Close Up (Mar-Dec 1933)

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.

334 CLOSE UP action was given into the hands of the artists — he wouldn't call them that, but directors — for recording. Logically then, if for recording after action, why not for shaping before action. If you say that is what Eisenstein and Pudovkin and Dovzhenko have worked for, you do not understand the essential difference which separates these workers from Pabst. Their film work has often been a party weapon. Pabst would forge a weapon which would create parties. His pacificism is almost religious. He cites Babel. " Where there was only one language, there were no wars. The film is the first universal language of comprehensible ideas." If one could group film development under two major heads, one could easily fall into the temptation to group the French pictures under Chaplinesque " art " and most of the Russian efforts as a development of the school of D. W. Griffith. Squarely between these two schools then, would lie the German film, perhaps with Swedish influence written all over it. It is this which makes Pabst's presence in America so much more hopeful than was Eisenstein's. We have always liked the German film worker, and there has seldom, if ever, been any suspicion of him. I think this will follow in the case of Pabst. He has not come upon us and stated what he will do and what he will not do. He will do what he can with what he is given, and he will go on from there. To a very great idealism, Pabst adds the necessary modicum of patient practicality.