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.

TECHNICAL CONDITIONS 257 age was added to it. The hammer and chisel would have for ever remained the tools of the stonemason, if there had been no human being who had experiences which could be best expressed by hewing stone into shape with hammer and chisel. But if a form of art has once developed, then its specific laws determine by dialectic interaction the suitable, specific themes and contents. The scriptwriters must make their contents conform to the laws governing the fully developed art form of the film. Then new contents, too, may for a long time be contained in older forms, setting up tensions and causing slight changes in them until after a certain, perhaps a long, time, the new content bursts the old form and creates a new one. But this, too, is done within the bounds of the art form in question. The drama still remains drama, the novel novel, the film film. Only once in our history have we experienced the birth of a completely new art — the art of the film. The dialectic interrelation of form and content can be compared with the interrelation of a river and its bed. The water is the content, the river-bed the form. Without a doubt it was the water that at one time dug itself this bed — the content created the form. But once the river bed is made it collects the waters of the surrounding countryside and gives them shape. That is, the form shapes the content. The power of mighty floods is required before the waters, over-flowing the old bed, dig an entirely new bed for themselves. 17