MK Raghavendra’s Thinking Cinema: A Handbook for Cinephiles says it all in the title itself. Running over 300 pages, this substantial volume looks at different aspects of the movie-making business by drawing on examples from both the world as well as Indian cinema, making it seminal for all cine enthusiasts.
In a comprehensive ‘Introduction’, the author defines the term film appreciation, tracing its history to the film society movement that gained prominence in the 1970s. One of the key takeaways from the book is the distinction he makes between cinephilia and film studies. While the former is just pure love of cinema, the latter is a theory-based approach that takes cognisance of Marxism, semiotics, psychoanalysis and feminism.
The book consists of 13 chapters and takes the readers through topics as diverse as film grammar and narration, national cinema, movements, auteurs, festivals, art film, melodrama and realism. On-screen genres covered range from crime and politics to romance, and how the theme of love, although a ubiquitous affair in Indian films, is dealt with in an unusual manner.
The chapter on crime films is particularly interesting. Raghavendra looks at the audience’s fascination with a crime in both literature and cinema, and goes on to point out how crime is “distinct from ‘taboo’ in the sense that it sidesteps religion and the sacred and refers to the violation of (manmade) modern law”. There are different sub-genres that he looks at, drawing up extensive comparisons between Hollywood and French cinema as well as British and German cinema. At the end of the chapter, he theorises why Asian countries are unable to produce crime films, unlike the West.
Extensive discussions on Hollywood and French cinema also find a place in the chapter titled, ‘Characterisation and the Actor’, which explores the thin line between the two. Another interesting idea presented in the chapter is what Raghavendra terms as “non-acting”. Here, he discusses the films of Robert Bresson who, the author claims, “while being deeply preoccupied with inner states, used non-actors, whom he termed ‘models’ to inhabit roles rather than act them out”.
The well-researched, engaging book is written in a style that decodes complex subjects lucidly. It contains images of black and white plates from various films to augment the arguments presented. Even as Raghavendra gets into the differences of being a cinephile and a critic, the author emerges as an advocate for the former. He argues that it is only a cinema-lover who is capable of taking their love for the art form and transforming it into a creative piece of work.
A critic, on the other hand, will only ever dissect it. Concluding with an exploration of the varied kinds of criticism and film interpretations that are possible, the book is bound to leave readers not just enlightened, but also more curious about the art of filmmaking.