The educational screen (c1922-c1956])

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.

The Pictorial Lesson in "Carnival" 19 d emphasize its purpose as it should not be if a compromise, for art's sake, etween the theoretical ideal and the practical exception, is to be maintained. Pictorially, too, these foreign mobs appeared to have been more adequately ehearsed. The reel might have been stopped at any point and, within a com- lon sense latitude of judgment, would have presented a picture falling within ;ie laws of line and curve, light and shade, and proportionate masses in bal- nce, the theory hinted at by Vachel Lindsay, and bizarrely carried out, via ines of dynamic force, in the Caligari film with its perspective of depths. The American film mob bunches. A real mob does ? Very well, but no art an afford to carry its realism beyond certain tendencies of standardization. 4o art can make license of freedom. No art has ever held the limitless future of achievement that the "movies" old. But they are a pictorial medium and must adhere to some of the age- ried tendencies of what, in pictorial art, has pleased the keenest of human judgments. The modern writer, thanks to the century's alertness for deeper neanings, has thrown aside "rules of composition," but he still remembers that lis readers demand logical reasons for effects and recall, longest, that which, undamentally rears itself from certain definite and immovable tendencies in ill good writing. So with the photodrama.' That it is pictorial action does not liter the case. Why was Carnival a great picture, so great that, in company with two >thers, it led Americans into unfair criticisms of their own work? First, the pictorial value of Carnival's mob scene, interior as well as :xterior. It was the most exquisite I ever witnessed. It had endless detail md movement (helped somewhat by the awkward panorama) yet blended into l quality that reflected the delicate texture of Venetian abandon, never thick enough to become debauchery, never rough enough to become vulgar. This Ltmosphere was the heart and end of the whole film, and, in the individual, )ecame a trait that determined the heroine's action up to the minute of climax. Had the mob scene been less of a study of the effects of light and shade tnd mass, the thick impression would have reached the public, necessitating itle effort (art and sub) to readjust the false atmosphere. In itself, so clumsy J method is unforgivable. Moreover, we are dealing with an art of pictures, lot words; the latter must be cut to the minimum. From another viewpoint, pictorially, Carnival was remarkable. The much nooted question of darkened stages in legitimate circles carries an analogy in ilms. Shall the action in pictures be so much a part of the set that it blends is a pictorial detail of the set? The next few years will see a choice made, perhaps develop two schools. Carnival represents, to the writer, the more lesirable one. Carnival was not obsessed with "bunch calciums"! The sets were lighted