Plan for cinema (1936)

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.

ON THE NATURE OF CINEMA '* 53 in addition to the cinematic movement given by the ^editing._ The interesting fact, however, is that, on the whole, those shots in which the camera is moving (with great virtuosity, incidentally) give greater emjphasis to the dialogue than when editingj alone with static shots is resorted to. By direction apounting to genius, one is never conscious of the cadiera moving purely for the sake of moving, in fact one/' is not aware of the movement at all as pure movement, but only the point made by reason of its haying happened. Thus, J:here is a continual visual flow'; the film is never aggressive in making one conscious of an aggravated technique, which is the technique of pure montage. It makes its points with suave and devastating efficiency ; despite the highly-keyed attention it asks of the spectator, one becomes swept along and away with it. Subjectively, it is first-class satire. Objectively, it upsets all the ideas advanced as to what a monochromatic two-dimensional sound-film should be, but it remains first and last a good film. The reason, I think, is not far to seek. It is also good, popular realistic theatre. A film such as this has all the attributes of a well-written, well-produced, and well-acted play, but with the tremendous advantage (from ajrealistic point of view purely) of much greater (verisimilitude j than the stage can give, and a far greater fmHmacv7\ The ' barrier' separating the audience from the actors is further broken down, the spectator becomes more psychologically submerged in what he is witnessing. It is once again the unique