Balazs:
Bela Balazs describes editing as the "crowning job" of film-making. To Balazs, editing brings together all the disparate parts of the film and creates a coherent whole. Balazs believes that only by editing the various pieces together, can a the meaning of a shot be clearly analyzed. He compares this to interpreting a patch of color in a painting. Without knowing the larger context of that patch of color within the entire work of art, Balazs states that it would be difficult to understand its meaning. For Balazs, the process of editing is not to cut things but to assemble them together into a whole work of art.
Fabe:
Fabe describes how Sergei Eisenstein rejected the conventional notions that editing should create a smooth continuity. Eisenstein is much more interested in the psychology that editing together a sequence of seemingly conflicting elements would have on the viewer. Fabe points out that his famous Odessa Staircase sequence is full of visual conflicts. The opposition of lines between the panicked people and the actual stairs, the contrast between the tight orderly formation of the Tsar's soldiers and the hysterical masses chaotically running down are all key examples of how Eisenstein edits together contrasts to form his meaning. On top of this, Fabe points out how he also enjoys alternating between wide angles and close ups. Eisenstein seems to take Balazs's ideas to their maximum limit. He heavily relies on editing to achieve his message, so much so that any of the shots he strings together seem to have very little independent meaning on their own and only work within the larger context of the entire staircase sequence.
Fabe also notes how Sergei Eisenstein rejects realism to achieve the desired effects of his montage. She points out how the shots of the mother carrying her child to the Tsar's soldiers, a key moment in the Odessa Staircase sequence, completely contradicts itself. Eisenstein uses light and shadows to create a rich visual metaphor by having the mother both walk into a shadow and cast one as she ascends the stairs. Fabe notes that in order for this to be possible, the sun would have to completely change positions in the sky over the course of a few seconds. However, Eisenstein apprently is unconcerned about this lack of reality in order to achieve his revolutionary message of dynamic conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. In a final irony, Fabe states how some film critics believe the Battleship Potemkin to be a crowning achievement of Soviet "realism" in its portrayal of historical conflict when in reality Eisenstein made absolutely no attempt to pass of his art of montage as realism.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Balazs and Fabe - Joey Ponticello
Fabe
1. Marylyn Fabe attributes Sergei Eisenstein’s work as very much influenced by the works of D.W. Griffith, but instead of merely mimicking the style of Griffith, Eisenstein takes his fundamentals and enhances them to create a more shocking and jolting effect for the audience. Eisenstein was “adamantly opposed to films that slavishly tried to maintain the illusion of realistic theater by smoothly joining shots.” (27) This opposition resulted in films, most notably The Battleship Potemkin, engrossed in conflict on both the level of narrative and in the editing itself. He even went at lengths to create conflict within the detail of each frame. Throughout the passage, Fabe uses words such as clash, conflict, opposition, jerks, shocks, and discontinuity to both quote and emphasize Eisenstein’s work. What is interesting about the comparison between Eisenstein’s narrative work and what some mind consider classical narrative is that for the longest time, filmmaker’s began to believe that continuity and invisible editing was the best way to portray a story in film. I am not saying that it is not a decent way to illustrate the narrative, only that Eisenstein’s work is merely a different way of doing it. Fabe does not necessarily praise Eisenstein for his creative editing; the article is a description of an alternative film style.
2. Time and length of shots played a significant role in determining the realism of early film. Although The Battleship Potemkin is considered a realist film through the use of on location shooting and inexperienced actors, it conflicts heavily in the realm of time. Realism usually favors long takes and deep focus. Fabe claims “realist directors conceive of the frame as a window that only temporarily hides a part of the world, as opposed to a picture frame whose lines demarcate the limits of a carefully composed, patently artistic composition.”(51) The use of off screen space rather than extensive cutting gives the film more credibility as to its realism because time and space are not fragmented. The directors who try to achieve realism must remember that the world extends beyond the frame. There are different types of realism in film and each is identified in the films we watched Monday night. Potemkin is considered realist in the emotions the editing creates in the audience, but this differs from the realism Fabe claims is present in Charlie Chaplin films where the narrative unfolds before us in long takes.
3. To go more in depth on the Chaplin films, Fabe states that the main reason these films are realist even though they still flow continuously, in contrast with Potemkin’s conflict is that most of the narrative unfolds in real time. He claims, “Chaplin’s fims look artless in the sense that they do not call attention to the medium, (yet) the film medium does in fact play a large role in the success of Chaplin’s comic art.”(54) The way Chaplin used the camera and the world around him allowed him to portray his comic narratives at perfect angles and depth of focus. He was able to use different settings that might not be possible to create on the stage, therefore allowing him to explore and utilize different aspects of the mise-en-scene. Chaplin’s persona plays a large part in the comedy of his films, but the fact that each antic unfolds in real time over lengthy periods of time allows audiences to experience it in whole chunks making it more appealing.
1. Marylyn Fabe attributes Sergei Eisenstein’s work as very much influenced by the works of D.W. Griffith, but instead of merely mimicking the style of Griffith, Eisenstein takes his fundamentals and enhances them to create a more shocking and jolting effect for the audience. Eisenstein was “adamantly opposed to films that slavishly tried to maintain the illusion of realistic theater by smoothly joining shots.” (27) This opposition resulted in films, most notably The Battleship Potemkin, engrossed in conflict on both the level of narrative and in the editing itself. He even went at lengths to create conflict within the detail of each frame. Throughout the passage, Fabe uses words such as clash, conflict, opposition, jerks, shocks, and discontinuity to both quote and emphasize Eisenstein’s work. What is interesting about the comparison between Eisenstein’s narrative work and what some mind consider classical narrative is that for the longest time, filmmaker’s began to believe that continuity and invisible editing was the best way to portray a story in film. I am not saying that it is not a decent way to illustrate the narrative, only that Eisenstein’s work is merely a different way of doing it. Fabe does not necessarily praise Eisenstein for his creative editing; the article is a description of an alternative film style.
2. Time and length of shots played a significant role in determining the realism of early film. Although The Battleship Potemkin is considered a realist film through the use of on location shooting and inexperienced actors, it conflicts heavily in the realm of time. Realism usually favors long takes and deep focus. Fabe claims “realist directors conceive of the frame as a window that only temporarily hides a part of the world, as opposed to a picture frame whose lines demarcate the limits of a carefully composed, patently artistic composition.”(51) The use of off screen space rather than extensive cutting gives the film more credibility as to its realism because time and space are not fragmented. The directors who try to achieve realism must remember that the world extends beyond the frame. There are different types of realism in film and each is identified in the films we watched Monday night. Potemkin is considered realist in the emotions the editing creates in the audience, but this differs from the realism Fabe claims is present in Charlie Chaplin films where the narrative unfolds before us in long takes.
3. To go more in depth on the Chaplin films, Fabe states that the main reason these films are realist even though they still flow continuously, in contrast with Potemkin’s conflict is that most of the narrative unfolds in real time. He claims, “Chaplin’s fims look artless in the sense that they do not call attention to the medium, (yet) the film medium does in fact play a large role in the success of Chaplin’s comic art.”(54) The way Chaplin used the camera and the world around him allowed him to portray his comic narratives at perfect angles and depth of focus. He was able to use different settings that might not be possible to create on the stage, therefore allowing him to explore and utilize different aspects of the mise-en-scene. Chaplin’s persona plays a large part in the comedy of his films, but the fact that each antic unfolds in real time over lengthy periods of time allows audiences to experience it in whole chunks making it more appealing.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Zeno's Paradox - Kirsten Nicholls
1) In Zeno’s Paradox, Mary Anne Doanne starts out with a breakdown of the term real time. Though her discussion of the term was somewhat long-winded, this term comes to represent the backbone of Doanne’s argument that the altering of time is something that takes place in real life, not on the big screen. Time, as she states, is one that is expressed “off-screen, between frames, in darkness”, and not through the collective stills of the film reel.
2) One of the first main points that Doanne states in her argument is that Zeno was the “perfect nemesis” for Bergson due to his philosophical beliefs as a member of the Eleatic School. In this she states that Zeno’s beliefs made him “fully invested in the denial of movement, change, and plurality.” Zeno’s famous argument is one that Bergson himself sites as a falsehood of philosophical thought. In this example, Zeno states that an arrow can never travel from point A to point B because the distance that it is traveling can be divided again and again an infinite number of times until all you are left with is an arrow that at any moment in time is at rest. And since the arrow is at rest, it cannot be in a state of motion, hence it can never reach its final destination.
3) Bergson argues that true movement cannot be divided into different snap-shots of time, as such is the case with cinematography. It cannot be divided for motion is a continuous whole and as such must be studied and understood in its entirety. In this Bergson argues that when creating the illusion of movement that movement has to exist somewhere. When we see movement through the lens of the camera, what we are actually seeing is the illusion of movement. In this Bergson means that to create the illusion of motion you must first have something that is motionless. For example, when a horse is in full gallop, what we actually seeing is the rapid transition of the background as the horse passes it by and the full stride of the horse’s body emphasizing an object in motion. When you breakdown this image an infinite number of times you find an object (i.e. the horse) that is motionless for that one-single moment. Such is the way in which the illusion of motion is accomplished in cinematography, or as Bergson saw it, “cinematograph can only produce the illusion of mobility”, not the actual effect.
4) Overall, I do agree with Doanne’s argument in that Zeno’s theory (though attempting to break new ground in philosophical thought) is at best flawed. For how can one try and disprove motion while at the same time recognizing its existence in their argument. And if mobility is in fact immobility than what does that say about life and existence as a whole. How can you exist when nothing is in motion, and when there can be no cause and no effect. How can you have this very argument if there is no existence to begin with. However as Doanne highlights in Bergson’s arguments, when it comes to cinematography and the illusion of movement, you can stop and start motion at any given point, but it can only be true motion if real time is used. Because without this acceptance of time and space and how bodies move through it, how can such an illusion of movement be right.
2) One of the first main points that Doanne states in her argument is that Zeno was the “perfect nemesis” for Bergson due to his philosophical beliefs as a member of the Eleatic School. In this she states that Zeno’s beliefs made him “fully invested in the denial of movement, change, and plurality.” Zeno’s famous argument is one that Bergson himself sites as a falsehood of philosophical thought. In this example, Zeno states that an arrow can never travel from point A to point B because the distance that it is traveling can be divided again and again an infinite number of times until all you are left with is an arrow that at any moment in time is at rest. And since the arrow is at rest, it cannot be in a state of motion, hence it can never reach its final destination.
3) Bergson argues that true movement cannot be divided into different snap-shots of time, as such is the case with cinematography. It cannot be divided for motion is a continuous whole and as such must be studied and understood in its entirety. In this Bergson argues that when creating the illusion of movement that movement has to exist somewhere. When we see movement through the lens of the camera, what we are actually seeing is the illusion of movement. In this Bergson means that to create the illusion of motion you must first have something that is motionless. For example, when a horse is in full gallop, what we actually seeing is the rapid transition of the background as the horse passes it by and the full stride of the horse’s body emphasizing an object in motion. When you breakdown this image an infinite number of times you find an object (i.e. the horse) that is motionless for that one-single moment. Such is the way in which the illusion of motion is accomplished in cinematography, or as Bergson saw it, “cinematograph can only produce the illusion of mobility”, not the actual effect.
4) Overall, I do agree with Doanne’s argument in that Zeno’s theory (though attempting to break new ground in philosophical thought) is at best flawed. For how can one try and disprove motion while at the same time recognizing its existence in their argument. And if mobility is in fact immobility than what does that say about life and existence as a whole. How can you exist when nothing is in motion, and when there can be no cause and no effect. How can you have this very argument if there is no existence to begin with. However as Doanne highlights in Bergson’s arguments, when it comes to cinematography and the illusion of movement, you can stop and start motion at any given point, but it can only be true motion if real time is used. Because without this acceptance of time and space and how bodies move through it, how can such an illusion of movement be right.
Zeno's Paradox - Norbert Wong
1. Mary Anne Doane argues that the manipulation of time primarily takes place off the screen. Time is mainly articulated "off-screen, between frames, in darkness" (190). Of course a director can slow down or speed up the frame rate in order to create a slow-motion or fast-forward effect. However, since time is bound to movement, during a long shot, the line of action of the film cannot make a temporal jump. It can be sped up and slowed down--dramatized--but there is no room for making direct jumps through time. It is not possible to go from event A to event C without passing through B. Thus, to actually crack the temporal plane and make it discontinuous, the director must resort to film editing. Through a montage of clips, one can recreate time, but in the way that the narrator/director intends for the audience to see it. Through parallel editing, viewers of movies are taught to accept the rules of cinematic time--that simultaneous events in "real time" can be represented by one scene following the other in "cinematic time." Ultimately, we gauge the duration of cinematic action based on the movements we observe. Within a single shot, cinematic time is usually equivalent to real time. However, to successfully manipulate time, Doane's observations are unavoidable. It is not what we see--the various camera shots--which tells us that the cinematic time has jumped. Instead, it is the the gap between the frames which signify the jump in cinematic time.
2. In The Life of an American Fireman, there are obvious temporal differences between the outdoor and indoor scenes of the fireman rescue. While some may view the timing difference as a mistake, Doane argues differently: "By repeating the scene, [the movie] reveals what was 'off' and formerly condensed, and 'reexpands' it (189). Here, Doane views the two scenes as a condensed version and an expanded version. Perhaps the film is trying to represent two points of view relative to the people. Perhaps the indoor scene experiences the time of a panicking person in the flaming house when time seems to fly by. Meanwhile, the outdoor scene could very well represent the eyes of a careless bystander, who experiences time in a calmer and slower way. In particular, I found it interesting how Doane uses the words "condensed" and "reexpands" to describe the two scenes. These two words suggest that time can in fact be divided into intervals as Zeno suggests. One cannot condense or reexpand something if that something has no beginning or end. Moreover, rexexpanding and condensing infer that intervals of an action on a given timeline can be removed and replaced at will. This is not possible in Bergsonian time, as movement is whole and cannot be divided into any sort of part.
3. While Doane is sympathetic to Bergson's ideas, she uses Deleuze to argue that his view is a "misrecognition of the cinema's true capabilities" (175). Rather than perceiving cinematic time as a variable of the camera, Deleuze argues that time should be gauged based on the viewers perception instead (175). In this way, the viewer does not actually see a series of phantasmagoric images, but movement itself. Through this, she argues that Deleuze shows that cinema actually refutes Zeno's theory. In essence, the camera is that which divides cinematic action into intervals. But according to Deleuze, only the viewer's point of view actually matters. This makes me question what else actually "matters." It seems that by going this route, Deleuze is merely trying to use a cheap play of words in order to justify the use of film while attempting to remain Bergsonian. Deleuze neither proves nor disproves. Instead, he simply ignores.
2. In The Life of an American Fireman, there are obvious temporal differences between the outdoor and indoor scenes of the fireman rescue. While some may view the timing difference as a mistake, Doane argues differently: "By repeating the scene, [the movie] reveals what was 'off' and formerly condensed, and 'reexpands' it (189). Here, Doane views the two scenes as a condensed version and an expanded version. Perhaps the film is trying to represent two points of view relative to the people. Perhaps the indoor scene experiences the time of a panicking person in the flaming house when time seems to fly by. Meanwhile, the outdoor scene could very well represent the eyes of a careless bystander, who experiences time in a calmer and slower way. In particular, I found it interesting how Doane uses the words "condensed" and "reexpands" to describe the two scenes. These two words suggest that time can in fact be divided into intervals as Zeno suggests. One cannot condense or reexpand something if that something has no beginning or end. Moreover, rexexpanding and condensing infer that intervals of an action on a given timeline can be removed and replaced at will. This is not possible in Bergsonian time, as movement is whole and cannot be divided into any sort of part.
3. While Doane is sympathetic to Bergson's ideas, she uses Deleuze to argue that his view is a "misrecognition of the cinema's true capabilities" (175). Rather than perceiving cinematic time as a variable of the camera, Deleuze argues that time should be gauged based on the viewers perception instead (175). In this way, the viewer does not actually see a series of phantasmagoric images, but movement itself. Through this, she argues that Deleuze shows that cinema actually refutes Zeno's theory. In essence, the camera is that which divides cinematic action into intervals. But according to Deleuze, only the viewer's point of view actually matters. This makes me question what else actually "matters." It seems that by going this route, Deleuze is merely trying to use a cheap play of words in order to justify the use of film while attempting to remain Bergsonian. Deleuze neither proves nor disproves. Instead, he simply ignores.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
