"The Story of Film" was written, photographed and directed by Mark Cousins (and based on his own book). He also does the voice-over which is unfortunate because his voice is not only bad but eminently mock-able. Combined with the dreadful photography (he is a particular fan of filming empty bends in the road and street corners) the result is like a particularly demented YouTube video by a film nerd lacking in self- awareness and puffed up with a meaningless degree.
The solitary interview (from what I've seen - I haven't watched every episode because they are too awful to endure) is shot so badly that whenever the interviewee (who is OK) moves her hands the camera makes them appear larger than her head. Money was evidently tight (despite the inevitable waste of taxpayers money: the film was part funded by the National Lottery) because the camera never moves; which means that the archive footage of old films shot 90 or 100 years ago are often more technically accomplished. The editing is also dreadful. Frequently the images don't even fit the voice-over.
However technical failings would be excusable if Mr Cousins had anything interesting or insightful to say. He does not. He rambles on in pretentious half-sentences that frequently mean nothing. He jumps between decades without reason or meaning, moving from 1912 to 1928 to 1915 and back again, preventing any coherent narrative forming. He also leaves out key information; he joyfully tells us that women were heavily involved in film-making in the early years (half of all script writes from 1910-1935 apparently) without telling us why. Who were these women? How did they get into film? Why was the male/female ratio in this line of work so different to most other forms of employment at the time? Over and over he brings up a subject only to abandon it, half-formed, leaving the viewer with more questions than answers.
The solitary interview (from what I've seen - I haven't watched every episode because they are too awful to endure) is shot so badly that whenever the interviewee (who is OK) moves her hands the camera makes them appear larger than her head. Money was evidently tight (despite the inevitable waste of taxpayers money: the film was part funded by the National Lottery) because the camera never moves; which means that the archive footage of old films shot 90 or 100 years ago are often more technically accomplished. The editing is also dreadful. Frequently the images don't even fit the voice-over.
However technical failings would be excusable if Mr Cousins had anything interesting or insightful to say. He does not. He rambles on in pretentious half-sentences that frequently mean nothing. He jumps between decades without reason or meaning, moving from 1912 to 1928 to 1915 and back again, preventing any coherent narrative forming. He also leaves out key information; he joyfully tells us that women were heavily involved in film-making in the early years (half of all script writes from 1910-1935 apparently) without telling us why. Who were these women? How did they get into film? Why was the male/female ratio in this line of work so different to most other forms of employment at the time? Over and over he brings up a subject only to abandon it, half-formed, leaving the viewer with more questions than answers.