The Historical Debate: High versus Low Culture

The study of film criticism has evolved through concerns surrounding cinematic effects on "high" culture. Historically, film was considered "low" culture existing only for mindless entertainment, while literature was a work of art geared toward an elite audience. Despite responsive mass audiences and the few literary supporters, such as Tolstoy, who recognized cinema's possibilities and potentials (Boyum 1985, Griffith 1997) film was originally perceived as a threat towards traditional literary arts and an attempt to vulgarize culture (Woolf 1925, Arendt 1960). According to Joy Boyum, cinema has initially suffered from a "sense of inferiority regarding its status and respectability" (4). As a result, adaptation of literature attracts filmmakers not only as a source for plots and themes, but also as a means to incorporate the novel's sense of prestige into the film industry. The film is seen as an attempt to piggyback off the success of the novel.

The assumption behind the high/low cultural debate reflects a bias that many declare still prevails today. Within the arguments valorizing the novel over the film exists the assumption that literature's foundation in words remains superior to the "cruder" iconic foundation of cinema as a lesser form (Boyum, 9). In the historical context there is a hierarchical relationship between the novel and film, with the novel deemed as holding the privileged status. Based on this paradigm, it would appear that a novel adapted to film must be adjusted to its new medium as well as to its new audience (Boyum 1985, Griffith 1997).

While it may be argued that the growing popularity of television has diluted these claims, the historical debate over "high" and "low" culture has remained influential in that the common supposition of literature as being superior to film remains prevalent (Boyum, 1985). In fact, it is out of this discourse, in addition to the development of formalist theory (which assumes that the novel and film are two, almost antithetical mediums), that the theoretical heritage of film criticism has evolved.