Keys Points from Andre Bazin's "The Evolution of the Language of Cinema"

-film history does not show such opens signs of rupture between silent and talking films
-film from 1920-1940: there are filmmakers who put their faith in image and those who put their faith in reality
-image: everything that the depiction of a thing on the screen can add to the thing itself (plasticity of image (style of the makeup, decor, acting)  and the resources of editing)
-parallel editing made it possible to express two simultaneous actions in separate spaces by means of a series of shots of each
-editing and montage creates meaning which is not objectively contained in the images an which derives solely from placing these images in relation to one another
-the atmosphere and plot of the film are revealed through visual means using abstract sets and dramatic makeup
-the story is an abstract result whose concrete elements do not contain it
-meaning is not in the image, it is projected through editing onto the viewer's consciousness
-silent film was a complete art if film art could b reduced to plasticity and editing
-silent film=reality minus one of its elements
-Hollywood's triumph was superiority in five-six genres
-France-dark or poetic realism
-whatever possible variations in decoupage, certain features remain 1) realistic nature of space and 2) intent and effects of the decoupage are exclusively dramatic and psychological
-decoupage was always carried out according to the same principles: the story was told by a series of shots who varied slightly  
-Citizen Cane: replacement of montage with depth of frame
-by using deep focus, Wells is ale to cover whole scenes in one take allows the audience to see the whole pictures and interpret the scene independently of intrusive editing
-the act of making a film is tampering with reality by capturing it in artificial forms
-purest form of Bazin's vision of realistic film is one with no visible montage, no plot, no artificial elements, no signals

Analysis:

Bazin's interpretation of film is contradictory. One one hand he praises the technological innovations that have advanced film language but on the other hand he says that film in its purest form is untouched by those innovations. I believe that film is supposed to be doctored up in such a way that reveals certain things about life. For example, we would never see people dressed and done up the way they are in the Hunger Games, but this indicates that radically polarized society Catnis is fighting against. This is because the author of the book and the director of the film want to draw attention to a specific conflict in the story: the hierarchy of wealth that impoverishes most of the population. After all, film is a passive mode of communication. We watch it but we cannot interact back at it. Therefore, directors must chose certain elements of the story that they want to highlight to draw attention to a passive audience. In silent film, Bazin's ideas are more applicable because it stresses the plasticity and editing. However, once sound is introduced, it adds another elements of distraction from the story line so directors have to reel us back into the point they want to make. In conclusion, interesting article although contradictory at times. I think film needs to highlight certain things to contribute to the overall meaning.