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.

192 TRICKS, COMPOSITES, CARTOONS Felix the Cat once loses his tail. He wonders what to do about it. This anxious question grows out of his head in the shape of a large question mark, demonstrating by graphic means that he is torn by doubts. Felix now gazes pensively at the beautifully curved question mark. He has a bright idea, grabs the question mark and sticks it to his rump for a new tail. The problem is solved. Someone might object to such impossibilities that the question mark was only an abstract symbol! But it appeared in the cartoon as a line and as such subject to the laws of draughtsmanship and none other. The question mark was a line, just like Felix's body, their substance was the same. In the world of creatures consisting only of lines the only impossible things are those which cannot be drawn. In the case of drawings the creative power of angle and setup plays an even smaller part than in the case of puppets. Looked at from different viewpoints even a mask can be made to assume different physiognomies. But drawings are twodimensional and the film can do no more than reproduce them. What then is the nevertheless productive part played by the camera in the cartoon film? It is that the film shows not only completed drawings but can show the coming into being of the drawing as a process, as an event. The lines emerge before our eyes, they happen. They are not graphic facts, but graphic events. The natural style of such cartoons is the caricature, the grotesque. But the drawn film demands unity of style even more imperatively than does the realistic photography of some real object. A condition of such unity of style is that the draughtsman should see every figure from the viewpoint of some ideology; for all the figures must be equally absurd or funny. Such a film may for instance be a political satire, but in that case it can show only the political opponents of the draughtsman's side. For the draughtsman cannot draw the figures of his own side as caricatures in the same way; if on the other hand he draws them differently, then there is a discrepancy, an infringement of style in the picture. George Grosz, the great German revolutionary cartoonist had to struggle hard with this dilemma. His portrait-gallery of caricatures entitled The Face of the Ruling Classes was mag