Epstein, Jean. “On Certain Characteristics of Photogenie.” French Film Theory and Criticism 1907-1939. Vol. 1: 1907-1929. Ed. Richard Abel. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1988. 314-18.

I was a big fan of Epstein’s essay, and loved the opening metaphor of the cinema being two Siamese twins of art and industry. As a filmmaker, he speaks about “photogenie” or the art of cinema.

Any aspect of things, beings, or souls whose moral character is enhanced by filmic reproduction.

And if not, it’s not worth filming. That idea is quite interesting. Is the banality of something worth filming to accentuate that banality? (The Office springs to mind: sure it’s only a television show and not a film, but it showcases the banalities of everyday life in a way that doesn’t aim to uplift it, but to just document it.)

Ray, Robert B. “How a Film Theory got Lost.” How a Film Theory got Lost and Other Mysteries in Cultural Studies. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2001. 1-14.

Dichotomy, history of theory, path dependence (economic term) – for some reason, the market offers us the least best option. He then applies this to film theory: theory of Soviet montage won out over photogenie.

A couple of thoughts for the extension readings:

Bordwell, David. “Defending and Defining the Seventh Art: The Standard Version of Stylistic History.”On the History of Film Style. Cambridge, Mass. & London. Harvard UP, 1997. 13-45

Abel, Richard. “The Narrative Avant-Garde.” French Cinema: The First New Wave, 1915-1929 [extract]. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1984. 277-97.