Andre Bazin- Dave Katzman

In his article “The Evolution of the Language of Cinema,” Andre Bazin discusses his theory that montage can be the detriment of a film when used too much.  I found his analysis of the two types of directors to be confusing, but very interesting.  He points out one type of director that puts faith in the image and another who puts faith in reality.  The image director focuses on film form such as lighting, composition, and all types of mise en scene.  These directors were most popular at the beginning of film experimentation.  The German Expressionist movement could have been the height of this kind of imaginative director.  Realists, however, moved away from the focus of imagination and expressionism and started to present the world in a more expected manner.  Decoupage is also a film term that I have never heard of before and therefore was very intrigued.  He uses this term to show that there is a sharp divide between silent and sound cinema.  This concept is one that I am very familiar with.  I have learned in other film courses that the move to sound cinema greatly decreased the quality of film.  Microphones made it difficult for actors to move around the set and shooting outside became near impossible. The transition to sound made for less interesting and less creative film making.

Andre Bazin!

Although his life span was unfortunately quite short, Andre Bazin proved to leave a life-lasting legacy in his critique of cinematic realism. A French film critic with a strong faith in Catholicism, Bazin essentially debunks the common beliefs around what constitutes "major" evolutionary changes in cinematic history. He argues that it was not the transition from silent film to sounds that signified a dramatic shift in the film industry; rather, change occurred ten years after sound came into play, through the development of objective and spatial realism.

I think I might disagree with this.

Bazin clarified a distinction between directors who prioritize imagery and those who favor reality. Imagists emphasize aesthetic appeal and Realists stress how scenes depict reality. While "decoupage," or the belief that there is NOT a sharp contrast between sound and silent film, certainly has valid points, I believe that the emergence of sound in film changed the entire industry (for the better).

Bazin "The Evolution of Film Language"

Bazin “The Evolution of Film Language”

In this reading, Bazin talks about the progression of film from the silent movies to more modern cinema. Some feel that the art of filmmaking was lost or lessened when talking films came about. Bazin states that images and montage are the basis of film art, and also states that there was no role of montage in silent films. These films were shot from one viewpoint, similar to watching a play on a stage, and did not involve editing or changing depth of field. I feel that the addition of voice, sound, and music adds much to the enjoyment and the art of a film. Bazin then talks about the technological revolution which enhanced filmmaking, and he points out different Hollywood genres that were successful, such as the comedy, musicals, and gangster films. It’s interesting that this was written in 1951, and the advances in technology and filmmaking have evolved so much more in the last 60 years. I feel that even with modern technology, filmmaking is still an art form.

Evolution of Film Language

Towards the beginning of the article, I kept thinking of the 2011 film The Artist, and how the main character was a silent film star, concerned about the future of film and the upcoming "talkies". This was one of the earliest transitions in the film world, and because of it, one of the first transitions in general film language. It is also interesting to think that originally, film was more similar to seeing a play, but as it became more of a niche in the art world, there seem to be more closeups, montages, and other elements that are unique to film. If directors and cinematographers use long takes and depth of field, something that you don't necessarily need film for, it is simply a "part of their style", a choice that makes film the more interesting. As more time passes, the article illustrates, more genres come about, like the classic "American comedy", "American musical" and "American gangster film". I wonder what the author would have thought of today's film world, since the article is from the 1950s. Has there been further film language that has evolved in recent history? What would Bazin think of the "American blockbuster" or the "romantic comedy"? It's interesting how these formulas evolve, and it will be interesting to see how they continue to evolve in the future, which is why The Artist still feels like something we can relate to.

Bazin's "The Evolution of Film Language"

Andrew Bazin’s piece on “The Evolution of Film Language” discusses that changes that occurred in cinema when sound was first introduced. Bazin focuses on an element of film called “decoupage”, which although is not totally defined in this piece, relates to the way that films are edited. Something that stood out to me regarding Bazin’s analysis of the transition from silent films to films with sound that is how some in the film community viewed this as a decline in the quality of cinema. This debate that occurred over the merits of silent films versus films with sound is one that can be seen in various cultural contexts in which people argue over the benefits of modern technology over the desire to uphold traditional methods. Bazin argues that there were many positive developments that accompanied the advent of films with soundtracks, such as new forms of editing that developed and the ways that expressionism played a role in further developing these new techniques. The rise in popularity of films that had soundtracks did not signal the decline of cinema, rather it marked a new era of film. The biggest takeaway that I had from Bazin's piece is that although some will lament the advent of technologies as supposedly "ruining" a traditional art form, there are many things to appreciate (such as new ways to create and appreciate art) that should be acknowledged in this process. 

The Evolution of Film Language

In the Bazin reading he discusses film as an art based on the images involved in film. This was an interesting point to make because film is often viewed as a business or industry and it is often forgotten that it is truly an art form in its entirely. He also talks about the idea of decoupage throughout the reading and its different techniques. Before reading this I had never heard of decoupage and I think it is a useful tool in understanding film. The main features of decoupage are the realistic nature of the space and the intent and effects of the decoupage must be exclusively dramatic and psychological. The idea of this is that the scene would have the same meaning if it were acted out live on a stage as it did on the screen. In this the camera’s shifting adds nothing, which is very different that noir where the camera is everything.

Film Noir

Schrader’s article on film noir was helpful in giving a history of the concept and how it tied into what was going on in the world at the time. For example, he discusses how film noir mostly pertains to Hollywood films of the forties and fifties that show the crime and corruption going on in that era. He then goes on to talk about how noir specifically draws from the elements of war and post-war disillusionment, post-war realism, the German influence, and the hard-boiled tradition. By breaking it up into these few categories he helped me grasp a better understanding about noir because it is a difficult concept to fully understand.

The article by Place and Peterson about visual motifs on film noir was helpful in giving an extensive list of techniques for how to tell that a film is in the area of noir. I didn't realize how much lighting can do in a scene until reading through this article. It can tell you the mood instantly and what the character is feeling in the scene. I always knew lighting was important but now I know that a single wrong shadow can cause a scene to need to be re shot and the lighting people are perhaps some of the most important players in the making of a film. Other than lighting I found it intriguing that objects hold such an importance in the noir style. If an object is in the frame is takes on an importance because it is a stable composition even if the item isn’t of importance to the storyline.  However they note that mirrors are a common object used that does hold importance because characters see themselves in it and their reflection can have shadows.

Evolution of Film Language

This article made me realize that we take for granted how seamlessly modern films convey meaning. With the technological advancements we have such as sharp cameras, color, sound, and special effects, almost all films have a "realistic" quality to them. They are real at least within themselves. With silent films, the first era that Bazin mentions, meaning was a lot more difficult to convey because it had to be done without color or sound. There was no "narrator" to set up the story for us, this was show rather than tell. This reminds me of a dilemma that Chaplin had while making on of his films. He needed to convey to a blind character that a man was wealthy and she couldn't simply "overhear" a conversation, the process required an extra level of creativity. He stopped production for months because he could not come up with that perfect way for her to know without using words. He ended up using the slamming of a fancy car door. One way that we've learned to convey realism in the modern era is through depth of focus. The human eye seems most things far away as crisp and sharp, so when we apply this to the film lens it automatically makes it feel more realistic.

Découpage: The Not So Easy Argument

Découpage, as described in the "Translator's Notes to pages 40-45" cannot be qualified by one specific writer. The word is a valuable piece of art with infinite meanings. In reading furthermore about Découpage, the conclusions I am beginning to come to are the following (and I will elaborate on each).

1. Découpage does have to do with not the actually editing itself, rather the process of figuring out how each image places next to each other creates meaning.
2. Découpage encompasses both the preproduction and post production.
3. Découpage has as much to do with the mise-en-scene in the frame as the actual events taking place in the scene
4. Découpage embodies multiple definitions, because a lot like movies, perception changes over time, giving words, especially this word, a different meaning depending on who is using it when.

Lets tackle issue number one and two. The actual word I do believe concerns itself with the process of figuring out juxtaposition. In writing, an author places events, props, characters, next to each other to create meaning. Likewise, in films, the images are the words, and the director and the screenwriter do the same thing as an author, purposely placing different chapters next to each other, scenes next to each other, different images next to each other. Découpage concerns itself with the void in between two images. Although as a view we never see a void, there is an invisible void, and that void is defined, in my opinion, as to how much ‘sense’ the two images together conjure. The void is almost nonexistent if the director puts a shot of a man walking up to a house next to a shot of the man knocking on the door. In and out of context this makes sense. The Découpage was the process of not only figuring out that those two images next to each other make sense but, moreover, that because those two images are together the void dissipates. Conversely but similarly, take Memento. Out of context, the scenes juxtaposed to each other make no sense, but in relation to the whole film, a void does not exist because the movie as a whole concerns itself with Découpage. Découpage ultimately provides the director, editor, sound designer, and many more filmic jobs with the task of creating meaning or ambivalent meaning when two images are places next to each other. Either way the process must be intentional.

In discussing number 3, my point is short. I think that Découpage at a deeper level has to do with no only the two images that are places side by side but the content of those images. If there is a frame of red materials next to a frame with green materials then quickly back to red, what does, as the viewer, that mean? What does Hitchcock mean when at the end of North By Northwest, they are on a train, and there is a train going through a tunnel? The two images juxtaposed were the two kissing then the train sequence. Obviously we know that this is a sexual innuendo, but the fact that both images had valuable content and had to be placed next to each other to make filmic sense is an example of the process of closing the invisible void — or Découpage.

Point four is less theoretical and has more to do with film theory itself. Godard’s feelings toward the usage of Découpage is going to be heavily influenced by France in the late 50s when he joined and became a big part in the CCQL and Cinémathèque. He spoke French, therefore what he comprehends about the word will be different. I will add that the choice not to translate it was a wise one. As for a personal example, there are some words in Hebrew that have absolute no translation value because they represent an idea, an intangible piece of thought that can be comprehended by the native. Découpage is this exact problem. The semantic problem lays in the difference of experiences that each film critic grew up in, each having a slight different definition on the word. We only can comprehend what our experiences has taught us; thus, Découpage will be a word of which we can ponder the value but it will never be a word that we can use other words to describe.

The Evolution of Film Language

Andrew Bazin's piece "The Evolution of Film Language" explains his perceived schism in the art of filmmaking that arose due to the advent of sound. I found it interesting that he viewed the silent cinema as a perfect art form, one that had a firm grasp on all possibilities offered by composition and editing. The arrival of sound as a key component of filmmaking added new dimension and countless opportunities to the already impressive power of cinema. Bazin outlines this power through his analysis of the psychological effect of editing, specifically the Kuleshov edit, which results in views subconsciously implying inferred meaning from the juxtaposition of two shots. The impact of editing, according to Bazin, is what allowed film to transcend its lowly "moving pictures" label and establish itself as a full-fledged language to be learned, analyzed, interpreted, and evaluated. Suspension of disbelief is usually strong enough to dissuade audiences from pondering the motives underlying all a film's "invisible" edits, yet these very edits are what structures a film into a coherent, digestible, text worthy of inspection, and as Bazin argues, a work of art deserving of praise. Bazin also introduces the important concept of decoupage, which is how the capturing of various mise en scenes are artfully stitched together to create a heightened sense of meaning that would have otherwise been unachievable.

Manipulation of Image

Something I found very interesting in Bazin's The Evolution of the Language of Cinema was that he believes that any manipulation of the image, such as the suggestive editing developed by Eisenstein or the dramatic sets and lighting of German Expressionism, stands in the way of realizing the film’s true potential for realism. He claims that the introduction of sound, far from destroying film as an art form, actually enhanced it as an essential element of reality. It is interesting to me that he thinks that he thinks editing to the image can create a lack of realism whereas any changes to sound does not. Nearly all images used in film are edited and made to create a feeling or emotion. The way the viewer perceives the image is how they perceive the film and editing can create this. I also think that films in general are not usually "real". Even if they are based on a true story, they still edit the image used to make it more like the original or add a certain emphasis.

The Evolution of Film Language

In Bazin’s The Evolution of Film Language, the author talks in great detail about film language, starting with silent films. I enjoyed his his analysis of the two great opposing trends in film from 1920-1940: “those filmmakers who put their faith in the image and those who put their faith in reality". It is an interesting way to look at filmmaking, and how much the filmmakers point of view shapes the story that we see. He then goes on to talk about evolution of technology in the film industry and how it affects pictures as a whole. He notes that the use of panchromatic filmstock, the microphone, and the use of a crane when shooting to be of chief significance in the evolution of film language at the time. What I found most interesting in this article was Bazin’s analysis of depth of field. Bazin believes that depth of field is not a camera technique, but a dialect advance in the history of film language. He goes on to describe depth of field’s affect on viewer, stating that it affects the structure of film language and the viewer’s intellectual relationship with the image. Before this class, I never really thought about the reasoning behind different prop placements in the films I watched. While I obviously know that everything has a specific placement for a specific reason, I never really stopped to think about how this placement affected my understanding of the image. Bazin puts it so eloquently though. He gives three general remarks about how depth of field creates a relationship between the viewer and the image. His first remark is about how depth of field helps create a more realistic image. Second, he talks about how as a result of the more realistic image, the viewer has a more active intellectual approach when watching the movie and is better able to make other connections, later on. Lastly, Bazin believes that depth of field allows for ambiguity into the structure of the image. While I never saw depth of field to be of chief importance before reading this article, I will now be on the lookout for it and am curious about how it will affect my relationship with the image.  

Bazin - The Evolution of Film Language

I felt as though Bazin's article was a little all over the place. However, I still found it interesting to read about the ways in which film has changed in regards to language. In 1928, silent cinema was at its peak. Now, it is clear that cinema utilizing sound is more present and popular in contemporary times. Bazin questions if this technological revolution brought about by the soundtrack was a true aesthetic in revolution. While the cinema and filmmaking has gone through quite the evolution, there are certain similarities between filmmakers from 1925, and others decades later. He explains that he views there to be two opposing trends in film: the filmmakers who put their faith in image, and the filmmakers who put their faith in reality. There are also various kinds of editing. Bazin feels that editing has a strong effect on overall viewing experience and the spectators interpretation of the film. He explains that editing plays no role in non-expressionist cinema. He focuses on the role of technology, because the advancements seen in technology have contributed to the evolution of film language and the role of silent cinema. These technological advancements have proved the importance of editing to film language.

Although I found Bazin’s article to be somewhat difficult to grasp, I found his overarching argument that editing is essential to film to be concrete. Bazin first discuses the changes to film language through 1920-1940 and notes that the two main trends were filmmakers who put their faith in the image versus those who put their faith in reality. He then explains that by “image” he means everything that can be depicted and added to the screen, and furthermore, that there are two types: plasticity of the image and the resources of editing. Bazin makes the argument that editing has strong effects on the psychological effect and overall viewing experience and interpretation of a film. Bazin first focuses on parallel editing, accelerated editing, and montage of attractions. These are defined as two showing simultaneous actions in separate spaces through series of shots of each, shorter and shorts shots, and reinforcement of meaning of an image by juxtaposing it with another image not necessarily associated with the meaning (defined respectively).  Moreover, Bazin defines non-expressionist cinema as cinema in which editing plays no role. Furthermore, Bazin also focuses on the role of technological advancements, as they contribute to the evolution of film language and the role of silent cinema, in order to prove the role of editing and its importance to film language.