Aitken Cover 18/6/12 21:57 Page 1 A LUKÁCSIAN I T K FILM THEORY LUKÁCSIAN E N AND CINEMA FILM THEORY T H A STUDY OF GEORG LUKÁCS’ WRITINGS ON FILM, 1913–71 AND CINEMA E Lukácsian film theory and cinema explores Georg Lukács’writings on film. O The Hungarian Marxist critic Georg Lukács is primarily known as a literary L R A STUDY OF GEORG LUKÁCS’ WRITINGS ON FILM, 1913–71 theorist,but he also wrote extensively on the cinema.These writings have U remained little known in the English-speaking world because the great Y majority of them have never actually been translated into English – until now. K A Aitken has gathered together Lukács’most important essays and the Á N translations appear here,often for the first time.This book thus makes a C decisive contribution to understandings of Lukács within the field of film D studies,and,in doing so,also challenges many existing preconceptions S concerning his theoretical position.For example,whilst Lukács’literary I CA theory is well known for its repudiation of naturalism,in his writings on film Lukács appears to advance a theory and practice of film that can best IN N be described as naturalist.Lukácsian film theory and cinema is divided into two parts.In part one,Lukács’writings on film are explored and placed F E within relevant historical and intellectual contexts,whilst part two I M consists of the essays themselves. L M This book will be of considerable interest to scholars and students A working within the fields of film studies,literary studies,intellectual history, media and cultural studies.It is also intended to be the final volume in a FWGA trilogy of works on cinematic realism,which includes the author’s earlier ILRE S European film theory and cinema (2001),and Realist film theory and cinema (2006). M, 1ITINORGTUD Ian Aitken is Professor of Film Studies,Hong Kong Baptist University 913GS LUY O – OKF 7NÁ 1 C S ’ Cover image Still from Modern Times © Roy Export SAS I A N A I T K E N www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk Lukácsian film theory and cinema For my parents: Bill and Eileen Lukácsian film theory and cinema A study of Georg Lukács’ writings on film, 1913–71 Ian Aitken Manchester University Press Manchester Copyright © Ian Aitken 2012 The right of Ian Aitken to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 Published by Manchester University Press Altrincham Street, Manchester M1 7JA, UK www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data applied for ISBN 978 0 7190 7884 2 hardback First published 2012 The publisher has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs for any external or third-party internet websites referred to in this book, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate Edited and typeset by Frances Hackeson Freelance Publishing Services, Brinscall, Lancs Contents Preface page vi Part I: An analysis of Lukács’ writings on film 1 1 The early aesthetic and ‘Thoughts Towards an Aesthetic 3 of the Cinema’/‘Gedanken zu einer Ästhetic des Kino’ 2 Narrate or describe? Lukács’ literary ‘typology’ 36 3 Lukács’ late aesthetic and film theory: 69 The Specificity of the Aesthetic/Die Eigenart des Ästhetischen 4 Socialist humanism and Toward the Ontology of 105 Social Being//��uurr OOnnttoollooggiiee ddeess ggeesseellllsscchhaa����sslliicchheenn SSeeiinnss 5 The film journal interviews and other writings 128 6 Conclusions 164 Part II: The film writings, 1913–71 179 7 ‘Thoughts Towards an Aesthetic of the Cinema’ 181 8 ‘Film’ 187 9 ‘On Aesthetic Issues of the Cinema’ 218 10 ‘Blue Devil or Yellow Devil?’ 231 11 ‘Cultural Manipulation and the Tasks of Critics’ 237 12 ‘Film, Ideology and the Cult of Personality’ 242 13 ‘Technique, Content, and Problems of Language’ 244 14 ‘Expression of Thought in Film’ 256 15 ‘Revolution and Psychology of Everyday Life’ 263 Bibliography 269 Index 279 Preface This book, on Lukács, is the third in what has now become a trilogy of books on cinematic realism. Initially, however, only two such books were planned. The first: European Film Theory and Cinema: A Critical Introduction, attempted to position realist film theory and cinema against the general con- text of European film theory and cinema, and, therefore, encompassed areas such as formalism, structuralism, and post-structuralism; as well as the work of Grierson, Bazin, Kracauer, Lukács, and various forms of realist cinema. This study provided the foundation for the second book: Realist Film Theory and Cinema: The Nineteenth-Century Lukácsian and Intuitionist Realist Traditions, a book I had been working on, in one form or another, for the previous fifteen years. Realist Film Theory and Cinema focuses entirely on the realist tradition, and explores both the origins of cinematic realism in nine- teenth-century realism, and the film theories of Kracauer, Bazin, Grierson, and Lukács. It was while working on European Film Theory and Cinema that I came to the realisation that Lukács’ writings on the cinema had not been satisfacto- rily addressed within English-language film studies, and that awareness grew stronger as I worked on the two chapters on Lukács in Realist Film Theory and Cinema: chapters which relied mainly on Lukács’ writings on literature, rather than film. The problem was that, with the exception of one piece, none of Lukács’ writings on film had been translated into English. In addition, these writings were also widely dispersed, and gaining access to them was easier said than done. As a consequence, these writings were not very well known. The one piece which had been translated was the remarkable ‘Thoughts Towards an Aesthetic of the Cinema’, which first appeared in 1911. But even this essay – one of the overlooked gems in the history of film theory – was not trans- lated well enough until relatively recently. These factors led to the decision to research and write this present book,which is divided into two parts. In the first part of the book I attempt to interpret Lukács’ writings on the cinema, develop a reconstructed model of Lukácsian film theory, and then apply that Preface vii to an analysis of Luchino Visconti’s 1963 film The Leopard; an analysis which leads on from, and can be related back to, my earlier analysis of Visconti’s other Risorgimento film: Senso, in Realist Film Theory and Cinema. The sec- ond part of the book contains the translations of Lukács’ writings on film. In his excellent translation of Lukács’ 1968 condemnation of the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, The Process of Democratization, Norman Levine tells us that his co-translator, Susanne Bernhardt, carried out the initial translation of the text, while he then brought his own expertise to bear on the subject, and, in the process, went on to ‘refine’ the primary translation (Levine and Bernhardt (trans.), 1991: ix). I do not know exactly what Levine means by the term ‘refine’ here, but I think I can guess, because the process he describes is very similar to that which I employed when working on the translations in Lukácsian Film Theory and Cinema. The primary translations of the various texts by Lukács in this book were mainly carried out by Juergen Reichert, a professional academic translator with a background in German political philosophy. Juergen did an excellent job, and I wish to take this op- portunity to express my thanks for his invaluable contribution. His input saved me a considerable amount of time. Lukács can, at times, be an exceedingly impenetrable and opaque writer, and sometimes it can be very difficult indeed to understand exactly what he is trying to say, or argue. This problem is also compounded by a frequently employed tendency to resort to a phalanx of often arcane Hegelian and other concepts; and by an equally perplexing tendency to use the same term to mean a range of different things. Juergen approached these problems with great per- severance for the cause in hand. However, I soon realised that I would have to use the primary translations mainly as a guide, and foundation; and that I would have to go back, again, to the German and Italian originals myself, and read them through, word for word, retranslating as I went. This turned into an intensely empirical, time-intensive and protracted affair, as I tried to untangle some of the very multifaceted and intricate conceptualisations in The Specificity of the Aesthetic and other works. In addition to the difficulties involved in understanding and then translating the various conceptual con- figurations which Lukács deploys, the philosopher’s writing style also posed some formidable challenges for the process of translation. Towards the end of his career Lukács often liked to write in a rather loosely structured way, and sometimes displayed a fondness for using exceedingly long sentences, and paragraphs, divided up by a considerable number of commas, semi-co- lons, colons, brackets, etc. Some paragraphs could, quite frequently, be two or more pages long! Faced with this, I came to the conclusion that I would have to alter the structure of Lukács’ prose from time to time, in order to make it more viii Preface intellectually coherent in the English translation. However, I also attempted to keep such alterations to a necessary minimum. Throughout, the objective was to keep the translations as close as possible to the language and grammati- cal structures in the original texts, and this was possible because of the pres- ence of the critical commentaries which make up the first half of this book, which analyse and explain the content of the translated pieces. Of course, a balance had to be struck here between any literality of translation and the need to render sense and meaning in the translated materials. However, the objective was to steer that balance firmly in the direction of the former. That objective proved to be – comparatively – straightforwardly achievable in re- spect of both Lukács’ early German piece: ‘Thoughts Towards an Aesthetic of the Cinema’; and the late writings in Italian, which mainly appeared in the leftist Italian film journal Cinema Nuovo. However, that balance proved more challenging to attain in the section on film from The Specificity of the Aesthetic, largely because of the substantial number of highly abstract concepts which Lukács employs here, but also because of his sprawling writing style. Again, here, the intention was to bring the translated language and linguistic struc- tures as close as possible to the original. However, at certain points, it also became necessary to depart from this practice, in order to render the transla- tions fully meaningful. This proved necessary at times, even though Chapter 3 of this book analyses this section of The Specificity of the Aesthetic in depth. Nevertheless, I believe that the balance struck here, one which still aims to- wards a high degree of literality, was successfully achieved. I also believe that these translations of Lukács’ writings on film will play an important role in stimulating further academic research into Lukács’ ideas on film. However, the translations constitute only one division of this book, and, in the other, I attempt to analyse these writings, and then develop a reconstructed model of Lukácsian cinematic realism. ThThee mmooddeell ooff fifillmm tthheeoorryy aanndd cciinneemmaa wwhhiicchh emerges from this exercise is, in many important respects, quite different from those which previously have been derived from an analysis of Lukács’ writings on literature; and this, in turn, means both that these earlier models will now have to be reassessed, and that Lukács must now be viewed in a new light. This book has taken five years and more to write, and has proved to be an exigent, though also rewarding project. Throughout this period of time, I have received support from various quarters, and I would now like to take this opportunity to thank those who helped me bring the book to fruition. Juergen Reichert’s important contribution has already been mentioned. Michael Ingham, of Lingnan University in Hong Kong, was a source of en- couragement, and also participated in the translation process, helping greatly. The remarkably efficient Hong Kong Baptist University inter-library loan service was always helpful; and Baptist University also provided me with Preface ix some funding for this project, for which I am grateful. I would also like to thank the conveners of various conferences who allowed me to speak about Lukács in the interim, including Deane Williams of Monash University, Gina Marchetti of Hong Kong University, and Rob Stone and Owen Evans of the University of Swansea. Finally, I would also like to thank both my wife, Linda, who gave me much support over these last five years, and other family members, friends and colleagues who rendered the same.