Bordwell and Classical Hollywood Cinema

Every time I watch Cinema Paradiso, I'm reminded of why I love watching movies! #filmstudies

That's what I tweeted as we neared the end of Guiseppe Tornatore's 1989 hit, Cinema Paradiso.

Twenty years on, few question whether this Oscar winner for Best Foreign Language Film deserves to be labeled a Classic. But let’s set aside our admiration for this movie and rethink that word for a moment, 'Classic'.

Does Cinema Paradiso really fit the stereotypical definition of a ‘Classic’?

A 'Classic' Definition

In examining David Borwell’s article, Classical Hollywood Cinema: Narrational Principles and Procedures one may conclude that for a film to be considered an example of the Classic Style of Cinema, it must contain certain elements.

• First, there’s always a Protagonist, the Hero of the movie who is endowed with certain ‘psychological attributes’ and who must overcome adversity to attain a specific goal.
• The presence of a Dual Plot Line, one of which deals with a romance and another set in a alternate sphere such as work life, a quest or personal relationships.
• Causality ensures that the film maintains continuity. This is done by maintaining the Unity of Time and Space within the Universe of the film.

Cinema Classico

Does Cinema Paradiso necessarily adhere to each of Bordwell’s requirements?

The film does have a protagonist, Toto, but it's harder to pinpoint what his 'goal' is, really. Is it simply to make films? We, the audience can only guess at his motivations. Does he really need to overcome any sort of 'adversity'? One could make the argument that Toto was afraid to leave his village and that his ‘quest’ was to overcome his fear of unknown. But in watching the movie, I felt that it was Alfredo, not Toto who was truly responsible for his departure. (“You have to go away… for a long time,” he instructs Toto) So by Borwell's definition, Alfredo is a much truer protagonist in the classical sense of the word. (His character faces adversity - blindness, and accomplishes his goal - by getting Toto out of the village) And who is the antagonist? Surely every classical hero deserves one! Father Adelfio? No, his character is played more for laughs, to provide comic relief. Perhaps Toto himself is his own antagonist, and he needs to overcome his inner demons in order to move on. Yet, at the end of the movie we can’t be entirely sure that Toto has achieved his goal of self-actualization.

And what of the dual plot line? Sure, Toto toys with the idea of a romance, but Elana’s character flits in and out of the movie so quickly, that the audience hardly has time to perceive it as a powerful romance. Indeed some parts of his courtship are quite whimsical, even downright comical! And his love for Elana is overshadowed by his love for the cinema (When he first meets her, he captures her on his super 8 camera. When he revisits that reel years later, he might well have been reminiscing about his early experiments with the medium) Has Tornatore shrewdly twisted convention? Quest and Romance are almost interchangeable, and we’re never quite sure which one’s a conduit to the other.

Causality is one element that’d maintained pretty well throughout the movie. Toto’s life plays out almost as if it were a triptych, in the grand style of the old English novel.

For the longest time, I readily assumed that Cinema Paradiso was the very definition of the classical movie – sweeping vistas, archetypal starlets, with the right mix of humor and melodrama. But let's compare Paradiso to a movie that more readily fits into that category.

Meg Ryan = Katherine Heigl Twenty Years Ago

Around the same time as Cinema Paradiso, Nora Ephron’s Sleepless in Seattle was out in theaters in America. During her career, Ms Ephron has had her share of misses (Bewitched) and some hits (the delightful Julie & Julia). I’ll let others decide which of these category Sleepless falls into - this post is more considered with the schematics of the movie. In Sleepless in Seattle, Ms Ephron, crosscuts two disparate but linked storylines. The protagonist (Sam/Annie) must overcome their adversity (for him - dealing with the death of his wife, for her – being stuck in a relationship that lacks ‘spark’). Their romance is challenged by an antagonist (distance) and the film progresses towards a very clearly defined goal (of uniting these two characters). There's also a secondary plot line (Annie’s relationship with Walter, Sam’s with his son Jonah). Causality is also clearly established. Even though the two lead characters are rarely in the same shot, by having the two plan to unite on the top of the Empire State Building on Valentine’s day, the film establishes a place and time-frame.

Sleepless in Seattle certainly enjoys a special place in the hearts of many, and conventional wisdom would identify this movie as a ready Classic. Yet, twenty years on, it is Cinema Paradiso is considered a timeless masterpiece.

Bordwell’s article pinpoints several interesting characteristics of the classic film style. Yet movies like Paradiso have challenged these definitions of what constitutes a classic. In the most recent example from this summer, the surprise indie hit 500 Days of Summer bucked convention by presenting itself as the anti-Hollywood love story – where the guy and the girl do not end up together. Yet, I wouldn’t be surprised if twenty years from now, a class of film students were to sit in a darkened room deconstructing the classical elements of storytelling in 500 Days!

So, I guess what we've learned is that for a movie to be considered a Classic, it shouldn't necessarily have to fit the neat conventions of the Classical Movie Style. 
In paying homage to the Classic Hollywood Movie, Tornatore has himself created a Classic for the Ages!