The Evolution of the Language of Cinema

What is most interesting to be about the Bazin's The Evolution of the Language of Cinema is his distinction between "those directors that put their faith in in the image and those who put their faith in reality." On one hand he agrees that montage and editing are what gave birth to film as an art form, but on the other hand he believes that reality is so sound and focused that it, in and of itself, should define what a film should be. As far as Bazin is concerned, any kind of manipulation of the image (such as the abstraction of German Expressionism) stands in the way of realizing a film's true potential. With the introduction of sound, I was almost positive Bazin would demote its advancement for some kind of distortion of reality, but on the contrary he commends sound because it actually enhances a films realism.

After reading this article, it seems to me that almost no film would stand up to Bazin's ideal. Is a film's sole purpose to illustrate realism? Or as an art form, should film be able to push the boundaries of what we perceive?