The art of pure cinema : Hitchcock and his imitators

Alfred Hitchcock’s notion of a “pure cinema” has continued to fascinate and perplex film audiences, critics, and theorists alike. The concept first emerged loosely in the 1920s, as European avant-garde artists and intellectuals grappled with the essence of the moving image as an aesthetic form. But what, precisely, was pure cinema as an artistic philosophy and style? How did it evolve within Hitchcock’s body of work, and how was a pure cinema artistic style then developed by the filmmakers who came after Hitchcock, such as Dario Argento and Brian De Palma? The Art of Pure Cinema connects film history and philosophies of image and sound to better understand the legacy of this aesthetic tradition. In a now-famous interview with François Truffaut in 1962, Alfred Hitchcock described his masterpiece Rear Window (1954) as "the purest expression of a cinematic idea." But what, precisely, did Hitchcock mean by pure cinema? Was pure cinema a function of mise en scène, or composition within the frame? Was it a function of montage, "of pieces of film assembled"? This notion of pure cinema has intrigued and perplexed critics, theorists, and filmmakers alike in the decades following this discussion. And even across his 40-year career, Hitchcock's own ideas about pure cinema remained mired in a lack of detail, clarity, and analytical precision.The Art of Pure Cinema is the first book-length study to examine the historical foundations and stylistic mechanics of pure cinema. Author Bruce Isaacs explores the potential of a philosophical and artistic approach most explicitly demonstrated by Hitchcock in his later films, beginning with Hitchcock's contact with the European avant-garde film movement in the mid-1920s. Tracing the evolution of a philosophy of pure cinema across Hitchcock's most experimental works - Rear Window, Vertigo, North by Northwest, Psycho, The Birds, Marnie, and Frenzy - Isaacs rereads these works in a new and vital context. In addition to this historical account, the book presents the first examination of pure cinema as an integrated stylistics of mise en scène, montage, and sound design. The films of so-called Hitchcockian imitators like Mario Bava, Dario Argento, and Brian De Palma are also examined in light of a provocative claim: that the art of pure cinema is only fully realized after Hitchcock. In a now-famous interview with Fran?ois Truffaut in 1962, Alfred Hitchcock described his masterpiece Rear Window (1954) as "the purest expression of a cinematic idea." But what, precisely, did Hitchcock mean by pure cinema? Was pure cinema a function of mise en sc?ne, or composition within the frame? Was it a function of montage, "of pieces of film assembled"? This notion of pure cinema has intrigued and perplexed critics, theorists, and filmmakers alike in the decades following this discussion. And even across his 40-year career, Hitchcock's own ideas about pure cinema remained mired in a lack of detail, clarity, and analytical precision. The Art of Pure Cinema is the first book-length study to examine the historical foundations and stylistic mechanics of pure cinema. Author Bruce Isaacs explores the potential of a philosophical and artistic approach most explicitly demonstrated by Hitchcock in his later films, beginning with Hitchcock's contact with the European avant-garde film movement in the mid-1920s. Tracing the evolution of a philosophy of pure cinema across Hitchcock's most experimental works - Rear Window, Vertigo, North by Northwest, Psycho, The Birds, Marnie, and Frenzy - Isaacs rereads these works in a new and vital context. In addition to this historical account, the book presents the first examination of pure cinema as an integrated stylistics of mise en sc?ne, montage, and sound design. The films of so-called Hitchcockian imitators like Mario Bava, Dario Argento, and Brian De Palma are also examined in light of a provocative claim: that the art of pure cinema is only fully realized after Hitchcock. This Is Not A Book About Hitchcock. There Are Many Of Those In Critical Circles, And I Wouldn't Presume To Add A Great Deal More To The Landmark Studies Of Scholars Such As Raymond Bellour, Robin Wood, And William Rothman, Among Many Others. But It Is A Book That Attempts To Situate Hitchcockian Cinema, And More Specifically, An Aspect Of The Hitchcockian Style In The Aftermath Of Hitchcock's Rich, Complex, And Sometimes Unwieldy Filmmaking Career. In A Series Of Discussions With François Truffaut In 1962, Hitchcock, Then At The Height Of His Influence As A Filmmaker And Prior To The Perceived Decline Of His Cinema In The Later 1960s, Gestures Toward An Artistic Disposition In The Following Exchange On Rear Window (1954): Truffaut: I Imagine That The Story Appealed To You Primarily Because It Represented A Technical Challenge: A Whole Film From The Viewpoint Of One Man, And Embodied In A Single, Large Set. Hitchcock: Absolutely. It Was A Possibility Of Doing A Purely Cinematic Film. You Have An Immobilized Man Looking Out. That's One Part Of The Film. The Second Part Shows What He Sees And The Third Part Shows How He Reacts. This Is Actually The Purest Expression Of A Cinematic Idea. -- Bruce Isaacs. Includes Bibliographical References, Filmography, And Index. "This is not a book about Hitchcock. There are many of those in critical circles, and I wouldn't presume to add a great deal more to the landmark studies of scholars such as Raymond Bellour, Robin Wood, and William Rothman, among many others. But it is a book that attempts to situate Hitchcockian cinema, and more specifically, an aspect of the Hitchcockian style in the aftermath of Hitchcock's rich, complex, and sometimes unwieldy filmmaking career. In a series of discussions with François Truffaut in 1962, Hitchcock, then at the height of his influence as a filmmaker and prior to the perceived decline of his cinema in the later 1960s, gestures toward an artistic disposition in the following exchange on Rear Window (1954): "Truffaut: I imagine that the story appealed to you primarily because it represented a technical challenge: a whole film from the viewpoint of one man, and embodied in a single, large set. Hitchcock: Absolutely. It was a possibility of doing a purely cinematic film. You have an immobilized man looking out. That's one part of the film. The second part shows what he sees and the third part shows how he reacts. This is actually the purest expression of a cinematic idea."-- Tillhandah̄lls av utgivaren ""This is not a book about Hitchcock. There are many of those in critical circles, and I wouldn't presume to add a great deal more to the landmark studies of scholars such as Raymond Bellour, Robin Wood, and William Rothman, among many others. But it is a book that attempts to situate Hitchcockian cinema, and more specifically, an aspect of the Hitchcockian style in the aftermath of Hitchcock's rich, complex, and sometimes unwieldy filmmaking career. In a series of discussions with François Truffaut in 1962, Hitchcock, then at the height of his influence as a filmmaker and prior to the perceived decline of his cinema in the later 1960s, gestures toward an artistic disposition in the following exchange on Rear Window (1954): "Truffaut: I imagine that the story appealed to you primarily because it represented a technical challenge: a whole film from the viewpoint of one man, and embodied in a single, large set. Hitchcock: Absolutely. It was a possibility of doing a purely cinematic film. You have an immobilized man looking out. That's one part of the film. The second part shows what he sees and the third part shows how he reacts. This is actually the purest expression of a cinematic idea." ""-- Provided by publisher "This is not a book about Hitchcock. There are many of those in critical circles, and I wouldn't presume to add a great deal more to the landmark studies of scholars such as Raymond Bellour, Robin Wood, and William Rothman, among many others. But it is a book that attempts to situate Hitchcockian cinema, and more specifically, an aspect of the Hitchcockian style in the aftermath of Hitchcock's rich, complex, and sometimes unwieldy filmmaking career. In a series of discussions with François Truffaut in 1962, Hitchcock, then at the height of his influence as a filmmaker and prior to the perceived decline of his cinema in the later 1960s, gestures toward an artistic disposition in the following exchange on Rear Window (1954) : "Truffaut : I imagine that the story appealed to you primarily because it represented a technical challenge : a whole film from the viewpoint of one man, and embodied in a single, large set. Hitchcock : Absolutely. It was a possibility of doing a purely cinematic film. You have an immobilized man looking out. That's one part of the film. The second part shows what he sees and the third part shows how he reacts. This is actually the purest expression of a cinematic idea."-- Fourni par l'̌diteur Cover The Art of Pure Cinema Copyright Dedication Contents Acknowledgments Introduction: The Myth of Pure Cinema I. The Evolution of Pure Cinema 1. Pure Cinema in Context 2. Hitchcock’s Interlocutors II. The Mechanics of Pure Cinema 3. The Part Is Greater Than the Whole: Toward an Aesthetic Philosophy of the Fragment 4. The Fragmented Frame 1: Expression, Abstraction, Schematization 5. Intensified Schematics: Bava, Argento, and De Palma’s Body Double 6. The Fragmented Frame 2: Segmentation 7. Music You Can Hear: Toward an Abstract Soundscape Conclusion Notes Bibliography Filmography Index In The Art of Pure Cinema, Bruce Isaacs reexamines Alfred Hitchcock's filmography through the lens of what Hitchcock termed "the purest expression of a cinematic idea," and investigates whether or not Hitchcock actually achieved this ideal of pure cinema over his long and storied career.