Plan for cinema (1936)

ON THE NATURE OF CINEMA 43 to the scene or part of the scene they show, will, if used in the same staccato manner — each held on the screen for a short time — produce the same effect. JThe separate shots need not bej&ni&xtural in the sense "of their purely visual^ontinuum^JPhysical freedom j * *b\ pleads a priori to the possibility~of cinematic simile. _ '$/sSf . ^V A shot showing a beggar being given alms immedi .p~ <*? ^L ately followed by a pig being thrown food is an •<t^s example. To take a further literary parallel, a shot of a mother tending her baby who is laughing with contentment, followed by a closer view of the laughing • child, immediately followed by a shot of a meadow in ^ ^ tranquillity, again to be followed by the closer view ^ \ of the laughing child, is an example of cinematic c* metaphor. ^ fr**-^.-,* * --i •£ \ N^ Our criteria of this dialectical cinema must be ^d ^? a ^ ^ temporal, and temporal only, for although essentially t ^ £l vk %i visual it has no concern with thejfqtimess in the shape ^ ^> ^ ^ *^\^ of things. Its business is with, actwn^ which lmpIielT^ ^ ^ S ~s \ movement and time. And itsTuSe"~"of movement is~" s* >sl» *w & ^*Tiot" omymternal to the province within the picture K r! »v -> ^ frame, as we have seen, but extra-provincial by the ^t ^ ^ ""unique nature of itself. Objectively, Jt^is concerned ^Sl with kinematics,Ythe science of pure motion. J ^j^-^ 7^ <? ^ V" The sr.pnno*rRTtHt?rTrriVTfr^finn of vTewnnint (mrftera > ^ . *ft \ The scenograjSfticforientation oi viewpoint Jcamera ^ ^ w* ^ viewpoint, which is always spectator's viewpoint) "is ~~ V \fc* ^ viewpumt, wiiicii is always^ spectator s viewpoint; is s 3 £ <$k really no more than the cinematic equivalent of Pater's ^ * ^ * x. elegant variation. Thus, the separate shot (or cell, as ^ £ X the theorists of this school prefer to call it) when & "> approached with the apparatus criticus of the eye-man v