film director, writer, or even critic. In fact, I suspect as to whether it's even written by someone who loves movies. All that I /can/ say about Edward Ross, judging by this book, is that he's seen a lot of films. As to whether or not he's qualified to talk about these movies is a matter of opinion.
Ross believes that Aladdin promotes hate against Arabs when all the main protagonists (Abu excluded) are of Arab descent.
Ross claims that Back to the Future's view on time travel is fatalistic as opposed to Terminator's "you are the master of your own destiny" viewpoint.
Back to the Future Part 3, end of the film, I quote:
Jennifer Parker: Dr. Brown, I brought this note back from the future and - now it's erased.
Doc: Of course it's erased!
Jennifer Parker: But what does that mean?
Doc: It means your future hasn't been written yet. No one's has. Your future is whatever you make it. So make it a good one, both of you.
Marty McFly: [Marty wraps his arm around Jennifer] We will, Doc.
So much for research.
In the chapter 'Ideology and Power' Ross first examines how transphobia, sexism, homophobia, racism, etc. inhabit the most innocuous of films. In the same chapter, Ross talks about how violent films shouldn't be banned because the modern audience doesn't interpret everything they see at face-value. He cites facts about how children who've witnessed on-screen violence show no signs of an increased tendency for violence.
The crescendo of this double-think comes at the end of the chapter: Ross states that we still can't deny the power of film, and although films can't incite violence, discrimination, islamophobia, and genocide, they play their role in forming our worldview and strengthening the status quo.
So which is it?
* * *
I was expecting information that would help me better understand the art of motion pictures, some sort of theory that would help me understand the art of cinematography on a deeper level.
Instead, this book is brimming with heavy-handed, self-contradictory and closed-minded political correctness that made me want to throw away the book on more than one occasion.
Ross goes so far as to explore the topic of 'Male Objectification'. The opening quote to this line of thought is a quote from Steve Neil 'Where a woman is regarded, a man is tested.'
Sure. Okay. However, the spin Ross puts on this quote, in my understanding, is that men shouldn't be tested.
"The demonstration of a man's body doesn't interrupt the narrative"
Well, it bloody well shouldn't, otherwise, we'd either be here all day.
"[A man's body] is always shown in action, with an emphasis on physical power and dexterity."
What exactly do you want?! 120 minutes of uninterrupted tea sipping and chitchat between five obese geriatrics?
(More importantly, what do you think the general audience wants? Because I'm willing to bet that heroic displays of physical prowess get a lot of people excited.)
"From Westerns to Superhero films, the male body takes a hit so that others do not suffer."
This is heroism. Stories are about heroism. Joseph Campbell's ever-spinning corpse shall be the foundation for a perpetual motion machine that shall power the male objectification power plants of the world.
* * *
But I persevered, god did I persevere, in the vain hope that there would be light at the end of the tunnel, that this was all just some mad fever dream and we'd soon skip over the author's radical political views and get onto something substantive. But, in the words of Smash Mouth's 'All-Star'
'They just keep coming
And they just keep coming.'
Ross addresses his views on women, people of color, and all other genetically inferior individuals* that clearly can't stand up for themselves. Clearly, these sub-humans, need to be protected and victimized by the double standards of a white dude. It is without an iota of doubt that these poor, disabled people that constitute about 80% of the world's population need a strong and deceitful voice to protect them from the harms of the White Devil.
(*I'm being sarcastic, don't lynch me, please.)
In my opinion, the problem with Ross' political correctness is that it doesn't inhabit one chapter but permeates the whole book. It leaks into every theme, derailing whatever was being discussed into neo-Marxist, post-modernist ideas that I strongly disagree with.
Ross pushes forward ideas that ride the self-righteousness of hardcore liberalism all the way to the top of the horseshoe, where it meets the fascism the book itself reviles. He's so drunk on the notion of open-mindedness and the superiority that it supposed guarantees that he's practically given himself papal infallibility.
It's like Ross simultaneously wants a police state directed against the majority of the USA and a communist utopia for the minority. Ross's ethos goes against treating people differently and segregationist ideology, but he goes against his own words and treats Hollywood with a great deal more criticism than he does Nollywood.
Ross briefly heaps praise on the Nigerian film industry, although I'm willing to bet that there's plenty of muscly men, objectified women, and conservative ideals.
Times like these, I foster suspicions that radically left spokespeople are more racist than any centrist or conservative. Underlying Ross's treatment of women, people of colour, etc. as fragile glass objects that should only be praised is perhaps the assumption that these groups of people are somehow inferior, and are of such low status, intellect and capabilities that they cannot defend themselves or make their own case, that Nigerian film-makers are so infantile and vulnerable that even one word of criticism would be sacrilege. Conversely, by blasting so much flak at Hollywood, the subtext is that Western Culture is strong enough to take it.
I may be reading too far into this, but the implications of this twisted worldview are chilling.
Admittedly, there are moments of respite, when the author mentions some interesting themes worth considering. But any actual theory of deconstruction or what makes a film good* is well beyond the scope of this book.
*(Though there are myriad examples of what constitutes a bad film.)
At its best, this is a glorified '100 movies you should see!' list. Except half of them are brought up as examples of patriarchal Hollywood white-man evil.
With all this said, I will begrudgingly admit that Ross makes some good points. The facts behind the Pentagon's subsidizing Hollywood are thought-provoking. But these aren't the kind of things I expected to read about in a book placed on the same pedestal as Scott McCloud's 'Understanding Comics'.
I forced myself to see this book to the end because I thought it beneficial to expose myself to a worldview radically different from mine. I gave this book a fair chance, several fair chances and it never failed to disappoint.
The book's saving grace is that the art is nice and clean. This does little to save the content.
Final rating: 1 star. Avoid.
Addendum: I apologise to Edward Ross if my review seems antagonistic or hateful. I bear the author no ill-will. It's my understanding that a lot of work went into this, as with any work of literature.
Ross has a right to his opinion and, likewise, I have a right to mine. The crux of the problem is that I spent 19 dollars and several hours on this book and the end result was strongly unenjoyable.
I see that a lot of other readers really enjoyed this book and more power to them. Explained above is my experience with this book, my opinion of it and the reasons for which it is largely negative. If you're short on time and my reasoning seems fair, avoid this book. If it seems that I've made a poor case of my opinion, who am I to stop you?
Edit (later today): I've just started reading Jordan Peterson's '12 Rules...' in which I found this quote that perfectly encapsulates my experience with 'Filmish':
“And so we arrive at the second teaching that millennials have been bombarded with. They sign up for a humanities course, to study greatest books ever written. But they’re not assigned the books; instead they are given ideological attacks on them, based on some appalling simplification. Where the relativist is filled with uncertainty, the ideologue is the very opposite. He or she is hyper-judgmental and censorious, always knows what’s wrong about others, and what to do about it. Sometimes it seems the only people willing to give advice in a relativistic society are those with the least to offer.”
October 31, 2016
Edward Ross takes readers on an affectionate, intelligent tour of film history with quite a bit of analysis and cultural theory. He makes his ideological stances clear, offers up context and rhetorical questioning, also makes clear his great and nerdy love of film.
While I wouldn't mind seeing a similarly themed book written by a number of people (through more than one man's eyes), and though at times it struck me as a bit dry or the atmosphere a little too controlled somehow, I enjoyed "Filmish" and learned a lot from it. I've read a bit about film history and theory and am familiar with many of the ideas in here, but I loved seeing it all unfold in comic form. Ross Ross narrates in a way that reminds many readers of McCloud's book about comics. I suppose it's more McCloud than Pekar, but Ross uses the comic medium to keep the tone conversational even when it could have a more lectury feel to it, and he uses comics to clarify his analyses and to bring iconic film moments and introspective characters to life. Well, sort of. He has the characters speaking on his behalf, really, which is a little annoying and gimmicky, but still sometimes entertaining.
The book is broken up into parts: The Eye, The Body, Set and Architecture, Time, Voice and Language, Power and Ideology, and Technology and Technophobia. In this way he is able to organize his exploration thematically without being confined to chronology though the still does a fine job of contextualizing some of film's transitional moments, shifting identities and influences.
This would be a great book to go along with a film or media/cultural studies course. Would also be fun to make a list of films mentioned in the book and start watching them as a way to be in conversation with "Filmish" (speaking the language is half the battle?) Maybe this will open the door for conversational theoretical books on film whose scopes are smaller and whose conversations go deeper.
While I wouldn't mind seeing a similarly themed book written by a number of people (through more than one man's eyes), and though at times it struck me as a bit dry or the atmosphere a little too controlled somehow, I enjoyed "Filmish" and learned a lot from it. I've read a bit about film history and theory and am familiar with many of the ideas in here, but I loved seeing it all unfold in comic form. Ross Ross narrates in a way that reminds many readers of McCloud's book about comics. I suppose it's more McCloud than Pekar, but Ross uses the comic medium to keep the tone conversational even when it could have a more lectury feel to it, and he uses comics to clarify his analyses and to bring iconic film moments and introspective characters to life. Well, sort of. He has the characters speaking on his behalf, really, which is a little annoying and gimmicky, but still sometimes entertaining.
The book is broken up into parts: The Eye, The Body, Set and Architecture, Time, Voice and Language, Power and Ideology, and Technology and Technophobia. In this way he is able to organize his exploration thematically without being confined to chronology though the still does a fine job of contextualizing some of film's transitional moments, shifting identities and influences.
This would be a great book to go along with a film or media/cultural studies course. Would also be fun to make a list of films mentioned in the book and start watching them as a way to be in conversation with "Filmish" (speaking the language is half the battle?) Maybe this will open the door for conversational theoretical books on film whose scopes are smaller and whose conversations go deeper.
May 14, 2019
Loved the idea of exploring film history and concepts in graphic novel format! The structure is also something that I appreciated: 7 sections dealing with different aspects of cinema through specific examples from films. There is also an extensive bibliography at the end, and a list of all of the films mentioned here, which could make for a very interesting watchlist. However, I had some major issues with this book. First of all, most of the text consists of quotes from other works (listed in bibliography), which makes from very little original written content from the author. Also, he reuses the same shots throughout the book, which seems lazy. I'm not talking slightly different drawings of the same scene—the same. exact. illustrations. And they aren't spaced that far apart either, so it's very obviously repetitive. Finally, and this complaint may just be specific to cinephiles like me, none of this is very in-depth or presents a new perspective—it's a very basic, "beginner" look at the subject. This may work well for people looking to get into the art of film, but then in order to do so they will end up reading a lot of spoilers for films they haven't seen, since they're just getting into the whole thing, especially considering how much indie and arthouse examples are present here.
Basically, what I'm saying is that I'm not sure who would benefit the most from this book. It's too brief and "surface" for people who have actually seen these movies and want to dig into the artistry, and a lot of the examples will be obscure for beginner film fans. Maybe, the best thing is to get through the filmography at the end first? But that would delay reading this for a WHILE.
Basically, what I'm saying is that I'm not sure who would benefit the most from this book. It's too brief and "surface" for people who have actually seen these movies and want to dig into the artistry, and a lot of the examples will be obscure for beginner film fans. Maybe, the best thing is to get through the filmography at the end first? But that would delay reading this for a WHILE.
December 13, 2020
Завдяки чудовому подарунку від Оксани Купер маю можливість поділитися враженнями про науково-популярний комікс "Кіношно" від видавництва "Рідна мова".
⠀
Спочатку була впевнена, що це будуть короткі розповіді про ключові для історії шедеври кіноматографу, на кшталт, як це було в книжці "Література! Мандрівка світом книжок" Катаріни Маренгольц. Але виявилося не зовсім так.
⠀
В "Кіношно" теми кожного розділу об'єднані навколо одного ключа, що визначає особливість та, увага, важливість світу кіно. Тому що кіно - це не просто розвага, а й вид мистецтва, засіб доносити ідеї та навіть маніпулювання суспільною думкою.
⠀
Тут дуже багато цитат і навіть посилань, як і має бути у справжньому нон-фікшні. І хоча малюнки чорно-білі, але захоплюють і змушують часто зіграти у квест, кадр з якого фільму тут чи тут намальовано 😅
⠀
Однозначно рекомендую для кожного кіномана, особливо, якщо ви сумніваєтеся, чи більшість кіношедеврів є вже у вашому переліку переглянутого.
⠀
Спочатку була впевнена, що це будуть короткі розповіді про ключові для історії шедеври кіноматографу, на кшталт, як це було в книжці "Література! Мандрівка світом книжок" Катаріни Маренгольц. Але виявилося не зовсім так.
⠀
В "Кіношно" теми кожного розділу об'єднані навколо одного ключа, що визначає особливість та, увага, важливість світу кіно. Тому що кіно - це не просто розвага, а й вид мистецтва, засіб доносити ідеї та навіть маніпулювання суспільною думкою.
⠀
Тут дуже багато цитат і навіть посилань, як і має бути у справжньому нон-фікшні. І хоча малюнки чорно-білі, але захоплюють і змушують часто зіграти у квест, кадр з якого фільму тут чи тут намальовано 😅
⠀
Однозначно рекомендую для кожного кіномана, особливо, якщо ви сумніваєтеся, чи більшість кіношедеврів є вже у вашому переліку переглянутого.
July 21, 2021
Если у вас есть минимальная насмотренность, то ничего нового эта книга вам не даст – чересчур поверхностная. Все остальные получат кашу из woke манипуляций, приправленную рандомными цитатами из толковых книжек по теории кино. Цитируешь Базена – автоматически получаешь +500 к трастовости.
Автор вроде как в теме разбирается, только вот его оптика, мягко говоря, сомнительна. Ну, хоть картиночки клёвые.
Автор вроде как в теме разбирается, только вот его оптика, мягко говоря, сомнительна. Ну, хоть картиночки клёвые.
November 14, 2025
я хз як можна було так нудно розказати про такі цікаві речі. те, шо режисер «шоу трумена» обрав реальне містечко у флориді для зйомок, бо воно було пластиковішим за голівудські декорації, само по собі розйоб, так в тебе ще й картінки є, щоб підсилити цю кулсторі… а получається… ну такє. ще й купа одруків і неточностей
November 29, 2015
I thought this was going to be a "Film History/Art for Beginners," in the way that Scott McCloud's non-fiction graphica explores the vocabulary of comics. Wrong! It's more like "Advanced Film Theory for Beginners," in a McCloud style. Each chapter is a graphic essay on a particular aspect of film that permeates the whole history of film, equally distributed between arthouse cinema and blockbuster Hollywood product. It seems at times that presenting this material as graphica is a labor intensive way of avoiding seeking permission from the studios for reproducing images, and the work it takes to reproduce those images in graphica excuses the author from more deeply exploring the issues addressed in each chapter. Perhaps, but the claims are legit, and the films cited are good exemplars for each phenomenon explored. The endnotes provide ample references for the layperson to encounter deeper discourse.
January 8, 2022
Компактно зібрана в один комікс історія розвитку кінематографу. Унікальної інформації немає, але читається дуже цікаво.
April 27, 2016
Star rating: 2.5
Filmish is an introductory text on film studies, so if you want a very broad, but shallow overview, this book will probably fill your needs. However, despite not being much of a film studies buff, I found myself bored by Ross' explanation of the field. Since he is covering so much, he does not have a lot of time to expand on the concepts that he's talking about. Unfortunately, this made it hard for me to really engage with the ideas.
The art is competent and quite reminiscent of Scott McCloud's comic theories. If you enjoyed that series of technical books, you may like Filmish as well.
Filmish is an introductory text on film studies, so if you want a very broad, but shallow overview, this book will probably fill your needs. However, despite not being much of a film studies buff, I found myself bored by Ross' explanation of the field. Since he is covering so much, he does not have a lot of time to expand on the concepts that he's talking about. Unfortunately, this made it hard for me to really engage with the ideas.
The art is competent and quite reminiscent of Scott McCloud's comic theories. If you enjoyed that series of technical books, you may like Filmish as well.
August 14, 2024
Como bien dice el subtítulo del libro, Filmish se trata de un viaje gráfico a través del cine. Al ser algo tan general, no ahonda en ningún aspecto concreto, pero consigue exponer muy ampliamente el cine como concepto, desde muchas perspectivas diferentes. Los temas que explora son interesantes y los ejemplos que pone, aunque muy míticos y previsibles, son útiles para la explicación. Además, el estilo de dibujo me ha gustado y tiene un ligero tono humorístico que lo hace una lectura muy ligera. Un buen libro de introducción a la vasta historia del cine.
December 19, 2017
I can tell the author doesn't understand Nollywood or intersectionality. Wish they covered more films created, directed, and or starred by people of color. They missed a great opportunity to talk about indigenous filmmakers, to explain the colonial uses of film propaganda, or to even mention women of color.
They also need to work on drawing Black people lol
Overall, a good book for a beginners guide to film theory and film history. It's just not as woke as it thinks it is.
They also need to work on drawing Black people lol
Overall, a good book for a beginners guide to film theory and film history. It's just not as woke as it thinks it is.
January 3, 2021
Дуже толкова книга, яка поєднує в собі елементи роботи кінокритика і теоретика кінематографу. Особливо цікаво легко сприймається, якщо вчив історію кіно)
Read
September 3, 2022Очень полезная книжка: есть и Малви, и Тарковский, и Крепкий орешек. Люблю, когда так.
July 30, 2022
Given the original title in English being "Filmish: A Graphic Journey through Film", I was expecting a graphic book more on the historical side of things but it is essentially film theory 101 in a comic format(?!) with 7 thematic chapters# . Revisiting these film theories in this accessible format , plus a good number of theorists to note, is a pleasant surprise but for a book of ideas, it fails to present any meaningful transition or development within the chapters. The use of the comic is also slightly less imaginative than what one might expects from other ideas-in-comic work.
As the theories are primarily in the tradition of critical theories, those less familiar with this school of thoughts may find the constant critique annoying.
#They are: The Eye, The Body, Sets & Architecture, Time, Voice & Language, Power & Ideology, Technology & Technophobia
As the theories are primarily in the tradition of critical theories, those less familiar with this school of thoughts may find the constant critique annoying.
#They are: The Eye, The Body, Sets & Architecture, Time, Voice & Language, Power & Ideology, Technology & Technophobia
March 6, 2020
Una lectura muy amena, que ofrece un análisis sobre el cine dividido en 7 ejes temáticos. Si bien como ensayo se queda corto, invita a profundizar sobre temas que resultan interesantes.
Me pareció muy bueno el despliegue gráfico que hace el autor, con imágenes basadas en escenas icónicas del cine y algunas viñetas que invitan a jugar al lector.
Le sacaría medio punto por un gran problema: cuenta el final de muchas películas. La verdad, no sé si existe una forma de resolver esto sin afectar el análisis del libro, pero a mi me dolió ver tantos spoilers.
Lo recomiendo para gente medianamente cinéfila que quiera tener un divertido acercamiento a la teoría del cine.
Me pareció muy bueno el despliegue gráfico que hace el autor, con imágenes basadas en escenas icónicas del cine y algunas viñetas que invitan a jugar al lector.
Le sacaría medio punto por un gran problema: cuenta el final de muchas películas. La verdad, no sé si existe una forma de resolver esto sin afectar el análisis del libro, pero a mi me dolió ver tantos spoilers.
Lo recomiendo para gente medianamente cinéfila que quiera tener un divertido acercamiento a la teoría del cine.
October 29, 2023
this was one of the most enjoyable books I've read recently, and definitely the most informative. my watchlist has increased a lot and also my TBR. yey.
Edward Ross is aware of his privilege and of the cis white male-dominated industry he writes about and doesn't try to get around it, but faces it and criticises it. I really appreciated that and the comprehensive references, since the book itself was not long enough to be too nuanced.
it seems that the biggest criticism this book has received is that of being too ideological and pointing out discrimination, and bias in cinema. shocking that someone dares to write about cinema without upholding the status quo 😮😮
I was still a bit disappointed that Nollywood was only mentioned in passing, and so was Iranian cinematography. while acknowledging the problematic history of cinema, Ross doesn't find it necessary to take a different road in conceptualising cinema. I would've liked that, but maybe I'll get it from more radical perspectives at some point.
Edward Ross is aware of his privilege and of the cis white male-dominated industry he writes about and doesn't try to get around it, but faces it and criticises it. I really appreciated that and the comprehensive references, since the book itself was not long enough to be too nuanced.
it seems that the biggest criticism this book has received is that of being too ideological and pointing out discrimination, and bias in cinema. shocking that someone dares to write about cinema without upholding the status quo 😮😮
I was still a bit disappointed that Nollywood was only mentioned in passing, and so was Iranian cinematography. while acknowledging the problematic history of cinema, Ross doesn't find it necessary to take a different road in conceptualising cinema. I would've liked that, but maybe I'll get it from more radical perspectives at some point.
July 5, 2018
Charming wee introduction to film criticism
April 29, 2021
A technical and cultural history of film and film theory, including film as propaganda, and the ways movies can be used to promote and reinforce certain ideologies or challenge those same attitudes, and through this influence shape the way we see the world.
This is an engaging introduction to film with some notable flaws. To my surprise, it addresses the male gaze in the first section, then goes on to cover portrayals of physical disability, LGBTQ+ characters, homophobia and censorship, as well as racism and racial stereotypes in film. However, Ross makes no attempt to depict dark skin in his stark black and white art, effectively turning everyone white, except, somehow, in the panels that show white people in black face. I'm sure it's possible to indicate darker skin through use of greyscale, even if it ruins your artistic vision. Otherwise, the art has a cohesive style that unifies the look of these films, making Metropolis appear as modern as Blade Runner and allowing you to compare the films on their merits rather than their film quality or special effects.
For a history of film, it's very focused on Western cinema, and on Western cinema canon in particular. Ross references films by Roman Polanski and Woody Allen without acknowledging their crimes or the sexual allegations against them which made me wonder who else in this book deserves a strong side-eye. That would have been an ideal time to delve into the topic of art made by shitty individuals and the ethical quandary surrounding its consumption, but Ross took a pass on that. And despite his coverage of the film industry's treatment of women, Black people, queers, and people with disabilities, he treats them as a box to tick in the proper section rather than a consideration for the book as a whole. For example, Ross addresses physical disability—usually played by non-disabled actors groping for an Oscar—and how it's often used as a shortcut to indicate corruption or evil, but later on when the topic of mental illness in films comes up, he doesn't mention how it's similarly used to depict evil or, alternately, sublime genius, or the way disability is often used as inspiration porn. He talks about how same-sex romance was often censored, if it was depicted at all, but doesn't make a point to mention any modern films with queer protagonists. And no word on the disparity between how female nudity is treated versus male nudity, though to be fair Ross does live in the U.K. and I know nudity in media is handled differently over there, but the vast majority of the movies he covers are American and if he can explain the Hays Code, he can include its successor, the MPAA rating system, and how it helped to create an industry that's more comfortable with violence—including sexualized violence—than sexuality.
At the back there's a filmography in alphabetical order and a bibliography arranged by chapter. End notes include sources for quotes as well as supplemental information and references for further reading, though in the text only the quotations indicate they have end notes. I spent a lot of time flipping back and forth to see if there was a note associated with the panel I just read because the additional context is sometimes critical to understanding the text, such as when it drops in "slash fiction" without explaining it (though obviously this was not a problem for me) or on page 35 where it says, "Legend has it that film-making pioneer D.W. Griffith invented the close-up to better reveal the beauty of his leading lady," but if you flip back to page 180, in very small print—the end notes are in the smallest print—it says, "Contrary to the myth, it is likely that Griffith didn't actually invent the close-up..." which made me mad. Don't introduce an idea in the text and then debunk it in an end note. Several of the things in the notes would have been much better off incorporated into the text.
This easily could have been longer, or at least more nuanced, but the comic form is an interesting and approachable way to study film, and I was actually surprised by how much cultural analysis Ross includes, though obviously I would have liked to see more. It would probably be a good introduction for someone who likes movies but is unused to looking at them with a critical eye.
Contains: Black and white depictions of violence, gore, blood, eye trauma, child harm/death. Black people are depicted with the same skin tone (blank white paper) as white people. Uses LGBT instead of a more inclusive acronym. End notes are in very small text.
This is an engaging introduction to film with some notable flaws. To my surprise, it addresses the male gaze in the first section, then goes on to cover portrayals of physical disability, LGBTQ+ characters, homophobia and censorship, as well as racism and racial stereotypes in film. However, Ross makes no attempt to depict dark skin in his stark black and white art, effectively turning everyone white, except, somehow, in the panels that show white people in black face. I'm sure it's possible to indicate darker skin through use of greyscale, even if it ruins your artistic vision. Otherwise, the art has a cohesive style that unifies the look of these films, making Metropolis appear as modern as Blade Runner and allowing you to compare the films on their merits rather than their film quality or special effects.
For a history of film, it's very focused on Western cinema, and on Western cinema canon in particular. Ross references films by Roman Polanski and Woody Allen without acknowledging their crimes or the sexual allegations against them which made me wonder who else in this book deserves a strong side-eye. That would have been an ideal time to delve into the topic of art made by shitty individuals and the ethical quandary surrounding its consumption, but Ross took a pass on that. And despite his coverage of the film industry's treatment of women, Black people, queers, and people with disabilities, he treats them as a box to tick in the proper section rather than a consideration for the book as a whole. For example, Ross addresses physical disability—usually played by non-disabled actors groping for an Oscar—and how it's often used as a shortcut to indicate corruption or evil, but later on when the topic of mental illness in films comes up, he doesn't mention how it's similarly used to depict evil or, alternately, sublime genius, or the way disability is often used as inspiration porn. He talks about how same-sex romance was often censored, if it was depicted at all, but doesn't make a point to mention any modern films with queer protagonists. And no word on the disparity between how female nudity is treated versus male nudity, though to be fair Ross does live in the U.K. and I know nudity in media is handled differently over there, but the vast majority of the movies he covers are American and if he can explain the Hays Code, he can include its successor, the MPAA rating system, and how it helped to create an industry that's more comfortable with violence—including sexualized violence—than sexuality.
At the back there's a filmography in alphabetical order and a bibliography arranged by chapter. End notes include sources for quotes as well as supplemental information and references for further reading, though in the text only the quotations indicate they have end notes. I spent a lot of time flipping back and forth to see if there was a note associated with the panel I just read because the additional context is sometimes critical to understanding the text, such as when it drops in "slash fiction" without explaining it (though obviously this was not a problem for me) or on page 35 where it says, "Legend has it that film-making pioneer D.W. Griffith invented the close-up to better reveal the beauty of his leading lady," but if you flip back to page 180, in very small print—the end notes are in the smallest print—it says, "Contrary to the myth, it is likely that Griffith didn't actually invent the close-up..." which made me mad. Don't introduce an idea in the text and then debunk it in an end note. Several of the things in the notes would have been much better off incorporated into the text.
This easily could have been longer, or at least more nuanced, but the comic form is an interesting and approachable way to study film, and I was actually surprised by how much cultural analysis Ross includes, though obviously I would have liked to see more. It would probably be a good introduction for someone who likes movies but is unused to looking at them with a critical eye.
Contains: Black and white depictions of violence, gore, blood, eye trauma, child harm/death. Black people are depicted with the same skin tone (blank white paper) as white people. Uses LGBT instead of a more inclusive acronym. End notes are in very small text.
September 20, 2018
I'm not sure who this is for. The actual film criticism is pretty basic and surface-level. I did enjoy the breadth of films referenced in the drawings, but found myself frustrated that quite a few of them were used multiple times throughout the book. Ultimate, I enjoyed quickly reading through the book but I can't say that I came out with any new insights.
October 30, 2018
Film theory as graphic novel, with excellent references. Seven short chapters cover aspects of film as a discussion, with the narrator sometimes costumed for the role. Most are iconic and recognizable, with the exception of Tom Cruise in Top Gun. Recommended.
February 1, 2024
Very poor execution of a promising concept. One star seemed too low however, as I did enjoy some of the graphics.
April 29, 2019
Κριτική στο Smassing Culture
Ένα κόμικ ταξίδι στη θεωρία του κινηματογράφου
Υπάρχουν πολλά κόμικ που αποτελούν μεταφορές έργων της 7ης Τέχνης, πέρα από το αντίθετο, καθώς πλέον τα comic book movies και πιο συγκεκριμένα τα super hero movies, είναι το κυρίαρχο είδος στον blockbuster κινηματογράφο.
Ωστόσο, δεν υπάρχουν πολλά κόμικ ΓΙΑ τον κινηματογράφο, ή, ακόμα καλύτερα, για τη θεωρία του κινηματογράφου, του ίδιου του θεάματος. Το κενός αυτό ανέλαβε να διορθώσει ο συγγραφέας και κριτικός Edward Ross, με το Film-ish, Α Graphic Journey Through Film, το οποίο κυκλοφόρησε πρώτα σαν αυτοεκδόση και μετά επανεκδόθηκε αρκετές φορές. Στη χώρα μας ήρθε από τις εκδόσεις Χαραμάδα το 2017, σε μετάφραση της Μαρίας Χρίστου.
Το σκίτσο είναι ένα σχετικά απλό σχέδιο, με μερική ή και καθόλου σκιαγράφηση, το οποίο βασίζεται κυρίως στην απεικόνιση του ίδιου του Ross και πολλών κλασικών κινηματογραφικών μορφών. Όμως το Point του κόμικ είναι το σενάριο του, το οποίο είναι μια πλήρης απεικόνιση της κινηματογραφικής θεωρίας .Ο Ross κατανοεί απόλυτο το θέμα με το οποίο καταπιάνεται
Το Filmish δεν είναι ένα απλό κόμικ. Στις περίπου 200 ασπρόμαυρες σελίδες του, ο Ross χρησιμοποιεί όλες τις δυνατότητες των κόμικ ως αφηγηματικής τέχνης για να αναλυτικό, θεωρητικό ταξίδι στην (ακαδημαϊκή) ιστορία των κινηματογραφικών σπουδών, στη θεωρία πίσω από τη μαγεία.
Από τις απαρχές του κινηματογράφου, με τα πειράματα των Λε Πρενς και των Μουιμπριτζ για το δέσιμο ξεχωριστών εικόνων σε μία, για να πετύχουν τη ψευδαίσθηση της κίνησης, μέχρι τις μέρες μας, όπου από την μία υπάρχει ο ψηφιακός μέτα-κινηματογράφος, όπου συμπληρώνει την κατανόηση μας για το περιβάλλον και από την άλλη το ατελές και συνεχώς εξελισσόμενο πολιτισμικό προϊόν της μαζικής κουλτούρας που συνεχώς αλλάζει και επαναοικειοποείται μέσα από ενέργειες όπως το cosplay, το fan fiction, σε ένα διαδικασία που δε θα τελειώσει ποτέ.
Ο Ross, εστιάζοντας περισσότερο στον εμπορικό αμερικανικό κινηματογράφο, δεν αφήνει κανένα θέμα ακάλυπτο, από τα σκηνικά μέχρι την πολιτική μπροστά και πίσω από τις κάμερες. Γιατί το πως κάνουμε κινηματογράφο είναι και αυτό πολιτική. Έτσι ο Ross ασχολείται αρκετά και σκωπτικά με τις παραχωρήσεις των μεγάλων στούντιο στον αμερικάνικο στρατό και την λογοκρισία που αυτός επιβάλλει προσφέροντας ως αντάλλαγμα διευκολύνσεις. Ασχολείται επίσης με θέμα απεικόνισης φύλου, καθώς οι ίδιες οι σπουδές φύλου και πήραν ένα πολύ μεγάλο κομμάτι των θεωριών τους από τις κινηματογραφικές. Έτσι, λόγου χάρη η Mulvey, παρόλο που η θεωρία για το ανδρικό βλέμμα και την διττή του υπόσταση ως προς το γυναικείο αντικείμενο (σκοποφιλία ή σαδιστική τιμωρία) της έχει αντικρουστεί και αμφισβητηθεί, είναι τόσο δομική που δεν μπορεί να παραγνωριστεί.
Με την ίδια βαρύτητα αντιμετωπίζεται και η απεικόνιση των φυλετικων διακρίσεων, με το whitewashing και τα ξεκάθαρα φασιστικά πρώτα βήματα του αμερικανικού κινηματογράφου («Η Γέννηση ενός Έθνους» να κάνουν την φρικτή εμφάνιση τους .
Παράλληλα η μετάφραση της Μαρίας Χρίστου αξίζει μια ειδική μνεία, καθώς ήταν απλή μεταφορά ενός σεναρίου στη γλώσσα μας, αλλά ουσιαστικά μιας εκλαϊκευμένης ακαδημαϊκής εργασίας, με το πάντα ιδιαίτερο jargon και νοοτροπία, η οποία καταφέρνει να μη χάνει την γοητεία της αφήγησης και της εξιστόρησης. Με το Filmish βλέπουμε ταυτόχρονα μπροστά, πίσω αλλά και γύρω από τη μαγεία του φακού.
Η γνώση που προσφέρει ο Ross δε συνιστά απομάγευση του κινηματογράφου. Ήταν και θα είναι για πάντα, τουλάχιστον ο καλός, ένα εργοστάσιο ονείρων και φαντασιών (the ultimate perveted art, όπως λέει χαρακτηριστικά και ο Ζίζεκ). Μας προσφέρει όμως μια γεύση του πως κυλούν τα γρανάζια του εργοστασίου, το πρώτο βήμα για πραγματικό ταξίδι είτε στην κινηματογραφοφιλία είτε στη κινηματογραφογνωσία, ενίοτε, αλλά σπανιότερα και στα δύο.
Ένα κόμικ ταξίδι στη θεωρία του κινηματογράφου
Υπάρχουν πολλά κόμικ που αποτελούν μεταφορές έργων της 7ης Τέχνης, πέρα από το αντίθετο, καθώς πλέον τα comic book movies και πιο συγκεκριμένα τα super hero movies, είναι το κυρίαρχο είδος στον blockbuster κινηματογράφο.
Ωστόσο, δεν υπάρχουν πολλά κόμικ ΓΙΑ τον κινηματογράφο, ή, ακόμα καλύτερα, για τη θεωρία του κινηματογράφου, του ίδιου του θεάματος. Το κενός αυτό ανέλαβε να διορθώσει ο συγγραφέας και κριτικός Edward Ross, με το Film-ish, Α Graphic Journey Through Film, το οποίο κυκλοφόρησε πρώτα σαν αυτοεκδόση και μετά επανεκδόθηκε αρκετές φορές. Στη χώρα μας ήρθε από τις εκδόσεις Χαραμάδα το 2017, σε μετάφραση της Μαρίας Χρίστου.
Το σκίτσο είναι ένα σχετικά απλό σχέδιο, με μερική ή και καθόλου σκιαγράφηση, το οποίο βασίζεται κυρίως στην απεικόνιση του ίδιου του Ross και πολλών κλασικών κινηματογραφικών μορφών. Όμως το Point του κόμικ είναι το σενάριο του, το οποίο είναι μια πλήρης απεικόνιση της κινηματογραφικής θεωρίας .Ο Ross κατανοεί απόλυτο το θέμα με το οποίο καταπιάνεται
Το Filmish δεν είναι ένα απλό κόμικ. Στις περίπου 200 ασπρόμαυρες σελίδες του, ο Ross χρησιμοποιεί όλες τις δυνατότητες των κόμικ ως αφηγηματικής τέχνης για να αναλυτικό, θεωρητικό ταξίδι στην (ακαδημαϊκή) ιστορία των κινηματογραφικών σπουδών, στη θεωρία πίσω από τη μαγεία.
Από τις απαρχές του κινηματογράφου, με τα πειράματα των Λε Πρενς και των Μουιμπριτζ για το δέσιμο ξεχωριστών εικόνων σε μία, για να πετύχουν τη ψευδαίσθηση της κίνησης, μέχρι τις μέρες μας, όπου από την μία υπάρχει ο ψηφιακός μέτα-κινηματογράφος, όπου συμπληρώνει την κατανόηση μας για το περιβάλλον και από την άλλη το ατελές και συνεχώς εξελισσόμενο πολιτισμικό προϊόν της μαζικής κουλτούρας που συνεχώς αλλάζει και επαναοικειοποείται μέσα από ενέργειες όπως το cosplay, το fan fiction, σε ένα διαδικασία που δε θα τελειώσει ποτέ.
Ο Ross, εστιάζοντας περισσότερο στον εμπορικό αμερικανικό κινηματογράφο, δεν αφήνει κανένα θέμα ακάλυπτο, από τα σκηνικά μέχρι την πολιτική μπροστά και πίσω από τις κάμερες. Γιατί το πως κάνουμε κινηματογράφο είναι και αυτό πολιτική. Έτσι ο Ross ασχολείται αρκετά και σκωπτικά με τις παραχωρήσεις των μεγάλων στούντιο στον αμερικάνικο στρατό και την λογοκρισία που αυτός επιβάλλει προσφέροντας ως αντάλλαγμα διευκολύνσεις. Ασχολείται επίσης με θέμα απεικόνισης φύλου, καθώς οι ίδιες οι σπουδές φύλου και πήραν ένα πολύ μεγάλο κομμάτι των θεωριών τους από τις κινηματογραφικές. Έτσι, λόγου χάρη η Mulvey, παρόλο που η θεωρία για το ανδρικό βλέμμα και την διττή του υπόσταση ως προς το γυναικείο αντικείμενο (σκοποφιλία ή σαδιστική τιμωρία) της έχει αντικρουστεί και αμφισβητηθεί, είναι τόσο δομική που δεν μπορεί να παραγνωριστεί.
Με την ίδια βαρύτητα αντιμετωπίζεται και η απεικόνιση των φυλετικων διακρίσεων, με το whitewashing και τα ξεκάθαρα φασιστικά πρώτα βήματα του αμερικανικού κινηματογράφου («Η Γέννηση ενός Έθνους» να κάνουν την φρικτή εμφάνιση τους .
Παράλληλα η μετάφραση της Μαρίας Χρίστου αξίζει μια ειδική μνεία, καθώς ήταν απλή μεταφορά ενός σεναρίου στη γλώσσα μας, αλλά ουσιαστικά μιας εκλαϊκευμένης ακαδημαϊκής εργασίας, με το πάντα ιδιαίτερο jargon και νοοτροπία, η οποία καταφέρνει να μη χάνει την γοητεία της αφήγησης και της εξιστόρησης. Με το Filmish βλέπουμε ταυτόχρονα μπροστά, πίσω αλλά και γύρω από τη μαγεία του φακού.
Η γνώση που προσφέρει ο Ross δε συνιστά απομάγευση του κινηματογράφου. Ήταν και θα είναι για πάντα, τουλάχιστον ο καλός, ένα εργοστάσιο ονείρων και φαντασιών (the ultimate perveted art, όπως λέει χαρακτηριστικά και ο Ζίζεκ). Μας προσφέρει όμως μια γεύση του πως κυλούν τα γρανάζια του εργοστασίου, το πρώτο βήμα για πραγματικό ταξίδι είτε στην κινηματογραφοφιλία είτε στη κινηματογραφογνωσία, ενίοτε, αλλά σπανιότερα και στα δύο.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 288 reviews