THE EVOLUTION OF THE LANGUAGE OF CINEMA-ANDRE BAZIN
“Today we can say that at last the director writes in film. The image-its plastic composition and the way it is set in time, because it is founded on a much higher degree of realism-has at its disposal more means of manipulating reality and of modifying it from within. The film-maker is no longer the competitor of the painter and the playwright, he is, at last, the equal of the novelist.”(Bazin 40)
The pre-eminent film theorist and the founder of the magazine Cahiers du Cinema(1951), Andre Bazin became an inextricable presence in the theoretical world with his distinguished seminal work The Evolution of the Language of Cinema. In his work, this critic who hailed from France contrasted Montage with the movies which employed Realism. He led the debate on authorship with the Cahiers group and argued that the director is the sole possessor of the film. The critics belonged to this group ventured to prove their contention by analysing the idiosyncrasies of the film maker and the reflection of his peculiarities in his films. All of Bazin’s brilliant essays were written from 1944 to 1958 and were collected and proliferated posthumously. His original anthologized publication was titled Qu’est-ce que le cinéma? and the selected ones of the same were published in English titled What is Cinema? Bazin’s complexity of argument and intricacies in articulation make him an obscure theorist. Nevertheless, his stress on presenting facts objectively, the primacy he gave to the spectator’s discretion and his insistence on Realism validate his intention behind making ambiguous arguments and opening rooms for the audience to have their say in a movie’s interpretation.
“This is a complex inheritance but it can be reduced essentially to two categories; those that relate to the plastics of the image and those that relate to the resources of Montage.”(Bazin 24)
In the essay The Evolution of Language of Cinema, Bazin expounds on two categories of movies. The first of these employ mise-en-scene approach thus uphold the primacy of realism and latter ones make use of montage and advocate the boons of editing. He documents how cinematic language has evolved over time and elucidates upon the impact of sound on the autonomy of silent films. He explores the question of whether the arrival of sound posed a threat to silent world thereby bringing a paradigmatic shift in the way movies communicated. Bazin, at the onset of his essay, asserts that movie has become a perfect medium during the reign of silent films and the proponents of it opined that the advent of sound can only ensue cataclysm.
“By 1928 the silent film had reached its artistic peak... the cinema had developed into an art most perfectly accommodated to the “exquisite embarrassment” of silence and that the realism that sound would bring could only mean a surrender to chaos.” (Bazin 23)
Contrary to this argument, Bazin holds that sound films have actually complemented silent films and it was seldom a paradigmatic rupture since both of the genres share certain common features. They are not two conflicting styles but two “different concepts of cinematographic expression.”(Bazin 24) There is no evident fissure in the realm of editing as well.
Later, he deals at length with the aforementioned approaches employed by the directors from 1920s to 1940s. The filmmakers who “relate to the plastics of the image,” follow the mise-en-scene approach by favouring the scrutiny of every aspect presented on screen including the sets, the costumes, lighting, make up etc. These elements together form the composition of the film. These directors believe that the analysis of all of these constituent parts are inevitable in deriving the meaning of the entire scene. The second group “relate to the resources of montage.” The practitioners of Montage Approach dwell on deducing meaning by juxtaposing images. Bazin quotes Malraux who in his Psychologie du Cinema proposed that Montage created a distinct film language. Though Bazin approves of the role played by Montage in creating a definite cinematic language, he advocated the resourcefulness of deep focus and invisible editing which contribute to the realism of the films. He opines that the audience should interpret the movies themselves and stood his ground against the artificial portrayal of images in German Expressionism and the manipulative montage of directors like Eisenstein. Bazin also talks about Invisible editing employed in the American classics of Pre-war period. This technique persuades the audience to accept the director’s point of view without much resistance. This end is achieved through tactful manipulation of the scenes and the skilful shift of emphasis.
“...they share that trait in common which constitutes the very definition of montage, namely, the creation of a sense or meaning not objectively contained in the images themselves but derived exclusively from their juxtaposition.” (Bazin 25)
Bazin categorizes montage into three groups. The first of which is Parallel Montage- which is popularized by Griffith. This mode of editing juxtaposes two shots of simultaneous actions happening at different places to bring forth the sense of concurrence. The second one is Gance’s Accelerated Montage which conveys the rate of pace by increasing the speed in shortened shots. The third one is Eisenstein’s masterpiece-Montage by Attraction which has a metaphorical significance. According to Bazin it works by “reinforcing of the meaning of one image by association with another image not necessarily part of the same episode.” (Bazin 25). Bazin asserts that all of these techniques used juxtaposition of images and they alluded to things rather than portraying them evidently. The images did not contain any inherent significance , the meaning is derived by their cohesive association with one another. He holds that Montage poses the shadow of the image on to the consciousness of the viewer thereby divulging the final significance of the film.
“Through the contents of the image and the resources of montage, the cinema has at its disposal a whole arsenal of means whereby to impose its interpretation of an event on the spectator...the Soviet cinema carried to its ultimate consequences the theory and practice of montage while the German school did every every kind of violence to the plastics of image by way of sets and lighting.” (Bazin 26)
Bazin proposes that silent films have been complete by themselves and instead of thwarting their authority, sound has complemented the visuals portrayed on screen. He names a few directors who skilfully entertained audience sans montage. He appreciates their reliance on realism and their courage to challenge the popular notion of montage’s ability in enhancing the impact and charm of films. Flaherty- by picturing the total time period of the hunt, Murnau- by portraying the cinematic space realistically and Stroheim- by representing the crude world without any adulteration, have exhibited the magic spell of realism.
“But these examples are suffice to reveal, at the very heart of the silent film, a cinematographic art the very opposite of that which has been identified as “cinema par excellence.”
Bazin documents the reasons for the popularity and maturity of sound films. He attributes the originality of these films to the new subject matters which demanded new styles of expression at its wake. Style of capturing the pictures and congruity in editing them can only ensue the perfect synchrony of the visuals and the corresponding sound. The second reason is the rise of National Film making schools of Italy and England which were independent of Hollywood. Sound Films inherited the perfection in form from their silent counterparts. Modern Technology and Panchromatic colours have also played a decisive role in the artistic nature of the image. The arrival of advanced high-tech cameras entailed a shift from shallow soft focus to depth of field.
“In short, with Panchromatic stock in common use, with an understanding of the potentials of the microphone , and with the crane as standard studio equipment, one can really say that since 1930 all the technical requirements for the art of cinema have been available. Since the determining technical factors were practically eliminated, we must look elsewhere for the signs and principles of the evolution of film language, that is to say by challenging the subject matter and as a consequence the styles necessary for its expression.” (Bazin 30)
The year 1938 is significant in the field of editing since a universal pattern of editing evolved at this juncture. This age was abound with films which were termed expressionist and symbolistic, alongside dramatic and analytic movies. Bazin holds that the scenes were portrayed so objectively that that the changes in perspectives failed to alter the meaning conveyed. This implies that the images or visuals were unbiased, independent of the points of view. He also posits that the changes in the positions of camera can only help in reiterating the authentic scene.
“They would present the reality a little more forcefully, first by allowing a better view and then by putting the emphasis where it belongs.”(Bazin 32)
The interference of the director was curtailed beyond a certain limit. He was not granted the license to alter the inner logic of the film altogether. Since super impositions and extreme close-ups can make the audience aware of the editing and cutting, these were excluded by certain film directors especially the masters working in the United States. Though, in the beginning, Montage was used for intricate effect, later it was appropriated to suit realism. The amalgamation of sound and montage accentuated the realistic effect of the celluloid. Subsequently, Bazin goes on to admire Orson Welles and William Wyler for their adoption of deep focus. In this technique, a static camera is availed and the entire scene is captured in single take. The effect which was produced by montage was tactfully contrived by the actions of the characters. Soft focus follows montage by convention. If a close up of an object is depicted, it is inevitable to “isolate it in space through the focussing of the lens.”(Bazin 33) Bazin eulogizes Jean Renoir as the predecessor of Orson Welles thereby lauding him as the forerunner of Realism. He placed the primacy on the unity of time and place by substituting Montage with panning shots. Though Bazin does not deny the pertinence of montage in the evolution of language of cinema, he advocates for deep focus as it gives more space for the audience to interpret. By virtue of the presupposed meaning, Montage erases every kind of interpretation and ambiguity.
“...it is quite evident that the one-shot sequences used by Welles in The Magnificent Ambersons are in no sense the purely passive recording of an action shot within the same framing. On the contrary, his refusal to break up the action to analyze the dramatic field in time, is a positive action the results of which are far superior to anything that could be achieved by the classical “cut.”(Bazin 34)
Bazin says that films which employ deep focus include various elements in their mise-en-scene. (For instance: Orson Welles’ ‘Baroque excess’) The shots are so intricately and lucidly detailed that the audience would never fail to comprehend the potential of the scene. Montage can hardly produce this effect. In case it succeeded in this endeavour, it should have demanded a lot of industry. Bazin later goes on to make a seemingly ambiguous statement by claiming that since Montage has become an inextricable element in film making even the most realist of directors cannot do away with it. Nevertheless, the realist directors do not compromise on realistic aspects to enhance the charm of their movie by Montage. In short, Bazin does not comply with the use of Montage because he feels that montage is not worth the cost that should be paid for its incorporation into the movies. Later, Bazin explicates the boons that come with deep focus. He argues that it is more simple, economic and portrays every detail with utmost clarity. Besides, it communicates with the spectator in the best way. By emphasizing on realism, deep focus strengthens the relationship between the spectator and the image instead of alienating it. Contrarily, Montage coerces the audience to think in the way the director wants them to. It does not provide scope for reflection and interpretation. In movies which exploit montage, the signification is by and large predetermined.
“...montage presupposes of its very nature the unity of meaning of the dramatic event...montage by its very nature rules out ambiguity of expression...depth of focus reintroduced ambiguity into the structure of image if not of necessity...at least as a possibility.”(Bazin 36)
By resuming his assessment of Welles, Bazin suggests that Orson Welles coalesced realistic elements with metaphoric montage to bring forth a contrast and a volatile mode of story telling. Bazin opines that Italian Neo-realists wiped away every presence of montage and expressionism, thus becoming a conspicuous part in the evolution of language of cinema. They brought back ambiguity into the filmic realm. To conclude, one can say that- though, Bazin was not averse to Montage he refused to incorporate this technique into the film at the cost of realism. He also says that silence films looked forward to their sound counterparts as a natural occurrence. Thus, “...so far from wiping out once and for all the conquests of montage, this reborn realism gives them a body of reference and a meaning. It is only an increased realism of the image that can support the abstraction of montage.”(Bazin 39)
REFERENCES:
Babu, N.M.et al., Introducing Film Studies. Mainspring Publishers,2015.
Bazin, Andre. The Evolution of the Language of Cinema. Pdf Download
Blakeney, K. An Analysis of Film Critic Andre Bazin’s views on Expressionism and Realism in Film. Inquiries, 2009. www-inquiriesjournal-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/www.inquiriesjournal.com/amp/86/an-analysis-of-film-critic-andre-bazins-views-on-expressionism-and-realism-in-film?amp_js_v=a6&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#aoh=16500462514207&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.inquiriesjournal.com%2Farticles%2F86%2Fan-analysis-of-film-critic-andre-bazins-views-on-expressionism-and-realism-in-film
-Santhwana Thomas
Comments
Post a Comment