A Philosophy of Cinematic Art (review)

What grounds cinema as an art form? What characteristics are unique to the cinematic medium, and how do they contribute to our understanding and assessment of films and other cinematic works? Although such questions once dominated much of classical film theory, contemporary film theorists have largely moved away from theories of medium specificity and have instead shifted their attention toward other concerns. Moreover, although many analytic aestheticians frequently reject poststructuralist approaches and the semiotic strands of thought dominating much of the literature that followed this turn, they too have tended to eschew attempts at naming particular, definitive qualities that entail creative constraints within a philosophy of film. Noël Carroll, for example, challenges hermeneutic and psychoanalytic methodologies yet also levels serious criticisms against classical theory for what he contends is the flawed logic of assuming that a medium’s perceived exclusivity underlies its alleged purpose and value. Consequently, Carroll (and similarly, David Bordwell, among others) has famously cautioned against endeavoring to craft a grand narrative of cinema and instead ascertains a need for less presumptive and prescriptive theoretic frameworks when exploring cinematic works.

Despite the theory’s rather maligned position in recent years, Berys Gaut urges that it is time for contemporary analytic philosophers to engage in a serious reconsideration of the questions raised by classical film theory. Finding a way to reach across the aisle between the disparate schools is imperative, Gaut contends, because the piecemeal approaches to cinema are limited by their inability to produce a fully developed, viable alternative to the contemporary theories of which they are so often critical. By going against this grain and taking a more unified, systematic approach, he aims to shed new light on cinema’s commonalities with other art forms as well as to establish a rationale supporting the significant ways in which cinema maintains its independence.

Gaut’s starting point is an examination of the historical trajectory of filmmaking. With cinema initially viewed as an offshoot of photography, an underappreciated medium in its own right, scholarly acceptance of cinema as an artistic practice was slow in coming. Although present-day challenges to cinema’s legitimacy as an art form may seem dated to many, Gaut asserts that such stances can still seem surprisingly persuasive on the surface. He focuses attention on Roger Scruton’s challenges to cinema as art while contrasting them with Rudolf Arnheim’s defenses. According to Scruton, since a camera mechanically captures whatever images are in front of the lens, it lacks the features of intentionality and aesthetic interest necessary for art. In addition, Scruton holds that fantasy identification can be central to filmic narrative to the degree that it is a merely a copy of reality and little else. In his rebuttal, Gaut declares that both Scruton and Arnheim seem to unwittingly conflate the distinct representational and causal-generation challenges to film. Thus, having rejected Scruton, Gaut subsequently works to unravel what he identifies as problems in Arnheim’s thinking as well.

Convinced that he can overcome the potential objections raised on all counts, Gaut concludes the chapter with a discussion of the differences between analog and digital imagery and how they pertain to these arguments. This kind of theoretical application to new media remains a continued effort in the following chapters. For example, in chapter 2, Gaut confronts the contention that film should be looked at as a language. In the process of rejecting Kendall Walton’s view and concluding that film does not share the same characteristics as language, Gaut also incorporates a consideration of realism wherein he once again addresses both traditional and digital cinematic formats. It should be noted, moreover, that from the outset Gaut makes it clear that he employs a very broad definition of cinema. For him, cinema ranges from the conventional, as in that which originates on film, to the opposite end of the spectrum, to include new digital media and even video games. This expansive scope raises its own issues, and undoubtedly, some will be unsatisfied with Gaut’s articulation as...