The cinema as a graphic art : on a theory of representation in the cinema (1959)

THE COMPOSITIONAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE SHOT Thus it is impossible to claim an absolute identity between the picture on the film, and a spectator's direct perception of the same object. At the same time this by no means justifies repudiation of all degree of objectivity in photographic transmission in general, or of realism in cinematography. In his investigation of photographic processes, Warstatt points to the relatively objective character of the photographic negative, which preserves proportionally the formal and linear relationships of the object to an extent adequate for cinematography at the present stage of its development. What is the basic difference between the photographic picture and a spectator's direct impression ? The difference consists first and foremost in the fact that, owing to the associative links of his thought, the spectator's direct perception modifies and adds to the perceived phenomenon from the store of his cognitive experience, transforming it into a pictorial representation, whereas photographic objectivity only transmits, relatively truly, the scheme of formal and linear elements of the object. However, the limited realism of the picture in the film is entirely sufficient to evoke in the spectator an aggregate of associations corresponding to the object filmed. It is to this ability of the picture to cause the required reaction in the spectator, and not to the * lifelike ' copying of nature or the situation in the given scene, that we must look for the cinema's genuine possibilities of expression. Thus the task of constructing a cinematic picture is not the fixation of a 1 documentary ' record, the endeavour to achieve absolute verisimilitude in respect to the object on the screen, but the discovery of a form of visual picture adequate to the art-image of the film, in other words, one that is most fully expressive of the idea of the given production. Realism in cinematic representation is not necessarily a flat and impotent copying of nature, but an art-interpretation of it such as will enrich us with a new perception of the genuine meaning, associations and essence of that nature. The search for a genuine, realistic discovery and interpretation of reality is the first, and the organisation of the necessary representational resources for reproduction of optical images adequate to the art-images of the film is the next, stage in the creative work of cinematography. It is at this point that, in addition to the dramaturgist's, director's, and actor's treatment of the scenario, a new factor enters, involving a fully competent co-author — the factor we shall call representational treatment of the production.1 Representational treatment in general involves determining the style in which the camera-man's work shall be carried out, and also deciding on the methods of building up the film as a whole and in its various component parts. Who is responsible for this representational treatment ? It is achieved by the director and the camera-man in the course of preparations for, and during the actual shooting of the picture. And their creative work is determined by their general perceptions, their cultural background and their craftsmanship. Everything depends on the manner in which the camera-man realises the director's instructions, and the means he employs, i.e. upon his method of compositional construction ; for the content and aesthetic sense of the object filmed are changed accordingly, often its social implication is changed also, and consequently the meaning of the picture as created by the dramatist, director and actor is modified. The significance and importance of the camera-man's craftsmanship arises out of his enormous, and at times decisive, influence through 1 The art-director is not mentioned here, as he is not germane to the point. His enormous share in realising the expressive treatment of a film is quite obvious, and does not call for discussion. — N. J7