What do you think?
Rate this book
Film History: An Introduction: 2025 Release
This new edition of Film History has been revised to include recent films, new examples, and updated comprehensive of overviews of the rise of streaming services as purveyors of cinematic content as well as the massive disruptions of film production, distribution, and exhibition caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. It is a comprehensive global survey of film and its many genres ? from drama and comedy to documentary and experimental ? written by three of the discipline?s leading scholars. Concepts and events are illustrated with frame enlargements taken from the original sources, giving students more realistic and relevant points of reference than publicity stills. There are 100 new film clips with commentary in Connect? ? the web-based assignment and assessment platform that helps you connect your students to their coursework. Film History is a text that any serious film scholar ? professor, undergraduate, or graduate student ? will want to read and keep.
774 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1994
211 people are currently reading
2358 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 41 reviews
January 1, 2017
یکی از بهترین کتابهایی که خوندم... یه جوری بود که هیچ احساس کمبودی نمیکنی از یه کتاب مرجع و انقدر روون نوشته شده و انقدر خوب با روابط علت و معلولی اجتماعی، سیاسی و تکنولوژی پیش میره که هی جذب میشی این کتاب رو ادامه بدی. نمیدونم دیوید بوردول و کریستین تامپسن تو عمرشون چهقدر کتاب خوندند و فیلم دیدند تا تونستن این کتاب رو بنویسند. خیلی خوشحال شدم که تونستم این کتاب رو بخونم و یه توفیق اجباری شد.
July 18, 2020
ریویو اول:
کتاب عالی و کاملیه. حتی از کوک هم به یه جهت کامل تره، اونم اینکه کوک تاکیدش روی سینمای رواییه ولی بوردول همه نوع سینما رو توضیح میده.
ریویو دوم:
بعد از اینکه تاریخ سینمای کوک رو خوندم، گفتم برم و دوباره بوردول رو بخونم. حالا معتقدم که کوک خیلی خیلی بهتره. بوردول به شدت پراکنده و مشوشه، اما کوک به شدت مرتب و منظمه. شاید بوردول یه چیزهایی رو گفته باشه که کوک بررسیشون نکرده، اما بنظرم خیلی چیزهای مهمی نیستن و اصلا ارزش وقتی رو که ادم میذاره نداره.
تا وقتی کوک هست، خوندن بوردول احمقانه است.
کتاب عالی و کاملیه. حتی از کوک هم به یه جهت کامل تره، اونم اینکه کوک تاکیدش روی سینمای رواییه ولی بوردول همه نوع سینما رو توضیح میده.
ریویو دوم:
بعد از اینکه تاریخ سینمای کوک رو خوندم، گفتم برم و دوباره بوردول رو بخونم. حالا معتقدم که کوک خیلی خیلی بهتره. بوردول به شدت پراکنده و مشوشه، اما کوک به شدت مرتب و منظمه. شاید بوردول یه چیزهایی رو گفته باشه که کوک بررسیشون نکرده، اما بنظرم خیلی چیزهای مهمی نیستن و اصلا ارزش وقتی رو که ادم میذاره نداره.
تا وقتی کوک هست، خوندن بوردول احمقانه است.
July 22, 2015
I ordered this book online used and in the pages was a receipt for wine.
November 4, 2014
کتاب واقعاً خوبی بود. خوشحالم که دلیلی پیش اومد که به خاطرش چنین کتاب ارزشمندی رو بخونم.
خیلی لذتبخش بود.
:-)
خیلی لذتبخش بود.
:-)
April 17, 2009
I had to get this book for a film history class and loved it so much that I couldn't bear to part with it at the end of the semester. I've been done with that class for over a year and I still look up things in this book all the time.
July 10, 2022
I read this in 2003. I can still remember how I thought, and still think, this was the worst book I ever read. It was so terrible, in every possible way: poor writing, pedantic tone, inane analyses. I had to get this for a film class-- during my first semester-- and I couldn't sell it back to the textbook store fast enough, which is certainly not my normal. My mind boggles to imagine anyone who could know so little about film or history and could find this at all useful. I hated this book so much that it was immediately sold back at the end of a semester. I walked out of class and into the bookstore to sell it. (All my other film books were kept, even ones I didn't get a lot out of on first reading, because I could get smarter and they could get better once I do.)
September 27, 2015
Fantastic overview of film history, focussing on particular areas. Definitely worth getting if you're a student, or even vaguely interested in film beyond catching the latest blockbuster (but I can almost guarantee you'll find yourself skipping over paragraphs to entire chapters).
May 26, 2018
سراسر لذّت و جذابیّت.
January 9, 2022
To call this book comprehensive is an understatement. In these 30 chapters, the learnt authors present an encyclopedic survey of the media from the very beginning to our time of Netflix, covering all continents with a film industry and all types of films. More niche genres , like documentary, experimental/art house, independent, all receive their share of attention, so are the lessor known film industries like those of Cuba or Iran. Beyond the mainstay of detailing periods, countries and film movements, the authors do not miss the more technical details in filming or the development unseen by the audience (preproduction and distribution). Given the dominance of Hollywood production (and the fact that the authors are US scholars), one may be surprised to see that only about 6 chapters are devoted to the USA, a testament to the highly inclusive nature of this text.
However, its breadth is very likely to be overwhelming to most readers . The history of a media, unlike the history of a nation, seldom flows smoothly like a narrative, and all the twists and turns , in the form of lessor known political events and films, could make the text quite difficult to follow. The text is clearly stronger on highlighting facts than providing an explanation, and as expected, more convincing in its takes on Hollywood than on elsewhere. As it is often the case for introductory text, it is more a starting point than an in-depth analysis.
---------------------------
I came to this book with this question: how did Hollywood come to dominate the film industry? I am not sure I have received a top quality answer here (as its analysis stays at the surface level) but it does present an outline of such development: the power of any film industry ties strongly with politics and history, or more bluntly, the world wars brought money and talents to the USA and they made the best use of that. Just as the authors say, film history is the history of various countries trying to find their way under the shadow of Hollywood.
I was more than surprised to read the cinema was once ruled by the (Western) European . At that time, the USA film companies couldn't even stop suing each others until WWI. Besides the war, it's the invention of sound cinema that cracked the dominance of pan-european films as audience demanded talking pictures about their own countries in their own languages. Sound cinema cultivated the development of national film industries across Europe but pooling resources for a spectacular production to compete with the American was simply financially, and politically, unlikely after the world war. Soon the American rose to the top with their larger domestic market, which translated to unparalleled production value, and further their dominance with the political clout earned by the atomic bombs (to coerce/negotiate with countries abandoning quota systems on Hollywood production).
Another economic factor also played a huge role to the reign of Hollywood: it's simply more profitable to invest in Hollywood and show their films than producing local hits. It drained the capital from local production and its effect to any film industry, which was and still is the most capital-intensive entertainment business, was self-explanatory.
Once Hollywood established its footing in a new oversea market, they could easily secure ever-higher funding to drive that advantage to the point that no single film industry could be Hollywood's competitors, very much a "the rich gets richer" scenario. Even some indie, small-budget films in the 90s could command a budget as high as USD 3 millions as they could raise funding with oversea markets in mind. In one case, studios even gave a newly minted director close to USD 10 mil for a script with little commercial potential ("Memento").
----------------------------------
So how do Non-USA film industries thrive or even rise from obscurity? They either have the advantage accumulated from pioneering filmmakers (France, UK), or their countries have gained the necessary capital and self-sustaining domestic market by industrialization and urbanization (India, Nigeria, China). Then how about my little city which once produced even more films than Hollywood in the 60s? I will find that answer in another book, strangely, also by David Bordwell.
However, its breadth is very likely to be overwhelming to most readers . The history of a media, unlike the history of a nation, seldom flows smoothly like a narrative, and all the twists and turns , in the form of lessor known political events and films, could make the text quite difficult to follow. The text is clearly stronger on highlighting facts than providing an explanation, and as expected, more convincing in its takes on Hollywood than on elsewhere. As it is often the case for introductory text, it is more a starting point than an in-depth analysis.
---------------------------
I came to this book with this question: how did Hollywood come to dominate the film industry? I am not sure I have received a top quality answer here (as its analysis stays at the surface level) but it does present an outline of such development: the power of any film industry ties strongly with politics and history, or more bluntly, the world wars brought money and talents to the USA and they made the best use of that. Just as the authors say, film history is the history of various countries trying to find their way under the shadow of Hollywood.
I was more than surprised to read the cinema was once ruled by the (Western) European . At that time, the USA film companies couldn't even stop suing each others until WWI. Besides the war, it's the invention of sound cinema that cracked the dominance of pan-european films as audience demanded talking pictures about their own countries in their own languages. Sound cinema cultivated the development of national film industries across Europe but pooling resources for a spectacular production to compete with the American was simply financially, and politically, unlikely after the world war. Soon the American rose to the top with their larger domestic market, which translated to unparalleled production value, and further their dominance with the political clout earned by the atomic bombs (to coerce/negotiate with countries abandoning quota systems on Hollywood production).
Another economic factor also played a huge role to the reign of Hollywood: it's simply more profitable to invest in Hollywood and show their films than producing local hits. It drained the capital from local production and its effect to any film industry, which was and still is the most capital-intensive entertainment business, was self-explanatory.
Once Hollywood established its footing in a new oversea market, they could easily secure ever-higher funding to drive that advantage to the point that no single film industry could be Hollywood's competitors, very much a "the rich gets richer" scenario. Even some indie, small-budget films in the 90s could command a budget as high as USD 3 millions as they could raise funding with oversea markets in mind. In one case, studios even gave a newly minted director close to USD 10 mil for a script with little commercial potential ("Memento").
----------------------------------
So how do Non-USA film industries thrive or even rise from obscurity? They either have the advantage accumulated from pioneering filmmakers (France, UK), or their countries have gained the necessary capital and self-sustaining domestic market by industrialization and urbanization (India, Nigeria, China). Then how about my little city which once produced even more films than Hollywood in the 60s? I will find that answer in another book, strangely, also by David Bordwell.
July 7, 2025
Sometimes, when you're thrown into the role of a last-minute teacher, you end up learning more than you teach. That’s exactly what happened when I picked up Film History: An Introduction. I needed a solid, panoramic resource to ground my students—and instead, I found myself swept up in a masterclass on the very evolution of cinema.
Bordwell and team don’t just recount dates and directors—they chart a living, breathing organism: film, from its silent birth to its digital adolescence. The chapters are cleanly organized, richly illustrated, and global in scope—moving far beyond Hollywood to include Soviet montage, Japanese cinema, Indian auteurs, European waves, and more.
For my students, this book was our textbook, our bible, our map. For me, it was a long-overdue reunion with the marvel of film history—told with clarity, insight, and no unnecessary jargon. Bordwell manages the impossible: he's scholarly without being stiff, accessible without dumbing down.
What I especially appreciated was how this book isn’t just about famous films—it’s about movements, economics, technologies, cultural shifts. It showed my students how cinema doesn’t evolve in isolation—it dances with society, politics, and technology at every step.
Top takeaway from the tome? That film history is not linear—it's a messy, thrilling, chaotic sprawl of visionaries, failures, revolutions, and reinventions.
Would I teach from it again? Without question. Would I recommend it to serious cinephiles or aspiring filmmakers? Wholeheartedly.
This wasn’t just course material. It was a guided tour through cinema’s memory palace—and I was lucky to be both teacher and tourist.
Bordwell and team don’t just recount dates and directors—they chart a living, breathing organism: film, from its silent birth to its digital adolescence. The chapters are cleanly organized, richly illustrated, and global in scope—moving far beyond Hollywood to include Soviet montage, Japanese cinema, Indian auteurs, European waves, and more.
For my students, this book was our textbook, our bible, our map. For me, it was a long-overdue reunion with the marvel of film history—told with clarity, insight, and no unnecessary jargon. Bordwell manages the impossible: he's scholarly without being stiff, accessible without dumbing down.
What I especially appreciated was how this book isn’t just about famous films—it’s about movements, economics, technologies, cultural shifts. It showed my students how cinema doesn’t evolve in isolation—it dances with society, politics, and technology at every step.
Top takeaway from the tome? That film history is not linear—it's a messy, thrilling, chaotic sprawl of visionaries, failures, revolutions, and reinventions.
Would I teach from it again? Without question. Would I recommend it to serious cinephiles or aspiring filmmakers? Wholeheartedly.
This wasn’t just course material. It was a guided tour through cinema’s memory palace—and I was lucky to be both teacher and tourist.
May 27, 2009
The book is very informative and covers a lot but is a bit repetitive. I would have preferred a more chronological structure instead of jumps back and forth in time to focus on one "group" of filmmakers at a time.
I recommend the book to anyone interested in international film history, but be prepared to read it for quite some time. It took me a month of reading 1-3 hours a day to get through the 722 pages.
I recommend the book to anyone interested in international film history, but be prepared to read it for quite some time. It took me a month of reading 1-3 hours a day to get through the 722 pages.
May 29, 2018
تاریخ سینمای بوردول. جامع ترین و تقریبا بهترین نمونه در زمینه تاریخ تکنیک و زیبایی شناسی سینما با رویکرد تحلیلی هست. معمولا توصیه اول صاحب نظران در زمینه مطالعه جدی تاریخ سینما است.
August 19, 2019
Had to stop at the 50% mark. Started off really great–fresh writing and original concept. But the halt starts at about the 30% mark and never quite picks up again.
June 17, 2025
Tra le scoperte più affascinanti:
- quelle dei primi capitoli, che dettagliano il consolidarsi delle convenzioni narrative per il bene della chiarezza del racconto e, in particolare, anche la leggibilità psicologica dei personaggi (con la telecamera che lentamente si avvicina agli attori);
- tutta la sezione dedicata al modernismo degli anni '20, forse uno dei primi importanti contributi al concetto di cinema come forma d'arte;
- l'impatto del "nostro" neorealismo sulla storia del cinema, in termini non tanto stilistici quanto narrativi (il fatto di poter allentare le maglie dell'impianto della trama per meglio rappresentare la quotidianità);
- il fatto che, nonostante l'industria hollywoodiana sia stata dalla Prima Guerra Mondiale in poi la più influente al mondo, il volume produttivo dell'Asia, tra Giappone e India, è stato notevolmente maggiore di quello occidentale nel secondo dopoguerra.
Per il resto, si tratta di un manuale omnicomprensivo che valuta allo stesso tempo aspetti economici, tecnici, stilistici e anche storico-politici. I primi capitoli sulla genesi del cinema sono decisamente più interessanti; la parte seguente a tratti diventa semplicemente un catalogo, soprattutto negli ultimi capitoli, privi di una vera visione di insieme (anche perché forse è difficile giudicare la contemporaneità dal suo interno, e anche perché le cose da dire sono molte). Faticosi anche i capitoli sul documentario e sul cinema sperimentale, semplicemente perché non di mio interesse. Comunque un traguardo averne completato la lettura
Sono da app e non riesco a inserire il periodo di lettura, comunque: dicembre 2024 - giugno 2025
- quelle dei primi capitoli, che dettagliano il consolidarsi delle convenzioni narrative per il bene della chiarezza del racconto e, in particolare, anche la leggibilità psicologica dei personaggi (con la telecamera che lentamente si avvicina agli attori);
- tutta la sezione dedicata al modernismo degli anni '20, forse uno dei primi importanti contributi al concetto di cinema come forma d'arte;
- l'impatto del "nostro" neorealismo sulla storia del cinema, in termini non tanto stilistici quanto narrativi (il fatto di poter allentare le maglie dell'impianto della trama per meglio rappresentare la quotidianità);
- il fatto che, nonostante l'industria hollywoodiana sia stata dalla Prima Guerra Mondiale in poi la più influente al mondo, il volume produttivo dell'Asia, tra Giappone e India, è stato notevolmente maggiore di quello occidentale nel secondo dopoguerra.
Per il resto, si tratta di un manuale omnicomprensivo che valuta allo stesso tempo aspetti economici, tecnici, stilistici e anche storico-politici. I primi capitoli sulla genesi del cinema sono decisamente più interessanti; la parte seguente a tratti diventa semplicemente un catalogo, soprattutto negli ultimi capitoli, privi di una vera visione di insieme (anche perché forse è difficile giudicare la contemporaneità dal suo interno, e anche perché le cose da dire sono molte). Faticosi anche i capitoli sul documentario e sul cinema sperimentale, semplicemente perché non di mio interesse. Comunque un traguardo averne completato la lettura
Sono da app e non riesco a inserire il periodo di lettura, comunque: dicembre 2024 - giugno 2025
Read
May 20, 2021This is interesting, bc I marked read on the kindle and amazon asked me if I wanted to mark it read on GOODREADS?? so good to know that my accounts are linked.
ITS SCARY THOUGH.
I didn't read this. I rented it (I Dont even want to remember how much it costed to RENT a DIGITAL textbook)
It was for one of those big film history classes that last 3+ hours that I slept through bc we were watching old black & white sometimes no audio films made by mostly men,
I passed the class, if I'm curious enough, I'll see what my grade is.
the final assignment was an essay that I'm pretty sure the TA read or didn't read, but for sure the professor didn't hahah
ITS SCARY THOUGH.
I didn't read this. I rented it (I Dont even want to remember how much it costed to RENT a DIGITAL textbook)
It was for one of those big film history classes that last 3+ hours that I slept through bc we were watching old black & white sometimes no audio films made by mostly men,
I passed the class, if I'm curious enough, I'll see what my grade is.
the final assignment was an essay that I'm pretty sure the TA read or didn't read, but for sure the professor didn't hahah
December 19, 2017
An in-depth look at the history of film, covering the developments industry all over the globe and featuring lots of figures to demonstrate the new and developing techniques of each era. Not a book you can read in its entirety: lots of skimming was needed, but even that still gives you a good grasp of the timelines of film.
November 22, 2024
Fantastic resource and history, I would give it 41/2 stars if I could but I must mark it down from 5 mainly because of the repetition and stuff that I generally wasn't interested (more of an issue with me than the book tbf)
April 20, 2025
Sinema Tv 1 de “Film History” adlı dersimde orijinalini( ing) okudum. Benim ki biraz daha kısa versiyonuydu yaklaşık 300-400 sayfa civarında. Sinema Tarihine ilgisi olanların mutlaka okuması gereken bir kitap.
December 7, 2017
An absolutely fascinating textbook. If you're interested in studying film history, this is a must read.
July 10, 2018
Highly pedagogical. A good book to start with if you want to learn about film history.
January 11, 2022
Clear overview of film history although it is more more focused on the USA and Western Europe.
January 29, 2023
MY BIBLE
July 31, 2023
我的入门书籍
Read
January 22, 2024molto chiaro grazie a tutti se non prendo almeno 20 a sto esame mi spar0 in testa
Read
November 4, 2024太厚了
April 23, 2025
An enjoyable introduction to film history – useful for beginners studying film or art-lovers and history buffs.
July 23, 2025
Ampio. Approfondito. Ricco.
September 1, 2024
Looks like I'm one of the few who didn't read this for a uni course/class, but simply for... FUN! Yup, the whole thing. I learned so much about the history of world cinema - more emphasis was placed on the US/Hollywood, but that's kind of understandable, considering you could probably write a whole book only about cinema from Korea, Brazil, etc. and there's still a ton of information about developments of film industries from all around the world.
February 22, 2007
Gives a comprehensive overview of the political, technological and socio-economic factors influencing the founding and development of the film industry and industries in different countries. Explains how Hollywood has managed to inoculate the entire planet with its disease. Would be enjoyable reading if I didn't have to spit up names, dates and obscure terminology on an exam that resembles the masochistic brainchild of Alex Trebek and whoever invented Trival Pursuit, except it's all in Czech. If anyone wants to buy this for me and mail it to my address in Prague, I will host you in my sauna+jacuzzi-equipped flat unless you are: A. for Annoying or B. Trying to get into my pants.
December 13, 2012
So, I get to count this towards my count of books read this year, because I damn well did read every single painful (assigned) word of this thing. If anyone cares I will tell you why I hated it. But B&T care about nothing but film and aesthetics, and I care about ideological meaning, so I think we will agree to disagree. In one stunning moment they discuss how the end of inflation in Germany in the 1930s (inflation so bad no one could buy bread with thousands of dollars) was a blow to the film industry there. Sure, no one could buy bread and people were starving to death, but B&T remain concerned only with the national cinema. Ok.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 reviews