In this 15 part series we are shown the sprawling, multicultural, multi-political story of Film. Bold, epic, indeed this is an Odyssey. Each episode covers a broad but relevant era of film (Silent Cinema, European New Wave, Post-Modern Cinema, etc. etc). The episodes are populated by interviews with historians, filmmakers, and actors, whose tales are woven together with the films themselves. Tying it all together is the droll narration of Mark Cousins. His level-voiced storytelling maintains an anonymous and unbiased historical account; no chapter in the story of film is more important than the other.To witness the history of film is to witness more than a century's worth of storytelling. After 15 hours you realize you've merely scratched the surface, and you are compelled to keep digging.

Finally, after six weeks, my endurance finally triumphed over the 900 minutes of Mark Cousin's "Story of Film: an Odyssey", a series of 15 one-hour documentaries starting with the same close-ups that set the documentary's tone of unpredictability to those who expected Scorsese or Tarantino to lead the show: Stanley Donen, Lars Von Trier, Amitab Bachchan, Kyōko Kagawa, Jane Campion and Sharmila Tagore. Not familiar with them? Wait, you've seen nothing yet.First and immediate impression: it was an extraordinary trip, yet the ending was a bit of a letdown. I didn't expect the sight of people walking in circle, hand-in-hand, in some African town, to close such an epic tour, a tour-de-force as far as documentary is concerned but again, with this constant and sometimes infuriating tendency to surprise you. In fact, the last shot of Cousin's documentary is revealing of both his work's strength and flaw: it guides your eyes toward new horizons, where film-making was expressed to its fullest by artists who took the absence of means as a mean by itself and contributed to mark their country in International Cinema's map; on the other hand, it's a slap in the face of all the movie-buffs giving the most obscure movies the publicity that posterity didn't grant them.For instance, there had to be a reason why "The Great Train Robbery" was the first film remembered for having used editing as a significant part of the narrative, yet Cousins pays tribute to an unknown movie about firemen. Watching his doc made me feel like the most confused movie fan ever wondering why some indisputable classics got the same treatment than some obscure Russian, Brazilian or Scandinavian movies. Hitchcock borrowed his use of suspenseful sequences and some low angle shots from Danish and German cinema while "Citizen Kane"'s use of backgrounds was inspired by Ozu. No star of the reel invented the wheel, cinema was only the result of a series of innovations, and Cousins' speaks like the advocate of all the pioneers whose creations were shadowed by the cinematic light of glory they generated a posteriori.But then, as if he was exhilarated by his own subversion, Cousins goes as far as suggesting that "Casablanca" isn't a classic film, but a romantic of some sort... his statement is so bold it flirts with indecent blasphemy, the one that'd convince many viewers to stop watching (that, and from what I've read, an annoying voice-over but I saw it dubbed in French, so it wasn't an issue for me) Sure, the man is entitled to his own bias against mainstream or Hollywood cinema but I tend to agree with the angry crowd that some of his statements were particularly upsetting. Then, I looked at the documentary with more magnanimous eyes, and if in the worst case, it made me raise my eyebrows, in the best, I discovered some little gems I felt the urge to watch as soon as the documentary ended. That 'best case' is the odyssey's reason to be.And the highlight of this incredible journey was undoubtedly the part about European radical directors in the late 70's and early 80's. It was an insightful introspection into the use of the camera as a social weapon. Generally speaking, the middle section of the film, from the 50's to the early 80's is the best part before the film loses its beat. Although I agree that the digital revolution canceled all the magic and the miracle of Cinema, I expected more flamboyance, something honoring the dream-like escapism it provided. And this comes from someone who's not too much into spectacular blockbuster, but I was probably one of the few to be upset because the film was on the same wavelength than I.The 90's were the ultimate gasp of realistic cinema, with an interesting focus on Iranian Cinema, and a new Danish school of more austere and naturalistic film-making, borrowed from the heritage of Carl Theodore Dryer. As an aspiring film-maker, it comforted me (perversely, I confess) that I can make movies with basic tools and 'pretend' its Art. And in the 2000's the loop was looped, Cinema went back to its roots, understanding that its purpose is to show a form of reality that distorts the real without taking too much distance from it. It's also an extraordinary medium to extrapolate human's deepest fears and emotions, in fact, Cinema is a universe where human is in the center.With that in mind, you forgive some liberties and analytical shortcuts. Some of my favorite directors were missing, Cassavetes (a quick glimpse on "Shadows" while the father of Indie cinema deserved more), Melville the one who didn't want to part of the New Wave and modernized the film-noir genre, John Huston, and Akira Kurosawa. I understand he's a fan of Ozu, but how can you neglect "Rashomon", the first film without a linear narrative and to use the unreliable narrator device. Did that annoying Christmas baulb metaphor make him lose precious minutes? But I guess out of 900 minutes, with a ratio of 1 learning from each, there are chances some ideas won't be 100% pleasing or even accurate, but remember what they say about education, it's what remains after you forgot everything.Well, I'm not sure I'll remember everything from that 15-hour exhaustive documentary but there are many new movies I'm familiar with, new insights about the art of filmmaking, as the greatest art-form when it comes to express some emotions, on the use of the human body, a well-made close-up being worth a thousand images, it's about names that has sunk into oblivions but in their way took part the process that lead to the classics we adore now. It's a collective work where every piece of humanity, at any time, had a share of it..And if only for that, I've got to hand it to Mark Cousins for having enriched my knowledge of Cinema.

You have to hand it to Mark Cousins for even attempting something as ambitious as documenting The Story of Film. With such a pretentious title, you better know what you're talking about. Cousins doesn't. But first, let's get the really cloying stuff out of the way. His narration is beyond annoying as every sentence is given identical inflections including the uplift on the end of every sentence, making every declarative statement a question. His narration is laid over almost every clip, making the dialog impossible to hear. The film has myriad mistakes (by the way, Buster Keaton's The General was release in 1927, not 1926), unconscionable in a documentary of any merit. Cousins can't seem to decide on his film's structure as he wandering from decade to decade, genre to genre, country to country, theme to theme, and innovation to innovation resulting in a disorienting mish-mash. There are plenty of boring interviews and static, misleading location shots that add little to the film. Finally, since he doesn't have anything meaningful to say about most of the films, he simply uses a banal superlative, usually 'best' or 'greatest', like so: "… making (film) the (superlative) (qualifier) (qualifier) film of (time-period)." Trouble is they're not even right. Annie Hall's lobster scene is called "one of the funniest moments in American Cinema" when it's not even the funniest moment in Annie Hall. The real problem with The Story of Film is what Cousins considers important about film, namely the mechanics of filmmaking. The criteria for selection of the films and the focus of much of his narration is technical: depth of focus, lighting, camera angles, crane shots, color palettes, and fast editing. According to Cousins, the brilliance of Citizen Kane is due to the use of deep focus. Hitchcock's genius is reduced to a list of techniques (point-of-view, close-ups, silence, etc.) without ever mentioning his extraordinary ability to build suspense. Walkabout and Gregory's Girl are included in the story because the filmmakers turned their camera sideways. Cousins calls Russian Ark "perhaps the most inventive ever made" because it is 90 minutes long in one take. The Graduate is about camera angles; Chinatown and Inception are about color palette; 2001: A Space Odyssey is about special effects; The Bicycle Thieves is about realistic rubble; Spielberg's contribution to cinema is vertical tracking shot reveals; and Tarantino's style is defined as "surrealism of everyday talk", whatever that means. It's a film school version of cinema deconstructed to only include the visually interesting bits. My favorite moment in The Story of Film is in Episode 5 when Cousins suggests to Singin' in the Rain Director Stanley Donen that the uplift of the camera during Gene Kelly's titular song and dance "expresses the joy in itself, without Gene Kelly even being there." Clearly annoyed, Donen replies "It's not the uplift of the camera…it's what the camera sees that does it. The camera does nothing, it just does what we tell it to do…Does the pencil write the story? Of course it doesn't. And the camera is just the pencil that we're working with." This short exchange exposes how misguided Cousin's understanding of film really is.Meanwhile, there is so much missing. Frank Capra, Preston Sturgis, the Ealing Studios comedies, the message films and biopics of the 30's and 40's are all missing (no good camera tricks, I suspect). Animation gets cursory mention. Nothing on the 50's and 60's epics (e.g. Bridge on the River Kwai, Ben Hur, Lawrence of Arabia) is included. He doesn't give us a clue why Truffaut, Bergman, Fellini, Kurosawa, and Buñuel were so revolutionary. Comedy seems to have died after Billy Wilder. Bonnie and Clyde is only included in reference to Gun Crazy. The blockbusters of the 2000's (Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, and all the superhero movies) are ignored. There is little discussion of how acting, screen writing, and music contribute to film. By emphasizing technical minutia, Cousin misses what we really love about the movies: a good story. Without discussing story, you're barking up the wrong tree. Cousins dismisses Casablanca as "too romantic to be classical in the true sense." Really? Has he ever watched it? It's #3 on AFI's list of the Best American Films and many consider it the best screenplay ever written. But to Cousins, it's just another romantic 'shtudio' film.Granted, The Story of Film covers World Cinema better than most movie retrospectives. However, his commentary on the films I do know is so misguided and, in many cases, dead wrong that I don't trust his judgment on the films I don't know. Therein lies my real objection to The Story of Film. Some (I'm looking at you, TCM) may look to this documentary as an important, authoritative, revisionist film education. Please don't. Errors, exclusions, boring interviews and superlatives aside, it is a bizarre view of film history and not worthy of your time or respect.

This documentary is a bold, encompassing lengthy journey into film history. By delving into movies he deems to be monumental and the particular scenes that make these movies monumental we are granted a very subjective interpretation of film history. It is not simply a history lesson in film. The chronological documentary is the creator's expression of how he views films and is therefore a work of art in and of itself. Wonderful to enter this man's portal into film since it exposes us to not only movies we never heard of but gives us an expert's view of what makes certain film's and scenes so important. It is innovation that is important and innovation which becomes influential. He sometimes emphasizes world cinema perhaps influencing the great American film makers. He'll choose to show a particular scene from a movie and go into the lighting, the camera strategies, the technology, the atmosphere created, the acting, the writing, the political and sociological situation of the moment when made....everything. He wonderfully makes it long so we can get deep into this. We might not agree on quite the level of importance he imparts on particular films but we can sense he is a passionate expert with a hyper-awareness. This creates a rich tapestry for us to soak in and will enrich our artistic souls and how we will forever see a movie in the future. By delving so deeply into film history it actually goes into a bit of world, cultural and politically history. It is a minor travelogue as well with some nice scenes of the foreign lands. The maker feels films reflected the time and place in which they were made. Sometimes as essences and shadows of the era and locale and other times rebelling against it. Film is both impacted by culture and politics and film can also even influence and change society. A lot of films that we love might shockingly only get mentioned for a mere minute. I felt that perhaps the Godfather and Lawrence of Arabia were more influential and deserved more time in this lengthy tapestry of film history. But every other documentary on film has berated us with how great these movies are. We already know it and can see documentaries just on the making and symbolism of these films or these great American filmmakers. The exposure to the rest of the world is one of the great achievements this documentary accomplishes. There are a billion people in India where the movie Shoaly played for 7 years. It had a profound impact on that country of a billion plus and I never heard of it until I saw this documentary. Perhaps Shoaly might be more influential to more people and the world than my favorite movies are. There are still whole episodes dedicated to films made in the United States. There is an episode that went into American movies from the 70s. There is a whole entire episode on Hollywood in the 1920s. Despite being a documentary about world cinema the US still is the largest country represented in the story of film. The most amazing part is his understanding of the artistic and political expressions emanating from particular scenes. Absorbing his critiques and commentary on film can gave not only a new way to look at film but a new way to look and think about many different art forms. Things that can do this are the greatest things ever created.