Close Up (Mar-Dec 1931)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

324 CLOSE UP They do not pay attention to the disproportion of dimensions not allowing a complete symbiosis of the film with the theatre; for the rest it is a false way too. The solution of this contradiction belongs to the theatre and to its own technical perfections which will follow the need of getting the maximum of show possibilities out of its own apparatus, at the simultaneous consideration not of the film but of the important factor, which is and can be, the light on the stage. Samples of this have been given by Piscator and Meyerhold and by Schiller in Poland. On the subject of modernizing the theatre, not in the way of film but of the theatre itself, much has been said by the authors of the project of the " simultanic theatre "* Andrew Pronaszko, Simon Syrkus, and also by Walter Gropius in his Totaltheater. The ideas and endeavours of " filmisation " of the theatre have been opposed to by Irzykowski, who is rather an adherent of a contrary process, i.e., he wants the theatre not only to give up its courtship towards the film but to have it deprived of any filmistic element and to have it confined " to its own and very essential sphere, i.e., to the word." Balazs sees the possibility of enriching the theatre by adapting the film, particularly for scenes in which conversations are going on " aside," i.e., by projecting them on the screen, thus revealing the inward changes of the protagonist, in one word, to realise in film projection all that it would be impossible to express otherwise. But in such conditions the spectator is being deprived of his own creative faculty, and his role in participating in what is happening on the stage is being diminished, his imagination is being reduced to an automaton, his intellect to a mechanical register of sensations. There is a further point in which Balazs endeavours to defend the role of film in the theatre, namely, collective scenes, which cannot be performed in the theatre on such a scale as by the film. Balazs does not appreciate enough the role of Piscator and of Soviet producers who have the method of mise-en-scene operating with the masses. For those who have seen the arrangements of collective scenes of the Polish regisseur, Schiller, the question, is beyond any discussion. For example, in the show The due Potemkin of Micinski, based on the revolutionary plot of 1905, besides the interesting construction of collective scenes, Schiller has given a good mise-en-scene of the rebellion on board the Potemkin in the shape of brief fragmentary, kaleidoscopic scenes with condensed dynamics, fully expressing the revolutionary tension of the rebellion raging on the steamer. Although the means necessary for operating with masses are more abundant and stronger in the film than in the theatre, nevertheless masses directed by modern regisseurs have their own expressive and ideological aspect, not ceding to the masses in film from the point of view of plastics and dynamics. Zygmunt Tonecki. * " Close Up," No. 1, March, 1931. (Poland, 3931).