Theory of film : the redemption of physical reality (1960)

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.

THE FILM OF FACT 197 values but out of a desire to use it as a point of departure for new creations. Exactly like the avant-garde, which was not content with exploring nature, he refuses to be cast in the role of a "reader" who acknowledges the given work of art as a sacrosanct text. To him the art work is nothing but raw material6 which he shapes according to his visions. This he can accomplish only if he "atomizes" the work and reintegrates the atoms or elements thus isolated into films which may or may not refer back to the original. The film of this type, says Read, "exploits art purely for its own filmic purpose. It may be that it seeks to achieve effects which have little to do with the spirit of the work it uses."7 As an objection to the experimental art film this statement is hardly conclusive, for it fails to take into account the fact that within the traditional arts themselves transfers of works of art from their own medium to another are fairly frequent and are considered quite legitimate. Piranesi in his engravings utilized pieces of antique architecture to compose his baroque prospects and operatic vistas; Watteau in his Fetes champetres drew French and Italian fountain sculptures into the festive bustle about them so that they seemed to mingle with the humans. Why should not the cinema be entitled to effect such transfers? Judging from the available evidence, experimental art film makers proceed in ways which are in a measure cinematic. As has already been mentioned above, they keep the camera moving all the time, thereby counterbalancing the intrinsic immobility of the material presented. Add to this the systematic exploration of editing possibilities and various cinematic devices. There are transitions from reality as suggested by the art works to "reality of another dimension," shifts of emphasis from the meanings, say, of a painted face to its material qualities, etc. It almost looks as if the run of experimental art films surpassed the bulk of feature films in knowingly involving the technical properties of the medium. And what is cinematic language used for? Sometimes the art film maker aims at reconstructing a historical period with the aid of contemporary paintings and drawings; whenever this happens, his formative aspirations are obviously geared to near-realistic intentions. A good case in point is Luciano Emmer's Goya, which depicts life in eighteenth-century Spain as formed by the painter. This film is of interest technically because Emmer tries hard to redeem the Goya figures from their stationary existence. He handles them as though they were real-life people engaged in action. A scene with a pierrot thrown up into the air by girls, who hold out a net to catch him again, is rendered by a quick succession of shots from different angles which so animate the scene that you seem to follow the pierrot's trajectory and expect him to land in the net any moment. An accelerated montage of details of bullfight etchings comes close to creating