Review of The Secret Language of Film
Author: Jean Claude Carriere
Publication Date: 1994
ISBN: 0-679-42116--5

What does the language of Film mean? In one sense it means the nuts and bolts of how a film is made. Beats, bits, scenes, sequences, and acts are all part of a language that screenwriters use to make and understand films. In another sense the language of film is about technical details such as lighting and editing. In his book The Secret Language of Film, Jean Claude Carriere talks about the how the language of Film is used not only to create films, but also how film language evolved from theater into a language of its own. The past is ever present in the book as well. Carriere talks about how film language has changed over the years. How it has gotten more complicated and faster. How some of the old ways of understanding the language of film have become obsolete.
This review will seek to analyze the contents of Carriere’s short book about Film Language. Mr. Carriere has had a very long and very distinguished career in Film. He often returns throughout his book to his collaborations with Luis Bunuel. Their partnership resulted in many classic films of which Belle de Jour, The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, The Phantom of LIberty, and That Obscure Object of Desire are the best. Carriere has gone on to write many other films many of which have won awards and box office success. Given so much success due attention should be given to a screenwriter that has taken the time to impart valuable knowledge about film and filmmaking. It is the opinions of the author about those subjects that concern this review.
The structure of the book is free form that is at times memoir, at times film history, film theory, and at other times a screenwriting manual. The book is divided into six chapters. The last two are broad, philosophical chapters that talk about the rivalry between Europe and America for the direction of film. Carrier talks about his days as a screenwriter and the future of film. His longest and most profound chapters deal with History in Film and Time in Film. These are the main focus of Carriere’s arguments to illustrate the secret language of Cinema
Carriere says that Film has “sanitized” History. He says Film has erased the “foul smells” of History to present a History of half truths on Film. Through numerous examples Carriere makes a strong argument that Film has largely replaced History books and other forms of storytelling as the main source from which we develop a historical conscience. He cites the films of Alfred Hitchcock as portraying a time when History was different. The films of Hitchcock will someday be a representation of what life was like in the days the films were made. People will see that films of Hitchcock as reality. But was it reality? Or a film that alludes to a reality that never existed? Carriere talks about today’s Cinema fabricating truths. Sex is trivialized. Porn is ubiquitous. War is made to look easy and too one sided. He raises interesting questions about how film is affecting the way we act, the way we behave. His argument is well made and hits home particularly for any serious viewer of films that deal with War or Romance
Carriere also talks about the age of film. Clearly the greatest art form of the twentieth Century was film. Will it be that way in the twenty-first? Carriere cites the example of theater in nineteenth century France as an inevitable fate for Cinema. He says there were over eight thousand performances in the demi-monde which was French theater in the 1800’s. Now only a very small percentage of those shows are still staged. Will Cinema encounter a similar fate? Carriere raises an interesting question that seems to concern the film industry from birth. When will Cinema be old? Is it still new? How will it change? Is it because of technology? Or is it because of some other reason? An economic one perhaps? The prevailing view in places like Hollywood is that it is technology which provokes changes in Cinema. Carriere makes the case that the profit motive of Hollywood is more of a reason for Cinema to be endangered. He makes the case that is traditionally a Europena opinion that Cinema is an art form essential to the culture of individual countries. In contrast to Hollywood which views films as products, Carriere sees Cinema as the most important way humanity sees itself. The way it understands itself by seeing itself through stories told by artists.
The second big subject Carriere concerns himself with is time in the Cinema. He writes about his talks with a film editor from L.A. who is very knowledgeable about the technical aspects of film editing. Carriere builds off of these comments to analyze films in terms of time. He writes that time in film is getting shorter and shorter. In the 1940’s films took longer to do something. Now things happen very quickly. In the past things like the dissolve were a staple of filmmaking now they are hardly ever used. Carriere talks about Cinema and its relation to reality. He opposes the view that films are an escape from reality. Carriere thinks that we are imprisoned in time. Time goes by no matter what. And Cinema is imprisoned in time. A movie only lasts for two hours or more. In those two hours we lose ourselves, but we cannot escape time. Screenwriters, Carriere writes, have a difficult job in writing about time. How should they portray the passage of time? What techniques are available to screenwriters to show that time has passed? This is harder for a screenwriter, then a novelist or a playwright. Playing with time is a fun and essential exercise that screenwriters must engage with. If a film is too slow, or as is more the trend according to Carriere, too fast, audiences could be bored or confused. Carriere cites the ending of Kubrick’s 2001 as a great example of the use of time in film. In the film time is used very quickly and concisely to show time passing on the main character. Carriere says he and Bunuel would think of ways to use time in their films. Carriere talks about some of their collaborations like The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie and The Phantom of Liberty which didn’t feature a strong protagonist. It is vital to watch these films to understand Carriere’s points in his book. Carriere says time can be a great asset to a screenwriter but should be approached with caution.
The shortcomings of the book are it’s deep arguments about film. I wouldn’t recommend it for a novice. This is the second time I have read the book. This time I read it actively. Some parts still eluded me or caused me to become distracted. It is definitely for a reader with a background in film history, theory, or filmmaking. I suppose you could read it at a novice stage, but I would advise getting a background in filmmaking and film studies, then read the book. I learned about the book from a reading list for Graduate level Screenwriting. Technically the book is rather dense. A lot of ideas packed into a short text. I wasn’t confused. I understood it’s arguments well. I think it’s content could overwhelm a novice reader who isn’t used to polemics about film theory or the politics of Cinema.
Screenwriters would want to read this text. It is short and dense, but very interesting. It also reveals the European way of seeing film if they have not been exposed to it. The secrets of film language are also written about with intelligence and wit. I think this book will stand as a critical text about films for many years To really understand the book it is required that you watch Carriere’s films that he cites in his book. I was turned on to his collaborations with Bunuel which include Belle de Jour, Discreet Charm, The Phantom of Liberty, and That Obscure Object of Desire. All are excellent films in the Surrealist style that Bunuel made into Cinema. It was a joy watching those films in addition to reading Carriere’s book. Carriere talks about many films throughout the book almost all of which are European. In one chapter he cites Ingmar Bergman’s Persona as a film to study. So study it I did. I’m glad I read the book and found out about some films I hadn’t seen before or some films that I watched for the third time like Belle de Jour. Or a film like The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie which I viewed for the sixth time. Or That Obscure Object of Desire which is Bunuel’s swan song.
Cinema will someday fade as an art form. I agree with Carriere. Nothing lasts forever. Carriere will be remembered for all his great screenplays and for this text. It will be a document that future screenwriters and film historians will look back to for instruction and inspiration.
( )