Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by adventures_in_bookstagram
FilmQuake: The Most Disruptive Films in Cinema by Ian Haydn Smith
3.0
(I received a free ecopy of 'FilmQuake' from NetGalley in exchange for an honest review, so thank you NetGalley and thank you Quarto Publishing Group - White Lion!)
I've been thinking a lot about canonicity lately (the idea that certain books, movies, works of art etc. are superior, timeless and representative of culture) so I was interested to read 'FilmQuake: The Most Disruptive Films in Cinema'. To be clear, Ian Haydn Smith does stick to the brief, though he often seems to interpret "disruptive" as "new", justifying many of the entries by citing whichever technique or style revolutionised the form and set trends. As a result, the usual suspects of "canon" films show up, like Citizen Kane, Birth of a Nation and 2001: A Space Odyssey. He explains his technical terms and breaks the book down into sections by decade so, from a film history point of view, this would definitely be a useful primer. I also liked that each subsection includes a little timeline of key historical events to put the movies into context.
I would have liked more detail on what he means by "disruptive" and more reflection on the ethics of some of his choices. For example, Smith includes Birth of a Nation due to its impact on the history of cinema and race relations. He's very clear about the film's heinous racism and real world impact, clearly demonstrating that movies and popular culture matter and influence real world behaviour, ideology and politics. In that way, I suppose, it was "disruptive", both in terms of its technical innovations and the boost it gave to the KKK. But should it really still be taught and included in books like this? Does its inclusion validate and elevate it as a piece of art? What about directors who were known to be abusive or predatory towards members of their casts? What message does it send to film students (and future film makers) that we still admire and teach their work? Does it normalise abuse? These are important questions and it's a shame Smith doesn't explore them. Acknowledging and discussing the ethical issues surrounding his selection process would have strengthened the book overall, especially if it is aimed at students.
That said, I appreciate that Smith clearly was trying to be inclusive in the films he features and side panels handily highlight important ideological shifts and movements in cinema (i.e. feminist film, LGBT film, Black cinema etc.). I hadn't heard of some of the older feminist films and directors he mentions (I'm not a film expert), for example, so Film Quake is definitely a great resource in that sense. And its clear, chronological presentation and Smith's succinct, readable entries make it an accessible read, whether or not you're a film buff. The glossary and further reading section at the end is also very handy for both film students and fans (like me!). It has definitely given me a list of movies to check out, in any event!
I've been thinking a lot about canonicity lately (the idea that certain books, movies, works of art etc. are superior, timeless and representative of culture) so I was interested to read 'FilmQuake: The Most Disruptive Films in Cinema'. To be clear, Ian Haydn Smith does stick to the brief, though he often seems to interpret "disruptive" as "new", justifying many of the entries by citing whichever technique or style revolutionised the form and set trends. As a result, the usual suspects of "canon" films show up, like Citizen Kane, Birth of a Nation and 2001: A Space Odyssey. He explains his technical terms and breaks the book down into sections by decade so, from a film history point of view, this would definitely be a useful primer. I also liked that each subsection includes a little timeline of key historical events to put the movies into context.
I would have liked more detail on what he means by "disruptive" and more reflection on the ethics of some of his choices. For example, Smith includes Birth of a Nation due to its impact on the history of cinema and race relations. He's very clear about the film's heinous racism and real world impact, clearly demonstrating that movies and popular culture matter and influence real world behaviour, ideology and politics. In that way, I suppose, it was "disruptive", both in terms of its technical innovations and the boost it gave to the KKK. But should it really still be taught and included in books like this? Does its inclusion validate and elevate it as a piece of art? What about directors who were known to be abusive or predatory towards members of their casts? What message does it send to film students (and future film makers) that we still admire and teach their work? Does it normalise abuse? These are important questions and it's a shame Smith doesn't explore them. Acknowledging and discussing the ethical issues surrounding his selection process would have strengthened the book overall, especially if it is aimed at students.
That said, I appreciate that Smith clearly was trying to be inclusive in the films he features and side panels handily highlight important ideological shifts and movements in cinema (i.e. feminist film, LGBT film, Black cinema etc.). I hadn't heard of some of the older feminist films and directors he mentions (I'm not a film expert), for example, so Film Quake is definitely a great resource in that sense. And its clear, chronological presentation and Smith's succinct, readable entries make it an accessible read, whether or not you're a film buff. The glossary and further reading section at the end is also very handy for both film students and fans (like me!). It has definitely given me a list of movies to check out, in any event!