The Beginning: 1972 – 1977

In late 1972, even before Fetter finished his guide, eight professors (from eight departments) were sharing ideas about a film studies program. They were Diane Kirkpatrick (Art and Architecture), Hubert “Hugh” Cohen (Engineering Humanities), Alfredo Montalvo (Art and Architecture), Hazen Schumacher (Broadcasting), Frank Beaver (Communication), William “Buzz” Alexander (English), and Marvin Felheim (American Studies). Among their many concerns were the overlap in class screenings, the lack of access to production equipment, and burgeoning class sizes. “The courses were everywhere, all across campus,” Beaver noted.[11] This group envisioned a future in which a complete course of study could be taken by undergraduates with a proper major. Naming themselves the Committee on Film Resources, they began sharing resources and comparing syllabi.

The key to understanding the Committee on Film Resources and the history of the Department of Screen Arts and Cultures might lie in understanding Marvin Felheim, who joined the University faculty in 1948. A scholar of remarkably diverse interests, Felheim was the director of the Program in American Culture from 1971 to 1978, beloved by students, and willing to expand offerings not just in film but also in women’s studies and ethnic studies.[12] He had a wide variety of teaching interests, from Chicano literature to comic books, and had a deep and abiding interest in film studies. According to Kirkpatrick, Felheim “wanted to undermine any tendency of secularization in departments,” and labored to push the boundaries of what was being taught.[13] A 1977 profile in People magazine described Felheim as the “Prof of Pop,” illustrating not only his unique cultural reach, but also his pedagogical passion. “You have to reach students where they are,” Felheim told People, “What goes on outside the classroom is as important as what goes on inside.”[14]

What went on inside the classroom, for Felheim, was American Studies 490: History of American Film, in which he taught (on overload, out of his passion for the topic) upwards of 250 students. It would now be called a course in Genre Studies. “The course is an approach to American films through cultural history,” Felheim later told Fetter. “We do it in terms of genre—we start with the epic film, then the comic, and then deal with the American forms such as the western, the gangster, and the musical.”[15] According to Kirkpatrick, the Department of Screen Arts and Cultures sprang from this one course—as much for Felheim’s enthusiasm and support of film as an object of study as for the course’s content.[16]

Felheim also believed passionately in linking junior faculty members, meaning the small group of professors interested in film had an ideal mentor in their midst. The Committee on Film Resources was Felheim’s brainchild, and with his status as a full professor the conversation quickly grew into something more organized. Before Fetter even thought about his “Guide,” Felheim had already presented a similar document to his colleagues in the Program in American Culture at a faculty meeting. That document, dated February 8, 1972 and called “Some Questions and Observations About the Status of Film Courses on the University of Michigan Campus,” outlines virtually the same problems Fetter identified and offered recommendations:

Felheim’s passion and belief, as evidenced by the popularity of American Studies 490, was reflected in his determination to find institutional support for film studies and his goal of full degrees in the area. This would also be the first time the subject of graduate study in film studies would be broached.

The other members of the Committee on Film Resources had similar passion for the topic, all of them teaching on overload to the many students clamoring for film studies. Key among them was Cohen, who joined the faculty in 1961 as a teaching fellow in the English Department, and received his Ph.D. in 1970 with Felheim as co-chair of his dissertation committee. That same year, as an assistant professor in the Department of Humanities in the College of Engineering, Cohen was given the opportunity to develop his own courses. A film enthusiast, and faculty advisor to Cinema Guild, he promptly created Humanities 236: Introduction to Elements and History of Film.[18] He later described the course, which had no prerequisites, as an effort “to introduce the student to the elements and techniques of film-making and to the history of film from its beginnings into the early years of sound.”[19]

The course also offered students a chance to understand their own spectatorship. Cohen believed in linking the film’s content and creation to the resulting emotions and responses within the viewer, as he described to Fetter:

In the fall term of 1970, Humanities 236 had 25 students. By the following winter term, it had exploded to 250, with Cohen lugging his own projector twice a week from his office across central campus for the required screenings.[21] The course became a staple offering, and continues to this day to be among the initial requirements for every student in the Department.[22]

The second member of the early group whose impact would be substantial was Frank Beaver, who was appointed assistant professor of the Department of Speech Communication and Theater in 1969. Beaver taught a trio of courses in film studies: Speech 220: Introduction to Film, a survey of the history, theory, and aesthetics of motion pictures; Speech 521: History of the Motion Picture, a history of the first 20 years of cinema; and Speech 522: Film Theory, which traced the writings of the major film theorists. Despite the earlier courses in film-related areas, this trio of courses represents the first dedicated offerings in film studies at Michigan. Beaver also taught a pair of production courses: Speech 423: Introduction to Cinematography and Speech 523: Advanced Cinematography. Beaver describes the latter course in Fetter’s Guide:

Beaver’s production courses formed the backbone of what would evolve into the filmmaking component of the program, while his studies-centered offerings joined Cohen’s course as the foundation of the studies component. Along with Felheim’s vision and leadership, Cohen and Beaver’s early course offerings were instrumental in setting the direction for what would become Screen Arts and Cultures.

The other members of the early group included Kirkpatrick, who taught History of Art 272: Arts of the Twentieth Century and History of Art 575: Media and Visual Arts, both of which included film study in their overview of art history. Kirkpatrick had a strong interest in video technology, particularly the Sony Portapak, released in 1967, that allowed for relatively simple video production, and encouraged the group to include video alongside celluloid going forward.[24] Montalvo, an industrial filmmaker, taught Architecture and Design 223: Cinematography, an overview of the principles of filmmaking, and Architecture and Design 224: Cinematography, which applied the earlier course in practical film production, either for individual projects or for industrial film projects solicited by local businesses. Hazen Schumacher, the director of the University of Michigan Television Center, taught courses in broadcasting. Alexander taught English 423: The Art of Film, which focused on the in-depth study of a group of major filmmakers and their films. Sensing, much like Fetter, the overlaps in their curriculum, and with Felheim’s leadership, the members of the Committee on Film Resources sought institutional support—a slow, five-year process that met at every turn with disinterest. Yet committee members maintained a common goal: turning the loose consortium of courses, spread across campus and with various, unrelated faculty, into an official department—while not losing the interdisciplinary strength, and the mixture of production and studies, that was already defining the group.

Some of the meetings of the Committee on Film Resources, according to Cohen, were held at Felheim’s bedside during his decade-long struggle with bone marrow cancer. This was apparently standard practice for Felheim—who also completed his final graduate seminar with ten graduate students crowded around his bedside. He died on July 16, 1979.[25]

From Committee to Program: 1972-1987

Led by Felheim, the Committee on Film Resources approached LSA in 1976 with a proposal to seek a modest level of institutional support and resources for an official and organized program. Dean Frank H.T. Rhodes approved the proposal, granting the new Program in Film and Video Studies a part-time administrative assistant and the use of Lorch Hall 140 as office space. An official major was established, with an expected enrollment of thirty students beginning in the fall term of 1977. The members of the Committee on Film Resources became the Executive Committee, which was tasked with selecting from its ranks a director who would receive neither additional salary nor compensatory time off from teaching in his home department. The small, one-room space was divided to create separate spaces; Vicki Honeyman was hired as secretary; and Kirkpatrick was selected as the Program’s first director.[26] As beginnings go, the one for the Program in Film and Video Studies was inauspicious: an unpaid director, no official faculty, and a single, tiny room to call its own.

Yet the enthusiasm that had defined the Committee on Film Resources persisted.. In a press release, Kirkpatrick acknowledged the problems that had plagued students interested in film studies for years: “Before this, the only way for an undergraduate to put together a program of study in the art of film was through a bachelor of general studies curriculum. Our program will provide a much better-focused curriculum, with courses being developed continually.”[27] Central to the Program was the notion of interdisciplinarity that had defined the Committee on Film Resources—an interdisciplinarity that adhered to Felheim’s goal of fostering dialogue among faculty members.

The Program installed three prerequisites: either Beaver’s Speech 220 or Cohn’s Film and Video 236; Film and Video 200 and Film and Video 201—production courses taught by graduate students or part-time lecturers. All of these had long been staples for film students, but were now officially codified into a major.[28] The electives could be selected from other departments, with guidance from Kirkpatrick and Honeyman. But there were bigger plans, too, that marked the transition from loose consortium to Program, including Kirkpatrick’s first independent course: an intensive study of director Robert Altman and his films. The course was an overwhelming success, and was highlighted by visits from actor Elliot Gould, star of M*A*S*H (1970), and Joan Tewkesbury, writer of Nashville (1975), as well as a panel discussion with critics Molly Haskell and Peter Sarris—capped off by an appearance by Altman himself to discuss his films.[29] It was the first of many such events featuring industry members that have come to define the Department of Screen Arts and Cultures, such as visits from Frank Capra, Fritz Lang, Werner Herzog, and Harold Lloyd, among others.

The commitment to interdisciplinarity was reflected in the Executive Committee’s decision to rotate the directorship of the Program. Following Kirkpatrick, Montalvo took over in the spring term of 1978, and Cohn assumed that role two terms later. In the Winter Term of 1981, Herb Eagle, from the Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures, took over as director, a role he filled for the next seven years. Eagle, who had taken over American Studies 490 following Felheim’s death, taught courses in Polish, Russian, and Central European Film, and exemplified the Program’s desire to maintain disciplinary heterogeneity. The Program stayed in its single room in Lorch Hall, with a part-time administrative assistant (Badrie Jazair taking over the position from Honeyman in the early 1980s), and soldiered on without much institutional support or resources. The director coordinated film-related courses across campus, worked with the film societies to plan events and screenings (both for classes and for public events), and tried to build an identity for the Program. Nevertheless, affiliated faculty continued to teach on overload, with no offices, and students, while guided by the Program and now with an official major, still struggled to find the equipment and space with which to complete their work.

This intermediary period was a struggle, both for students and faculty, in terms of funding, resources, and equipment. An article in the Michigan Daily in February 1978 outlined the various challenges for student filmmakers, with Montalvo, then the director, even suggesting that students should go elsewhere to study the topic. “Montalvo knows the interest is here, but not the cash. The budgets for the film courses in the Art School [Montalvo’s home department] are exceedingly low. Montalvo says it’s enough to repair equipment and set up a few work tables.”[30] The Daily noted the creation of the Program, as well as the role played by the Committee on Film Resources, but concluded on a pessimistic note: “What is likely is that the scene will continue much as it does now. The University has no plans to lay out cash to improve the facilities (described by some as ‘adequate, barely’) or hire the staff. Montalvo will continue to take independent students, ‘more than I can realistically handle,’ and students will crank away at the cameras.”[31] Crank away they did, in increasing numbers, and the understaffed and thinly stretched Program continued to serve their needs. Slowly, but surely, the Program created an identity, fragile as it might have been.

By 1987, fifteen years after the Committee on Film Resources began discussions about coordinating film courses on campus, the Program had a clearly defined mission, as outlined in its own official description:

This early era was defined by an initial period of enthusiasm and excitement, with the type of collaboration and curriculum planning that Felheim and the Committee on Film Resources had imagined. As the 1980s progressed, an average of between 70 and 100 concentrators were participating each year in the Program, with the introductory courses such as Communication 320: Film Analysis enrolling more than 350 students at a time.[33] In 1983, this growth was acknowledged in Leonard Maltin’s The Whole Film Sourcebook. The entry reads: “Ann Arbor is one of the most cinematically saturated communities in the country; at any given time there are a number of film societies and organizations in operation. This access to an impressive quantity and range of films serves as an ideal complement to a course of study in the Program of Film and Video Studies at the University of Michigan.”[34]

Yet, given the lack of institutional support, enthusiasm began to falter. A later external review described the situation in the late 1980s: “The history of the program is one of vain attempts, failed hopes, and diminishing energies.”[35] That was all about to change. In January 1988, Jack Meiland, associate dean of LSA, organized a committee to review the Program in Film and Video Studies, as no review had taken place since its inception. The goal was to make recommendations as to the Program’s future to Dean Peter Steiner by the fall term of 1988. It was a tenuous moment, as Steiner was known to be unsure whether the Program should continue at all. In the end, however, the Review would not only confirm the Program’s value, but would finally fulfill the Committee on Film Resource’s goals, and in doing so lead eventually to the creation of the Department of Screen Arts and Cultures.

Steps Forward: 1988 – 1994

Meiland assigned Ira Konigsberg (English) to chair the review committee along with Timothy Bahti (German and Comparative Literature), Martin Pernick (History), Martin Powers (Art History), and Noel Valis (Romance Languages), and the group had an initial meeting in February 1988. They were to recommend a new director for the Program and to assess the state of the production equipment and curriculum. In the next month, the committee interviewed 29 faculty members, administrators, and students—and realized that the timetable would put the incoming director at a serious disadvantage. So they made a decision to accelerate the process in order to have the final report ready by the end of April. The committee, at Konigsberg’s urging, selected Dudley Andrew of the University of Iowa and David Bordwell of the University of Wisconsin to perform the external review. Andrew and Bordwell, two of the preeminent scholars in the field, visited the University at the end of March, and contributed to the insightful, provocative, and decisive report that called on the administration to support the Program with dedicated faculty, equipment, space, and leadership.

The Committee on Film Resources had implemented a basic structure based on the resources available to them, but the review committee noted that it was clearly breaking down and no longer viable. The committee’s members channeled Felheim’s enthusiasm in their call to renew the Program: “The review committee believes that in this community and as part of one of the great educational institutions in this country, such a program continues to have enormous potential.”[36] The fourteen recommendations, paraphrased below, can be read as a map for the changes that would soon follow:

Given the state of the Program at the time the report was submitted on April 26, 1988, these recommendations (and Bordwell and Andrew’s accompanying external report, which echoed and duplicated many of the same observations) were nothing short of groundbreaking.[38] The conclusion was clear: “This report expresses the strong belief of the review committee that the Film and Video program has an important role to play in the intellectual life of this university. […] The committee is unanimous in expressing its hopes that the College will help this program reach the important status that similar programs have achieved at other major colleges and universities.”[39] Sixteen years after the Committee on Film Resources had made its first tentative steps to establish an official program in film studies at Michigan, the time was ripe for a major step forward.

Upon its completion, Dean Steiner and LSA agreed with the Report’s findings, and made a significant commitment to the Program. Konigsberg, who had been with the English Department since 1968, was appointed full-time director.[40] A suite of offices and other spaces were constructed in the Frieze Building, an operating budget for equipment and other resources was allocated, and, perhaps most importantly, funding was committed to hire two faculty members. Leaving Lorch Hall behind, the Program arrived in the Frieze Building in the fall of 1989, residing alongside the Speech Communication and Theater department—meaning the vast majority of film production equipment and resources were finally under one roof. Konigsberg later described the period: “The mission was to take it from a small program to a major force on the campus to reflect the growing importance of media on the campus.”[41]

The effect was immediate. Even before the move to the new offices, Konigsberg was able, in the first issue of the Program’s newsletter, to write: “It is hard to believe where we were four months ago and where we are now. Students in our film and video production courses are properly equipped and need no longer scrounge around in the dark corners of campus to find an odd piece of machinery.”[42] That enthusiasm only increased in the newsletter’s second issue, in March 1989, when the new offices were described, plans for a film library unveiled, and the Program’s first major hire announced.[43] That was William Paul, an associate professor who joined the Program after a national search. A film historian and former critic for The Village Voice and Rolling Stone, Paul was jointly appointed with the English Department, and assumed teaching responsibilities on theory, history, and genre courses. Konigsberg noted the significance of Paul’s hire: “It heralds the U-M’s recent decision to make a strong commitment to the area of film and video studies, which it had neglected for many years.”[44] Jonnie Dobele and Hanna Lore Kober, a husband-and-wife directing team from Germany known for their experimental and innovative films, were also hired to teach production courses, as was Katherine Hurbis-Cherrier. In 1992, after another national search, acclaimed filmmaker and scholar Robert Rayher joined the faculty (replacing Dobele and Kober) to spearhead the rapidly growing production courses—and to manage and update the array of equipment.

Given that a major component of the 1988 review called for the Program to grow its reputation both within the University and nationally, Konigsberg was tasked with crafting a strategy that would raise awareness and interest with a limited budget. Rayher described Konigsberg as having a “very clear plan in terms of what would be successful,” particularly in building interest in the production courses, which were a way to propel the Program forward.[45]Robert Rayher, personal interview, October 24, 2013. Recognizing the importance of public relations, Konigsberg created a two-part strategy along with a renewed focus on the growing interest in production and studies courses: create film events that would draw the campus and community together and increase fundraising efforts, both in an effort to build recognition for the Program. “We were new,” recalled Konigsberg, “We were coming from nowhere. I had to make a presence. My idea was to get the alumni interested, and get the Program into the community where people could see it.”[46]

This process began by cultivating relationships with notable University alumni. Konigsberg was introduced by a mutual friend, for instance, to Robert Shaye, who would become a key figure in the Department’s history. Shaye was a 1960 Michigan graduate who in 1967 had founded New Line Cinema, which began in cult film distribution before turning to production on such films as A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984, dircted by Wes Craven). Shaye sold New Line Cinema in 1994 to Ted Turner, who later merged it with Warner Brothers. Shaye was invited by Konigsberg to take an active role in the Program, including joining the advisory committee, which also included screenwriter David Newman, a 1958 graduate, and John Lyons, a 1977 graduate who founded Lyons Casting Agency. This advisory committee assisted Konigsberg in shaping the curriculum, strategizing about the growth of the Program, and networking on behalf of graduates for opportunities within the industry. Peter Benedek, a 1970 graduate and co-founder of United Talent Agency, was also welcomed into the Program. He began to host an annual event at his home in Los Angeles that brought together alumni and the Department Chair not just for fundraising opportunities but to share the news, developments, and successes shared by current and former students. These alumni, among many who have offered support over the years, helped to shape the Program’s development and growth during this formative period.

Shaye offered to premiere New Line films in Ann Arbor as fundraisers for the Program. Beginning with The Player (dir. Robert Altman) in 1992, Shaye set in motion a series of highly successful events that brought the community, faculty, and students together to raise funds. Altman’s Short Cuts (1993), Corrina, Corrina (1994, director, Jessie Nelson), and Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle (1994, director, Alan Rudolph) also premiered in Ann Arbor. Konigsberg also developed a relationship with Lawrence Kasdan, a 1970 graduate in English (who had been in Beaver’s first production course) and a highly successful screenwriter and director with multiple Academy Award nominations and credits, including The Empire Strikes Back (1980, director, Irvin Kirshner) as a screenwriter and The Big Chill (1983) as writer-director. Kasdan had long been a supporter of the Program, and had publicly called for a major push in resources and investment by the University for film studies in the early 1980s.[47] Kasdan donated equipment during this period and premiered his film Wyatt Earp in June 1994 as a fundraiser for the Program.

Konigsberg’s commitment to such events brought the Program to new heights in terms of community visibility. The new era started with the Film Classics Series, a series of free screenings in both Lorch Hall and the Michigan Theatre—including silent films with live organ accompaniment. The series was Konigsberg’s effort to continue the tradition of the Film Societies, initiated when he cultivated a relationship between the Program and Michigan Theatre director Russ Collins.[48] In January 1989, Konigsberg organized the Yon Barna Symposium on Avant Garde Cinema, bringing in P. Adams Sitney, Stan Brakhage, Ken Jacobs, Trinh T. Minh-Ha, and Su Friedrich.[49] The following November, after coordinating with the National Center for Jewish Film, the Program offered the Midwest premiere of a restored version of The Dybbuk (1937, director. Michael Waczinski), which played to packed houses at the Michigan Theatre in its three showings. The Black Filmmakers Series brought Charles Burnett, St. Clair Bourne, Camille Billops, and Michelle Parkerson to campus in February 1990, an event that culminated in the world premiere screening of New Line Cinema’s House Party (1990, dir. Reggie Hudlin).[50] Such events became a fixture for the Department, and in the ensuing years included an African Film Series, a Retrospective on Soviet Underground Cinema, a Video Art Series, and, in November 1991, a screening of the restoration of Intolerance (1916, director, D.W. Griffith) at the Michigan Theater featuring a live orchestra conducted by Gillian Anderson, musicologist at the Library of Congress, who returned numerous times for similar events, including the following September to conduct the orchestra for The Thief of Bagdad (1924, director, Raoul Walsh).[51] Events, screenings, and visits from filmmakers and industry members continue to be hallmarks of the Department.

The students in the Program also began organizing and becoming more involved. During the fall term of 1989 films made by students were screened for the first time during a one-night festival, and by the second offering in the winter term of 1990, the festival moved to an Angell Hall auditorium to accommodate the large crowds.[52] The event became a fixture, and led to the creation in the late 1990s of the Film and Video Club, which was formed to foster film production and interaction outside of class. In 2002, under the guidance of student Shrihari Sathe, the group was renamed the Film and Video Students Association (FVSA), which continues to thrive and is the sponsor of the biannual Lightworks Film Festival, a two-night screening of student films with a jury, awards, and large audiences.[53]

The era following the 1988 review was a period of impressive growth. By 1992, the Program in Film and Video Studies had more than 100 undergraduate majors and offered 22 courses. The initial two requirements had grown to six: F/V 236: The Art of the Film; F/V 300: Filmmaking I; F/V 301: Video Art I; F/V 350: The History of the American Film; F/V 360: The History of World Film; and F/V 414: Film Theory and Criticism. Students could choose their remaining electives from between 32 and 43 other courses, depending on the term, from across various departments coordinated with the Program.

In December 1992, Michael M. Martin, dean of undergraduate studies in LSA, scheduled a five-year follow-up of the 1988 review. Erik Fredericksen (Theater and Drama) was named chair, and Timothy Bahti (German, Comparative Literature), Martin Pernick (History), Kendall Walton (Philosophy), and Cohen were the other members. John Belton (Rutgers University), Lucy Fischer (University of Pittsburgh), and Stuart Kaminsky (Florida State University) were the external reviewers. Unlike the 1988 review, which was deliberately designed to be a mission-oriented, complex review with an overhaul strategy at its core, the 1993 review was descriptive in nature, and intended to examine the results of the earlier analysis. It began by acknowledging the historically determined circumstances governing the Program’s interdisciplinary status. As the external reviewers noted, the “professionalization” of film studies as a field in the 1970s and 1980s meant consolidating such studies within specific departments, a deliberate turn away from its interdisciplinary roots; meanwhile, other departments were branching out just as film studies were consolidating, leading to inevitable tensions, both within the field and at the University of Michigan.[54] Nevertheless, the interdisciplinary nature of the Program was among its cornerstones, and the review acknowledged that such strengths needed to be bolstered rather than weakened.

The committee also acknowledged what had become a growing area of discussion. What was the nature and mission of the production component? In a defining moment in the Program’s history, the Review confirmed what had always been the approach and firmly set a course for the future:

Such tensions were a natural outgrowth of expanding student interest, the visibility of the alumni working within the industry, and the technological advances and equipment upgrades. Yet, as Rayher later explained, the Program’s mission was not to teach ”production appreciation, but a culture of production. This has never been a pre-professionalizing program. It’s building a culture of self-reflection.”[56] From the beginning, the Program’s emphasis on a bridge between production and studies courses and faculty was both confirmed and bolstered during the 1993 Review—setting the tone that continues to be one of the Department’s hallmarks.

Ultimately, the Review committee reached a set of conclusions based, once again, around the need to address the growth of the Program, even as they praised the College and Program for the strides made in the previous five years. “It is… evident,” they wrote, “that the Film and Video Program has grown—some would say too quickly and too much—in accord with the 1988 Review, and to the benefit of the Ann Arbor film public.”[57] The external reviewers agreed, and all sides were unanimous in their belief that more faculty were needed—particularly a senior scholar with a national reputation in feminist film theory, a junior scholar with expertise in television studies, and more production faculty as well as more resources and equipment.[58] It was clear that the growth of the Program had turned a corner, and that new levels of investment and support would be required to maintain the burgeoning reputation and success.

One aspect of that new investment would be a graduate program, which had been discussed in the 1988 review but dismissed in favor of building other areas of the Program. In 1993, however, the issue was raised again. Clearly, it was time to consider how to construct, operate, and maintain a graduate program that would befit the University’s mission and reputation.

After Paul’s term as interim director in 1991-92, Konigsberg returned from a sabbatical with goals that would address the most recent review’s findings: locate and hire a new director who would take the Program into the future with the characteristic growth that had defined it from the beginning, keep the interdisciplinary focus that had long been part of the institutional approach, and plan for a graduate program. Konigsberg had laid the groundwork for building the Program’s national reputation, in part by utilizing public relations strategies and strengthening the alumni network. Indeed, in a strategic plan submitted as part of the 1993 review, Konigsberg and the advisory committee highlighted the importance of the alumni network as a vital and necessary part of the Program’s operations and goals, not only with fundraising but with campus visits and professional advice as well.[59]

From Program to Department: 1995-2004

After a national search chaired by Robert Weisbuch, chair of the English Department, and in keeping with the goal of adding an expert in feminist film theory to the Program, Gaylyn Studlar was hired as director in 1995 in conjunction with English and Women’s Studies. Studlar took over the Program during a period of intense growth, but that growth was about to increase once again. “I thought it could only get better, that the administration at the college level wanted it to get better, and that I had the energy to help,” said Studlar later of the period. “The philosophy of the unit was in the right place—to combine film studies and production. I could get invested in that philosophy.”[60] The next decade would see a cavalcade of changes, from faculty to facilities, that took the Program in new and unforeseen directions. Studlar noted the prospects for these changes shortly after her arrival, and particularly the necessity of keeping the interdisciplinary tradition alive: “We’re hoping to expand the program’s profile in working with other departments and schools within the University to cross-fertilize both the creative and intellectual aspects of studying film and video.”[61] She also emphasized the importance of the liberal arts approach that had long defined the Program, adding “I think our function is to maintain film and video as a concentration in which students receive the full range of the University’s possibilities for an excellent undergraduate education in the broadest sense. We’re not training students to shoot them into the film industry. We’re educating them for life. We’re training their minds.”[62]

Changes began before Studlar became Director. In 1994, LSA decided to consolidate all film and television production and studies courses. The duplication of courses within Communication Studies thus came to an end and, as a result, Frank Beaver, Frank Ukadike, and Terri Sarris (a lecturer who had come to the University as a graduate student in Telecommunication Arts in the early 1980s) moved from that department to Film and Video, bringing many of the courses they taught with them, including Sarris’s Television Production courses. At the time, Konigsberg described the transition in a departmental memo: “The Film/Video Program will be the central unit teaching classes in film, video, art, television, and digital animation for the entire University. Its focus will still be on educating students about the major media of our time and their impact on cultures and minds, but the Program will now have a stronger hands-on component without which its major education goals could not be accomplished.”[63]

As part of this renewal, a significant amount of hiring occurred in the mid-1990s that came to define the Program, particularly its history with interdisciplinary joint appointments. Key to this revitalization was the hiring of Jim Burnstein to head the screenwriting component. Burnstein, a Michigan graduate, had become a successful Hollywood screenwriter. In 1992, Paul had approached Burnstein with the idea of teaching screenwriting courses, but it was not until 1995, after the release of Burnstein’s Renaissance Man, that Konigsberg convinced him to take the position. The success of the Burnstein’s first course, in the Fall term of 1995, led to conversations between Burnstein and Studlar about how best to build the concentration. Burnstein proposed three ideas: add a rewrite class; build a library of screenplays for students to study; and commit to a regular series of visiting writers and writer-directors from Hollywood to teach master classes and to interact with students.

That process took on major shape with a significant and substantial donation from Shaye, who had remained an active and involved supporter of the Program. In 1998, through his Four Friends Foundation and with the assistance of Margie McKinley, a member of U-M’s development staff, Shaye donated $1 million to the University, in his words to “launch what we hope will become the premier screenwriting program in the country.”[64] The gift created the Donald Hall Collection (named for the former Poet Laureate of the United States who taught at the University in the 1960s and 1970s), a large library of screenplays, films, and viewing equipment. It also allowed for the hiring of librarian Philip Hallman, a Michigan graduate and veteran of the film societies. The collection continues to be the centerpiece of the Department, and, under Hallman’s care, has grown into one of the preeminent libraries of its kind in the country, with thousands of films and screenplays.

The gift also created the James Gindin Visiting Artists and Master Classes Program, named for a former professor of English. The program brings screenwriters to campus to hold seminars and help students. The first was Kurt Luedtke, Academy Award-winning writer of Out of Africa (1985, director, Sidney Pollack), and many others have visited in the years since, including Alexander Payne, Spike Lee, Nora Ephron, Christopher McQuarrie, Jeb Stuart, Paul Schrader, John Sayles, and Kasdan. Similarly, in 2006, Benedek donated $1 million to the University, with the majority going to Screen Arts and Cultures to establish the Peter and Barbara Benedek Artist in Residence Program, which brings writers to campus for extended teaching engagements. Brent Forrester, Scott Rosenbaum, David Pollack, and Danielle Sanchez have all participated, with Tom Benedek the most recent addition.

New faculty positions were created, in keeping with the 1993 review, beginning with a tenure-track position for a specialist in Asian Cinema, authorized in conjunction with the Asian Languages and Cultures Department. Abé Markus Nornes, an expert on Japanese cinema and coordinator of the Yamagata International Documentary Film Festival, was hired in 1995. A video production position was also authorized by LSA, and filled, initially, by Yau Chang, and later by Stashu Kybartas. A position in television studies with a joint appointment with Communications was authorized in 1996 and filled in 2000 with Bambi Higgins, while a joint search with German was filled in 1998 with Johannes Von Moltke and Edward Dimendberg. American Culture and Film and Video teamed to search for an expert in American film history and Latino/a media, resulting in the hire of Catherine Benamou in 1998. Giorgio Bertellini joined the faculty as a visiting assistant professor in 2001, and was hired in 2004 with a joint appointment in Romance Languages and Literatures. In conjunction with the Center for Afro-American and African Studies, Frances Gateward was hired in 2001. In perhaps the most significant hire in the Program’s history, Richard Abel joined the faculty in 2002 as the Robert Altman Collegiate Professor of Film Studies. Abel, an internationally recognized expert on early film history, the author of numerous award-winning books, and a former president of the Society for Cinema and Media Studies, brought the Program to new heights in terms of experience, expertise, and reputation. His influence continues to resonate with regard to film history and historiography.

In the late 1990s, the changes in the media in terms of digital production and exhibition caused those in the Program to consider the future of media studies when media itself was changing. Nornes later described this period: “It was quite obvious to us that digital technologies were going to deeply transform the screen arts, from the artisanal modes, like experimental filmmaking, to grand, industrial settings like Hollywood. We couldn’t just sit back and watch this happen. We had to be forward-thinking.”[65] In February 1999, Nornes applied for a Gilbert Whitaker Grant to undertake a major research project to analyze the situation and implement new strategies and methods. Nornes wrote:

The result, a nine-month study undertaken between September 1999 and May 2000, placed the Program at the forefront of what was known as “digital humanities.” As Nornes later noted: “We were the first department to be dealing with this issue, but since we’ve been dealing this for a very long time, we didn’t have a lot of the anxiety, concern, or even enthusiasm that other departments have had. It’s very much a part of who we are. It did not have the newness that it had for everyone else.”[67] The Program would acquire new equipment and facilities, emphasize digital cinematography and editing, and hire Chris McNamara, who had been a visiting lecturer in the Program beginning in 1999, to teach digital production, and Sheila Murphy, who had been a visiting assistant professor, to teach digital media

In 1996, Studlar made a formal proposal to add a graduate certificate in Film Studies, fulfilling another of the early hopes of the Committee on Film Resources, and setting in motion the plan, beginning with the 1988 review, to add a graduate program. In the proposal, Studlar noted that more than a dozen graduate students were writing dissertations either solely or significantly about media: ”The Certificate in Film Studies would offer an exciting new curriculum that would ensure that those students who pursue film studies in an interdisciplinary fashion at the university have the opportunity to understand the dynamic history of film, to strengthen their analytical skills, and to develop an awareness of the philosophical and aesthetic issues that have fueled debates in the field.”[68] While Studlar mentioned that the timing was not right for a full graduate program, the certificate nevertheless represented the first step. LSA approved the proposal, and certificate students continue to be a vibrant part of the Department’s culture and carry on its interdisciplinary tradition.

The 2004 external review committee—composed of John Belton (Rutgers University), Thomas Gunning (University of Chicago), Kristine Samuelson (Stanford University), and Charles Wolfe (University of California at Santa Barbara)—acknowledged the tremendous and remarkable growth of the Program. It praised the long-standing tradition of integrating production and studies, the interdisciplinary nature of the Program, the diverse expertise of the faculty, and the commitment to a liberal arts education throughout the curriculum. In its conclusion, the committee described its reaction following the campus visit: “We left Ann Arbor with the belief that the Program in Film and Video Studies is among the best programs of its kind in the nation. Its successful integration of film and video studies with film and video practice is a model that other programs around the country would do well to emulate. The curriculum is outstanding…. Given the coherence of the disciplines it studies, we feel department status is a natural next step. Building on the strength of the program faculty, a small doctoral program should flourish.”[69]

The Department of Screen Arts and Cultures: 2005-

The process of gaining department status had begun in 1998, when Studlar discussed such a goal with the executive committee of LSA. In May 1999, Studlar formally made a proposal to Patricia Gurin, interim dean of LSA, for the Program to be granted department status and to be renamed the Department of Film, Television, and Digital Arts.

The process of gaining departmental status, however, would take much longer. In May 2005, the Board of Regents finally approved the change. Studlar’s term as director had expired, and Abel, with interim status, became the Department’s first Chair. After further discussion, the name was formally changed to the Department of Screen Arts and Cultures. The long process from idea to reality was complete, and the hopes of Felheim and the Committee on Film Resources had been fulfilled: the Program was now the Department.

During his time as interim chair, Abel oversaw the Department’s temporary transition from the Frieze Building to Haven Hall, which it occupied during construction of the North Quadrangle Residential and Academic Complex, a significant addition to the campus (on the site of the Frieze Building). The Department moved there in 2010 and now occupies the entire sixth floor, with significant studio space in the basement, and it has nearly all of its resources in a single location for the first time. Sarris, McNamara, and Studlar visited production studios in Toronto and submitted a proposal to President Mary Sue Coleman, arguing for the necessity of including the studios in the new facility as a vital link to the community at large. With Coleman’s support, the plan went forward.

The graduate program was approved and initiated in 2008, creating what has since become a thriving and important addition to the culture of the Department. SAC 600: Introduction to Screen Arts & Cultures, SAC 601: Theory, SAC 602: Historiography, and SAC 603: Material Practices were installed as required core courses, along with comprehensive examinations, a prospectus, and dissertation. Following the tradition of the Department, as Abel describes, efforts were made to “make the Ph.D. as interdisciplinary as possible,” a process built into the curriculum by the presence of the many joint-appointed faculty members. Kristy Rawson was the first doctoral graduate from the Department, in August 2012, followed by Peter Alilunas and Nancy McVittie in August 2013. By 2013-14, there were13 doctoral students and seven certificate students working as graduate student instructors, contributing to the intellectual life of the Department, regularly publishing their work and presenting at national conferences.

Abel’s term as interim chair ended in 2009, and Nornes assumed the role. Nornes conducted another curriculum review and embarked on a three-year revision, guiding the Department through a ground-up reconsideration of its offerings. “There were vestiges of the earlier age that had become outdated,” Nornes later described, “and there had been a curricular drift, where teaching practices were out of alignment with what classes we were offering. We had changed as a department, and needed to rethink who we are, where we want to go, and how best to express that through a curriculum.”[70] In a University-wide effort, Nornes also had to engage in budget reductions within the Department, an unpleasant but necessary process beginning in 2008 that streamlined operations and staff. Now stabilized, the Department has been experiencing another a period of growth and change.

Dan Herbert, Candace Moore, Colin Gunckel, and Sangjoon Lee have all joined the faculty as assistant professors in recent years, and senior faculty have also been added: Yeidy Rivero, Matthew Solomon, Caryl Flinn, and Lisa Nakamura. Victor Fanucchi, Terry Lawson, Veerendra Prasad, Dan Shere, and Oliver Thornton became lecturers in screenwriting, Dawn Hollison a lecturer in production, and Mark Kligerman a lecturer in film studies. Marga Schuhwerk-Hampel became administrator, Mary Lou Chlipala assistant to the Chair, Carrie Moore the student services coordinator, and Mariam Negaran the student administrative assistant associate. Robert Hoffman became the Department’s chief engineer, Al Young the media consultant, and Joel Rakowski is the new media technician.

One final story must be told in this history, one that has been lingering since the pivotal and groundbreaking 1988 review. At that time, LSA declined to offer Dobele and Kober tenure lines, preferring to make them lecturers for the production courses. This eventually led to their decision to leave the Program in 1992. They were replaced by Rayher and, shortly after, Sarris, both of whom were similarly given lecturer positions not eligible for tenure. This tradition has continued within the Department ever since; screenwriting and production faculty members were not eligible for tenure. Nornes later explained the background: “The rationale that was stated to the faculty and every chair, over and over again, was that we cannot decide as scholars how to run a rigorous tenure case for a filmmaker. The consequences for this were vast, and reflect inequities of salary, time off, and within the departmental hierarchies.”[71] Nornes embarked on a research project to learn how peer institutions were tenuring their production faculty, and wrote a report on the findings for LSA Dean Terrence McDonald.

Once McDonald saw that tenure for production faculty was possible, the issue was sent back to the Screen Arts and Cultures faculty to create a formal proposal. In the spring of 2013, the faculty voted to move forward, and in fall 2013 the faculty voted to approve a proposal to LSA. While this remains an open issue, it is an imperative one going forward and will have major impact on the future. Given the Department’s long, foundational history in terms of connecting studies to practice—the interdisciplinary roots of which are evident from the moment the Committee on Film Resources was formed—the need to tenure the production faculty has long been clear. “It’s obvious we need to do this. It’s in our DNA,” Nornes explained. [72] The longer the issue went unresolved, the more apparent it became that the structural inequities within the Department—which, unfortunately, had become as much a part of its history as the interdisciplinarity that has long been heralded as its hallmark—held it back from realizing its full potential.

In the end, this was not just a history of faculty, events, screenings, and course offerings. It was also a history of many thousands of undergraduates who have gone through the Department’s courses and learned the study of moving images in its classrooms. Fetter, who trudged through the snow in early 1973 to find information on how to study film on campus, represents the determination and enthusiasm of students throughout the Department’s history.By 2013, Screen Arts and Cultures had 239 student majors, 34 global media studies minors, and offered 84 courses. The Department served more than 2,000 students annually and continued to show signs of growth—moving forward not only in the digital technologies that increasingly defined the rapidly changing field, but also in reconsidering, as it always had, how the meanings and histories of the moving image must be understood. The Department of Screen Arts and Cultures has changed in ways Felheim and the other members of the Committee on Film Resources never could have predicted, but one thing remains the same: the determination to offer its students the critical tools to understand the media that surround them in an interdisciplinary setting from a liberal arts perspective.