Краткая история «Кайе дю синема»

by Эмили Бикертон

Cahiers du Cinéma — это главный журнал в мире кино. Каждый киноман слышал легенду о пяти молодых и рассерженных кинокритиках — Годаре, Трюффо, Шаброле, Риветте и Ромере, — которые перешли от слов к делу и положили начало французской «новой волне». Книга Эмили Бикертон рассказывает о том, что случилось, когда волна схлынула.Сменялись десятилетия, и «Кайе дю синема» пересочинял себя, приспосабливаясь к новым правилам игры или придумывая свои. От борьбы за признание кино седьмым искусством до политизации конца 1960‑х, от интеллигентного формализма до оголтелого маоизма, от погружений в недра теории до обзоров кассовых хитов, от архивных находок до телевизионных поделок, от черно-белой аскезы до крикливого глянца — раз за разом редакторам журнала приходилось отвечать на одни и те же вопросы. В чем специфика кино? Есть ли у фильма автор? По каким критериям отбирать и оценивать картины? Как соотносятся политика и эстетика? Как соотносятся критика и теория? Писать о прошлом или о будущем? О кино или о жизни? Для зрителя или для кинематографиста? Формировать вкусы миллионов или пестовать кучку синефилов? Просвещать или обслуживать? Быть частью индустрии или с ней сражаться? Решить для себя эти проблемы значило превратить набор текстов в настоящий киножурнал, каким и был «Кайе дю синема» — последний модернистский проект, влияние которого не ослабевает до сих пор.

Genres: Film, Nonfiction, Art, France, Media Tie In, History

320 pages, Unknown Binding

First published August 3, 2009

Reviews

[Manny]

Conversation 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.

[Nick Jones · Rating 3 out of 5]

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.

[Tosh · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[Jacob Kelly · Rating 3 out of 5]

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.

[Raul Alonzo Jr. · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[Digby · Rating 4 out of 5]

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!

[Dany · Rating 4 out of 5]

“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.”

[Frank Treetop · Rating 3 out of 5]

I liked it! I learned a lot.

[Nat]

There 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!).

[The Flaneur · Rating 3 out of 5]

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.

[Ethan Binotto · Rating 3 out of 5]

Meh kinda lame I wanted more godard drama

[Jalyn Henton · Rating 3 out of 5]

The first 30 pages are all you really need.

[Jorge Walsh · Rating 2 out of 5]

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.

[Stephen Gillespie · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[Charlie Kruse · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[Siri Hsu · Rating 4 out of 5]

《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。

[Fernando Ramírez de Luis · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[Jim McCool · Rating 5 out of 5]

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.

[Patrick Taylor]

Absolutely 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.

[Santiago Tinjacá · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[J · Rating 3 out of 5]

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 👍

[Carlos Valladares · Rating 3 out of 5]

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.

[Billypal · Rating 5 out of 5]

Interesting; depressing; inspiring

[Jette]

how am I supposed to write a bookreport about this

[Scott · Rating 5 out of 5]

hon hon hon j'adore godard

[Analogfudge · Rating 3 out of 5]

Suprisingly a lot of the books is used on periods after the New Wave auteurs left it, which I found a little dissapointing.

[CHILTONM · Rating 4 out of 5]

Put four french leftists in a room come out with five different film magazines

[Ethan Miller · Rating 4 out of 5]

I liked this now I want to read the actual Cahiers du Cinema

[Ilya Shagalov · Rating 4 out of 5]

Книга подразумевает, что вы видели все картины классики. Описаний сюжетов вы не дождетесь. Это значительно сужает аудиторию, тех, кому книга по настоящему окажется интересной.

На примере одного (культового) журнала просматривается история не только эволюции кино, но и Франции, и ее политические волнения.

В книге явно прослеживается попытка критического анализа кино с каждой новой волной редакторов и критиков. Каждый раз они находят новый ракурс, с формальной или политической стороны.

В какой-то момент повествование превращается в демагогию критиков, о том, как писать о кино, на что обращать внимание. Смещаются акценты к прочтению кино, а вместе с ним и сами принципы кино.

Есть интересный фрагмент размышлений о фундаментальном сдвиге изображения после победы телевизора:
Постепенно все скатывается к коллективному признанию и панихиде по кино, которую пророчили еще братья Люмьер. Наконец и критики и режиссеры сходятся во мнении, что кино умерло, оно занимает довольно скромное место в визуальной среде рекламы, телевидения и вездесущего изображения

Раскол происходит, когда становится понятно, что невозможно писать об истории кино и отражать его настоящим.

В финале книги, довольно трагично, капитализм поглотит журнал, который станет идти на поводу у публики. Кино теперь часть большого мира, а не отдельный мир.

Понятие «Автор» упраздняется по причине того, что присуждалось слишком многим, поэтому ему грозит «смысловая инфляция»

Кино из искусства превращается в культуру.

[Fred · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting account of the formation of the journal through the various periods up to the present day. I read through the classic period of the 50s and the 60s, after which all the most interesting writers of the formative period were making films and Bazin was dead. Also dead was the Hollywood studio system, which had provided much of the impetus for the journal in its early period, as well as Bazin's conception of a Cinema evaluated purely on its own terms: not as illustrated literature, as exemplified by the French "Cinema of Quality" that preceded the New Wave; and not as a means to other, external ideological ends (such as showing the superiority of the Soviet system). I lost interest (and had to return he book) by the time I got to the 70s, when politics began to reign supreme and the formal concerns of the old guard were being worked out in practice in their films.