This book, written in 1981, represents the “state of the art” of film studies for the previous generation. As such, it is mostly of interest to people wanting to understand the flawed history of academic approaches to cinema. Much of what it asserts has been challenged by more recent work, and where it hasn’t, there is probably reason to reexamine and reconsider in the near future.
Cook’s premise is where the problems begin. Cook believes that cinema is “a technological art,” and that this somehow differs it from other art forms. What he fails to comprehend is that all art is fundamentally tied to human technologies, and that it never exists in a “pure” state. He compounds this fallacy by claiming that film’s dependency on technology leads to a fundamenta conflict between the “business” side of film and its artistic expression, failing to note that no art can exist outside of this dichotomy. Even in a non-market-based society, the question of how many people will see a work of art depends on its ability to “advertise” in some way. Artistic expression and social organization are inextricably linked, and not necessarily contradictory. All of this, of course, leads to Cook devaluing “commercial” or popular movies, and celebrating “artistic” or unpopular ones.
Where there may be some value in this is in introducing readers to movies they wouldn’t otherwise know about. For neophytes to film studies, it could still be important to learn at least the names of the movies and directors of the French New Wave, German Expressionism, Italian Neo-Realism, and Japanese Post-War Cinema. It would be nice, however, if Cook could do this without framing his own subjective aesthetic tastes as objective value judgments.
The other problem with using a book of film history from another era is how much Cook doesn’t know, because of the relative availability of movies from the periods he writes about. This book came out right at the beginning of the home video revolution, so for his knowledge he was dependant on retrospective, re-releases, and memories of movies seen in theaters years or decades before. Furthermore, a lot has been discovered since he wrote. For example, one cannot hold him accountable for his ignorance of Czarist Russian cinema, which included geniuses like Evgeni Bauer, because these movies were locked up in Soviet archives when he was writing. But, a modern reader would want to take these into account, and not simply accept Cook’s assertion that “[m]ost films of the period…were distinctly mediocre.” Similarly, his inflated praise of the work of D.W. Griffith can be explained in part because Biograph films were better preserved and more often screened than other Nickelodeon-era work, and so he had little to compare it to.
In general, the actual errors in this book come thick and fast in the beginning, where a limited opportunity to see older movies hampered his research, and at the end, where his myopic perspective prevents accurate predictions of what is happening around him and what will change in the future. That’s understandable, but it makes the book less valuable thirty years after the fact. I understand that there are updated editions, so this problem, at least, might have since been reduced.