Plan for cinema (1936)

ON THE NATURE OF CINEMA 45 shot following shot as word follows word, there is no place for histrionism. The nature of histrionism is the absolutely interpretive character of the histrion's work. In film-dialectic there is only one interpreter of the film's subject, and he is the director-editor. He will weigh, balance, and give counterpoise to emotional values, not through the dexterity of his actors, but in the editing of the raw material of which they are only a part. He can by subtle juxtaposition of shots, by careful timing of action and reaction, create a purely cinematic emotional situation on celluloid, which in the raw material condition, 'in reality,5 had no separate existence. A problem is seemingly set here in determining whether editing of this kind is not creative instead of selective. Superficially, it appears to be creative. But the editing process in such cases is not creative, because it is not original in the strictest sense of the word. Its task is to find the means whereby to achieve something already specified in approximate outline. In that it is primarily selective. Acting, therefore, in this world of buildingup, of pastiche (a very long way from the drama of theatre), has no place. For this theory of cinema is one of pure building-up, of pastiche, of montage. In short, the theory of film-dialectic is the Russian theory of montage. It was originated by Kuleshov, and has been propagated by Pudovkin to the partial bewilderment and misunderstanding of nearly every one in the entire film firmament. The excellence of the theory for its time is practically manifest in Pudovkin's