Journal of the Society of Motion Picture Engineers (1930-1949)

cinematograph camera bears more than superficial filial resemblance to the "magic boxes" of film-history. Indeed, the current models of orthodox equipment are elaborate instruments built to precision-engineering standards and modified in every detail by half a century of operational experience. In the result, there has been evolved a piece of apparatus of known and highly efficient optical characteristics, proved reliability in performance and general simplicity of maintenance. Nevertheless, its basic principles remain unaltered. It persists as essentially an instrument to record a sufficiently rapid succession of single images of successive stages of movement within the framework of a single scene for the eye to be deceived by the illusion of continuous movement when the recorded images are subsequently projected. If a visual succession showing two different views of the same scene (as in a "cut" from a medium shot to a close-up), or two views of entirely different scenes (as in a cut from an interior to an exterior), is required the camera must occupy two different shooting positions, and the resultant film recordings must be joined together before the effect of the visual succession can be artistically evaluated. Furthermore, if the image of one scene is to be superimposed upon another (as in a "mix") it is necessary to go beyond the resources of the camera altogether and make use of the additional optical processes of the laboratory. In short, the single optical camera by its nature has to be assisted artificially before it can provide the multiplicity of recorded impressions from different viewpoints that the modern entertainment film requires. Moreover, by its nature the optical camera is secretive in operation and reticent about its viewpoint until the exposed film has been developed. At most the camera shares its view with the camera operator; others — the director, for instance — may examine the scene in the view-finder before "shooting" begins, but in the result the utmost that can then be said with confidence is that the image appeared thus at the time of the examination and is not by any means how the image will necessarily appear when the camera actually begins operation. The significance of this should not be overlooked, for it means that, at the moment of shooting, the director is inevitably excluded; he becomes, as it were, an onlooker. It is not, indeed, until after the development and projection of the "rushes" that the director is in any position to know whether or not he has achieved the original artistic purpose which lay behind the "shot." And it is because of this inability to pronounce judgment at the time that the prudent director often covers his misgivings by one or more "re-takes," in order to ensure that some part of the exposed film depicts the action as he wishes it. It is sometimes argued that the unavoidable period of waiting before being able to study the projected film is not injurious to the end-product but is, in fact, positively beneficial. The view has been expressed that the technical perfection of the finished film can be obtained only by these two distinct processes — the totally undistracted shooting of individual and unrelated scenes in the studio, followed by the far more leisurely assessment of the "rushes" when they are projected upon the screen in the viewing theatre. Such a view may well rest upon a confusion of cause and effect, and may indeed conceal a misconception of proper artistic method, for it can be argued that, with the facilities offered by the present type of camera, no other procedure could possibly be employed. It now becomes profitable to consider the relationship of the individual shots to each other. It will be accepted by most film-makers that a great — possibly the greater — part of the artistic merit of the finished film, i.e. its effect upon the audience, will ultimately depend as much upon the juxtaposition of sequences as 446 December 1952 Journal of the SMPTE Vol. 59