Schirmer Encyclopedia of Film

CANON AND CANONICITY
Canon formation involves making choices based on
assessments of value, a process that highlights both the
utility of evaluating and re-evaluating past artistic accomplishments
as well as the pitfalls associated with championing
some artists’ work at the expense of others. The
formation of a canon is directly influenced by the education,
taste, and viewing habits of those who participate,
the range of films they have seen, and the vision of
cinema they champion. In film studies, the canon has
typically been created by theorists, historians, and critics;
perpetuated and reassessed by academics, archivists, and
programmers; and influenced by the members and
machinery of the film industry itself. The shape of the
orthodox canon has evolved over time as outlets for
viewing and writing about films have multiplied and
opinions regarding artistic significance have changed.
Through its selective nature, the canon suggests
which films merit recognition, exhibition, and analysis.
It influences decisions regarding the titles chosen for
preservation and restoration, as well as those directors
who are worthy of retrospectives. The canon plays a role
in determining which films will appear on television, be
distributed in print form, be released on video and digital
video disc (DVD), and be purchased for inclusion in
stores and libraries, thereby remaining in the public consciousness.
Availability from distributors, in archives, and
on television, video, and DVD in turn enables a film to
be discussed in classes and scholarly publications, further
contributing to its critical reputation. Canonical status
thus helps to ensure the continued circulation of a film,
affecting how directors, national cinemas, and genres are
described and impacting the writing of film history.
Because of the likelihood for the canon to influence
which films are preserved, shown, and analyzed, the
process of canon formation has been heavily debated over
the years. While a core group of films and filmmakers
remains consistently recognized as canonical, challenges
to the orthodox canon continually interrogate and
expand the criteria for determining motion pictures of
significance.
EARLY CANON FORMATION
The history of canon formation is a history of changing
attitudes toward what is valuable in cinema. Early film
theorists and historians who sought to establish cinema as
a legitimate and unique art form had a vested interest in
crowning the medium’s masterpieces. Rudolph Arnheim
and other theorists of the silent era argued that the most
accomplished films moved beyond the recording capabilities
of the medium, utilizing those tools specific to
cinema, such as editing and cinematography, to represent
the diegetic world in a stylized fashion. The drive to
distinguish cinema from other art forms by emphasizing
its transformative properties encouraged writers to
describe film history as a journey toward artistic maturity
marked by the development of expressive narrative and
stylistic techniques. For example, in The Film Till Now
(1930), the most influential of the early English-language
film histories, Paul Rotha (1907–1984) identifies the
1920s as the height of film artistry, particularly championing
the work of Charlie Chaplin (1889–1977),
D. W. Griffith (1875–1948), Abel Gance (1889–1981),
Jean Epstein (1897–1953), F. W. Murnau (1888–
1931), G. W. Pabst (1885–1967), and the Soviet montage
school. Rotha’s appendix of 114 ‘‘outstanding’’ films
SCHIRMER ENCYCLOPEDIA OF FILM 217