![]() ![]() 62īazin explores the cinematic language that emerged between 1930 – 1940, largely driven by the american hollywood system which consisted of major film types: But these examples 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, a language the semantic and syntactical unit of which is in no sense the Shot in which the image is evaluated not according to what it adds to reality but what it reveals of it.” pp. “We would undoubtedly find scattered among the works of others elements of nonexpressionistic cinema in which montage plays no part – even including Griffith. “Montage as used by Kuleshov, Eisenstein, or Gance did not show us the event, it alluded to it.” pp 61īazin suggests that “expressionism of montage and image constitute the essence of cinema.” However notes that several directors of the silent era refute this by engaging in no way with montage, and in fact the strength of their work in fact relies on its absence. ![]() ![]() Montage by attraction – reenforcing the meaning of one image by association with another image not necessarily part of the same episode. Parallel montage – conveying a sense of the simultaneity of two actions.Īccelerated montage – depicting change in pace/time – accelerating speed by a multiplicity of shots of ever-decreasing length. That being the directors who’s artistic influence is felt through the “image” versus those who capture reality and inflict their influence through the editing process and the effects allowed by montage.īazin defines the school of IMAGE as “everything that the representation on the screen adds to the object there represented.” where as the school of REALITY directors relate to the “resources of montage, which after all, is simply the ordering of images in time.” pp 60.īazin argues that it was “montage that gave birth to film as an art, setting it apart from mere animated photography, in short, creating a language.” pp60 Bazin indicates that rather than being viewed as cinematic values operating in direct opposition to each other, we view the two as different concepts of cinematographic expression that are free to employ stylistic influence but are ultimately different “families of styles”.īazin highlights two opposing trends within cinema of the 192os-40s. This article explores the evolution of cinema, editing techniques, namely montage vs deep focus long shots through the transition of silent cinema into talkies. 1997, The evolution of the language of cinema, Defining cinema, Lehman, Peter (ed). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |