French Impressionist Cinema: Film Culture, Film Theory, and Film Style (December 1974)

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.

PO SJ Ex Germaine Dulac's definition of an avant-garde film: "tout film dont la technique, utilisée en vue d'une expression renouvelée de l'image et du son, rompte avee les tvraditions établies pour rechercher dans le domaine strietement visuel et auditif."©3 The movement placed a corresponding faith in the future of the medium. In Schémas , Dulac offered the volume as sketches for a future cinema, admitting that the avant-garde's position was not completely realized in current film practice, 64 The demand for constant stylistic renewal and advance was also characteristie of Jean Epstein, who called in 1924 for "a new avant-garde" and who a year later wrote that with the crystalization of Impressionist style, "Le style 'pompier' apparait dés que 1l'invention cesse, 65 The entire movement gives orr an exhilarating hope of further exploration that justifies René Clair's claim that "We like the cinema not so much For’ whattt" 18 as forwhat “16¢wi il be, "66 Such zeal did not prevent the movement from acquiring shortcomings which were as apparent to some contemporaries as to us today. In the first place, defining itself by negation set the movement against film-makers of undeniable quality. In particular, Feuillade and Perret were unfairly treated; ironically, today's taste finds the sober mise-en-scéne of Feuillade far more interesting than