Theory of the film : (character and growth of a new art) (1952)

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.

WEHAVELEARNEDTOSEE 35 seen a motion picture (this of course was many years ago). The Moscow cousins took her to the cinema and having other plans, left her there by herself. The film was a burlesque. The Siberian cousin came home pale and grim. 'Well, how did you like the film?' the cousins asked her. She could scarcely be induced to answer, so overwhelmed was she by the sights she had seen. At last she said: 'Oh, it was horrible, horrible! I can't understand why they allow such dreadful things to be shown here in Moscow ! ' 'Why, what was so horrible then?' 'Human beings were torn to pieces and the heads thrown one way and the bodies the other and the hands somewhere else again.' We know that when Griffith first showed a big close-up in a Hollywood cinema and a huge 'severed' head smiled at the public for the first time, there was a panic in the cinema. We ourselves no longer know by what intricate evolution of our consciousness we have learnt our visual association of ideas. What we have learnt is to integrate single disjointed pictures into a coherent scene, without even becoming conscious of the complicated psychological process involved. It is amazing to what extent we have, in a couple of decades, learnt to see picture perspectives, picture metaphors and picture symbols, how greatly we have developed our visual culture and sensibility. WE HAVE LEARNED TO SEE Thus the new technique of the film camera produced a new way of presentation and a new way of telling a story. The new picture language was developed, polished and differentiated to an incredible degree in the course of some twenty years. We can almost measure this process by harking back twenty years, when we ourselves would probably not have understood films which are quite obvious to spectators to-day. Here is an instance. A man hurries to a railway station to take leave of his beloved. We see him on the platform. We cannot see the train, but the questing eyes of the man show us that his beloved is already seated in the train. We see only a close-up