RUSSIANPOETICS
INTRANSLATION
Volume9:
ThePoeticsofCinema
RussianPoeticsinTranslationisaseriesdesignedtobringtotheEnglishspeakingreaderthebestofrecentRussianworkinthefield
ofsemiotics,structuralismandliterarytheoryaswellasclassicsofRussianFormalism.
G E N E R A L E D I T O R AnnShukman,OldSchoolHouse,Somerton,OxfordOX54NE
EDITORIALBOARD:LeonBurnett(Essex)
PeterFrance(Edinburgh)
TerenceHawkes(Cardiff)
L.M.O'Toole(Murdoch)
ChrisPike(Keele)
E n q u i r i e s a b o u t t h i s e d i t i o n t o : L . o t o o l e @ m u r d o c h . e d u . a u o r A n n . S h u k m a n @ v i r g i n . n e t
Thepictureonthefrontcoveris'ArchitectonicComposition(1920-21)'byKliun(IvanKliunkov)
THEPOETICSOFCINEMA
editedby
B.M.EIKHENBAUM
withaPrefaceby
K.SHUTKO
MOSCOWKINOPECHAT'LENINGRAD
KinoIzdatel'stvoRSFSR
CONTENTS
PREFACE
K.SHUTKO
TranslatedbyRichardTaylor
PROBLEMSOFCINE-STYLISTICS
B.EIKHENBAUM
TranslatedbyRichardSherwood
THEFUNDAMENTALSOFCINEMAYUR
YTYNYANOV
TranslatedbyL.M.O'Toole
THENATUREOFCINEMA
B.KAZANSKY
TranslatedbyJoeAndrew
POETRYANDPROSEINTHECINEMA
V.SHKLOVSKY
TranslatedbyRichardTaylor
TOWARDSATHEORYOFFILMGENRES
A.PIOTROVSKY
TranslatedbyRichardTaylor
THECAMERAMAN'SPARTINMAKINGAFILM
E.MIKHAILOVANDA.MOSKVIN
TranslatedbyAnnShukman
EDITOR'SINTRODUCTION
Thisisthesecondvolume of RPT to be devoted to film. The first (Volume 8),published in 1981, was composed of contemporary
articlesbyVyacheslavIvanov,YuriLotmanandAlexanderZholkovskyonthegeneralsemioticsofcinemaasanartform.Theeditors
of that first volume, Ann Shukman andL.M. O'Toole, suggested in their introduction that those articles showed that 'the early
theorisingandteachingofEisensteinandDzigaVertovstillhasaseminalcontributiontomakeincontemporaryfilmmakingand
criticism'.
We did initially consider constituting a second volume of texts by Eisenstein and Vertov. But, although many of their most
important texts arenoteasily available,theyare moreeasilyavailable (at least in the case of Eisenstein) than the writings of their
equallyillustriouscontemporaries.WethereforedecidedtotranslatePoetikakino(ThePoeticsofCinema),which is arguablythe
Formalistcontributiontotheliteratureontheaestheticsoffilm.
The Poetics of Cinema was edited by the leading Formalist critic Boris Eikhenbaum and published in Leningrad in 1927 by
Kinopechat’ , the Statepublishing house for film literature. These translations have been done fromthe copy held in the Lenin
Library,Moscow.ApartfromitssignificanceintheliteratureofFormalism,thecollectionhasawiderimportanceintheliteratureof
cinema.Itrepresentsthefirstconcerted,andatleastrelativelycoherent,attempttosuggestthespecificdefiningcharacteristicsof
filmasanartform.TheworkofDellucandMoussinacinFrance,andBalázsinAustriaandGermany,representthecontemporary
approachesofindivi​dualsratherthanthestatementsofaschool.InthissenseThePoeticsofCinemaechoesintheaestheticsphere
the political importance of the first statement on film as a propaganda weapon,Cinema. A Collection ofEssays
(KinematografSbornikstatei),publishedinPetrogradin1919.Thesetwocollectionsfurnishinsomewaysaframeworkforthe
politicalandaestheticdebatesthatsurroundedandengulfedtheSovietcinemainthe1920s.
I have chosen to limit my editorial introduction to a few brief remarks. Ido this in the belief that the text should, as far as
possible,beallowedtospeakforitself.TothisendIhaveconcentratedmyobservationsintheexplanatorynotesgatheredattheend
ofthevolume.Itrustthatthereaderwillfindthemhelpful.IhavetriedtocaterbothforthosewhoseinterestsareprimarilyRussian
andthosewhoseinterestsarecinematic.Ihopethatthereaderwillthereforeunderstandiftheoccasionalnoteappearstostatethe
obvious.Ihaveusedthestandardformoftransliterationinthenotesandasimplifiedsystemforthegeneralreaderinthetextitself.
IshouldliketoexpressmygratitudetoAnnShukmanandL.M.O'Tooleforinvitingmetoserveasguesteditorforthisvolume.I
should like to thankthem and the other translators, Joe Andrew and Richard Sherwood, fortheir painstaking work and their
efficient collaboration. They have all contributed towards making the editorial chores both lighter and more enjoyable. I am
grateful also to Frantisek Galan for allowing me to seesomeunpublishedtranslationsandpermittingmetoadoptsomeofhis
turnsofphrase.
RICHARDTAYLOR
Swansea
February1982
Richard Taylor is the author of The Politics of the Soviet Cinema, 1917- 1929 ,Cambridge University Press, 1979;Film
Propaganda: SovietRussia and Nazi Germany,Croom Helm, London, 1979. He is nowworking on a volume of
translations, The Film Factory: Soviet Cinema in Documents, 1917-1936 to be published by Routledge Kegan Paul and Harvard
UniversityPress.
NOTESONTHEAUTHORS
Boris
Mikhailovich
EIKHENBAUM(alsoEichenbaum)(1886-1959),theeditorandauthoroftheessayon'Problemsofcine-Stylistics'wasoneofthe
leadingFormalisttheoristsandcritics.HelecturedatLeningradUniversityandInstitutefortheHistoryoftheArtsandwas
a principal member of OPOYAZ, the Society for the Study of Poetic Language. His many books covered the whole history of
RussianliteraturefromDerzhavinandPushkintoAkhmatovabutheconcernedhimselfprimarilywiththestructureandcomposition
oftheirworkratherthanwithahistorical-biographicalapproach.SeealsoRPT,4,pp.2-3.
EvgenyMIKHAILOVwasassistantcameramantoAndreiMoskvinonTheOvercoat(1926).
AndreiNikolaevichMOSKVIN(1901-1961),co-authorofthefinalessay,wasoneoftheSovietUnion'sleadingcameramen.He
beganworkwiththeFEKS(FactoryoftheEccentricActor)groupinLeningrad,ledbyGrigoriKozintsevandLeonidTrauberg.
WiththemhemadeTheBigWheel,The
Overcoat,LittleBrother(a111926),S.V.D.(1927),NewBabylon(1929),Alone(1931),TheYouthofMaxim(1937)andTheVyborg
Side(1938).HewasresponsiblefortheinteriorshotsinbothpartsofEisenstein'sIvantheTerrible(1943-5).Hereturnedtowork
withKozintsevonDonQuixote(1957)andhislastfilmwasIosifKheifits'sTheLadywiththeLittleDog
(1960).
Adrian Ivanovich PIOTROVSKY (1898-1938), author of the essay'TowardsaTheoryofFilmGenres',wasafilmcritic,
theorist,authorandplaywrightHewroteanumberoffilmscripts,includingthatforTheBigWheel,andfrom1928 to1937was
ArtisticDirectoroftheLenfilmStudioinLeningrad.AmongthefilmsproducedunderhisaegiswereCounterplan(1932),Chapayev
(1934),PeterI(1937)andtheMaximfilmsmentionedabove.HewrotetheintroductiontotheRussiantranslationofBalazs'sDer
sichtbare Mensch oder die Kultur des Filmsin 1925, but his mostimportantworkwasprobablyTheArtisticCurrents
inSovietCinema(Leningrad,1930).
Viktor Borisovich SHKLOVSKY (b. 1893), author of Poetry and Prose in Cinema' is one of the most prolific Russian authors,
critics,scriptwritersandtheorists.HisearlyworksoncinemaincludeLiteratureandCinemaandChaplin(both1923),ThirdFactory
and A Journey into the Land of Film (both 1926), numerous essays on Eisenstein, Vertov, FEKS, Abram Room, Alexandra
Khokhlova,twovolumesofmemoirs—ForFortyYears(1965) andThey Lived — They Were(1966) and a monograph
o nEisenstein (1973). Shklovsky played an active part in the Soviet filmindustry and wrote the scripts forBy the Law
(1926),Bed and SofaandThe House on Trubnaya(both 1927) among other films. HisThirdFactoryandMayakovsky
andHisCircleareavailableinEnglish.SeealsoRPT,4,pp.6-7.
YuriNikolaevichTYNYANOV(1894-1943),authorofthepieceon‘TheFundamentalsofCinema'wasaleadingFormalistwriter
andtheoristInadditiontonumerousstudiesofliteraturehewroteonproblemsoflinguisticstructureandvocabulary,producingan
analysisofLenin'soratoryin1924.Hewroteanumberoffilmscripts,includingTheOvercoat(1926)andS.V.D.(1927)forFEKS,
andLieutenantKije(1934).SeealsoRPT,4,pp.9-10.
IhavebeenunabletotraceanybiographicaldetailsofBorisV.KazanskyorKirillI.Shutko.
R.T.
PREFACE
KirillShutko
translatedbyRichardTaylor
Thearticlespresentedinthiscollectionposeanumberofquestionsthat,takentogether,shouldbringusnearertoresolvingor,atthe
veryleast,postulatingasinglebasicquestion:whatkindoffilmsshouldbeshownnowadays?Hencethetitleofthecollection,The
PoeticsofCinema,isnarrowerthantherangeofproblemsposedinit.Thisresultsnotjustfromthemodestywithwhichtheauthors
ofthearticlesapproachtheirtaskbutalsofromthefactthatanyonewhosetsouttoexamineproperlytheessenceofcinemapasses
beyond the limits of the text and enters the field of very complex questions which, at first glance, seem to have a very tenuous
relationshipwiththephenomenaofcinema.
Clearly,whenyouareexaminingalargeissue,youcanlimityourselftooneorotherofitscomponentpartsbut,ifyouareto
achieveevenminimalresultsfromthislimitedarea,youmuststillsubsumethepartintothewhole.
Ifyoustudycinemayoucansetouttodemonstrate:whatarethecharacteristicsthatconstitutethenatureofthefilmproduct,
whatareitsforms(genres),whatdoescinemastyleconsistin,etc.,but,whenyoulookateachfactorseparately,youmustbearin
mindthewholeparticularconcreteconnectionbetweentheelementsofcinemaperception.
DoweinSovietRussia,wherefilmproductionisonlyjusttakingitsfirststeps,needtowasteoureffortsnowontheorising,on
philosophisingaboutfilms? Is this not a pointless occupation? Is it not too soon to try to create atheory of fact when there is
obviously a shortage of facts? These arelegitimate questions but, with all their practicality, they are very impractical,idle
grumbles.
Itispreciselynow,whilethetraditionsofthetastesandlawsofSovietfilmshavestilltobeestablished,thatwemustarmourselves
withthecorrecttheoreticalarsenalsothatwecanmoreeasilyandmoreproductivelyembarkuponproducingthefilmthatwe
need.
Let us admit that the views expounded in this collection are limited and narrow but, if we are to fix even these negative
admissions,wemustreflectontheessenceofcinema,itslaws,itsstyle,etc.
WemustdothisnotmerelybecauseofBorisEikhenbaum'sviewthat'theperiodwhenthesocio-economicsignificanceofcinema
wasontheincreaseisalreadypassingintohistory',butbecausethesocio-economicsignificanceofcinemaisgrowingasneverbefore;
from a technical invention or an individual skill cinema is being transformed into a powerful economicevent, closely
connectedwiththewholesocio-economicsystemofcontemporarysociety.
Theassertionthatcinemaisonlynowbeingfavouredwithrecognitionbypoetsandresearchersisperhapsonlycorrectasfarasthe
high priests of art are concerned. Their magnanimous amnesty for this lowbrow spectacle hascome only now, but the whole
tempestuousdevelopmentofcinemaoverthelastdecadeandahalfatteststotheceaselessorganisationalactivityofthosewhoactually
producethefilms.
Wemustbemorecarefulandmorecircumspectinourattitudetowardstheinterestincinemaexpressedrecentlybythetraditional
representativesof the old and highly experienced arts, for this interest is rarely of anunselfish character.Atthe 1stParis
InternationalCongressofCinema-Ownersin1912anunsophisticatedtheoryoffilmplotconstructionwasproclaimed:'theplotsof
pictures must be constructed so that they arouse inthe masses the emotions of beauty, generosity, truth and good, and
constantlyremindthemoftheircivicduties(Cine-Phonojournal,1912).Itneededthereleaseof7,000Americanfilmsforthis
'formal'directivetobeexpoundedintheformofinflatedtheoreticallecturesinthespecialisedfilmfacultiesofAmericanuniversities.
Warningagainstthiskindofscholasticism,AdrianPiotrovsky,whenheconstructshistheory(supposedlyspecificallycinematic)
of the so-called 'happy' ending in the ordinary contemporary American film, does not take into account such bits of ‘theoretical'
dogmaasAdolphZukor's'declarationthat'hisdreamistoprovidethepeopleofthewholeworldwithhealthydiversion...they(the
peoples)wanttolaugh,forlifeisnotalwayshappy...thatiswhythe"happyending"toafilmisaruleofourorganisation.'
Thisdeclaration,inthefullpovertyofitstheoreticalcontent,mustbeconsideredstraightawayinanyexaminationofthe'laws'of
the contem​porary film product. We must display a little less theoretical enthusiasm fordiscovering the cinematic laws of
contemporaryfilmart,bearinginmindthat,accordingtoB.Geiss,'theneedtoproduce600filmsayearrequiresverymanycreative
forces.Theproductionworkerstrainthedirectorsandscriptwriters . . . they attract experienced writers andteach themthe
techniqueoffilmcomposition.'
For this reason it is sometimes amusing to read of the idle experiments ofcertain theorists who try to time such cinematic
masterpiecesasTheTobacco-GirlfromSevilleorTheSpanishDancerandwhodiscoveranamazingregularity:eachactlasts11-12
minutes.Theirtheoreticalbrainsare already ticking over, a cinematurgic 'law' for the construction of asectionofafilmis
readytobeborn,butittranspiresthatthisisalltheresultofthemore-or-lessconstantlengthofeachreel,andnothingelse.
In our theoretical excursions into the secrets of contemporary cinema wemust not forget that film production is not a
divinely inspired creativeprocess but the result of a finely calculated financial, economic and social reckoning that has been
achievedthroughthemostcomplextechnicalmethod.
Thediploma'edfilmtheoristsoftheWestdonotconcealthis.Oneofthem,W.Bloem,writesthat'thetaskofthefilmmasteris
andmustalwaysbetheidentificationofartwith"business"(Geschaft);anyonewhodoesnotrealisethisisanunwittingaccomplice
afterthefactthatcinemaorganisa​tionsareforcedtoproducemoney-spinningtriflesformassconsumption'.
In our Soviet conditions the need to combine art with Geschaft is not so imperative but this can in no way justify the
idealistic complacencyexpressed, for instance, in Eikhenbaum's proclamation of the hope that led him to study theoretical
questions,thehopethat'theinsanecommercialsuccessofcinema,havingleftitsmarkonthewholehistoryofits"golden"youth,is
alreadyontheeveofcrisis'.
Firstofallitisnotinfacttruethatcinemahada'golden'youth:thegoldisonlynowbeginningtoflow.Second,itispreciselythis
dependenceofthecinemaongoldorofgoldonthecinemathatmustaffectthewayinwhichafilmisconstructed.
TosumupeverythingthatIhavesaid:itshouldbepossibletodiscerntheconditionsforafruitful practicaltheoreticisation,soto
speak,inthiskindofgeneralsense.
Postulating, or attempting to postulate, a number of questions relating tothe essence of film, is a necessary and urgent task
becausethetheoreticalkitchenofthecontemporarybourgeoiscinemaisguidedbyappetitesthataretootransparentlyclass-based
andexploitativeforustodineseriouslyonthisdietinourownfilmwork.
Wemustexaminetheveryrootsofthenatureofthephenomenonofcinema,createdbythewholeofthepre-existingcinemain
theshapeofits'greatest'andbestproducers.Wemustexaminetheformalcategories(which are often borrowed from,
orimposedby,atraditionthathasabsolutelynorelationtothesubjectoffilm)incloseliaisonwithallthematerialthatgoesinto
theconstructionofafilm.
Itwouldbebetternottoprovideourselveswithwhateverlawofcinematheremightbeforanotheryearbuttoimmerseourselves
more deeply in thejungle of cinema, confronting it without a ready terminology that isfrequently alien to it ( all the
authors in the collection concede this), even ifwhat really has been examined and discovered in the film world is only roughly
definedforus.
Itisthenperhapsthatthesepseudo-definitions,'poetryandproseincinema',thelawsofplotconstruction,thesemanticnatureof
film, will become intelligible and there will be a clarification of the apparent contradiction between the definition of film
genres as mere artisticphenomena and the actual exclusion from these definitions of every trace ofcontemporary works of
cinema(inPiotrovsky,inasfarasheismovingtowardsapositionwhereitisonlythegenresthatarestillbeingopenedupintheSoviet
cinema that derive from the very fundamentals of cinema). It will,perhaps, emerge that the very 'fundamentals of cinema' are not
given,butmaybecreatedfromscratch,bothbythepresenceofthetasksthatareentrustedtoitandbytheattractionoftheresources
for their fulfilment. Then it will be possible to define more clearly and intelligibly the nature ofthe compromise in Battleship
Potemkin2andwhythelong-standinggenreof the newsreel may inA Sixth Part of the World3 be perceived as art.Lastly,it
willperhapsbecomeclearthattosqueezecinemaintotheconceptsolelyofartisanactivitythatwill,bylogicalextension,leadtothe
pointwhere Viktor Shlovsky begins his article on prose and poetry. Perhaps it willtranspire that, to create cinema, we need not a
'poetic' but an all-embracing militant theoretical system that will ruthlessly and precisely eradicate frompractical use all the
garbageofscholasticformalism.Withthiskindoftheoryoffilmworkitwillbepossibletoovercomeandtoorganise
everythingthatcanbesubjectedtothefilmcamera,thestrictestperformerofaspecificsocialtask.Thetheoreticalessaysinthis
collectionshouldberegardedasacalltotheoreticalworkinthefieldofcinema.
PROBLEMSOFCINE-STYLISTICS
BorisEikhenbaum
translatedbyRichardSherwood
1
Artsassuch,asnaturalphenomena,donotexist—whatdoesexistisaneedforartinherentinman.Thisneedissatisfiedinvarious
ways—indifferentages,differentpeoples,differentcultures.Theseparateelementsofnaturewhichplayaroleintheconstruction
ofhumanlifeareisolated,andwhenexposedtoaparticularculturetheybecomethebasisofthisorthatart.Asmaterialforartthese
elements must possess certain qualities or 'capacities',and exist within certain particular relationships to life. These relationships
change—theactualformsofartchangeaswellastheactualarrangementoftheseforms.
Cinema did not become an art straight away. In the history of cinema twofeatures must be distinguished: the invention of the
movie-camera which made possible the reproduction of movement on the screen, and the use of this camera to transform
photographicfilmintocine-film.Inthefirststagecinemawasjustacamera,amechanism;intheseconditbecameaspecialsortof
instrument in the hands of the cameraman and director. Neither of these of course occurred by chance. The first appeared as a
naturalconsequenceoftechnicalimprovementsinthesphereofphotography;thesecondwasanaturalandinevitableconsequenceof
newartisticrequire​ments.Thefirstrelatestothesphereofinventions,whichevolvethroughtheirownlogicalrules;thesecondcan
berelatedmoretothecategoryofdiscoveries:itwasdiscoveredthatthemovie-cameracouldbeexploitedtoorganiseanewart—
andjustthatverytypeofartforwhichaneedhadlongsincebeenfelt.
Theinventorsofthemovie-cameracouldscarcelyhaverealisedthattheywerecreatingconditionsfortheorganisationofanew
art.Itissymptomaticthatabout20yearspassedbeforeitwasrealisedthatcine-technicscouldbethetechnicsofcine-art.Intheearly
yearsinterestwasconcentratedontheactualillusionofmovement.Cinemawasperceivedasatechnicaltrickandwentnofurther
thantheprincipleofmovingphotography.Therewasnoquestionofscenariosormontage.Until1897theydidnoteventhinkof
splicingbitsoffilmtogether.Thetechnicalperfectionofthecameraassuchheldthecentreofattention.
Thecine-film,nomorethan17metresinlength,wasusedtoproducesomesinglesceneorother,likeLaSortiedesUsinesby
Lumiere4.Foralongtimeastapleplaceinthecine-repertoirewastakenupby'travelfilms'—filmslikemovingpostcards.Thiswas
the initial stage of scenes and landscapes from life (which established, by the way, the photogenic qualityof water). Quickly
followingontheseoriginalgenreswerethecomedyfilmswhichplayedagreatpartintherealisationofcinemaasart:thankstothe
veryessenceofcomedythesefilmsmadedowithoutcomplicatedmotiva​tionsandinterweavingsofplot,workedonmaterialfrom
everydaylife,andinadditioncreatedthefirstfoundationsforthecine-tricksofthefutureandestablishedawholeseriesoftypical
patternsneededforacine-grammar.Buttheprincipleofmovingphotographywasstillfirstandforemost.
Theinventionofthemovie-camera,properlyspeaking,breathednewlifeintothesphereofphotographyproper,whichhaduptill
then been very restricted. The usual sort of photograph, despite all its tendencies to become 'artistic', could not assume an
independentplaceamongtheartsinasmuchasitwasstatic,andthereforemerely‘depictive'.Incontrasttodrawing,whichallowsthe
artist enough freedom to bring into being his various conceptions,photography,naturally,provedtobesomethingsecondary,purely
technical,with none of the qualities of 'style'. It therefore most definitely entered general use in everyday life, and had no other
prospects before it. The movie- camera dynamised the snapshot, transformed it from an enclosed, static unitinto a filmshot— an
endlesspartofamovingstream.Thereby,forthefirsttimeinhistory,anartwhichwas‘depictive'byitsverynaturebecameableto
evolveintimeandprovedtobebeyondanycomparison,classificationoranalogy.Whileassociatingitselfinitsvariouselementswith
theatre,withdrawing,withmusic,andwithliterature,italsoappearedassomethingcompletelynew.Themechanicalresourcesof
photography(chiaroscuro,shotsoutoffocus,printsizesandsoon)tookonanewsignificancewhentheybecametheresourcesofa
special cine-language. Together with the development of cine-technics and with the realisation of the various possibilities of
montagearosethatdifferentiationbetweenmaterialandconstructionwhichisnecessaryandcharacteristicforalltypesofart.
Inotherwords,theproblemofformhadappeared.
Faced with cinema the sphere of simple photography became finally de​fined as having an elementary, everyday, applied
function.Therelationshipbetweenthephotographandcinemaisratherliketherelationshipbetweenpracticalandpoeticlanguage.
Themovie-cameraallowedthediscoveryandexploitationofcertaineffectswhichsimplephotographycouldnotandwouldnot even
begintoutilise.Theproblemof'photogenicquality'arose(LouisDelluc),thechiefsignificanceofwhichlayinthatitbroughtinto
thesphereofcinematheprincipleofthechoiceofmaterialaccordingtospecificsigns.
Artlivesbybeingabstractedfromeverydayuseinthatithasnopracticalapplication.Theautomatismofeverydayusageofwords
leavesmassesofphonic,semanticandsyntacticshadingsquiteunexploited—butthesefindtheirplaceintheartofliterature(Viktor
Shklovsky).Thedanceisbuiltonmovementswhichhavenopartinaperson'snormalgait.Ifartdoesemployeverydaythingsthenit
isasmaterial—withtheaimofpresentingitinanunexpectedinterpretationordisplacedform,inanemphaticallydeformedshape
(agrotesque).Fromthiscomestheunfailing‘conventionality'ofart,whicheventhemostextremeandconsistent'naturalists'cannot
overcome,solongastheyremainartists.
Theprimarynatureofartisaneedforthedischargingofthoseenergiesofthe human organism which are excluded from
orfindonlypartialapplicationineverydayuse.Thisisalsothebiologicalbasisofart,whichimpartstoittheforceofavitalneed
seeking fulfilment. This basis, which isessentially 'play' and is unconnected with precisely expressed 'meaning', is embodied in
those'trans-sense",end-in-itselftendencieswhichshinethroughineveryartandaretheorganicfermentforart.Byexploiting
thisfermenttotransformitinto'expressiveness'artbecomesorganizedasasocialphenomenon,asaspecialsortof'language'.These
end-in-itselftendenciesareoftenlaidbareandbecomeasloganforrevolution—thentheystarttalkingabout'trans-sensepoetry',
absolutemusic'andsoon.Aconstantlackofconvergencebetween'trans-sense'and'language'—thisistheinternalantinomyofart
whichdirectsitsevolution.
Cinemabecameanartwhenthesignificanceofthesetwofeaturesinitwasdetermined.Photogeny 6is indeed the 'trans-sense'
essenceofcinema,andisanalogousinthissensetothe'trans-sense'ofmusical,verbal,pictorial,motiveandotherarts.We
observeitonthescreenoutsideanyconnectionwithplot—infaces,objects,alandscape.Weseethingsafresh,andperceivethemas
unfamiliarthings.Dellucremarks:'Alocomotive,anoceanliner,anaeroplane,arailwayarebytheverynatureoftheirstructure
photogenic.Everytimethatshotsof"cine-actuality"runonthescreen,showingusthemovementofafleetoraship,thespectator
exclaimswithdelight"Itis,ofcourse,notaquestionoftheactualstructure'oftheobjectbutofitspresentationonthescreen.Any
object can be photogenic — it is aquestion of method and style. The artist of photogeny is the cameraman. When used for
‘expressiveness'photogenyistransformedintothe‘language'ofmimicry,gestures,objects,cameraangles,close-ups,longshots
andotherelementswhicharethebasisofcine-stylistics.
2
Demandforanewmassarthaslongbeenevident—anartwhoseactualartisticmethodsshouldbeaccessibletothe'masses',andin
particulartheurban masses who have no ‘folklore' of their own. This new art, beingdirected towards the masses, had
to appear as a new 'primitive' inrevolutionary opposition to the refined forms of older arts existing inisolation.This
'primitivism'couldbecreatedthroughaninventionwhich,bybringingtotheforeanewartisticelementandmakingitaconstructive
dominant'wouldmakepossibleaspecialformofmerging(syncretisation)oftheseparatearts.
Theevolutionofart,iftakenassomethingindivisible,isexpressedinconstantfluctuationsbetweenisolation(differentiation)
andmerging.Everyseparateartexistsanddevelopsinamilieuofotherarts—bothasaparticularaspectandasavarietyofforms.
Invariousagesthisorthatartstrivestobecomeamassartandisinspiredbytheurgeofsyncretism,tryingtoabsorbwithinitselfother
arts. Differentiation and syncretisation are constant and equally significant processes in the history of the arts, and theyevolve
relatively to each other. Syncretic forms are by no means thepropertyoftheartofsavagesorof'thepeople'alone,aswas
formerly believed; the tendency to construct these forms is a constant fact of art culture. The musical dramas of Wagner or the
symphonicdancesoftheinnovatorsinballetareseparatemanifestationsofthesyncretictendenciesofthenewage.Thesemusical
effortsdidnothaveenoughofthatspiritofrevolutionary'primitivism'necessaryforanewformtoacquirethesignificanceofamass
artwhichputsitselfinoppositiontootherartsbytheverybreadthofitsinfluence.Thegeneralcrisisofculture,whichinmanyways
isbringingusbacktotheprinciplesoftheearlymiddleages,hasbroughtforwardadecisivedemand—ademandforthecreationof
a new art, free from traditions, primitive in its 'linguistic' (semantic) methods andwith immense possible influence on the
masses.Likethe'technicism',underwhoseimprintthecultureofouragelives,thisarthadtobebornfromthewomboftechnology.
Initsinitialstagecinemaappearedaspreciselythissortofart.Itistypicalthatinitsfirstyearsofexistence(perhapsrightuptothe
FirstWorldWar)cinemawasjudgedtobeavulgar,'low'art,usefulonlyforthemasses.Itgaineditsfirstfootholdsintheprovinces
andinsuburbanareas.Theintellectualwhohadbeenenticedbytheadvertisementsandhaddroppedinatacinemawouldfeeluneasy
atmeetinganotherintellectualthere:Soyouwereluredintoo?'wasthethoughtofbothofthem.Whocouldthenhavethoughtthat
thegreathalloftheLeningradConservatorywouldbeusedasacinema?Thisistheusualsortofpictureintheevolutionoftheartsand
oftheseparategenres.
Bycontrastwithotherartscinemalookedlikesomethingprimitive,almostshabby,andoffensivetorefinedtaste.Theveryfact
that the new artwascreatedonthebasisofphotographydestroyedourusual'high'preconceptionsaboutcreativeart.Themoviecameracynicallywithstoodthesham'craftsmanship'oftheolderartsandtosomeextentgavethem(especially the theatre) an
archaic flavouring. Into the midst of artsprotectedbytraditionsthereburstanimpudentnovicethreateningtoturnartinto
somethingsimplytechnical.Thefilm-showwas,theysaid,somesort of wholesale 'lowering' of theatrical spectacle, starting
with thespectatordressedinhisovercoat,asifhe'djustdroppedininpassing,andendingwiththenakedscreenwhichreplaced
boththecurtainandthestage.Mechanicalreproduction,mechanicalrepetition(twoorthreeshowsanevening),factoryproductionetc.
etc.Itisquitenaturalthattheintelligentsia,whoforthemostpartlivedonthetraditionsoftheoldartculture,shouldignorecinemaat
firstasbeingamechanicalprimitive,suitableonlyforsatisfyingthe'street'.
It goes without much saying that war and revolution hastened the processof spreading cinema among the masses. In other
historicalcircumstancescinemawouldprobablyhavehadtosustainamuchlongerandmorecomplexstruggle.Itiscurious
torecall,incidentally,thatevenbeforethewar,atthetimewhenSymbolismwasdecaying,theoristsintheatreandtheatredirectors
werefascinatedbytheideaofthe'communal' [sobornyi]theatricalrite'.Asortofimpoverishmentwassensedintheatricallife,
whichtheytriedtoovercomebyexperimentingwitharefined-resurrectionof'antiquetheatre', commediadell'arte andsoon.Together
withtheideaof'communality'thereappearedasapiquantparadoxtheideaof'theatrefortheatre'(N.Evreinov),whichwasevidence
ofthecrisisintheatricalart,andtheatricalparodypouredoutinagreatflood'10.Meanwhilethereweremoreandmoresignsofa
coolnesstowardstheatre,notonlyonthepartofspectators,butamongactorsaswell.
Thedreamsof'communality'didnotmaterialise,andremainedasacharacteristichistoricalsymptomoftheageofdecayin
thetheatre,butquiteunexpectedlythereappearedanew'mass'art,which,beingamassart,wasinitswayacommunionalart.
Moreover it turned out to be communional not only in relation to the spectator (the 'street'), but even inrelation to its actual
production.Asasyncreticformandtechnicalinventioncinemagatheredarounditmassesofdifferentspecialists,andforalongtime
filmsappearedbeforethespectatorwithoutanynames,withno'authorship',asthefruitoftheunitedeffortsofawholecollective.
Howeveritwasaverylongwayfromthistypeof'communality'tothesortdreamtofbytheSymbolists:thiswascommunality
insideout.Eventheveryconceptof‘massart'inconnectionwithcinemaneedsawholeseriesofqualifications.We,thewitnesses
of the 'birth of cinema', are naturallypronetoacertainromanticisationofit.Butifweforceourselvestothinkitovercalmly
thenthemassartofcinemaisnotaqualitativeconceptbutaquantitativeonewhichisnotconnectedwiththeessenceofcinema.Itis
a feature of the success of cinema, i.e. of a purely social phenomenon, conditioned by a whole series of historical circumstances
unconnectedwithcinemaassuch.Onthecontrary—cinemadoesnotinitselfinanywayrequirethepresenceofthemass,evenif
theatredoes.Anyonewithaprojectorcanwatchafilmathomeandthereforebeoneofthemassofcinemaspectatorsevenwithout
entering a cinema. Apart from that we do not,inessence,feelourselvestobemembersofamass at all, or participantsin a mass
spectacle,whenwearesittinginacinema;onthecontrary—conditionsatafilm-showinducethespectatortofeelasifhewerein
total isolation, and this feeling is one of the particular psychological delights of watching films. The film does not even await our
applause — there is no-oneto applaud other than the projectionist. The spectator's condition is close tosolitary, intimate
contemplation—heobserves,asitwere,somebody'sdream.Theslightestoutsidenoiseunconnectedwiththefilmannoyshimmuch
morethanitwouldifhewereinthetheatre.Talkingbyspectatorsnexttohim(e.g.readingthetitlesaloud)preventshimconcentrating
onthemovementofthefilm;hisidealisnottosensethepresenceoftheotherspectators,buttobealonewiththefilm,tobecome
deafanddumb.
Soitturnsoutthatcinema,withallits'mass'characteristics,issuitedtobeingabovealla'chamberart'.Ofcourseafewcinema
genres,bytheirverynature,havethemassinmind,butitisimpossibletotransferthispeculiarityofseparategenresontocinemaasa
whole.Weshouldbearinmindthatthe'mass'periodofcinema—aperiodwhenitwaswinningforitselfapositionamongtheother
artsandwasreinforcingitssocio-economicsignificance—isalreadyrecedingintothepast.Nowandthenfilmsappearwhicharethe
resultofartisticexperimentationandwhich,assuch,arenotorientatedtowardsthemassspectator.Cinemaalreadyhasnotonlya
commercialbutalsoacertainartistichistory—ahistoryofstylesandschools.Alsothefilmspectatorhasalreadyacquiredacertain
stability of taste, has got used to certain clichés he does not like to depart from. This in itself is an indicationof that complex
relationship of the two sides which is characteristic for every type of art. The Cabinet of Dr Caligari 11, as a film for the mass
spectator,wasaflopthroughoutEurope,butinthehistoryofcinemathisfilmisamostimportantdevelopment,whoseinfluence
was felt in a wholeseries of subsequent films. Our Hospitality12 with Buster Keaton, which again poses the problem of
comedy in cinema (tragic situationscontrastingwiththecomicbehaviourofthehero),turnedouttobesimplytooclevera
film,toocomplicatedinitsartisticintent,toevoketotaldelightfromthespectators—themuchmoreelementarycomicality
ofTheCoward13naturallygetsthroughmoreeasily.Itisquitepossiblethattherunawaycommercialsuccessofcinema,whichhas
setitsstamponthewholehistoryofcinema's'goldenchildhood'isalreadyonthevergeofacrisis:cinemaisenteringitsadolescent
period,amuchmoredifficultperiod,butalsoamorepromisingone.Itisonlywiththishopethatitisworthposingthosecomplex
theoreticalproblemsthatIamtryingtoindicateinthisarticle.
3
Wearenowlivinginastageofcinemainwhichitrepresentsanewsyncreticformofart.Theinventionofthemovie-cameramade
possibletheexclusionofthebasicdominantoftheatresyncretism—theaudibleword,anditsreplacementbyanotherdominant—
themovementobservedindetails.Andsothetheatricalsystemboundupwiththeaudiblewordwasturnedupsidedown.Thefilm
spectatorfindshimselfincompletelynewconditionsforperception,whicharethereverseoftheprocessofreading:fromtheobject,
fromtheobservedmovement,tothecomprehensionofthem,totheconstructionofinternalspeech.Thesuccessofcinemaispartly
connectedwithpreciselythisnewtypeofmentalactivity,whichdoesnotdevelopineverydayusage.Wecansaythatourageisleast
of all a verbal age — so far as art is concerned. Cine-culture, like a sign of the age, resists that culture of the word, bookish and
theatrical,whichreignedinthelastcentury.Thefilmspectatorseeksarestfromtheword—hewishesonlytoseeandsurmise.
Yetitisincorrecttocallcinemaa'silent'art:itisnotaquestionof'silence',butofthelackoftheaudiblewordandofanew
relationship betweenwordandobject.Thetheatricalrelationship,inwhichmimicryandgestureaccompanytheword,isabolished,
butthewordasarticulatorymimicrypreservesitsforce.Thefilmactorspeaksduringtheshootingofthefilm,andthishasitseffecton
thescreen.Thefilmspectatorisreallytransformed,asitwere,intoadeaf-mute(thequestionofmusicistackledlater),butthisdoes
notannihilatetheroleoftheword,butmerelytransfersittoanotherlevel.Therewasawell-knownincidentinanEnglishcinema
whenagroupofdeaf-and-dumbpeoplewereatafilm-showandprotestedatthecontentofthesentencesspokenbytheactors,which
hadnocorrespondenceatalltothescenesdepictedonthescreen.Itappearsthat,forthedeaf-and-dumb,cinemaisamuchmore
'verbal'artthantheatre,where,becauseofactualperformingconditions(distancebetweenthestageandthespectator)theycannot
clearlyseethemovementsofthespeechorgans.Theordinaryfilmspectatordoesnotcatchthearticulationassuch,butitdoeshave
some meaning even for him, in that the actors do not perform on the screen as deaf-mutes and do not play out mere
pantomimes. The treatment ofarticulatorymimicryonthescreenisaproblemforthefuture;atanyrateitmustnotbejusta
passiverelicfromtheshootingofthefilm.
Oneotherfactisevenmoreimportanthowever—theprocessofinternalspeechonthepartofthespectator.Forastudyoftherules
ofcinema(andmontageaboveall)itismostimportanttorecognisethatperceptionandcomprehensionofafilmareinseparably
linked with the formation of an internal speech which links the separate shots together. Only the 'trans- sense' elements of
cinema can be perceived outside this process. The film spectator must perform a complicated mental task in linking together the
shots(theconstructionofcine-phrasesandcine-periods),ataskvirtuallyabsentineverydayusagewherethewordformsacovering
and excludes other means of expression. The spectator must constantly compile a chain of cine-phrases — otherwise he will
comprehendnothing.Thisiswhysomepeoplefindthiscinematicmentaltaskdifficult,wearying,unaccustomedandunpleasant.One
ofthechiefconcernsofthedirectoristomakesurethateachfilmsceneshould'reach'thespectator,i.e.toenablehimtodivinethe
meaningofanepisode,or,inotherwords,toswitchthespectatorontothelanguageofhisowninternalspeech;thisspeechthereby
comesintoaccountintheactualconstructionofthefilm.
Cinema demands from the spectator a certain special technique ofdivination, and this technique, along with the
developmentofcinema,willnaturallybecomemorecomplex.Directorsalreadyoftenusesymbolsandmetaphorswhosemeaning
restsdirectlyoncurrentverbalmetaphors.Film-viewingisaccompaniedbyacontinuousprocessofinternalspeech.Wearealready
usedtoawholeseriesoftypicalclichésofcine-language;eventheveryslightestinnovationinthisspherestrikesuswithnolessforce
thantheappearanceofanewwordinlanguageitself.Itisimpossibletotreatcinema,asanart,asatotallynon-verbalart.Thosewho
defendcinemafrom'literariness'oftenforgetthattheaudiblewordisexcludedfromcinema,butthethought,i.e.internalspeech,is
notexcluded.Astudyofthepeculiaritiesofthiscine-speechisoneofthemostpressingproblemsinthetheoryofcinema.
Connectedwiththeproblemofinternalspeechistheproblemoftitling.Thetitleisoneofthenecessarysemanticaccentsofafilm,
butweshouldnottalkabouttitles'ingeneral'.Wemustdistinguishtheirtypesandfunctionsinafilm.Thetypeoftitleswhichare
mostdisagreeableandalientocinemaarethosetitlesofanarrativenature,titles'fromtheauthor',expounding,butnotamplifying.
Thesetitlesreplacewhatoughttobeshownanddivinedbythespectatorthroughtheessenceofcine-art.They are therefore
evidenceofdeficienciesofthescenarioorofadeficientcinematographicdesignbythedirector.Atitlelikethisinterruptsnotonly
themovementofthefilmonthescreenbutalsotheflowofinternalspeech,makingthespectatorchangeforatimeintoareaderand
memorise what the 'author' is telling him in words.Conversationtitles, composed with due account takenof the peculiarities of
cinemaandinsertedattheappropriatetimes,areanothermatter.Shorttitlesappearingatmomentswhendialogueistakingplaceon
the screen, and accompanying the precise and characteristicgestures of the actors are perceived as a completely natural
element of the film. They do not replace what could be done in some other way, and do notundermine the cinematic thought
processesiftheyaredoneinconformitywiththerulesofcinema(theactualgraphicsofthetitlesplayabigpartinthis).Whenever
thedialoguehastoreachthespectatorthentheaidofatitleisnecessary.Aconversationtitledoesnotfillinagapintheplotnordoes
itintroduceintothefilmanarrative'author',butjustfillsinandaccentuateswhatthespectatorseesonthescreen.
Experience, among other things, shows that comedy films need conversation titles more than other films, and these titles
sometimesheightenthecomiceffectquitenoticeably;weonlyneedrecallthetitlesofJewishHappiness'4,TheMarkofZorro('Have
youeverseenanythinglikeit?'),andTheCoward('Sitdown!').Thishappensbecausecomedyisusuallyathingbearingmeaning,and
isthereforecloselyconnectedwithwords.Acomedyfilmisusuallybuiltuponthedetailsofseparatesituations,andthesedetails
can'reach'thespectatoronlybymeansoftitles.
Atanyrate,onceweacceptthatcinemaisnotjustavarietyofpantomimeandthatwordsarenotexcludedfromitasanormalrule,
thentitlesareacompletelylegitimatepartofthefilm,andthewholeproblemissimplythattheymustnotturnintoliterature,but
enterthefilmasanatural,cinematographicallyrealisedelementofit.
Anotherproblemalsoconnected,ontheonehand,withtheproblemofcine-perception,and,ontheother,withthefactofthe
exclusionoftheaudibleword,istheproblemofmusicincinema.Thisproblemhasasyetbeenalmostcompletelyunelucidatedin
theoreticalterms,whileinpracticaltermsitscarcelyarousesanydoubts.Theexclusionoftheaudibleworddemandedreplacements,
andmusicappearedastheequivalentofcertainaspectsoftheword.Musicbearstheroleofanamplifierofemotions,and
accompaniestheprocessofinternalspeech.Butthisexplanationisfarfromresolvingproblemsaboutthenatureofmusicincinema
andaboutwhatrelationshipispossiblebetweenthefilmanditsmusicalillustration.Whatshouldorcanbetheprinciplesofthis
musicalillustration?
InFrancetheideaofthe'musicalfilm'isverypopular.ForexampleL.Moussinactalksofitwithgreatenthusiasmifwithlittle
precision:Thephrasesoflightmustblendwithmelodicphrases;rhythmsmustharmonise,penetrateandmutuallycomplementeach
otherwiththegreatestaccuracyandsimultaneity.’16IncontrasttothisfloridsentenceitisinterestingtoquotethewordsofBela
Balazs who is inclined towards a totally different resolution of this problem: 'It is typical that we immediately notice the lackof
music,butpaynoattentiontoitwhenitispresent.Anymusicissuitableforanyscene...formusicarousesquitedifferentvisions
whichonlyinterferewiththevisionsonthescreenwhentheytouchonthemtooclosely.'17Balazssetsmoreserioushopes
onthereversecompilationonthecreationoffilmstoaccompanymusicalworks.
Balasz’scommentisverycorrectandtothepoint.Agoodfilmsoabsorbsourattentionthatwesomehowdonotnoticethe
music; at the same time a film without musical accompaniment seems impoverished. What is this —habit, or a requirement
connectedwiththenatureofcinemaitself?IthinkthisproblemcanberesolvedinconjunctionwithwhatIsaidabouttheintimacyof
cine-perception, about the observation of the film as a dream. These peculiarities of perception require that a film should be
wrappedinaspecialemotional,conventionalisedatmosphere,thepresenceofwhichmaybeasimperceptibleasthepresenceof
air, but all the same just as necessary. The internal speech of the cinema spectator is much more fluid and undefined than
pronounced speech — and music does not destroy its flow but assists in its formation. The intimate process of forming internal
speechisinalliancewiththemusicalinterpretationinshapingsomethingindivisible.Weshouldalsonoticethatmusicassists,toa
certainextent,thetransmissionofemotionsarousedbythescreenintotheworldofactualartisticemotions—afilmwithoutmusic
sometimes creates a terrible impression. And so we can state that the musical accompaniment to a film eases the process of
formationofinternalspeech,andpreciselybecauseofthisisnotsensedforitsownsake.
Inthiscomplexproblemthereisstilloneunclarifiedaspect—theproblemofcinemarhythmanditscorrespondenceor
kinshipwithmusicalrhythm.Peoplewhoreadilytalkoftherhythmoftheshotsorofthemontageareoftenplayingwithametaphoror
are using the word 'rhythm' in that generalised and rather unproductive sense in which they speak of rhythm inarchitecture, in
painting,etc.Inmoderncinemawedonothaverhythminanyexactsense(aswedoinmusic,indance,inpoetry),butwedohavea
certaincommonrhythmicalitywhichhasnoconnectionwiththeproblemofmusicincinema.Itistruethatthefootageoftheshotscan
tosomeextentactasabasisforconstructingacine-rhythm,butthisisathingforthefuturewhichisdifficulttocommentonhere.It
maybethatinthefutureevolutionofcinema(whenitproceedsfromadolescencetoyouth)itsrhythmicpotentialwillbemoreclearly
apparent, and then particular rhythmic genrescanbedetermined,withemphasisnotonthestory,butonphotogeny.Itmaybe that
this form (analogous to verse) will be born directly out ofexperimentsinthecine-illustrationofmusicalworks.Atthat
time the problem of music in cinema will also be more clearly defined. Meanwhile music's role is actually a typical one for a
syncreticperiod.
4
Socinemahascometobedefinedasanartof`photogeny',usingalanguageofmovements(facialexpressions,gestures,posesetc.).
Onthisgroundithas entered into competition with theatre — and has triumphed. Asignificantroleinthistriumphwas
playedbythecircumstancethatthecinemaspectatorwasenabledtoseethedetails(facialexpressions,objects,etc.),andwithanease
equaltohisimaginationtobetransportedfromoneplacetoanother,toseebeforehimpeopleandobjectsinvariousscales,angles,
illuminationsandsoon.Cine-dynamicsasitevolvedonthescreenconquered theatre, and transposed it to the position of a
sortof'fondbygone'.Theatremustfinditsidentityanew—nolongerasasyncreticform,butasaseparateartinwhichtheword
andbodyoftheactormustbeliberatedfromeveryotherart.
Oneoftherealdeficienciesoftheatre,sofarasithasbeenasyncreticart,andadeficiencywhichitispossibletoovercomewithin
theconditionsoftheatricalspectacletoonlyalimitedextent,wastheimmobilityofthestagearrangement,andlinkedwiththisthe
immobilityofpointofviewandperspectives.Visualeffectsoftheatrepresentation(mimicry,gesture,decorations,objects)inevitably
come up against the problem of thedistancebetween the immobile stage and the spectator. Making play with visual detailsinthe
theatreprovesalmostimpossible;bythesametokenmimicryandgesturearefrozenintheirdevelopment,andtheactorendowedwith
justsuch a gift of mimicry cannot display it in the theatre. The immobility of thestage leads to the actor having to act with a
backgroundofpropssetinasingleposition;thisconstrictsthedramatistandintroducesintotheverbaldynamicsoftheatricalart
somethingalien,surplus,static.Theobjectintheatreplaysatotallypassiverole,beinganoutsidewitnessorspyfortheactorand
boringthespectatorbyitspresence.Thedivisionoftheatricalspaceintoparts(byturningonandoffthelights),theuseofrevolving
stagesetc.doesnotaltertheessenceofthething,anditisperceivedasapitifulimitationofcinema.Whatistheessenceandnature
ofcinemacomesoutascoarseandheavyinthetheatre,likebirthpainsforthewitofamanwhoiswitless.Theatremust,ofcourse,
proceedalongadifferentpath—thepathtoconvertingthestagearrangementintoanareaexclusivelyfortheactivityoftheactor,
thepathtoeliminatingtheatricalspaceasafixedplaceofaction,inotherwords—thepathforreturningtotheprinciplesof
Shakespeareantheatre.
Cinema has eliminated the very problem of the stage setting, itsimmobility and the distance between it and the
spectator.Thescreenisanimaginarypoint,anditsimmobilityisalsoimaginary.Thedistancebetweenthefilm-actorandthespectator
constantlychanges—ortobemorecorrect—thereisnodistanceatall,butjustscalesandperspectives.Theactor'sfacecanbe
presentedinexaggerateddimensionsinwhichtheslightestmuscularmovementcanbeseen;thespectator,ifthepaceofthefilm
demandsit,canseetheslightestdetailofgesture,costume,setting.Nothingjuststandsandwaitsforitsturn—placesofaction,parts
of scenes and views of them, (from the side, from above, etc.) — all keep changing. All these technical possibilities have made
cinemaarivalnotonlyinrespectoftheatre,butofliteratureaswell.Untiltheinventionofcinemaandtherealisationofmontage
literaturewastheonlyartsuitableforunfoldingcomplexplotconstructions,fordevelopingparallelsinthestory,forfreelychanging
theplaceofaction,fordistinguishingdetailsandsoon.Now,inthecontextofcinema,manyoftheseprivilegesofliteraturehave
losttheirrighttoamonopoly.Literature,liketheatre,byfertilisingcinemaandassistinginitsdevelopmenthasatthesametimebeen
deprivedofitsformerposition,andmusttakeaccountofthepresenceofthenewartinitsfurtherevolution.
If,apartfromwhathasalreadybeensaid,wetakeintoconsiderationthelinkalreadyexistingbetweencinemaanddepictiveart(a
themerequiringaspecialanalysis),thenthecharacteristicsofmoderncinema,asasyncreticform,seemjustified.Cinema,truly,has
inonewayoranotherimpingedonthewholesystemoftheold,separateartsand,whilepushingitselfawayfromthemitisatthe
sametimehavingadecisiveinfluenceontheirfutureevolution.Wehaveanewfactbeforeus:photogenyandmontagehavemade
possibleadynamismofvisualimagessuchasisunavailableforanyotherart.Thisdynamism,whoseperspectivesarestillfarfrom
beingexhausted,hasforthemomentmadetheotherartsgatheraroundandserveanewcentre.Variousstylesoffilmshavebegunto
bedetermined,dependingonthisorthatmethodofworkingthematerial,oronthisorthat'bias'.Particulareine-stylesarestillonly
beinghintedat,andcinematheoryhasstillhardlytouchedonthisquestion.
Peoplecommonlyspeakofthe'naturalism'ofcinemaandconsiderthisits special property. This view, when expressed
in a primitive andcategorical form, is of course a naive one, and it must be resisted because itobscures the specific rules of
cinemaasanart.Itisquitenaturalthatinitsearlyperiod,wheneventheactual'verbal'methodsofcinemahadnotyetbeendefined,
cinemahadstillnotrealiseditsartisticpossibilitiesandwasconcernedexclusivelywiththecreationofillusionandwithgettingclose
t o'nature'. Thereafter, coinciding with the use of the movie-camera as an instrument, full-view scenes, being the most highly
'naturalistic',andwhichhadnotyetbrokenwithpurelyphotographicprinciples,losttheiroriginalsignificance,andcinemabeganto
developthepossibilityofhavingitsownconventions—conventionsfarfromprimitivenaturalism—suchastheblown-upshot,the
dissolve,cameraangleandsoon.
Theprincipleof‘photogeny'hasdefinedthebasicessenceofcinemaasbeingatotallyspecificandconventionalone.Fromnow
onthedeformationof the real worldhasassumeditsnaturalplaceincinema,asintheotherarts.Inthehandsofthecameramanthe
movie-cameraisalreadyworkingjustlikepaintinthehandsoftheartist.Oneandthesameaspectoftherealworld,filmedfrom
variouspoints,invariousperspectives,andwithvaryingillumination,producesvariousstylisticeffects.Inrecenttimesshootingon
locationhasmoreandmorefrequentlybeenreplacedbystudiofilming,preciselybecausetherealworldpreventsthemaintenanceof
adefinitestylistictoneinthefilm.Producersareconcernednotonlywiththecompositionofthefilm(montage),butalsowiththe
composition of separateshots, and we are already being guided by purely depictive principles — ofsymmetry, proportion, the
generalrelationshipoflines,thearrangementoflightandsoon.Onceitisaquestionoffilmstylesandcompositionofshotsitfollows
that the notorious 'naturalistic' approach is only one of several possible styles, and is therefore no less conventionalised than the
others.Thedemandsof'type-casting'and,withit,theproblemofthefilmactor(theactorand'reallife')didnotappearbecause
cinema is naturalistic, butthroughtheconditionsofcinemaprojection:theclose-upandthepeculiarities of photogeny prevent
theuseofmake-uptothedegreeitisusedintheatre.Hencewehavetotallydifferentprinciplesofexpressivenessandoftheactual
filmacting.
Sonaturalismincinemaisnolessconventionalthanliteraryortheatricalnaturalism.Itistruethatcinemacanintroduceintofilm
the real world, which theatre, for example, cannot do. The film-director can have a sort of 'note-book' in which he can preserve
scenesfromlifeshotinpassing,soastousetheminthemontageofsomefilmorother(e.g.inafilmofthe'physiological' type),
buthecandothis,justasawritercan,onlyonconditionthathesubordinatesthismaterialtothegeneralstylisticimprintofthe
filmandtoitsgenre-pattern.
5
Inconsideringthisorthatfilmstylethenatureoftheshooting(perspectives,angles,lighting,apertures,etc.)andthetypeofmontage
havedecisiveimportance.Weareusedtothinkingofmontagejustas'plot-construction',whereasitsbasicfunctionisastylisticone.
Montageisaboveallasystemofshot-controlorshot-linking;itisasortofsyntaxoffilm.
Plot-constructionisinitselfdeterminedbythescenariooreventhelibretto;ifitdoesalsodependonthemontagethenitis
onlytotheextenttowhichthemontagegivesitthisorthatstylisticcolouration,bymotivatingthealternationofparallels,imparting
this or that tempo, using close-ups andso on. Cinema has its own language, i.e. its own stylistics and its owndevices of
phraseology.OfcourseIusethesetermsnottobringcinemaclosetoliteraturebutthroughacompletelylegitimateanalogywhich
alsoallowsonetospeak,forexample,ofa'musicalphrase','musicalsyntax'etc.Thephenomenonofinternalspeech,socharacteristic
ofcine-perception,givesmeeveryrighttousethisterminologywithoutdestroyingthespecificfeaturesofcinema.
S. Timoshenko" tried to 'enumerate' the basic devices of montage and givea'description'ofthem.Butbeforeenumeratingand
describing (if this iseven generally possible), we must construct a theory of montage, and in hisbook there is no such thing. In
Timoshenko'senumeration(15devicesareindicated)firstlythepurelystylisticdeviceslikethe'deviceofcontrast'areconfusedwith
deviceswhichhaveothersignificance,andsecondlymontageassuch,i.e.thequestionofprinciplesanddevicesofshot-control,isleft
completelyononeside.Forexample'changeoflocation'isinitselfneitheradevicenormontageatall;itisatechnicalpossibility
affordedbythemovie-cameraandthescreen,asare'changeofangleofshot'and'changeofperspective'.Montageis adevice for
exploitingthispossibility,whosevariantsdependbothonthegenreofthefilmandonthestylisticmannerofthedirector.Howto
movefromonelocationtoanother,fromoneparalleltoanother—thisisthebasicproblemofmontagewithachangeoflocation,orof
afilmasitisdeterminedbythemovementofplot.Itisaproblemofstylistics(logic)andmotivation.
Wecanseeachangeoflocationinanyfilm,butonedirectorcanbedistinguishedfromanotherpreciselybythemontageofthis
change,bythedevicesofpreparingforandoperatingit.
Themovementofafilmisbuiltupontheprincipleoftemporalandspatiallinking.Thedynamicsofcinema,whichgivethedirector
therightfreelytointermixlocations,perspectivesandcameraangles,andtoalterthetempo,alsoimposetheirowndemandswhich
are not found in either literature or theatre in the same form — demands of temporal and spatial continuity. This is the very
peculiarity of cinema which Balks happily calls visuelleKontinuitaf'(visual continuity). In talking about films made from literary
worksBalksobservesthatthereisalwayssomethinglifelessandfragmen​taryaboutthem:'Astorythathasbeenthoughtupinliterary
form jumps over many of those very features a film must not jump over. A word, a conception, a thought exist outside time. A
picture has the concrete strengthof the present, and lives only in the present... Therefore the film, especiallyin the depiction of
spiritualmovements,demandsfullcontinuityoftheseparatemoments.'
Herethedirectorstumblesuponthe'oppositionofthematerial'whichhemustsomehowovercome:cinemademandsmontageof
asortbywhich,albeitwithinthelimitsoftheseparateparts,asensation of timeis producedin the spectator, i.e. a sensation of a
continuous sequence of episodes. Thetrick is not in the 'unity of time' as it was understood in the theatre, but in thetemporal
relationshipsoftheseparatemomentsbeingsensed.Everysuchmomentcanbeshortenedorlengthenedasappropriate(oneofthe
basicmontageeffectsoftempo),andinthisrespectcinemapossessesveryrichconstructivepossibilities,buteverythingfollowing
mustbeinthisorthattemporalrelationshiptowhatprecedesitThisisalsowhytheadjacentshotsinafilmareperceivedaspreceding
andfollowing—thisisageneralruleofcinema:itisthedirector'sjob,inconformingwiththisrule,touseitfortheconstructionof
time,i.e.tocreatetheillusionofcontinuity.
Ifapersoninafilmleavesahouse,theninthenextshothemustnotbeshownenteringanotherhouse—thiscontradictsboth
timeandspace.Hence the need for the so-called link-shots' which in the hands ofinexperienceddirectorsusuallyweigh
downthefilm,becausetheyintroducesuperfluousandthereforesenselessdetails.Itisattheseverypointsthatthewitandinventionof
thedirectorareneeded,becausethisiswheretheartofmontagetells:tousethenecessity,asdictatedbythenatureofthematerial,as
astylisticdevice(deceivingthespectatorandhidingfromhimthepoweroftherule').
Allthesedonots',asinanyart,areofcourserelative,andatanymomentcanbeturnedintoa'may'.Butthiscanbedoneonlyin
certainconditionsofstyleandgenre.Onemaybreakaruleinart,butonecannotsimplyavoidit.Ifthereisnopositivemotivationthen
theremustbenegativemotivation.
Andsofromherewereachtheconceptofmontageascine-stylistics.Therealityandsignificanceofthisproblemarevalidated,I
think,bywhatIsaidaboutthe'internalspeech'ofthefilmspectatorandabouttherulesofshot-control('visualcontinuity'andthe
logicoflinkages).InavoidingproblemsconcerningtheprinciplesofmontageS.Timoshenkoimmediatelydepriveshimselfofthe
possibilityofarrangingtheactualdevicestoavoidcrossingandmixingthemup.Thedeviceofcontrast',forexample,isaparticular
caseofmotivationwithachangeoflocation;inotherwordsitisoneofthedevicesofmontageandhasapurelystylisticcharacter.
Hereisanexamplebytheauthorofthebookhimself:'ArichAmericansitsinacomfortablechairafteraheavymeal.Thenextshot
—inaprison;acriminal,oneoftheworkersfromtherichman'sfactory,sitsintheelectricchair.TherichAmericanpressesthe
buttonofanelectricbell:asplendidchandelierlightsup.Intheprisonabuttonispressed:electriccurrentrunsthroughthe
worker'sbody'etc.InTimoshenko'ssystemofenumeration'thisisallsimultaneous,boththedeviceofchangeoflocation'andthe
deviceofcontrast',andsobothofthemrelateto'plot-construction'.Inrealitythisiseithermotivationofachangeoflocation(ifthe
plotdemandsthis),ortheuseofcontrastforideologicalends,asortoforatoricaldeviceofcomparison.Hencethefact
thatthemeaningofadevicedependsonitsfunction.
ToaddtowhatIsaidearlierabouttemporalsequenceImustalsopointoutthatamontagebasedontheprincipleofasimultaneity
ofepisodesdoesnotcontradictthis.Thissimultaneityisnotthetypewehave,forexample,inliterature,whentheauthor,passingfrom
somecharacterstoothers,says:'At the very time when' etc. In literature time plays the completelyconventionalroleof
linking — it is merely pointed out, and the author can deal with it as he pleases, insofar as he is telling the story. In cinema
simultaneityisthatsamesequence,butisjustimplementedbywayofacrossingofparallels(Iamdeliberatelyusingtheseterms,
contrarytothegeometricalconceptofparallels).Onlysequenceisinterruptedinordertocontinueinothermaterial.Thisalsomakes
possiblenotonlythecreationoftheillusionofcontinuitybuttheconstructionoftimeitselfinvariousways—allthemoresointhat
itisalsolinkedwithspace.Ishallturntothedetailsofthisproblem,inconnectionwiththeproblemoftempo,lateron,inthesection
onthecine-period.
Inowturntoproblemsofcine-stylisticsinthenarrowsenseoftheword,i.e.problemsofcine-syntax(theconceptionofthecinephrase,montageofthecine-period)andcine-semantics(thesemanticmarksofcinema,metaphorandsoon).
These problems of course demand a special study using the material of separate films — I am confining myself here almost
entirelytoasimplestatementoftheproblems.
6
Everyart,theperceptionofwhichproceedsduringaperiodoftime,mustcontainwithinitselfanarticulation,inasmuchasitis,toa
greaterorlesserextent,a'language'.Startingfromthetinypartswhichconstitutetheactualmaterial,onecangofurtherandreach
thearticulationswhichrepresentthepredeterminedconstructiveparts,whichareactuallyperceivable.Thusthefeetinalineofverse
formamechanical,abstractarticulation,althoughtheydoundoubtedlyparticipateintheconstructionoftheverse;intheprocessof
perceptionitisnotthefeetwhichreallyexist,butgroupsofelementswhichareunitedandcontrastedthroughrhythmicaccentuation.
In cinema we must distinguish between the actual film-strip (the reel of film) and its projection on the screen. The film-strip
representsanidealmechanicalsetofdivisions.Itconsistsofrectangles(frames)each1/52macross;eachframetakenseparatelyis
thesmallestpartofonemovementwhichinreallifeiscontinuousandindivisible.Thisisamechanical,andinthatsenseabstract(not
perceivableonthescreen)setofdivisions,andnotarticulation.Thisisthetechnicalbasisofcinema,withoutwhichitcouldnotexist.
Likeanyartcinemaexistsanddevelopsonthebasisofitsownparticular,artificiallycreated,conventionalisedand,asitwere,
secondarynature,whichwasformedasaresultofthetransformationofreallifeintomaterial.Whenitisartisticallysplitupinto
abstractparts(frames)movementisonceagainformedonthescreenbeforethespectator'seyes,butnotinitsnaturalform,but
accordingtotherulesofcinema.Cinemawascreatedthankstothetwomeanswhichconstituteitsparticular,secondarynature:the
technical(fromthenatureofthemovie-camera)andthepsycho-physiological(fromthenatureofthehumansenseofsight).The
firstofthesemakeswhatisinrealitycontinuous—dividedandinterrupted;thesecondre-impartstothemovementofseparate
framestheillusionofcontinuity.
Sotheframesexistseparatelyonthereeloffilmpreciselyinordertobeeliminatedonthescreen,tobefusedintoonemovement.
Inotherwordsthefilm(photographic)frameisforthespectatoranimaginary,abstractarticulation—asortoffilmatom.
Fromthiswegetthatcharacteristicdualityoftheactualterm'frame'inthejargonoffilmpeople:thefilmframe,asitexistsseparately
onlyonthereeloffilm,andthemontageframe,whichS.Timoshenkodefinesas'aseparatepieceoffilm,fromonesplicetothenext,
shotthroughonelens,fromoneangle,inoneperspective.'
Itisobviousthatinthisquestionofthearticulationofcine-speechitisnotthephotographicorfilm-reelframesthatarebasically
significant,butthemontageframes,becauseitisthesewhichareperceivedasrealdivisions.Itisthemontageframes,linkingone
withthenext,whichorganisethesystemofshot-control,whichisalsothebasicproblemofeine-stylistics.Inthissystemweshould
obviously differentiate smaller-scale and larger-scale articulations, in accordance with how the internal speech of the cinema
spectatorisformed.Montageispreciselymontage,andnotasimplesplicingofseparatepieces,insofarasitsprincipleisthe
formationofmeaningfulunitsandthelinkingoftheseunits.Thebasicunitofthislinkingisthecine-phrase.
If by the word 'phrase' we generally understand a certain basic type of articulation, which is actually perceived as a segment (
verbal,musical,etc.)ofmovingmaterial,thenitcanbedefinedasagroupofelementsclusteredaroundanaccentualnucleus.The
musical phrase, for example, forms a group of tones around a rhythmical-melodic or harmonic accent, in relationto which the
precedingmovementrepresentsapreparation.Incinemathegroupingofvariousphotographicperspectivesandforeshorteningsplays
ananalogousrole.
In cinema we have three basic movements on screen: movementpast the spectator, movement towards the spectator, and
movementfromthespectator into the distance. The first of these, which can be calledpanoramic, is an elementary
movement untypical for cinema; it wasdominantintheearlystageofcinematography('landscape'pictures),wheneverything
was shown in a general perspective, without montage, and the cinema was still only moving photography and not far from the
principlesofthemagiclantern.Alongwiththetransitionfromcine-reeltocine-filmcamearealisationofthesignificanceofmontagenot
onlyasaplotformbutalsoasastylisticform(shot-control).Thecreationofcine-speech,withitsspecialsemantics,requiredthe
creation of accentual moments on which cinephrases can be planned by way of highlighting these moments. In this way the
stylisticsignificanceofperspectivesandcameraanglesbecamedefined.
The purely technical methods of photography were realised as being methods for articulating cine-speech. The long shot was
retainedonlyasalocatingelementofthecine-phrase,asasortof'adverbofplaceortime',tousetheold-fashionedgrammatical
terminology.Accentualpartsofthephrasearecreatedbythenearandclose-upperspectiveswhichrepresentasortofsubjectand
predicate of the cine-phrase. Themovement ofperspectives(fromalongshottoamediumandthentotheclose-up,orinthe
otherorder),atthecentreofwhich,asabasicstylisticaccent,standstheclose-up—thisisthebasicruleofconstructionforthe
cine-phrase,fromwhichdeviationsareofcoursepossiblejustastheyareinanyartfromany'rule'.Includedhereisthechangingof
angles(asortofsubordinateclause),whichintroducessupplementaryaccentsintothepatternofthecine-phrase.Wegetascenein
alongshot,theninamedium,andthenthesameperspectivebutwithadifferentangle(fromabove)etc.
Canwenowpickoutsomeparticulartypesofcine-phrase?Weneed,ofcourse,amuchmoredetailedanalysisofthisproblem,
conductedinlaboratoryfashionusingseparateframes.Anisolatedclarificationwouldhardlybeworthwhile,butwecansayatleast
somethingonithere.Forthecinemaspectatorthedifferencebetweenalongandshortcine-phraseiscompletelyreal.Themontage
ofthecine-phrasecanbelengthenedandshortened.Insomecasesthelongshotcanhaveconsiderablesignificance—lengtheningit
givestheimpressionofalong,slowlydevelopingphrase;inother cases, conversely, a phrase is constituted from rapidly alternating
foreground and close-up shots, which produce an impression ofjerkiness, or laconicism. Apart from this a vital distinction in the
stylisticconstructionofthecine-phrasedependsonthepaceoftheperspectives:fromdetailsshowninclose-up,toapanorama,or
vice-versa.Inthefirstcasewegetsomethinglikeanenumerationleadingtoatotal—thespectatordoesnotknowthesumtotal,but
peersatthedetailsandatfirstcatchesonlytheirphotogenyandsignificanceasobjects:ahighfence,ahugepadlock,adogona
chain.Thenapanoramaunfolds—andthespectatorcomprehends:thecourtyardofastrictly-orderedmerchant'shouse.Thisisa
typeofphraseinwhichthespectatormustmakesenseofthedetailsafterthelongshot—bycomingbacktothem.Inotherwords
thisistheregressivetypeofcine-phrase.Itspeculiarityliesnotonlyintheorderoftheperspectivesbutinthefactthatthedetails
must be endowed with a certain particular semantic symbolism, whose meaning can be guessed by the spectator before the
concludingaccent. The montage of this sort of phrase is built on the principle of the riddle. Another type of cine-phrase, the
progressive,leadsfromthelongshottothedetails,sothatthespectator,asitwere,drawsneartothepicturehimself,andwithevery
framelocateshimselfmoreandmorecloselyamongtheeventshappeningonscreen.Itcouldalsobesaidthatthefirsttypeofcinephraseisclosertoadepictiverole,whereasthesecondapproximatestoanarrativerole.Itisonlynaturalthatthesetypesofcinephrasearepresentedwithespecialclarityandconsistencyrightatthebeginningofthefilm,whenthespectatormustbebroughtinto
theveryatmosphereofthepicture.
Sothecine-phraseisplannedbythegroupingofmontageframesonthebasisofamovementofperspectivesandcameraangles
unitedbyaccentualmoments.Stylisticvariationofcine-phrasesdependsonthedevicesofmontage.
7
Fromthecine-phrasewenowturntothequestionofthelinkingofphrasesandtheconstructionofthecine-period.Themovement
of frames, once started, requires a meaningful linking according to the principal of spatio​temporal continuity. It is a question,
naturally,oftheillusionofcontinuity,i.e.ofthefactthatthemovementofspaceandtimeonthescreenmustbeconstructed,because
thespectatormustbeawareofit.Spatio-temporalrelationshipsincinemaplaytheroleofabasicsemanticlinkwithoutwhichthe
spectatorcannotlocatehimselfamongthemovementofframes.
Intheatretheproblemofspaceandtimehasacompletelydifferentsignificance—connectedwiththefactthattheatrehas
only a singletemporalandspatialperspectiveandastaticnature.Inthisrespecttheatreismuchmore'naturalistic'thancinema.
Time in theatre is passive — it simply corresponds with the real time of the spectator. The dramatist can, ofcourse, quicken the
tempoofactionorintroduceintooneactamuchlargernumberofeventsthanispossibleinreality,butthiscanbedoneonlyon
condition the spectator, like the reader, forgets about time, and is indifferenttowards the motivation. The theatre cannot offer
conventionalisedcon​tinuity:timeintheatreisfilledup,butisnotconstructed.Ifanactor,intheprogressofaplay,hastositdownto
writealetterthenhecandonothingbutwriteitunderthegazeofthespectator,—theparallelismofactionwithwhichthefilmdirectorconstructscine-timeisonlypartiallypossibleintheatre,anditsfunctionisquitedifferent.The'unityoftime'intheatreisa
problem,inessence,notoftime,butofplot,whereasincinematheplotcanitselfembraceasmuchtimeasitlikes(ayear,many
years,alifetime),andthe'unityoftime',asaproblemofmontage(thetemporalcontinuityofseparateparts),isaproblemofthe
actualconstructionoftime.
In cinema time is not filled up, but is constructed. Through theinterruption of scenes and the changing of
perspectives and angles the director can slow down or speed up not only the tempo of action, but the tempo of the actual film
(montage), and thus create a totally individual awareness of time. The effects of the final scenes by Griffith19 are well known
(Intolerance 20 ,OrphansoftheStorm21 )—thetempoofactionslowsdownalmosttoimmobility,whilethetempoofmontage
speedsupandreachesafrenziedrapidity.22
Incinemawethereforehavetwotypesoftempo:thetempoofactionandthetempoofmontage.Thecrossingofthesetwotypes
formsaspecialsortof cine-time. The two types can both coincide and not coincide. ForexamplethefirstpartofTheBig
Wheel 23is only an exposition and an initiation of the intrigue (the sailors of the Aurora go to the People's House where Shorin
becomesacquaintedwithValya);theactiondevelopsveryslowly on account of the details (the switchback, the wheel), and
themontageofthedetailsgoesataveryrapidtempo.
Timeincinemaisinseparablylinkedwithspace(Balazsusesaspecialsingle-wordterm—Zeitraum).Inthetheatretheactorwho
leavesthestagealsogoesoutbeyondthelimitsofthescenicarea,i.e.thesolespatialareaintheatre.Thestageremains'empty',
andiftheactisnotfinishedthensomeoneelsemustreplacethedepartedactor,atleastuntilhereturns.Fromthisweget
those 'coincidences' of exits and entrances. which are typical for theatrical montage, and constitute theatre's obligatory conven​
tionality.Inotherwordstheatricalspaceisaspassiveastheatricaltime—itdoesnotparticipateassuchinthedynamicsoftheplay,
butissimplyfilledup.Thecinemaspectatorthinksinspace—itexistsforhimquiteapartfromthecharacters.Thetheatreactoris
boundbythescenicareaandcannotthrowitoff,becausebehinditthereisavoid,anegativespacewhichforthespectatorjustdoes
notexist;thefilmactorisabeingsurroundedbyalimitlessspace,inwhichhemovesaroundfreely.Ifafilmactorhasgoneoutof
ahousethenquiteapartfromtheconventionsofcine-timethespectatorcanonewayoranotherwatchhisprogresstoanotherplace.
In other wordsspace in cinema has not so much the significance of plot as the significanceof style (syntax). Hence the need for
'linking scenes'; this is not 'naturalism',butaspecialsortofcinemalogic,atthebasisofwhichistheprincipleofspatio-temporal
continuity.
It is by this principle that the montage of linking cine-phrases isdetermined, inasmuch as we are talking about the
actualstylisticfunctionofmontage.Thecine-period,whosesizecanofcoursebeveryvariable,issensedasasortofenclosedpiece
precisely to the extent that the movementof the frames which constitute it is linked by the continuity of spatiotemporal
relationships.Thetreatmentoftheseparatespatio-temporalmoments(cine-phrases)andtheirlinkingtogetherisendedbyasortof
summary of them, by the establishing of semantic relationships between them. When the spectator starts watching a film he sees
separateparts;aftertwoorthreecine-phraseshebeginstounderstandtherelationshipsbetweenthecharacters,theplaceofaction,
themeaningoftheiractionsandconversations,butallofitstillonlypartially.Thenamomentcomeswhenthesemanticrelationships
ofalltheelementsconstitutingthemontagematerialofanygivenpartbecomecleartohim;thecine-periodcloseswiththecrossing
ofmontageframesataprecisepointwhichclarifiesthemutualconnectionoftheprecedingpiecesandterminatestheirmovement.
Asaconcludingmomentthereisusuallyaclose-upfiguringinaspecialroleanalogoustothemusicalfermata24,aflowoftimeasit
werecomestoastop,thefilmholdsitsbreath—thespectatorsinksintocontemplation.
Fromthesegeneralcharacteristicsofthecine-perioditfollowsthatthebasicstylisticproblemofitsmontageiscontainedinthe
motivationofthetransitionsfromonecine-phrasetoanother.Plotmotivationdoesnotinitselfsolvethisproblembecauseithas
noconnectionwiththeproblemofthetempoofmontageandoftheconstructionofspatio-temporalrelation​ships.Thestylisticand
style-related devices of montage have their effect precisely in the fact that the director controls the frames, uniting one
momentoftheplotwithanother.Heremostofallwecanseethedifferencebetweenaflowing,slowmontage,whichsmashescinetimeintotinypartslinkingtogetherinsequence(forexampleonesceneproceedingwitheverydaydetailsorwithavarietyofcamera
angles),andarapidmontagewhichcanreachthestageof'flashing'or'cutting',whenseparatemomentsarepresentedtothespectator
inonlyashortfootageoffilm.Thisisonesideofcine-syntax.Itsothersideisseeninhowthedirectorproceedsfromonesceneto
thenext.
Thecruxofthematteristhateverysceneispresentedtothespectatorinpieces,injerks.Thereisalotwhichthespectatordoesnot
entirelysee—theintervalsbetweenthejerksarefilledupwithinternalspeech.Butforthisinternal speech to be constructed
andforittogivethespectatoranimpressionoffullnessandlogicalitythejerksmustmovewithinacertaindefinedlinkageand
thetransitionsmustbesufficientlymotivated.Certainover-motivatedpicturesaresodistortedthatthemontageturnsintoasortof
twitch, so that no internal speech is formed within the spectator, and he understands nothing ( an example from last autumn's
repertoire — Circus Twins25 with Werner Krauss, and before that — The Joyless Street26 with Asta Nielsen and Chmara). If a
charactermovesfromonepointtoanotherthenthedirector,dependingononeoranotherstylisticintention,canactinvariousways:
hecaneithershowusindetailthecharacter'sjourney,orhecanjumpaheadseveralmomentsandreplacetheseomittedmoments
with material from another episode. Montage is usually constructed on changes of this sort — its movement is multilinear. The
illusionofspatio-temporaldiscontinuityiscreatednotbyarealdiscontinuitybutbyanequivalentofit:whilethefamilyhasdinner
inanotherplacesomethingis happening.Parallelsareusedaccordingtotheprincipleofmovingsimultaneity—theycrosseach
otherintheinternalspeechofthespectatorlikecoordinatesintime.
Butheretherearisestheproblemofmotivation.Wheretointerruptalineandhowtoproceedtothenext?Inotherwords
with what logicalconnections should the parallels or pieces of the cine-period be tiedtogether in order to turn the
necessityofthetransitionintoastylisticconformity?
Ihavealreadymentionedthisinpart,inconnectionwithS.Timoshenko'sbook.Thisiswherethesignificanceofsuchdevicesas
contrast,coincidence,comparisonandsoonbecomesclear.Thevarietyinthisareaisinexhaustible,butoneoranotherassociationserves
as a general basis. Sometimes, of course, a title intrudes in the matter, but this is exactly an instance of when atitle is least to be
desired.Thedevicesofassociatingthepartsoftheperiod—thisisthebasicstylisticproblemofmontage.
I am concluding with this deduction because, I repeat, further investigationof this problem must be done on a laboratory basis.
Inevitably,ofcourse,thequestionofthestylisticandgenrevariationsofafilmariseshere,butIamdeliberatelybarelytouchingon
thisatpresent.
8
Itonlyremainsformetomention(again,ofcourse,inaverygeneralway)thebasicpeculiaritiesofcine-semantics,i.e.thosesignals
throughwhichcinemaletsthespectatorcomprehendthesenseofwhatishappeningonscreen.Inotherwordsitisaquestionofhow
theseparatemomentsofafilm'reach'thespectator.
Ihavealreadynotedthatthecinemaspectatormustguessalot.Intheend,cinema,likeeveryotherart,isaspecialsystemof
allegory(inthat,generally,itisusedasa‘language').Themainpeculiarityofcinemaisthatitgetsbywithouttheaidofthespoken
word—itisthelanguageofphotogenybeforeus.Thedirector,actor,andcameramanaregivenatask—to'tellwithoutwords',and
thespectator'staskistounderstandthis.Thisiswheretherearebothenormousadvantagesforcinemaandenormousdifficulties,and
masteringthesedemandsspecialgeniusandspecialtechnique.
Cine-languageisnolessconventionalthananyother.Thebasisofcine​semanticsismadeupofthatstockofexpressivityinmime
andgesturewhichweassimilateineverydaylifeandwhichis‘directly'comprehensibleonthescreen.Butthisstock,firstly,istoo
meagre for the construction of a film, and secondly, and this is the main thing, it is by itself sufficiently polysemantic. Besides,
cinema,likeanyotherart,isinclinedtocultivatethoseveryelementsofthissemanticswhicharenotutilisedineverydaylife.Cinema
hasnotonlyitsown'language',butitsown‘jargon',whichisbarelyaccessibletotheuninitiated.
Agestureoffacialexpressiontakenseparately,likea‘dictionary'wordtakenseparately,ispolysemantic,undefined.Thisiswhere
thetheoryofbasicandsecondary(fluctuating)signsofmeaningisfullyapplicable—thetheorydevelopedbyYu.Tynyanovinhis
analysisofthesemanticsofverse:
Aworddoesnothaveonesingledefinedmeaning.Itisachameleon,inwhicheverytimenotonlyvariousnuances
arise,but sometimes even various colorations. The abstraction of'the word', properly speaking, is like a circle
filledupeachtimeinanewwaydependingonthelexicalsysteminwhichitoccurs,andonthefunctionswhicheach
elementofspeechcarries.Itisasitwereacross-sectionofthesevariouslexicalandfunctionalsystems.27
Allofthisalsoholdsgoodinstudyingcine-semantics.Theseparatephotographicsnapshotisasortofdetached,'dictionary'cineword.Thesemanticsofthephotograph,whichhasno'context'andstandsoutsidea'sentence',andthereforeoutsideany'lexical
plan',ispoorandabstract.Theclassical'Smile,please,withwhichsomephotographersalerttheirsubjects,isdictatedbythelack
ofasemantictask,thelackofcontext'.Ashowcaseofphotographsisa'dictionary',whereasashowcaseoffilm-stillsisacollection
ofquotations.Itisinterestingtocomparetheimpressiongainedfromthesestillsbeforethefilm-showandafter.Inthefirstinstance
youcanguessatonlyaverygeneralmeaningoftheseparatescenes—'Theyarekissing','Oneisfollowingtheother'andsoon;in
thesecondinstancethestillscomealive,justasaquotationfromafamiliarbookcomesalive—becauseyouknowthepicture,you
knowthe'context'.
Wecanmakeadeductionfromallthathasbeensaid:incinemawehaveasemanticsofframesandasemanticsofmontage. The
semantics of the frame as such is rarely separately apparent, but certain details in the composition of the frames, connected
particularly with photogeny, some​t imes have an independent semantic significance. However the basicsemantic role
belongs,ofcourse, tothemontage, sinceit isthemontage whichcolours theframes,beyond theirgeneral meaning,withdefinite
semanticnuances.Therearewell-knowninstanceswhenduringthere​editingofafilmthesameframesasbefore,butoccurringina
newmontage'context',cangainacompletelynewsense.Injustthesamewayaframewhichentersanewsreelfilm(thisiswherean
exclusivesemanticsoftheframe is evident, because montage plays no independent semantic role) can be used in the film, but its
meaningwillalreadybedifferent,becauseitwillenterthesemanticsofmontage.Thefactisthatcinemaisathoroughlysequential
art,28startingfromtheframesoffilmandendingwiththeframesofmontage:thesenseoftheseparateframesisgraduallyrevealed
through their contiguity and sequence. The basic signs of their meaning are in themselves extremely changeable and are created
withintheboundsofcinemalikesemanticcyphers,onwhichtheexperiencedcinemaspectator'sattentionnolongerdwellsforany
greattime.
T h esequentialityof cinema has a particular nature in connection withthe fact that montage does not give a complete
sequence, but an interruptedsequence. Mimicry on the screen, for example, is quite different from mimicry on the stage. The
mimicryofthetheatreactoraccompaniesthewordshepronounces,isaconcomitanttothem;thetheatreactorreallydoesmimic—
notatfocalpoints,butcontinuously.Thefilm-actordoesnotinanywayhavetogivethatgamutofmimicrywhichisessentialforthe
performance of the theatre actor. In cinema there is no mimicry in this senseof the word, — there are simply the separate facial
expressions,posesorgestures,likesignalsofthisorthatmeaning.Thisiswhycine-mimicryissimultaneouslybothricherandpoorer
than theatre mimicry — it proceeds in a quite different perspective and is subject to quite different rules of expressivity. The
mimickingmannersofChaplinorKeatonhaveasemanticeffectonlyincinema—wheretheyareconnectedwithclose-ups
andotherparticularitiesofmontage.Stagemimicryisperceivedonthescreenas'over-acting'preciselybecauseforcinemaitistoo
fragmentary, too much constructed on the principle of the gamut of expressions. Cine​mimicry is much more static because the
dynamicsareconcentratedinthemontage;incinemasemanticclarityintheseparatefacialexpressionsisimportant,type-castingis
important,butmimicryisquiteunimportantandunnecessary.Beforeusonscreentherearejerks,flashingmoments;thesemustbe
keptinmindfortheirownsake,whiletheirsemanticnuancesaregivenbythe'context'ofthefilmandbythesemanticsofthefilm's
montage.
Thereisstillonegeneralproblem,whichconcernsthoseinstanceswhenadirectormustgiveaninterpretativecommentarytothisor
thatfeatureinafilm,ortoafilminitsentirety,i.e.whensomething'fromtheauthor'hastoappearinthefilmquiteapartfromthe
plotitself.Theeasiestwayistogivethiscommentarybywayoftitles,butmoderncinemaisalreadytryingtoworkwithalternative
methods. I have in mind the appearance of metaphor in cinema, which sometimes acquires even a symbolic character. From the
semantic point of view the introduction of metaphor into cinema isparticularlyinteresting,becauseityetagainreaffirms
therealsignificanceofinternalspeechnotasachancepsychologicalelementofcine-perception,butasaconstructiveelementof
the actual film. The cine-metaphor isfeasibleonlyontheconditionthatitissupportedbyaverbalmetaphor.Thespectatorcan
understanditonlyincircumstanceswherethereisacorrespondingmetaphoricalexpressioninhisstockoflanguage.Ofcoursethe
futuredevelopmentofcinemamayseetheformationofitsownsemanticpatterns — patterns which can serve as the basis for the
constructionofindependentcine-metaphors,butthispossibilitydoesnotalterthebasicsituation.
Thecine-metaphorisasortofvisualrealisationofaverbalmetaphor.Itisnaturalthatonlycurrentverbalmetaphorscanserveas
materialforcine​m etaphors — the spectator quickly grasps them just because they arefamiliar to him and are therefore
easilyguessedatasbeingmetaphors.Thus,forexample,theword'fall'isusedinlanguagemetaphoricallytomeanaroadtoruin;
hencethemetaphorprovedfeasibleinTheBigWheel:intheinnwherethesailorShorinfindshimselfabilliardtableisshown—and
thebilliardballfallsintothepocketThetotallyepisodicnatureofthisscenegivesthespectatortounderstandthatitssenseisnotpart
ofthestory,butpartofacommentary:itisthestartofthefall'ofthehero.Anotherexample—fromTheOvercoat29:inthescene
betweenAkakyAkakievichandthe'ImportantPerson'thecameraangleschange:frombelow,whenAkakyAkakievichislookingat
the 'Important Person', and from above, when the 'Important Person' is shouting at Akaky Akakievich. 'From above— from
below' are taken from a verbal metaphor ('to look down onsomeone'). The last example, by the way, gives grounds for
thinkingthatthecine-metaphorhasabigfuturebeforeit,becauseitcanbeconstructedonthedevicesofcameraangle,illumination,
etc.
Inthewholeofthisproblemitisextraordinarilyinterestingthattheverbalmetaphordoesnotbyitselfgobeyondthelimitsofpurely
verbalsemanticsiftheauthorhasnospecialtendencytoimpartacomicsensetoit.Ithasoftenbeenpointedoutthattheunfoldingor
realisationofaverbalmetaphorappearsinliteratureprimarilyasaparodyingdevice(seee.g.Mayakovsky).Thecine-metaphorisasit
wereagenuinerealisationofaverbalmetaphorimplementedonscreen—sohowisitthatitcanbeperceivedseriously?Itisevidently
thecasethatincinema,firstly,wearemovingwithinthelimitsofcinematographic,notverbal,motivation,andthat,secondly,the
internalspeechofthecinemaspectator,formedbymeansoftheframes,isnotrealisedintheshapeofexactverbalformulations.We
getareverserelationship:ifaverbalmetaphorisnotrealisedintheconsciousnessofthereader before a clear visual image
appears (i.e. the literal sense isovershadowed by the metaphoric sense), then the cine-metaphor is not realised in the
consciousnessofthecinemaspectatorbeforethelimitsofafullverbalsentenceappear.
Alotmorecouldbesaidabouttheconventionalisedsemanticsignsofcinema(thedissolve,shading,imprintingandsoon),the
interpretation of which is linked either to metaphorically renewed verbal patterns, or to the patterns of photography and graphics
already familiar to the spectator. But this must be discussed in detail. Cine-semantics is a new and complextheme which
demandsaspecialanalysis.ForthetimebeingIhavemerelywantedtoestablishtheimportanceofthesemanticroleofmontage,and
toemphasisethesignificanceofthecine-metaphor,asinstancesoftheuseofverbalmaterialonthescreen.
THEFUNDAMENTALSOFCINEMA
Y u r i T y n y a n o v
translatedbyL.M.O'Toole
1
Theinventionofthecinematographwasgreetedjustasenthusiasticallyastheinventionofthegramophone.Inthisenthusiasmthere
wassomethingofthefeelingofprimitivemanwhenhefirstdepictedonthebladeofhisaxetheheadofaleopardand
simultaneouslylearnedtopiercehisnosewithastickThenoisecreatedbythejournalswaslikeachorusofsavagesgreetingthese
firstinventionswithahymn.
Primitivemanprobablycamequiterapidlytotheconclusionthatastickthroughone'snoseisn'tallthatmarvellousaninvention,
butatleast ittook himmoretimetoreachthatconclusionthanforaEuropeantobereducedtodespair through the gramophone.
Presumablythepointisnotsomuchthatthecinematographisatechnicaldeviceasthatcinemaisanart.
Icanremembercomplaintsaboutcinemabeingflatandcolourless.Idonotdoubtthatwhentheprimitiveinventordepictedthe
headofaleopardonhisaxeacriticturneduppointingouttohimthepoorresemblanceofhisdrawing,andthathewasfollowedbya
secondinventorwhoadvisedthefirsttosticksomerealleopardfuronhisdrawingandtoinsertarealeye.Butprobablythefurstuck
rather badly to the stone and from the carelessly drawn head of the leopard writing came into being because the carelessnessand
inaccuracydidnothinderbuthelpedthedrawingtoturnintoasign.Secondaryinventorsusuallydonothavemuchsuccessandthe
prospectsofthekinetophone,orsoundcinema,ofstereoscopicandcolourfilmhadnotexcitedusverymuch.Thereasonbeing
thatyoustilldonotgetarealleopard and, what is more, because art cannot do anything with realleopards.Art,just
likelanguage,strivestoabstractiviseitsresources.Hencenoteveryresourcecanbeused.
Whenmandepictedtheheadofananimalonthebladeofhisaxe,hewasnotmerelydepictingit,itgavehimamagicalcourage—
his totem was rightthere with him on his weapon; his totem would plunge into the breast of hisenemy. In other words, his
drawing had two functions: a materialreproductivefunctionandamagicfunction.Anincidentalresultofthiswasthefact
thattheheadoftheleopardappearedonalltheaxebladesofthewholetribe—soitbecamethesignofthedistinctionoftheirown
weaponsfromthoseoftheenemy,becameamnemonicsign,henceanideogram,aletter.Whathadhappened?Theconsolidationof
oneoftheresultsandatthesametime,aswitchingoveroffunctions.
Thisishowthetransitiontakesplacefromtechnicalresourcestotheresourcesofart.Livingphotography,whosemainroleisto
resemblethenatural world being depicted, turned into the art of the cinema. Thisinvolvedaswitchingoverofthefunction
ofalltheresources—theywerenolongermerelyresourcesinthemselvesbutresourceswiththesignofart.Andherethe'poverty'of
film,itsflatnessanditscolourlessnessturnedouttobepositiveresources,thegenuineresourcesofart,justastheinadequacyand
primitivenessoftheancientdepictionofatotemturnedouttobepositiveresourcesonthewaytowriting.
2
Theinventionofthekinetophoneandofstereoscopiccinemaareinventionsthatremainatthefirststageofthecinematograph,since
theirintendedfunctionisareproductivematerialone,'thephotographassuch'.Theytakeastheirstartingpointnottheshotunit,
whichbearssomemeaningasasign,dependingonthewholedynamicsoftheshotsequence,butontheshotassuch.
Presumably,audienceswillperceiveaconsiderablenaturalresemblancewhentheyseeinstereoscopicfilmtheconvexwallsof
houses and convex people's faces, but the convexities exchanged in the process of montage formore convexities, convex faces
floatingintootherconvexfaces,wouldseematotallyunauthenticchaoscomposedofseparateauthenticities.
Presumably,natureandmancolouredinnaturalcolourwouldverymuchresembletheoriginalsbutanenormousfaceinclose-up
coloured naturally would be a monstrous and quite unnecessary strain, rather like a painted statue with eyes revolving on pivots.
Besides which, colour excludes one of the main stylistic resources — that is, the alternation of variouslightingsofa material of a
singlecolour.
The perfect kinetophone would have to use such abominably accurate montage that the actors would be producing sounds that
theyneeded(andthatcinemadidnotneed)quiteindependentlyofthelawsoftheunfoldingofcinematic material. One would
endupnotmerelywithachaosofunnecessaryspeechesandsounds,butthiswouldmaketheregularchangeoverof
shotsquiteunrealistic.
Weonlyhavetoimaginethedeviceofthedissolvewhenaspeakerrecallsanotherconversationtoremainquiteindifferenttothis
respectedinventor.The'poverty'ofthecinemais,infact,itsconstructiveprinciple.Sowereallyshouldhaveceasedalongtimeago
toutterthesourcompliment‘TheGreatSilent30.Afterall,wedonotcomplainaboutversesnothavingattachedtothemphotographs
oftheheroineswhosevirtuesarebeingproclaimedandnobodycallspoetry‘TheGreatBlind'.Everyartmakesuseofsomesingle
elementoftheperceivedworldasitscrucialconstructiveelement,whiletheotherelementsbecomemerelyimaginedbeneathitssign.
Thusvisualandpicturesqueimagesarenotbanishedfromthesphereofpoetry,butacquirebothaparticularqualityandaparticular
use:inthedescriptivepoemofthe18thcenturyalltheobjectsofnaturearenotnamed,forinstance,butdescribedmetaphorically,
throughlinksandassociationsfromotherseries.Inordertosay:teapouringoutofateapot,suchapoemwouldsay:‘afragrant
boilingstreambubblingfromtheshiningcopper'.Thusthepictorialvisualimageisnotgivenhereanditperformsasthemotivation
forthelinkingofmanyverbalseries—thatis,theirdynamicsisbasedontheriddlethathasbeenset.Itisnogoodpointingoutthat
inthisconnectiontherealvisualrepresentationsarenotgiveneither,butmerelyverbalrepresentationsinwhichthesemantic
colouringofthewordsandtheirplayisimportantbutnottheobjectsthemselves.Ifweputstringsofrealobjectsintothestringsof
wordsweshallgetanunbelievablechaosofobjectsandnothingmore.
Inthesameway,cinemaalsouseswords,butonlyeitherasamotivationforthelinkingofshots,orasanelementwitharoleonly
inrelationtotheshot,contrastiveorillustrative,andifwefillupthefilmwithwordsweshallgetnothingbutachaosofwords.
Forcinema,too,asanartform,noinventionsexistjustfortheirownsake:therearepurelytechnicalresourceswhichhelptoperfect
its basic characteristics and these are selected according to the basic devices of the art form. This is where the interaction of
techniqueandartarises,quitethereverseofwhatwehadtostartwith:nowartitselfimpingesonthetechnicaldevices,artselectsthem
initsmovementforwards,changestheiruseandtheirfunction,andfinallyrejectsthem—butitisnotatechniqueimpingingonart.
Theartofcinemaalreadyhasitsbasicmaterial.Thismaterialmaybevariedorimproved,butthatisall.
3
The'poverty'ofcinema,itsflatnessanditscolourlessnessareinfactitsconstructiveessentials:thispovertydoesnotdemandnew
devicestofillitout,butnewdevicesarecreatedbyit,growonitsbasis.Theflatnessoffilm(whichstilldoesnotdepriveitof
perspective),thistechnical'failing'isexpressedintheartofcinemathroughthepositiveconstructiveprinciplesofsimultaneityof
severalsequencesofvisualimages,onthebasisofwhichaquitenewinterpretationofgestureandmovementisachieved.
Wearepresentedwiththefamiliardeviceofthedissolve:apaperwithclearlydefinedprintisheldbysomefingers:theprintgoes
pale,theoutlinesofthepaperfade,throughittherebeginstoemergeanewshot,theoutlinesofmovingfiguresgraduallybecoming
moreconcreteandfinallycompletelydisplacingtheshotofthepaperwithprint.Clearlythislinkingofshotsisonlypossiblebecause
oftheirflatness;iftheshotswereconcave,inrelief,thenthisinterpenetrationofthem,theirsimultaneity,wouldbeunconvincing.Only
throughtheuseofthissimultaneitycanthecompositionbemadepossiblewhichisnotmerelyareproductionofmovementbutis
itselfconstructedupontheprinciplesofthatmovement.Dancecanbepresentedinashotnotonlyasa'dance',butbya'dancing'
shotitself—throughthe'movementofthecamera'or'movementoftheshot'—everythingintheshotundulates,onerowofpeople
dances on top of another. Here we have presented the special simultaneity of space. The law of the impermeability of bodies is
overcomebytwodimensionsofcinema,itsflatnessanditsabstractness.
Butboththesimultaneityandthesinglespaceareimportant,notfortheirownsake,butasthemeaning-bearingsignoftheshot.
Oneshotfollowsanother,carriesforwardinitselfthemeaning-bearingsignofthatpreviousshot,iscolouredbyitsemanticallyfrom
beginningtoend.Ashotwhichisconstructedaccordingtotheprinciplesofmovementisfarfrommateriallyreproducing movement.
Itprovidesasemanticimageofmovement.(SometimesasentenceinthewritingsofAndreiBely31isconstructedinthisway:it
isimportant,notforitsdirectmeaning,butforitsveryphrasalcontour).Thecolourlessnessofcinemapermitsittocommunicatenot
thematerialbutthesemanticjuxtapositionofdimensions,amonstrousnon-co​incidenceofperspectives.Chekhovhasastory:achildis
drawing a large man and beside it a small house. Perhaps this is precisely the device of art:scale is separated from its materialreproductivefoundationand madeinto one of the meaning-bearing signs of art; the shot which is filmed magnifyingall objects is
followedbyashotwithareducingperspective.Ashotfilmedfromabovewithasmallpersonisfollowedbyashotofanotherperson
filmedfrombelow(takeforinstancetheshotofAkakiiAkakievichandtheImportantPersoninthesceneofthetelling-offin
The Overcoat32 ). A natural colouring would here obliterate the basic orientation, that is, a semantic attitude to scale. The close-up
whichpicksoutanobjectfromthespatialandtemporalconcurrenceofobjectswouldloseitsmeaninginnaturalcolour.
Finallythewordlessnessofcinema,orrather,theconstructionalimpossibilityoffillingtheshotwithwordsandsounds,reveals
thecharacterofitsconstruction;cinemahasitsown'hero',itsspecificelementandtheparticularcharacteristicsofthetitleshot.
4
Differencesofopinionariseconcerningthis'hero'whicharetypicaloftheverynatureofcinema.Initsmaterial,cinemacomesclose
tothespatialrepresentationalartssuchaspainting,whileintheunfoldingofthematerialitcomesclosetothe'temporal'arts,thatis,
verbalandmusical.
Hence such florid metaphorical definitions as: 'cinema is painting in motion' (Louis Delluc)33 or 'cinema is the music of light'
(AbelGance)34.Butdefinitionsofthiskindamounttopracticallythesameas'thegreatsilent'.
To name the cinema in relation to the neighbouring arts is just as unproductive as naming those arts according to the cinema:
painting—'immobile cinema', music — 'the cinema of sounds', literature — 'thecinemaoftheword'.Thisisparticularly
dangerousinthecaseofanewart.Itisanexpressionofareactionarycultofthepast(passeism):callingsomenewphenomenon
accordingtooldones.
Inthemeantimeitisnotdefinitionsthatartrequiresbutstudy.Anditisquiteunderstandablethatintheearlystagesthe'hero'of
cinemawaspronouncedtobethereproduciblematerialobject—'theman-as-seen','the-thing-as-seen'(BelaBalazs)35.Butthearts
are distinguished not only and not so much by their objects as by their attitude towards those objects.To take a counterexample, the art of the word would be a simpleconversation,speech.Afterall,inspeechtoowegetthesame'hero'asin
verse—theword.Butthepointispreciselythatthereisno'word'inageneralsense:thewordinverseplaysnothinglikethesamerole
asitdoesinconversation,andthewordinprose—dependingonthegenre—playsnothinglikethesameroleasitdoesinverse.
And the selection of 'the man-as-seen' or 'the thing-as-seen' is not inaccuratebecause cinema can be realised without objects, but
becauseherethereisnoemphasisonthespecificuseofthematerial,—andyetitisthisusealonethatturnsthematerialelement
intoanelementofart,becauseinthiscasethereisnoemphasisonthespecificfunctionofthiselementintheartform.
Thevisibleworldiscommunicatedincinemanotassuch,butinitssemanticrelativity,otherwisecinemawouldsimplybealiving(
and non-living) form of photography. The person-as-seen and the thing-as-seen are only anelement of film-art when they are
presentedasameaning-bearingsign.
Itisfromthefirstpropositionthatwegetthenotionoffilmstyle,whilefromthesecondwegetthenotionoffilmstructure.The
semantic relativityof theworld-as-seenis transmittedthrough itsstylistictransformation. In this process the relationship between
peopleandthingswithintheshot,therelationshipamongpeople,andtherelationshipofparttowhole—whatwearewonttoreferto
as the 'composition of the shot', the camera angle and perspective in which they are taken and the lighting, all acquire colossal
significance.Herefilm,preciselybecauseofitstechnicalflatnessandmonochromequality,overridesflatness;comparedwiththe
monstrousfreedomoffilmintheuseofperspectiveandpointofview,thetheatre,whichpossessestechnicalthree-dimensionality
andconvexity(preciselyduetoitsownpeculiarities),isconfinedtoasinglepointofviewandtoflatnessasanelementoftheart
form.
Cameraanglestylisticallytransformstheworldasseen.Ahorizontal,slightlyslopingfactorychimney,orthecrossingofabridge,
shotfrombelow,arepreciselythesamekindoftranslationoftheobjectintheartofcinemaasawholeassortmentofstylisticresources
whichmakeathingnewinverbalart.
Not all camera angles and not just any lighting, of course, are equally powerful stylistic resources and powerful stylistic
resourcesarebynomeansalwaysusable;butherewehaveaconstantartisticdistinctionbetweencinemaandtheatre.
5
Forcinematheproblemoftheunityofplacesimplydoesnotexist;theonlyproblemswhicharecrucialforitarethoseoftheunity
of point of view andlighting. A single 'interior' shot in cinema is hundreds of varied camera anglesand lighting effects and hence
hundredsofdifferentrelationshipsbetweenpersonandobjectandamongobjects—itishundredsofdifferent'places';fivesetsin
thetheatreonlyamounttofive'places'withasinglepointofview.Hence,complextheatricalinteriorswithacomplicatedcalculationof
perspectivearequitefalseinthecinema.Forthesamereasonthereisnojustificationforthesearchforphotogeneity.Objectsarenot
photogenicinthemselves,itiscameraangleandlightingthatmakethemso.Thereforethenotionofphotogeneity'ingeneralmustgive
waytothenotionofcinegeneity'.
The same thing applies to all the stylistic devices of cinema. A detail of moving legs in place of people walking concentrates
attentiononanassociativedetailinexactlythesamewayassynecdochedoesinpoetry.Inbothinstancestheimportantthingisthat,
insteadoftheobjectonwhichattentionisorientated,wearegivenanotherobjectlinkedtoitinassociation(infilmtheassociativelink
will be movement or a pose). This substitution ofa detail for the object switches the attention: through a single orientating sign
differentobjects(thewholeandadetail)aretransmitted,andthisswitchbreaksdownthevisibleobjectasitwere,makingita
stringofobjectswithasinglemeaning-bearingsign,themeaning-bearingobjectoffilm.
Itisquiteobviousthatintheprocessofthisstylistictransformation,(whichisnecessarilyalsoasemantictransformation),itisnot
the`man-as-seen' and not the `object-as-seen' which are the 'hero' of cinema, but a 'new'mananda'new'object—peopleand
objectstransformedwithinthedimensionoftheartform—thatis,`man'and'object'ofcinema.Thevisiblerelationshipsbetween
visiblepeoplearebrokendownandreplacedbyrelationshipsbetweencinematic'people'—everyinstant,unconsciouslyandalmost
naively — so deeply rooted is this principle in the very basis of the art form. Mary Pickford36 , playing a little girl,
surrounds herselfexclusivelywithtallactorsandisnot`cheating',probablynotevenbeingawarethatinthetheatreshewouldnot
manageto'cheat'inthisway.(Here,ofcourse,itisnotastylistictransformation,butmerelythetechnicaluseofoneofthelawsof
theartform.)
6
Butwhatisthephenomenonofthisnewmanandnewobjectbasedon?Whydoescinematicstyletransformthem?
Becauseeverystylisticresourceisatoneandthesametimeasemanticfactor.Givenonecondition,ofcourse,thatthestylemust
beorganised,thatcameraangleandlightingarenotaccidentalbutaresystematic.
Thereareliteraryworksinwhichthesimplesteventsandrelationshipsare transmitted through such stylistic resources that
they grow into amystery; this involves a shift in the reader's notion of the relationship between large and small, between the
ordinaryandthestrange;hesitantlyhefollowsbehindtheauthor,hehashis'perspective'onthingsandtheir'lighting'shifted(thisis
thecase,forinstance,inConrad'snovelTheHeartofDarkness,whereasimpleevent—ayoungnavalofficerreceivescommandofa
ship—growsintoagrandiose'shifted'event).Herethepointisintheparticularsemanticstructureofthings,intheparticularwaythe
readerisintroducedtotheaction.Wehavethesamekindofpossibilitiesincinematicstyletoo,andessentiallytheprocessisjustthe
same:ashiftoftheviewer's'perspective'isatthesametimeashiftintherelationshipbetweenthingsandpeople,andinvolvesa
semantic replanning of the world ingeneral.Thevariouschangesinlighting(orthesustainingofasinglelightingstyle)replanthe
environmentinexactlythesamewayascameraanglereplanstherelationsbetweenpeopleandthings.Onceagain,the'thingasseen'
isreplacedbythethingofart.
Thesignificanceofmetaphorincinemaisverymuchthesame—asingleactionpresentedintermsofitsothervehicles—itisnot
people kissing, butdoves.Here,too,thethingasseenisbrokendownintoitscomponentparts,through asinglesemantic sign.Its
various vehicles are presented, various things, but at the same time the action itself is broken down and in a secondparallel (the
doves)aspecificsemanticcolouringistransmitted.
Eventhesesimpleexamplesaresufficienttoconvinceusthatincinema,bothnaturalisticmovementandmovementas-seen'are
transformed — thismovement-as-seen can be broken down, perhaps presented through a different object. Movement in cinema
existseithertomotivatetheangleofpointofviewofthemovingperson,orasamode of characterisinga person(gesture),orasa
changeintherelationsbetweenpeopleandthings;anapproachtowardsanddistancingfromaperson(orthing)ofspecificpeopleand
things, i.e., movement in the cinema, does not exist for its own sake, butas a particular meaning-bearing sign. Thus outside its
meaning-bearingfunction,movementwithintheshotisnotatallessential.Itsmeaningfunctioncanbetakenoverbymontage,asa
changeoverofshotsinthecourseofwhichtheseshotsmayevenbestaticones.(Movementwithintheshotasanelementofcinemais
generallystronglyexaggerated;runningforalloneisworthweariesone.)Andifincinemaitisnotmovement-as-seen',allthesame
itdoesoperatein'itsowntime'.Inordertoestablishthedurationofsomesituationorother,cinemacanrepeatashot—the
shot is interrupted a minimal number of times in either a variation or in the same form — and that is its duration, which is
indisputably very far from the normal notion of duration-' as-seen', a duration which is entirely relative; if arepeated shot is
interruptedbyalargenumberofshots,this'duration'willbeconsiderableinspiteofthefactthattheduration-as-seen'oftherepeat
shotmaybeminute.Relatedtothisistheconventionalmeaningofbothadiaphragmanddissolveasasignofalargespatialand
temporalseparation.
Thespecificityortime'incinemaisrevealedinadeviceliketheclose-up.
A close-up abstracts a thing or detail or a face from a set of spatialrelationshipsandatthesametimetakesitoutofthe
structureoftime.InthefilmTheBigWheel37thereisascene:burglarsareemergingfromarobbedhouse.Thedirectorsneededto
showtheburglars.Theydidthisbyshowingthemasagroupinalongshot.Theresultwasincoherent:whyweretheburglarswasting
time?Butiftheyhadbeenshowninclose-uptheycouldhavesloweddownasmuchastheywantedbecausetheclose-upwouldhave
abstractedandtakenthemoutofthetimestructure.
Inthiswaythedurationofashotiscreatedbyitsbeingrepreatedandthatmeansthroughtheinterrelationshipbetweenshots.But
temporal abstraction comes into play as a result of the absence of relatedness between the objects(or groups of objects) among
themselveswithintheshot.
Both the first and second emphasise that cinema-time' is not realduration but a conventional duration based on the
relatabilityofshotsortherelatabilityofvisualelementswithintheshot.
7
Theevolutionofthedevicesofanartalwaysbearsthetraceofitsspecificnature.Theevolutionofthedevicesofcinemahasagreat
dealtoteachus.
Cameraangleinitsearliestformwasmotivatedasthepointofviewofaspectatororthepointofviewofoneofthecharacters.
Similarlyadetailedclose-upwasmotivatedasbeingtheperceptionofacharacter.
Motivatedbythepointofviewofacharacteranunusualcameraanglelackedthismotivationandwaspresentedforitsownsake;
bythisveryfactitbecamethepointofviewoftheviewer,bythisveryfactitbecameastylisticresourceofcinema.Thegazeofoneof
the characters in the shot might fallon some object or detail and that object was presented in close-up. When this motivation is
removed,theclose-upbecomesanindependentdevicefortheselectionandemphasisoftheobjectasameaningfulsign—outsideall
temporalandspatialrelationships.Normallyclose-upplaystheroleofan'epithet'ora'verb'(afacewithanexpressionwhichis
emphasisedinclose-up),butotherusesarepossibleaswell:theveryfactofbeingoutsidetimeandoutsidespacewhichispeculiarto
theclose-upisusedasastylisticresourceforthefiguresofsimileandmetaphorandsoon.
Now,iffollowingtheshotinwhichamaninameadowispresentedinclose-upwegetalsoinclose-upashotofapigwalkingin
thesameplace,thenthelawofsemanticrelativityoftheshotsandthelawoftheextra-temporalandextra-spatialmeaning of the
close-upoverrideswhatmighthaveappearedtobesuchapowerfulnaturalisticmotivationasthewalkingaroundofamanandapig
atthesamepointintimeandspace;asaresultofthissequenceofshots,wegetnotatemporalorspatialcontinuityfromthemanto
thepig,butthesemanticfigureofsimile:themanisapig.
Thisishowtheindependentsemanticlawsofcinemaasanartformcomeintobeingandareconsolidated.
Thesignificanceoftheevolutionofcinematicdevicesistobefoundinthisgrowthofitsindependentsemanticlawsandintheir
beingstrippedofnaturalistic'motivationingeneral'.
This evolution has involved what might have appeared to be suchfirmlymotivateddevicesasthe'dissolve-in'.This
device is very firmlyand quite consistently motivated as 'memory', 'vision', 'story'. But thedeviceofa'shortdissolve'—
whenwithintheshotwelabel'memory'wegetaflashtooofthefaceoftheoneremembering—thisdestroystheexternalliterary
motivationofthe'memory'asamomentsequencedintime,andtransfersthecentreofgravitytothesimultaneityoftheshots;
thereisno'memory'or'story'intheliterarysense,—whatthereisis'memory'inwhichthefaceoftheonerememberingis
simultaneouslycarried on, — and in that purely cinematographic meaning, this shotcomes close to another one: the
dissolveofafaceagainstalandscapeorscenewhichistotallyoutofproportiontoitinmagnitude.Thislastdeviceinits
external literary motivation is immeasurably far from'memory' or 'story', but cinematographically their meanings
areveryclose.
Thisisthewaythatcinematicdevicesevolve:theybecomeseparatedfrom'external'motivationsandacquireameaning'oftheir
own';inotherwords,theyareseparatedfroma single, externallydefinedmeaningandacquiremanyinternallydefinedmeanings'of
their own'. This multiplicity or polysemy of meanings is what makes possible the survival of a particulardevice and makes it a
'proper' element of the art, in this particular casemakesitthe'word'ofcinema.Wenotewithsomesurprisethatthereisno
adequatewordinthelanguageandtheliteratureforthenotionofadissolve.Ineveryparticularcaseorusewecan describeitinwords,
butthereisnowaythatwecandiscoveranadequatewordornotionforitinthelanguage.Thesamegoesforthepolysemyofthe
close-upwhichatonemomentprovidesadetailfromthepointofviewofbothcharactersoraspectator,whileatanothermomentit
makesuseoftheresultofthisisolationofthedetail,itsexistenceoutsidetimeandspace,asanindependentmeaning-bearingsign.
8
Thecinemaderivedfromphotography.
Theumbilicalcordbetweenthemwascutatthatmomentwhencinemabecameawareofitselfasanartform.Thepointisthat
photographyhasitsowncharacteristicswhichhavenotbeenmadeexplicit,which are, as itwere,unratifiedaestheticqualities.
Themainorientationofphotographyisresemblance.Resemblanceisoffensive,wegetoffendedbyphotographsthatresembleustoo
closely.Therefore,photographysecretlydeformsitsmaterial.Butthisdeformationispermittedonlywithoneassumption—thatthe
basic orientation to resemblance will be sustained. However much the photographer may deform our face through the pose
(positioning),thelightingandsoforth,allthisisacceptedwiththegeneraltacitassumptionthattheportraitwillbeararesemblance.
From the point of view of the basicorientation of photography to resemblance any deformation appears to be an'inadequacy'; its
aestheticfunctionisnotratified.
Cinema has a different orientation, and what is an 'inadequacy' for photography is transformed into a virtue and an aesthetic
quality.Thisistheradicaldistinctionbetweenthephotographandthefilm.Atthesametimephotographyhasotherinadequacies'as
wellwhichhavebeenturnedinthecinemainto'positivequalities'.
Essentially, every photograph deforms its material. We only have toglance at photographs of' views' ; perhaps this is a
subjective statement, but Ionly perceive resemblance of views through the orientating or, rather, differentiating details — through
somesingletree,orbenchorshop-sign.Andthisisnotbecauseitdoesnot'bearageneralresemblance'butbecausetheviewhas
been pickedout.Whatinnatureexistsonlyinconnection,andwithoutboundaries,inthephotographispickedoutandmadeintoa
distinctindependentunity.Abridge,ajetty,atree,agroupoftreesandsoondonotexistinourvisionasunits;theyarealwayslinked
totheirsurroundings;tofixonthemisamomentaryandtransitoryact.Thisfixing,onceitisconfirmed,exaggeratesamilliontimes
theindividualfeaturesoftheviewand,preciselythroughthis,causestheeffectof'dissimilarity'.
This is also true of general views' — the choice of a camera angle,however innocent it might be, the picking out of a
placehoweverspaciousthatplacemightbe—leadstothesameresults.
Thepickingoutofmaterialinaphotographleadstotheunityofeveryphotograph,toapeculiarcrowdingofrelationshipsamong
alltheobjectsorelementsofasingleobjectwithinthephotograph.Asaresultofthisinnerunitytherelationshipbetweentheobjects
orbetweentheelementswithinoneobject,isover-determined.Theobjectsbecomedeformed.
But this 'inadequacy' of the photograph, these inarticulated and 'uncanonised' qualities, to use Viktor Shklovsky's expression,
cometobecanonisedinthecinema,becomeitsstartingqualities,itscrucialpoints.Aphotographproducesasolitaryposition;inthe
cinemathatbecomesaunitofmeasurement.
Ashotisthesamekindofunitasaphotographorasaclosed-offlineofverse.Iamusinghereandthroughoutthecommonterm
'shot'inthesenseofasectionoffilmwhichisunifiedbyasinglecameraangleandlightingeffect.Infacttheframewillhavethe
samerelationshiptotheshotasthefootinversehastotheline.Thenotionoffeetinverseisprimarilypedagogicalandinanycaseis
relevantonlyforaveryfewmetricalsystems,andthelatesttheoriesofverse-formdealwiththelineasametricalseriesandnotwith
thefootaswithascheme.Forthatmatter,infilmtheory,thetechnicalconceptofaframeisnotsignificant,itisentirelyreplacedby
thequestionofthelengthoftheshotsequence.
In the first line according to this law of unity, all the wordscomprisingthelineareinaspecialrelationshipinatighter
degree of interaction; hence the meaning of the word in verse is not the same, it is different in comparison not only with all the
varietiesofpracticalspeech,butincomparisonwithprose.Inthisprocessallthelittleservicewords,allthoseunnoticedsecondary
wordsofaspeech,becomeextraordinarilynoticeableandmeaningfulinverse.
Thus in the shot too this unity extends beyond the semantic meaning of allthe objects and every object becomes relative to the
othersandtothewholeshot.
Withthisinmindwemustraiseafurtherquestion:inwhatconditionsdoallthe'heroes'oftheshot(peopleandthings)become
relativetoeachother,orratheraretherenoconditionswhichpreventtheirbeingrelatedtoeachother?Theansweristhatthereare.
The'heroes'oftheshot,liketheword(orsounds)inverse,havetobedifferentiated,distinctive,andonlythenaretheyrelativeto
oneanother.Onlythendotheyinteractandmutuallycoloureachotherwiththeirmeaning.Hencetheselectionofpeopleand
things,hencetoo,cameraangleasastylisticresourceordelimiting,distinguishinganddifferentiating.
'Selection'arosefromthenaturalisticresemblance,fromthecorres​pondenceofthepersonandthingofthecinematotheperson
and thing of everyday life, what in practice is known as 'typecasting'. But in cinema, as in every art, whatever is imported for
particular reasons begins to play a rolequite beyond those original reasons. 'Casting' or selection serves in the firstplace to
differentiatetheactorswithinthefilm,i.e.itisnotmerelyanexternalselection,butaselectioninternaltotheartoffilm.
Hencetoo,themeaningof movement withintheshotresultsfromthedemandsfordifferentiationofthe'heroes'oftheshot.The
smokefromashipandfloatingcloudsarenecessarynotonlyassuchandfortheirownsake,justasanincidentalmanwhohappensto
bewalkingalongadesertedstreet,orafacialexpressionandgestureofapersoninrelationtoanotherpersonorthingareallrequired
asdifferentiatingsigns.
9
Thisapparentlysimplefactdefinesthewholesystemofpantomime andgesture inthecinemaanddistinguishesitdecisivelyfromthe
systemsoffacialexpressionandgestureswhicharelinkedwithspeech.Thefacialexpressionandgesturesofspeechrealiseor'make
manifest'inamotorvisualsensethespeechintonation;inthisrespectthey,asitwere,complementverballanguage.
Herethedisputeamonglinguistsaboutimpersonalsentencesismostintriguing.IntheopinionofWundt(whichPaulcontests)inthe
impersonalsentence:'It'sburning!',theroleofthesubjectisplayedbythegesturepointingtotheburningobject(ahouse,orinits
metaphoricalusesomeone'sheartandsoon).ThelinguistShakhmatovproposesthattheroleofthesubjectisplayedincaseslike
thisbytheintonationofthespeech.Thisexampleshowsclearlytherelationshipbetweenspeechgesturesandmimeontheonehand
andspeechintonationontheother.38
Thisistheroleofgesturesandpantomimeinthespokentheatre.Theroleofgesturesandfacialexpressionsinpantomimeliesin
the substitution for the word taken out. Pantomime is an art form based on what has been takenaway; a kind of play with
suppression.Herethewholeessenceispreciselyinthereplacingofanabsentelementbyothersbutinverbalartitselftherearemany
caseswhen'complementary' mimeandgestures area hindrance.HeinrichHeine39 used to maintain that mime and gestures were
harmfultoverbalwit:'thefacialmusclesareintoopowerfulandhighlystimulatedmovement,andthepersonobservingthemseesthe
thoughts of the speakerbefore they have been uttered. This hinders sudden jokes'. This means that the realisation of speech
intonationinmimeandgestureisahindrance(inparticularcases)totheverbalstructureanddestroysitsinnerrelationships.Heine,
at the end of his poems, provides a sudden joke and in no way wantshighly mobile facial expressions or even the beginning of a
gesturetosignalthejokebeforeithasbeenmade.Ofcoursethespeechgesturedoesnotonlyaccompanythewordbutitsignalsitand
anticipatesit.
Thisiswhytheatricalmimeissoalientocinematography:itcannotaccompanyverbalspeechsincethatislackinginthecinemabut
itsignalsthewordandgivesitaway.Thesewordswhichareanticipatedbygesturesturnthecinemaintoakindofincomplete
kinetophone.
Facialexpressionandgesturewithintheshotareaboveallasystemofrelationshipsbetweenthe'heroes'oftheshot.
10
Butevenfacialexpressionmaybepresentintheshotwithoutrelationtoanything,andthecloudsmaynotbefloating.Relativityand
differentialmaybetransferredtoanothersphere—fromtheshottothechangingofshots,tomontage.Evenstillshots,followingone
aftertheotherinaparticularway,allowonetoreducemovementwithintheshotstoaminimum.
Montageisnottheconnectingofshots,itisthedifferentialexchangeofshotsbut,preciselybecauseofthis,theshotswhichcanbe
exchanged havesomerelationshipbetweenthem.Thisrelationship,thisrelativity,maybenotmerelyintermsofplotbuttoafar
greaterdegreeintermsofstyle.Inpracticeweonlyhaveplotmontagesofar.Cameraangleandlightinginthiscasearenormallyjust
piledonanyhow.Thisisamistake.
Wehaveestablishedthatstyleisasemanticfact.Thereforestylisticdisorganisationandachanceorderingofcameraangles
andlightingisratherlikethejumblingupofintonationsinverse.Ontheotherhand,lightingandcameraangle,becauseof
theirmeaning-bearingnaturearenaturallycontrastiveanddifferentialandthereforetheirexchangealsocontributestothemontageof
shots(makingthemrelativeanddifferential),justlikeaplotexchange.
Shotsinfilmdonot'unfold'inasequential,gradualorder,theyarepreciselyexchanged.Thisisthefoundationofmontage.They
replaceeachotherjustasasingleverseline,asinglemetricalunit,replacesanotheroneonapreciseboundary.Filmmakesajump
fromshottoshot,justasversemakesajumpfromlinetoline.Itmayseemstrange,butifwearetomakeananalogybetweenfilmand
theverbalarts,thentheonlyjustifiableanalogywillbenotwithprose,butwithverse.
One of the main consequences of the jumping character of film is the differentiatedness of shots and their existence as units.
Shotsasunitsareequivalentinvalue.Alongshotmaybereplacedbyaveryshortshot.Thebrevityoftheshotdoesnotdepriveitof
independenceorofitsrelatednesstoothershots.
Actually,theshotisimportantasa'representative':inamemory'throughdissolve'wegetnotalltheshotsofthescenerecalledbythe
hero,butadetail—asingleshot,andsimilarlytheshotingeneraldoesnotexhaustaparticularplotsituation,butismerely
representativeofitintherelatednessofshots.Thisallowsoneinpracticethroughcross-cuttingtocutdownshotstoaminimumorto
useasa'representative'ashotfromaquitedifferentplotsituation.
Oneofthedifferencesbetweenthe'old'and'new'cinemawasinthetreatmentofmontage.Whereasintheoldcinemamontagewasa
wayofparcellingoutandstickingtogetherandaresourceforexplainingplotsituations,aresourcewhichwas,initself,unperceived
andconcealed,inthenewcinemaitbecameoneofthecrucialandperceptiblefactors,thatis,perceivedrhythm.
Thatishowitwaswithpoetry:asafemonotonyandtheimperceptibilityofpetrifiedmetricalsystemswasreplacedbyasharp
perceptionofrhythminfreeverse'.InMayakovsky's40earlyversealineconsistingofasinglewordmightfollowalongline,andan
equal amount of energy falling on thelong line would then fall on the short line (lines as rhythmic strings are equivalent to each
other),thereforetheenergyadvancedinbursts.Itisthesamewithperceptiblemontage:theenergyfallingonalongbitthenfallsona
shortbit.Theshortbit,consistingofa'representative'shotisequivalenttothelongoneand—justlikethelineinversewhichmay
consistofoneortwowords—ashortshotofthiskindstandsoutinitsmeaningfulnessandvalue.
Thusthesequenceofmontageisassistedbythedifferentiationoftheclimaxes.Whereasinunperceivedmontageagreateramount
oftimeisdevotedtotheclimax,withmontagewhichhasbecomeaperceivedrhythminthefilm,theclimaxisdifferentiatedprecisely
becauseofitsbrevity.
This would not have been the case if a bit of film as a unit had not been arelativemeasure,a unit of film measure. We
spontaneouslymeasurefilmaswearethrownfromoneunittothenext.Thisiswhywearephysicallyirritatedbythefilmsofthose
eclecticdirectorswhoinonepartofafilmusetheprincipleofoldmontage,thatis,montageasconnection,wherethesolemeasure
is the exhaustiveness of the 'scene' (plot situation), while atanother point they use the principle of new montage, where
montagehasbecomeaperceptibleelementinthestructure.Ourcreativeenergyisgivenaparticular task,a particulardirectionand
suddenlythistaskchanges,theinitialimpulseislostandsinceithasalreadybeenacceptedbyusinthefirstsectionsofthefilm,the
newoneisnotsensed.Thisishowgreatthepowerofmeasureisinthecinema,ameasurewhoseroleissimilartotheroleofmeasure,
thatismetre,inverse.
Ifweputthequestioninthisway,whatthencanbetherhythmofcinema—atermwhichisveryoftenusedandoftenabused?
Rhythm is the interaction of stylistic choices with metrical ones in the unfolding of the film, in its dynamics. Camera angle and
lightinghavesignificancenotonlyintheexchangeofshot-bits,butasasignmarkingtheexchange,butevenintheseparationofbits
asculminationpoints.Thishastobetakenintoaccountintheuseofparticularcameraangles,modesoflighting.Theymustnotbe
incidental, not just 'good' and 'beautiful' in themselves, — but good in the particular case in their interaction with the metrical
progressofthefilm,withthemeasureofmontage.Cameraangleandlightingwhichpickoutaseparatebitmetrically,donotplayat
allthesameroleascameraangleandlightingwhichpickoutinametricalsenseaweaklydefinedbit.
Theanalogyoffilmwithverseisnotessential.Ofcoursefilm,justlikeverse,isaspecificartform.Butthemenoftheeighties
wouldnothaveunderstoodourcinemaanymorethantheywouldunderstandcontemporaryverse:
Ourcenturyoffendedyou,inoffendingyourverse.
The'jumping'characteroffilm,theroleinitoftheshotasaunitandthesemantictransformationofeverydayobjects(wordsin
verse,thingsinfilm)makefilmandversecloserelatives.
11
Thusthefilm-novelisjustaspeculiaragenreasthenovelinverse.AfterallPushkin 41 himselfsaid:amwritingnotanovel,but
anovelinverse.There'sahellofadifference'.
Whatisthis'hellofadifference'betweenafilmnovelandanovelasaverbalgenre?
Thedifferenceisnotjustinthematerial,butinthefactthatstyleandstructurallawstransformincinemaalltheelementswhich
mighthaveseemedtobedistinctandequallyapplicabletoallformsofartandtoallitsgenres.
Thesamesituationobtainswiththefable(tabula)andplot(syuzhet)incinema.Inresolvingtheproblemofthefableandplot,we
alwayshavetotakeintoaccountthespecificmaterialandstyleofanartform.
Viktor Shklovsky, the creator of the new theory of plot, proposed two situations: ( I) the plot as an unfolding, and (2) the link
between the devicesof plot organisation and style. The first of these — which transfers the studyof plot from the dimension of
studyingstaticmotifs(andtheirhistoricalrealisation)tothewayinwhichmotifsaremadetopenetratetheconstruction
ofthewhole—hasalreadyprovedproductiveandhastakenroot.Thesecondargumenthasnotyettakenrootandseemstohave
beenforgotten.
ItisaboutthisthatIwanttotalk.Sincetheproblemofthefableandplotinfilmhasbeentheleastresearched,andsincefor
this considerablepreparatory studies are required that have not yet been carried out, I will permit myself to explain the
relationshipthroughliterarymaterialwhichismorethoroughlyresearched,butmyaimwillbemerelytoposetheproblemhereofthe
fableandplotincinema.Thiswill,Ithink,seemreasonable.
Firstofallwemustagreeabouttheterms:fable(tabula)andplot(syuzhet)42
Thefabulaisnormallyusedtorefertoastaticschemeofrelationshipsof•thetype:'Shewasnice,andhelovedher.He,however,
was not nice and shedid not love him', an epigraph by Heine. Theschemeof relationships (fable)of Pushkin's Fountain of
Bakhchisaraiwillthenbesomewhatasfollows:GireilovesMariya,Mariyadoesnotlovehim.ZaremalovesGirei,hedoesnotlove
her'. It's absolutely clear that this scheme explains nothing at all inThe Fountain of Bakhchisarai, or in Heine's epigraph, and is
equallyapplicable to thousands of different things, all the way from the phrase of theepigraph to the whole poem. Let us consider
anotherapparentnotionoffable:aschemeofaction.Thefablewillthenbedenotedinitsminimalformmoreorlessasfollows:Girei
hasfallenoutoflovewithZaremabecauseofMariya.ZaremakillsMariya'.Butwhatarewetodowhennosignofthisdenouement
istobefoundinPushkinatall?Pushkinonlypresentsuswithapossibilityofguessingatthedenouement,thatis,thedenouementis
deliberatelyveiled.TosaythatPushkinhasdeviatedfromourfableschemewouldberatherboldbecausehenevertookaccountofitat
all.Thisisratherliketappingoutthemetre(aniambicscheme)followinghisversesatthebeginningofEugeneOnegin:
Moidyádyasámykhchéstnykhprávil
Kogdánevshútkuzanemóg
Myuncle—highidealsinspirehim;
butwhenpastjokinghefellsick,
(TranslationbyCharlesJohnston,1977)
andsayingthatinthewordzanemog[fellsick]Pushkindeviatedfromtheiamb.Butwoulditnotbebettertogiveuptheschemethan
toconsidertheworkitselfadeviation'fromit?Andindeeditmakesmoresensetoconsiderthemetreofthepoemnotaloot-scheme',
butawholeaccentuated(stressed)projectforone.
Thenthe'rhythm'willbethewholedynamicsofthepoemproducedthroughtheinteractionofmetre(markedstress)withspeech
links(syntax)andwithsoundlinks(alliteration,soundechoes',etc.).
Thesameappliestotheproblemoffableandplot.Weeitherriskcreatingschemeswhichcannotbefittedintothework,orwehave
todefinethefableasthewholesemanticintentionoftheaction.Thentheplotofthepiecewillbedefinedasitsdynamicsproduced
throughtheinteractionofallthelinksinthematerial(includingthoseofthefable,aslinksintheaction)—whetherofstyle
oroffable,etc.Thelyricpoemalsohasplot,butherethefableisofquiteadifferentorderandithasatotallydifferentroleinthe
developmentoftheplot.Theplotmaybeoutoflinewiththefable (AsViktorShklovskyfirstshowedinhisessaysonSterneand
Rozanov).Hereseveraltypesofrelationshipbetweentheplotandthefablearepossible.
1.Theplotrestsforthemostpartonthefable,i.e.onthesemanticsoftheaction.
Here the arrangement of the lines of fable becomes especially important,withonelineretardinganotherandsettingtheplotin
motionintheprocess.Onecuriousexampleofthistypeiswhentheplotdevelopsalongafalselineoffable.Forinstance,inAmbrose
Bierce'sIncidentatOwlCreek43amanisbeinghanged,hebreaksfreeintothecreek—theplotgoesondevelopinginafalselineof
fable—heswims,runsaway,runstoahouse—andoncethere,dies.Inthelastlinesittranspiresthathewasimagininghisflight
duringtheminutebeforedeath.ThesamethinghappensinPerutz'sALeapintotheUnknown44.
Interestingly enough, in one of the most fable-centred novels, Hugo' sLesMiserables 45 , the 'retardation' is achieved both
through the mass ofsecondarylinesoffableandthroughtheintroductionofhistorical,scientificanddescriptivematerials—for
theirownsake.Thisistypicalforthedevelopmentoftheplot,notthefable.Thenovel,asalarge-scaleform,demandsthiskindof
plot development outside the fable. A plot developmentadequate to the development of the fable is typical of the adventure story.
(Incidentally,'largescaleform'inliteratureisnotamatterofthenumberofpages,anymorethaninthecinemaitisamatterof
footage.Thenotionof'large-scaleform'isaquestionofenergy,accounthastobetakenoftheworkinreconstructionexpended
bythereader,(orviewer).Pushkincreatedalargeforminversethroughdigressions.A Prisoner in theCaucasusisno
biggerinscalethansomeoftheepistles'byZhukovsky,butitisalargeform,becausethedigressions'throughmaterialthatisfar
fromthe fable extend to a remarkable degree the space' of the poem and induce the reader to work through an equal number of
versesinanEpistletoVoeikovbyZhukovsky46andinPushkin'sAPrisonerintheCaucasuswithaquitedifferentamountofeffort
exerted.IamadducingthisexamplebecausePushkinusedmaterialfromZhukovsky's'epistles'inhispoem,butmadeitadigression
fromthefable.)
Thisprincipleofretardationthroughtheuseofquitedistantmaterialisparticularlycharacteristicofthelarge-scaleform.
So,too,incinema:'large-scalegenres'differfrom'chambergenres'notmerely in the number of lines of fable, but in the
amountofretardingmaterialingeneralaswell.
2.Theplotdevelopsatoddswiththefable.
Inthiscasethefableisguessedat,withtheriddleandsolutiononlymotivatingthedevelopmentoftheplot—andthesolutionmay
notbegivenatall.Inthiscasetheplotistransferredtothearticulationandpackagingofthepartsofthespeechmaterialoutsidethe
fable.Thefableisnotgiven,andinitsplacethe'searchforthefable'createsthetensionandleadsitforward,astheequivalent,or
substituteforthefableitself.ManyofPilnyak's47andLeonhardFrank's48pieces,forexample,areofthiskind.In'searchingforthe
fable'thereaderevaluatesandarticulatestheseparatepartswhicharelinkedonlystylistically(orbythemostgeneralmotivationsuch
asunityofplaceortime).
Quiteclearly,whatstandsoutinthistypeasthemainmotoroftheplotisthestyle,thestylisticrelationsofthesectionsbeinglinked
witheachother.
12
Theconnectionbetweenthedevicesofplotcompositionandstylecanalsobediscoveredinworkswheretheplotisnotoutofline
withthefable.LetusconsiderGogol's49storyTheNose.
Thethrustofthefableandthesemanticsoftheactioninthispiecearesuchastobringtomindalunaticasylum.Oneonlyhasto
followtheoutlineofasinglelineofthefable,thatofthe'nose':MajorKovalev'scutoffnose..strollsalongtheNevskyProspectas'Mr
Nose';'MrNose',tryingtomakehisescapeinacarriagetoRiga,isinterceptedbytheregionalsuperintendentandreturnedwrappedin
aragtohisformerowner.
Howcouldalineoffableactionlikethisberealisedinaplot?Howcouldthemerelyidioticbecomeapieceofartistic'idiocy'?The
wholesemanticsystemofthepieceturnsouttoplayarolehere.ThesystemofnamingthingsinTheNoseiswhatmakesitsfable
possible.
Hereistheappearanceofthecutoffnose:
…sawsomethinggleamingwhite…'Fleshy',hesaidtohimself:'whatevermightthatbe?'
'Anose,preciselyanose...Someone'sheknew,somehow…`I'llwrapit[him]inaragandputit[him]inthecorner:Letit
[him]liethereforabit,thenI'lltakeit[him]out.
…'AsifIwouldletacut-offnoseliearoundinmyroom…Getit[him]out.Out…Don'tletmegetwindofit[him]again
…'Breadisamatterofbaking,butanoseisn'tthatatall.'
Adetailedstylisticanalysisofthereader'sfirstacquaintancewiththecut-offnosewouldtakeustoofar,butfromtheseexcerptsit
is clear that thecut-off nose is transformed by the semantic system of the sentences into something ambiguous: something',
'fleshyobject'(neuter),'it,he,his'(oftenthepronounwhichretainsglimpsesofeitherobjectorperson),toletanose'(animate),
etc.Andthissemanticatmosphere,producedineveryline,constructsthelineofthefableofthecut-offnose'insuchawaythatthe
reader,alreadypreparedandalreadydrawnintothissemanticworld,findshimselfeventuallyreadingwithoutatraceofsurprisesuch
crazysentencesas:'ThenoselookedattheMajoranditsbrowsfrownedslightly'.
Thusaparticularfablebecomesaplotelementthroughthestylewhichinvestsobjectswithasemanticatmosphere.
ItmaybeobjectedthatTheNoseisanexceptionalwork.Butonlyspacepreventsmefromprovingthatthesamethinghappensin
Bely's50novelsPetersburgandTheMoscowEccentric(infactwejusthavetopointtothe'wornout'fableintheseotherwisesuperb
novels)andmanyotherworks.
Whenwecometothoseworksorauthorswhosestyleis'restrained'or'pallid',etc.,weshouldnotsupposethatthestylehasno
role—justthesame,everyworkisasemanticsystem,andhowever'restrained'thestylemaybe,itexistsasameanswherebythe
semanticsystemisconstructedandthereisadirectlinkbetweenthissystemandtheplot,whetheritisaplotdevelopingwithinor
outsidethefable.
Systemsvary,however,indifferentthings.Butthereisonekindofverbalartwherethemostprofoundlinkbetweenthesemantic
systemandtheplotisquiteobvious.Thisisthesemanticsystemrepresentedbyverse.
Inpoetry,whetherintheheroicodeoftheeighteenthcenturyorinanepicbyPushkin,thislinkisquiteclear.Argumentsabout
systems of metrealwaysturnoutwithpoetrytobeargumentsaboutsemantic systems —andinthefinalanalysisthequestionof
howtheplotishandledinpoetryandoftherelationofplotandfabledependsonthisissue.
Thisisbecausetheproblemofgenresisboundupwiththisquestion(oftherelationofplottofable).
Thisrelationdoesnotmerelyvaryindifferentnovels,shortstories,longpoemsandlyrics—butvariesaccordingtogenre:the
novelversustheshortstory,thelongpoemversusthelyricpoem.
13
InthisarticleIonlywanttoposethequestion:(1)abouttheconnectionbetweenplotandstyleincinema,and(2)aboutfilmgenres
beingdefinedbytherelationshipbetweenplotandfable.
InordertoposethesequestionsIhave'gallopedoffandtriedtoclarifytheissueintermsofliterature.The'leapback'intocinema
requiresstudyatlength.Aswehaveseeninliterature,onecannottalkoffableandplot'ingeneral'andanyplotiscloselyconnected
toaparticularsemanticsystemwhichis,initsturn,governedbystyle.
The role in the plot ofThe Battleship Potemkin51 of the stylistic-semanticresources is quite clear, but it has not been studied.
Furtherstudywillrevealthisinlessobviouscasestoo.Talkingabouta'restrained'styleora'naturalistic'styleinparticular
filmsbyparticulardirectorsisnotisolatingtheroleofstyle.Thesearejustdifferentstylesandtheirroleswillvaryaccordingtothe
waytheplotdevelops.
Thestudyofplotincinemainthefuturewilldependonthestudyofitsstyleand,inparticular,itsmaterial.
Justhownaiveweareinthisrespectisprovedbythatmodeofdiscussingfilmwhichhasbecomeestablishedandmadefashionable
byourcritics:ascenario(ofanalreadymadefilm)isdiscussed,thenthereisadiscussionbythedirector,etc.Butweshouldnottalk
aboutscenariointermsofafilmthathasalreadybeenmade.Thescenarioalmostalwaysconveysthe'generalfable',withacertain
approximationtothestaccatonatureoffilm.Thescenariowriterdoesnotknowhowthefableisgoingtobedevelopedorwhattheplot
willbe,anymorethanthedirectordoesbeforehehasviewedthefilmedsequences.Andatthispointthepeculiaritiesofaparticular
styleandsubjectmattermaypermitthewholescenariofabletodevelop—thefableofthescenarioentersthepicture'whole'—or
maynotpermitit,andintheworkingprogressthefablechangesimperceptiblyinitsdetailsandispushedinacertaindirectionbythe
developmentoftheplot.
We can talk of cast-iron scenarios' in those cases where there arestandardstylesofdirectionandacting,i.e.whenthe
scenariotakesanestablishedfilmstyleasitsstarting-point.
14
Thelackofworkontheoryleadstoevenmorecriticalerrorsinpractice.Thequestionoffilmgenres,forinstance.
Genreswhichhavecomeintobeinginverbal(includingdramatic)artareoftentransferred,wholesaleandready-made,tofilm.The
result?Unexpected.
Take,forinstance,historicaldocumentary.Whenitistransferredwholesaleintothecinemafromliterature,itmakesthe
filmprimarilyareproductionofamovingportraitgallery.Thepointisthatinliteraturethemainassumption(thatitbelife-like)is
providedofitsownaccord—byhistoricalnames,dates,etc.,whereasincinemathemainquestionwithadocumentaryapproach
ofthiskindislifelikeness.Theviewer'sfirstquestionwillbe:'Diditlooklikethat?'
WhenwereadanovelaboutAlexanderI,whateverhisactionsinthenoveltheyarestilltheactionsof'AlexanderI'.Iftheyare
unconvincing,then'AlexanderIhasbeendepictedinaccurately',butthe'AlexanderI'remainstheassumptionfromwhichwestart.In
cinemaanaiveviewerwillsay'Doesn'tthatactorlooklike(orunlike)AlexanderI!'—andhewillberight,andbyhisveryrightness
—evenwhenbeingcomplimentary—hewillbeshatteringthebasicassumptionofthegenre—thatitshouldbelifelike.
Thatishowcloselythequestionofgenresisconnectedwiththequestionofthespecificmaterial—andstyle.
Essentiallycinemaisstilllivingparasiticallyongenressuchasthe'novel',the'comedy',andsoon.
Inthisrespecttheprimitive'comicfilm'wasmorehonest,anditisherethatthefoundationswerelaidforresolvingtheproblemof
cinematicgenres,ratherthaninthecompromiseofthecine-novel'.
Inthe'comicfilm'theplotadvancedoutsidethefable,orrather,giventheprimitivefableline,theplotunfoldedoutofincidental
material(incidentalasfarasthefablewasconcerned,butactuallyquitespecific).
Hereispreciselythecoreoftheproblem:itisnotaquestionoftheexternal,secondaryfeaturesofthegenresoftheneighbouring
arts,butintherelationshipofthespecificallycinematicplottothefable.
Amaximalorientationtoplot=aminimalsettofable,andviceversa.
The'comicfilm'wasmorereminiscentofthehumorousversethanofthetheatricalcomedy,becausetheplotdevelopedinitquite
starklyoutofthesemantic-stylisticdevices.
Itisonlytimiditythatpreventsusfromrevealingincontemporaryfilmgenresnotjustthecine-narrative-poem,buteventhecinelyric-poem.Itisonlytimiditythatpreventspeopleadvertisingahistoricaldocumentaryasa'movingportraitgallery'fromsuch-andsuchanepoch.
I must repeat that the question of how plot relates to style in the cinema and the role they play in defining cinematic genres
requireslengthycarefulstudy.HereIhaveconfinedmyselftoposingthequestion.
THENATUREOFCINEMA
BorisKazansky
translatedbyJoeAndrew
1
In order to construct any sort of authoritative or merely consequentialpoeticsoffilmonedefinitelyneedsapriorstatement
concerningatleastthebasicprinciplesofageneraltheoryofcinema,whichonemighttermacinematology'.Althoughtherealready
existsaconsiderableliteratureoncinemathemostsubstantivequestionsofthisarthavenotbeenelaboratedmethodically;indeed,
theyhavenotevenbeendelineatedinascientificfashion.Thissituationcan,ofcourse,bepartiallyexplainedbytheveryyouthofthe
cinema,andinpartbytheantiquityofaestheticviewswhicharestilldominantinthefieldofart.Itistruethatthenewaestheticis
activelyengagedinarevisionoftraditionaloutlooksonthebasisofthemethodsemployedincontemporaryscience,buteventhis
aestheticisexclusivelyconcernedwiththe'serious'artforms,whosehistoryhasbeenelaboratedinmore detail. Cinema, however,
remained,untilrecently,alow-browandvulgargenre,asortofhybridorartsurrogate,locatedsomewherebetweenthecircusand
radio.However,theoutstandingplaceincontemporaryculturewhichcinemahasmanagedtoattaininamerethirtyyears—that
is,in comparison with other art forms which have existed for several thousandyears — would seem to give it the right to some
special attention. To thesefacts one might add two circumstances which make the construction of a theory of cinema of
importanceinprincipleforageneral,scientificaesthetic.
Cinema has emerged in living memory and has developed literally beforeour eyes. Consequently a study of it presents
opportunitiesandpromisesresults which cannot be afforded by the other arts, whose origins areshroudedinthemistsof
timeandareconcealedfromsoberresearchbythefogoflegendsandthedogmaoftradition.
Cinemaemergedfromphotographyandremainspartofitbyitsverynatureandbyitstechniques.Itdevelopedintoadiscrete
branchofindustrywithenormouscapitalandahugework-forceandcomplexindustrialequipment.Thesetechnicalaspectscausea
sharpdivisionbetweenitandtheother'serious'arts,whichgenerallyremain,atleastintermsofthemeansofproduction,at
theelementarystagesofahandicraftor'domesticart'.Contemporaryaestheticswhicharebasedexclusivelyonastudyoftheselatter
art forms, of necessity, inevitably preserve unchanged the very fundamentals of traditional aesthetics, even though they
attempt toovercometheseaesthetics.Itshouldbesaid,however,thatthesignificanceoftechnicalaspectsinthedevelopmentof
certainartsisundoubtedlyverylarge.Itissufficienttorecalltheroleofmusicalinstrumentsinthehistoryofmusic,orstagesetsin
theevolutionofthetheatre,ortheemergenceofsuchnewgenresofpaintingasengraving,lithographyandsoon.Inthisrespecttoo
studyofcinemawillbefruitfulforartistictheorybywideningthescopeofresearchintoitandbyilluminatingaseriesofimportant
phenomenawhichhavesofarremainedintheshadowsandhaveeludedobservation.
But, of course, precisely this problematic of cinema, which poses itself inthe method and terminology of scientific
theorising about art, lays aprofoundresponsibilityontheresearcherandpresentsparticulardifficulties.Accordinglyoneshould
makethereservationthatthepresentarticlehasasitsaimmerelythedefiningofthepathforfutureresearchandofindicatingthe
fundamentalsignpostsforsuchresearch.
2
Withoutquestioncinemaisashow.Withoutquestioncinemaisadramawhoseplotoftenduplicatesplays,orstorieswhichhavebeen
staged.Likethem,piecesforcinemaaredirectedbyadirector,playedbyactors,havesetsandpropsandareaccompaniedbymusic.
Itwouldseemthatitwouldbenaturaltoconsidercinemaasatypeoftheatre.However,suchaformulationencountersconsiderable
difficulties.Theatreartisamixedartwhich,throughthemillenia,hasretainedtheprimordialanthropologicalandsocialcharacter
of a syncretic action-play', in the sense that it is adirect depiction of man and his immediate impact upon others. Dance,
wrestling,acrobatics,ontheonehand,andoratory,singingandnarrationontheother,have,justasactingdoes,thesamefundamental
characteristic factofaliveperformancebytheartist,the'player'whohasadirectimpactonthespectatorand,inhisownturn,is
subjecttothelatter'simpactonhim.Thisinteractionisobviouslyapartofactingand,atthesametime,involvesthespectatorinthe
play, including him not only externally, by virtue of thefact that the stage and the auditorium are located in the same space, but
internally too, in the very creation of the story. By virtue of this immediatecreative interaction the stage, in principle, does not
constitutean'artobject'whichisseparatefromtheprocessofperformance,detachedfromtheartist,final,closedandexistinginits
ownrightCinema,bycontrast,isanon-immediateart.Itcreatesafilm,whichisasindependentanobject,asfinalaproductasa
statueorapainting.Thespectator'sattitudesarenotincluded.Theplaceofactionislocatedinacompletelydifferentspacefromthe
spectator's,asspacehereisimaginary,justasfictitiousasinapainting.
But,perhapsfilmisjustthekindofworkwhichtheatre.arthassofarlacked,andwithoutwhichitcouldnotbecomegenuineart,
the'artobject'whichthestage-showaspiredtointhethinkingofStanislavsky52,Craig3,Meyerhold54andTairov55? The answer is
no,forthedirectlinkbetweentheactorandhispublicinthesamerealspacepertainstotheveryessenceofstageart.Thefactoflive
performance,theinfectionofthespectator,comprisetheveryessenceofactingandtheotherperformingarts,asopposedto
the arts which are the domain of the creative artist. Everyattempt to create such an 'object' of theatre art, which might be
contemplatedassituatedinawindow,asitwere,contradictsinprincipletheveryessenceofthestagewhichdoesnotallowofsucha
'museum'approachtoitselfandwhichisdestroyedbysuchacontemplation.
Moreover,anaccurateandcompletereproductionofastageshowremainsapurelytechnicalfact,likearecordofasongor
musicbroadcastontheradio.
However,theredoexiststage-showswhichareundoubtedlyartisticinwhichthefactofliveperformance,thatis,acting,isabsent.
Puppets,withwhichCraigdreamedofreplacingactors,areonesuchexample,asaretheChineseshadowplays.Bothofthese,by
analogywiththestage-show,areoftencalled'theatre'.Butitisquiteobviousthatthisisananalogyonlyonthelevelofcontentand
that it exists only because of the manifestly imitativenature of these genres, just as 'tableaux vivants' are so called because of the
pictorial tendencies of these performances. The analogy is in no way comparable with that of the voice and violin which are
completelyofthesameorderacoustically.Atthesametimeitisusefultorememberthatthe'panorama'isalsoakindofstage-show,
thatis,afterall'theatre',andthatthisisaformwhichindisputablybelongstopainting.Similarexamplesofthiskindoftheatrearea
groupofwaxautomata(undoubtedlyaformofsculpture)and,finally,evenanartificiallandscape,whichisdefinitelyabranchof
architecture.
Allofthismakesitclearthat'theatre',asdistinctfrom'thestage'isaveryimpreciseterm.Literallyitdesignatesa'spectacle'.But
itisquiteobviousthataspectacle'couldbeanynaturalphenomenon,anyfactfromeverydaylife,ingeneral,anythingthatiscapable
ofattractingorcaptivatingthehumangaze.However,thegivenphenomenonistherebyconsideredanalogouslywithartworks,that
is,asapainting,asculpturalgroup,scenicactionandsoforth.Inexactlythesamewaya'spectacle'inthissamegeneralsense
canbeapainting,astatue,abuilding,astage-showorevenabookasitisread.Inthesamegeneralsense,asanobjectoftheviewer's
perceptionafilmtoo,ofcourse,canbecalleda'spectacle'.Butthisideabringsusnonearertoanunderstandingoftheessenceof
thecinema.Ascontemporaryscientificaesthetictheorytellsus,thespecificfeaturesofagivenartformmustbesoughtinitstexture,
thatisinthematerialandtechnicalbaseofthegivenart,whichinitsownturn,determinestheentireformalsystemofitsdevicesand
thewholevarietyofitsstyles.Accordingly,inordertounderstandthenatureofcinema,onemustaddressoneselftoaformalanalysis
ofitsproductions—thatis,thefilmitself.
3
Afilmisaseriesofimagesinshadows,whichappeartomoveonthelightfieldofthescreen:inthefinalanalysisitisalwaystheplay
ofdarklinesandpatchesagainstawhitebackground.Afilm,inmaterialterms,doesnotcontain,norcanitcontainanythingbutthis.
Inthisway,formallyspeaking,cinemaisapeculiarartofshadow-painting,thatis,aspecialformof'graphics'.Justasapaintingis
createdbyputtingsomecolouringmaterialoranotheronasurface,soafilmisformedbyashadowfallingonascreen.Consequently,
intermsofitsartisticmaterials,intermsofits'texture'cinemaundoubtedlybelongstothepictorialarts.
However, a series of important particular features distinguishes cinema from the other pictorial arts. First of all, architecture,
sculptureandpaintingare static, purely spatial. Screen depiction is mobile. By this fact itpossessessequentiality,that
is,ithasatemporalaswellasaspatialdimension.Becauseofitscapacityforexpressingmovementcinema,furthermore,takes
oncertainplotpossibilitieswhich,ofcourse,arenotaccessibleeventothemostplot-orientatedofthefinearts,namelypainting.Itis
truethatpaintingtoomaybesequentialandevennarrationalasinthecycleofcaricaturesbyBoucher56andCarand'Ache57,asina
seriesofillustrationsoranalbumofsketches,whicharelinkedtooneanotherbyacommontheme,andwhichtherebyacquirean
undoubtedlytemporaldimension,despitetheintermittentnatureoftheseseries.Buthoweversequentiallyandconnectedlypainting
mayconveytheseparatestagesofmovementoractionitcanonlymoreorlessapproximatetotheircompletedepiction,justasthe
augmentingofsidestoapolygononlyformstheapproximationofthecircumferenceofacircle.Cinemaalonedepictstheveryflow
ofactioninanuninterruptedformand,bythisfact,hasthecapacityforconveying,asaspectacle,adramaticsubjectinthe
sameway that theatre art does. It is this that has given cinema such anoutstanding place in comparison with the
otherpictorialarts.However,thefollowingmustalsobenoted.
Dramatism,assuch,maybeafunctionofavarietyofarts—painting,music,dance,literature,andforeachformcreates
only one stylisticgenre,suchastheballadinpoetryorthenovellainnarrativeart.Thedepiction of action in itself, being
onlyonecategoryofthecontent,equallydoesnotcreateaseparateart,butonlyagenre,suchas'martial'or'genre'painting.
Butitcanbeconnectedwithakindoftransformationwhichcreatesanewsystemoftexture,thatis,anewart.Similarly,the
sametextureofhumanexpressivenesswhichliesatthebasisofactingbutwhosecontentisorganisedbythedirectionintothe
systemofthestage-show,createsanewart—scenicart.Suchalsoistheessenceofarchitectureinwhich,fundamentally,weseea
transformationinanewsystemofelementswhichare,itwouldseem,sculpturalandpictorial.Allthepartsanddetailsof
architecturewhentakenseparately—columns,steps,arches,spiresandsoon,tosaynothingofstatuary,reliefsand
lines which have a pictorial and decorative significance — are all, in fact, sculptural works, which have a certain independent
existence and value. But when they are used as secondary elements, defined and interlinked by the particular principle of
organisation, as integratedelements of a new whole in a different order, they acquire new functions which are then
measured in the currency of a new system of art.Architecturedoesnotarticulatesurfacesandmasses,aspainting
andsculpturedo,butrather'space'.Moreprecisely,itorganisessurfacesandmasses(ortheirrelationships)inspaceand,
hence,deservesthetitleofaseparateart.
Inthecinemathegraphic,orpictorialtextureequallytakesonitsownparticular organisation, which conditions, in its
turn, the dramaticqualities.Filmisaparticularsortof'graphicdrama'whichwecanjustlycounterposetotheatredrama.We
couldtermcinema,perhaps'screentheatre',iftheveryconceptofthetheatredidnotrequireafundamentalreassessment.Butthe
essence of cinema does not lie here. The dramatic qualities of a film are only the result of a special organisation of its
texture. The basis of the specificity of cinema, as an art, consists of the particular features of its structure and the technical
preconditionswhichdetermineit.
4
Possibly,thereisanevenmoresubstantivedistinctionbetweencinemaandotherpictorialartsthanitstemporal,sequential,dramatic
character.
A painting or statue is created by an artist directly by means of the technical reworking of the relevant, more or less pliable
material.Butthematerialoffilm—lightandshadow—isnon-corporeal,non-material,elusive.Wearenotyetabletoworkinlight
andshadedirectly,freely,'byhand'.Itisstillnecessarytouseacomplex,unwieldymethod,involvingtheplacingofthenecessary
image on to photographic film, and then projectingit on to a screen. Consequently, this image is achieved by the shooting of the
relevantobjects—whetherasuitablebitofsceneryorspecialsets,whichhavetobe,ipsofacto,selectedormountedinadvance.In
thisway,whatisofparticularvalueinpainting—theindividualartisticexecutionofthework—ismanifestlyabsentincinema.
And, in reverse, the real contentof painting and sculpture cede so much in importance to the mastery of theartist that it is
absolutelyinsignificantwhatnaturegavetheartist,orevenwhetheritgavehimanythingatall.Incontrast,afilmiscreated,fromfirst
tolast, precisely by 'nature', which only needs to be shot. Therefore, it appearsthat mastery in cinema, in essence, is almost
never comparable to themastery of a painter. Moreover, it seems at first glance, that, in the final analysis, the art of cinema
residespreciselyinthecombinationofnature,thecompositionofthesets,themountingofparticularscenes'or'tableauxvivants',
whicharethenmerelyreproduced,thatis,transposedontothescreen,purelymechanically,withtheaidofacameraandprojection
lamp.
Givenallthis,ofcourse,therealcreatorsofafilmareitsdirector,actorsandset-designer,thatis,theartistsofthestage.However,
thisisfarfrombeingthecase.
First of all, technical execution plays a great variety of roles in thedifferent pictorial arts. The architect's mastery is
shown exclusively at the stage of conception and composition — or drawing and calculation — in therelevant material, of course,
whetheritbewood,stoneorferro-concrete.Theworkonthematerialsandtheoverallprocessofbuildingisperformedbyworkmen
in a purely technical fashion. Bronze casts, lithography and engraving are produced in an equally technical manner. Here the art
objectistheprint,producedinwhateverquantityitmaybe.The'original'—thatis,thesketchonametalplate,oronstone,oraclay
mouldremainsunknownandisevendestroyedintheprocessofreproduction'.Itplaysapurelyancillaryroleandnotinfrequentlyhas
aquiteconventional,schematiccharacter.Thus,aposterorjacketdesignmaybeproducedbyasimpletypo-lithographic'montage'
accordingtothespokeninstructionsoftheartistInsuchaway,themain,orevensole,contentoftheworkincertaingenresof
pictorial art is the conception and composition, in the relevant texture, of course. Such, precisely, are the arts of architecture and
cinema.
Thiscomparisonwitharchitectureisinnowayaccidental,butarisesfromafundamentalidentityinthenatureofthesetwoarts.
Both these arts are cumbersome to the degree that they are abstract. Cinema is obliged to pile up a mass of artistically
indifferent material and apply the mostcomplex of techniques in order to develop a minimal aesthetically
significantelement,inpreciselythesamewayasarchitecturedemandsenormousmassesofbuildingmaterialsandtechnicaleffortto
achieve,astheendresult,thedesiredform.Bothartsarerequiredtogathertogetherapileofcobblestones,whilealltheyneedfrom
themisafleetingplayoflightonthem.Architecture,asthemostabstractofarts,isthemostcumbersomeandcrudeinitstechnical
processes. But the texture of cinema too —shadow — is almost non-material. Consequently it does not work directly inthe
mediumofshadow,butobliquelyviatheintermediaryofamaterialwhichisbothmoretangibleandperceptible—withtheaidof
photography.
5
Cinemaarosefromphotographyandremainsphotographyintermsofitstextureandtechniques.Nurturedinthespiritoftraditional
aestheticsitdisplaystheweaknessofbeingashamedofitsdubious,lowlyorigins.But,inrejectingitsmother,itisobligedtopassitself
offasthechildofthestageinorder to achieve recognition in the world of art. However, even onceadoptedbythestage,
cinemaremainsthe illegitimate, 'natural' offspring ofthestagewithoutanyrightstodirectinheritance,awretchedparasite,likea
puppettheatre.However,cinema,intermsofitstechniques,hasnothingtobeashamedofbeforethe'serious'arts.Therewasatime
when these ancientaristocrats too were plebeians, mere 'products' which served the needs of everyday life. On the contrary, the
technical nature of cinema which makes of it a factory product, places on it the seal of chosenness amongst the otherarts of'
industrial'origin,andmakesitthecontemporary artparexcellence.Itispreciselyinitsphotographicnaturethatcinemashouldseek
its own laws and, simply by remaining faithful to photography and by rejecting all demands which are alien to photography will
cinemafinditstruepathofdevelopmentasanart.Thisisnotsimple,byvirtueoftheessenceoftherelationshipsandresourcesat
thedisposalofcinema,aswehaveshownabove.But,firstandforemost,thebusinessathandistheprincipledjustificationofthe
techniquesofcinema.Otherwise,itwillbenecessarytoseeinitmerelyadeviceofmechanicalreproduction,liketheradio.
In itself, photography is not yet an art, however highly we estimate the technical perfection of its performance. But there is
inherentinitthemerestminimumofartistry,whichmayserveastheprimaryelementofart.Aphotographofanyview,themost
ordinarylittlescene,themostmundaneobject,already,bytheveryartofreproductiononasegmentofsurface,setsapartaseparate
pieceofreality,isolatesitfromitsrealsettingandenclosesitintheframeofthephotograph,therebyendowingitwithadefinition,
completenessandindependencewhichitlacksinthesettingoftheindeterminateandindifferentcomplexofnature.Thearbitrary
contentofthefieldofvision,turnedinwhateverdirectionandcombinedintowhateverdiversity,beingfixedwithcertainlimits,from
acertainpointofview,foreshortenedinaparticularway,—allthismakesitaseparatefact,removedfromlivingreality,makesita
'picture',a'frame'.Itisknownthatamemory,byneutralisingtherealtoneofperception,istheelementaryactofcreation.Inthis
respectonemaycomparephotographywiththeactionofmemory:inreproducinganindividualandaccidentalimpressionitobjecti​‐
fiesit,therebygivingitageneralsignificance.Inthissituationalltheelementsofthegivensectionofnature,beingdetachedfromthe
linkswhichleadthemindefinitelyfarandinwhateverdirection,arelockedintoasinglewhole,becomefinal,finished,and,thereby,
enterintoconnectionsamongthemselveswhicharecloserandmoremutuallydetermining.
Thismomentofcapturing'nature'ataparticularturning-pointisthesamesimplestandmostbasicactof'theartofseeing'
ofpainting,thankstowhichtheartistdiscernsintheindifferentmassoftheseenthepreciseunityofpictorialqualitiesanddiscovers
theturning-pointwhichcreatesthisunityandmoreover,themostadvantageousturning-point,thatis,themostexpressiveintermsof
colouring,perspective,lighting,reliefandsoon.Thesameobtainsinphotography.Itisquiteobviousthatthe'picturesqueness'of
natureiscreatedbythisveryskilloftheartist.Butthesameappliestothenotorious'photogenic'qualities.Thereareno'photogenic'
views, faces or objects in themselves. Any object, any phenomenon can be precisely what is required by the artist — beautiful,
characteristic,dramatic,generallyexpressiveifonlyhediscernsthecorrectanglefortheshotinthegivencircumstances and for
the given aim. 'The talent of the painter', saidCorot 58 ,isfirstandforemosttheabilitytosettledowntowork'.Even
Rodin59,anexceptionallyindividualsculptortaughtthat'theonlyprincipleofartistoreproducetheseen.Theonlyproblemistosee.
Everyothermethodisdeleterious'.'Naturecorrectlyset',saidanotherartist,'isapicturealreadyhalf-painted.'Asisknown
thenaturalistsstrictlylimitedtheaimofarttothereproductionofreality.Impressionismwasaspecific,almosttechnicalmethod
ofseeingthingsastheyare',eliminatingtheadditionofanypersonalfantasy,emotionorevaluation.Andsincetheauthentically
seen was for them the authentically pictorial, the 'flat' appearance of the world, then, in relation to the sketch, such a 'naked
reproduction'didnotconstituteforthemaprincipledproblemsincemanual-dexteritydoesnotentertheartisticmethod.Insucha
way,theirartisticmethodwastheoretically'photographic'.
Thismomentofestrangementfromtherealworld,ofenclosurewithinaparticularturning-point,issufficientlycleareveninan
arbitrary,moreorlesssuccessfulphotograph.Eveninsimpletravel-filmsornewsreelsitisquitedefinitelyperceptible.Thus,whoever
has seenAwinterwalkinthehills60will surely remember the superb effect of the setting sun, seen through an arch formed by the
branchesofthepinesortheascentbetweenthesheerrocksthroughdeepsnow.Thisfeelingisevenstrongerinconnectionwiththe
generalideaoftheseries.Thus,inthefilmMologoles61apositiveimpressionisproducedbythemomentwhenamightytreecrashes
down,spreadingitsbranches,likeamanfallingonhisback,orwhenthehugethinks,oneafteranother,pileintothechuteofthe
conveyer-belt and are obediently lifted along the endless chain. The mastery of the cameraman (Aptekman62), thanks to the
originalityofhiscameraangleandthewayheinspireswhatisseenwiththoughtsothatitbecomesthespecial'drama'oftheforest,
— this mastery has placed on these shots the imprint of asubjectivesynthesiswhichisinherentintheartist'ssketch.This
imprintisevenmorecomplexandprofoundinmanymomentsofthefilmBattleshipPotemkin°,inwhichthepurelyvisualorstill-life
impressionisreinforcedbynarrativeandcontextualideassothatittakesonadramaticsignificanceandisthusimbuedwithgreat
emotional tension. The slow, heavy turning ofthe gun tower with the three muzzles of the huge cannon conveys the effectof a
powerful and gloomy threat The pince-nez of the ship's doctor who is thrown overboard and which gets caught on the cable and
hangs in the air acts as a cruel grotesquerie. This is to say nothing of such masterpieces of shootingastheremarkablefallofthe
woundedVakulinchukwhohelplesslytumblesdowntherigging.Evenifoneleavesasidethesenseofthisframeintermsoftheplot,
theveryseriesofcameraanglesofthisbodyasitslipsdownwardscreatesanimpressionofpurelygraphictension.
Equally,theproblemofadequatereproductionhasinphotographythesameaestheticsignificanceasinpainting.Leavingaside
thetechnicaltranspiredthatthedepictionsofthestormandseabattleweremuchmoreimpressiveintheversionshotinthestudio
usingminiaturemodelsofshipsina'sea'aboutthesizeofadining-table.Insuchaway'nature'incinemaismoreandmorebecoming
afiction.
By contrast, it is becoming more and more obvious that it is preciselyin photographic devices, in the acts of shooting,
developing, printing, projection, in direct work on the film, that cinema has at its disposal, in thepowerful tools of working on
'nature', purely creative possibilities of transforming it in accordance with the artistic task. By using the power of the
cinematographer,bypurelyphotographicmeans,anexpresstraincanbestopped,amanorhorseisabletomoveatincrediblespeed.
Beforeoureyesaplantsprouts,risesup,blossomsandgivesfruit;atwill,allthingsdiminishoraremagnifiedinsize,disappearor
appearasifbymagic.Theyareduplicated,asinamirror,sothattheherocanmeethimself,orlightacigarettefromhisown,while
thesameactorcanplaytwopartsinthesamescene.Allmovementscanbereversed,sothatthingsthathavebeenthrownawayfly
back,likeboomerangs.Inanimateobjectsmoveoftheirownaccord,whilepeopleridemammothsandotherprehistoricanimals,leap
unharmedfromanyheight,fitintoabottle,fightwithanant,andsoon.Inaword,allcategoriesofspace,motion,weight,volumeand
perspectiveareeliminatedonthescreen.Thecinemahasitsownlawsofgeometry,mechanicsandphysics,accordingtowhichthe
mostimpossiblesituationsbecomepossible.
7
Onlyinonerespectdoescinemaunquestionablydependon'nature'—initsdepictionofman,inasmuchasthenarrative,dramatic
characterofafilmobtainsitscentralimpactbythedepictionofhumanactioninit.However,itdoesnotnecessarilyfollowfromthis
thatthemostimportantsignificanceincinemabelongstothe'star',astheaverageviewermaythink.Indeed,theplaceofthe'actor'in
cinemaisinprinciplecompletelydifferentfromhisplaceonthestageorinthemusic-hall.Firstofall,cinemaonlydemandsfrom
himvisualexpressiveness.Cinemadoesnotdemandqualitiesofvoice,richnessofintonation,alltheprofound,powerfuland
subtleexpressivenessofspeechinallitscomplexityandinorganicsynthesiswiththeexpressionofmime,gestureandmovement.At
thesametime,asfarasthescreenactorisconcerned,theredisappearsalltheimmensefieldofthespokenwordwithitsideological,
intellectual and emotional content, with itspower of psychological analysis, with its everyday and personal characteristics, with its
artisticstyleandbeautiesofimagery,eloquenceandwit,tosaynothing of the charms of poetry. Furthermore, the whole
aspect ofemotional,sympatheticexcitementandinfluencewhichpertainstoanactorwhoappearsbeforealiveaudienceandwhich
isconnectedtotheexpressiveimagecreatedbyhim,notonlyphysiologicallyandpsychologically,butalsocreatively—allthissideof
thingsisabsentincinema.Finally,bytheverynatureofcinematicart,thescreendramaisdeprivedofthecoherence,durationand
elaborationwhichmakesdramaticactiononthestagesosaturatedandcomplicated.A'role'inafilm,deprivedoftheresourcesof
monologueanddialogueandreducedtothepurelyvisualaspectofaction,isextremelylimitedbycomparisonwithastagerole,aseach
momentofitmustbepainstakinglyprepared,sothatitcanbecorrectlyandfullyunderstood.Hencethenecessityforthestrictest
links and determining factors between frames, which inevitably forces the action to be direct and simple. Hence the typical
construction of a film in which a 'role' consists ofa series of separate, short scenes which, moreover, may have been shot at any
interval, in no particular order, but at the most suitable time. Can this becompared with the immense general intensity of all his
expressive resources,which is demanded from an actor throughout an entire play, which lasts a completeevening,duringwhichhe
sometimesdoesnotleavethestageinthecourseofanentireact?Moreover,ahightaskisplacedbeforetheactor:theimagehecreates
isdictatedtohimbythedramaandisthuscontrolledbythespectator, and must bear comparison with the image created by
theimaginationofthespectator.Inafilmthisdualismofthedramaticandscenicimageisabsent,sincethepublic,asarule,
hasnoknowledgeofthescript.Therefore,thecinemaactorisfreefromanycontrolbyhisaudienceandfromtheriskofhavingto
competewiththeaudience'simagination.
It is true that one might think that the performance of a 'part' which is fragmented into separate moments, with
interruptionsandunderthe'muzzle'ofacamerais,perhaps,evenharderthanplayinginterruptedlyinanensemble,intheillusory
surroundings of a stage set and with the help ofthe audience, particularly if we are talking about scenes written in the most
emotionally charged style. This is very possibly the case. But we are not talking about the difficulties of the psychophysiological'set'oftheperformer,butaboutthescope,complexityandsignificanceoftheartisticimagecreatedbyhim.
Thestraightforwardnessandfragmentarynatureofthedramaticimageinafilmareveryfarfrombeingcompensated,ofcourse,
bythepossibilitieswhichcinema,asopposedtothestage,afforditbywayoftheopeningoutoftime,placeandthecharacterofthe
action.Onthecontrary,itispreciselythewideningofthefunctionsofthe'cinematicactor'inthedirectionofcircusstunts—
horsemanship,acrobaticsandsport—whichgiverisetosuspicionaboutthetruthfulnessofthenatureofsuch'acting'.Theseskills
aremuchmoreelementarythanthemasteryofactingwhichisorganisedinthesystemofdramaticart.TocallDouglasFairbanks68,
HarryPie69,TomMix70,WilliamHart61,JackHolt62andothersuchcowboys,sportsmen,acrobatsandathletes'actors'wouldmean
dissipatingthisconceptandconfusingtheissuesincetheseperformers,fineintheirownfashion,donotpossessthescenicqualities,
thedramatictemperament,thetheatricalexperience,thetechnicalexpressivenesswhichthestageofnecessitydemandsandwhich,
indeed,constitutetheauthenticmasteryofacting.
But even the fact that the best screen artists — Lillian Gish73 , PolaNegi74, Mary Pickford, Chaplin75, Keaton76,
Lloyd77,Veldt78,Jannings79—areundoubtedlyactorswithadequatestageexperience,doesnotchangetheassertionputforwardin
thisarticlethattheoriginalofthedramaticimageonthescreenisnottheactor.Inasmuchasmanservesas'nature'tobereproduced,
he is present in the work of art, to that degree he exists for the spectator only in the capacity of a 'model'(naturshchik)80. In
principle,itisofnosignificancethatheisanactor.Hecouldsimplybethetypethathedepicts.Thefactthathepossessesexpressive
skillsis,intheend,onlythegoodfortuneoftheartistandisjustasarbitraryintermsofartasabeautifulfaceoragracefulfigure.Itis
justasincorrecttotermascreenperformeranactorasitistocallafilmaplay.Oncethecinemaisconsidered'paintinginshadows',
thatis,agraphicart,thentheactor,reproducedinthescreenimage,shouldbe,inprinciple,merelyamodel.
8
As regards second-rank performers who take part in crowd-scenes orrandomepisodes,thismuchisfairlyobvious.Cinema
demands of them exactly what a painter or sculptor does from a model: the appropriate type,that is, external given factors, a
particularposeandfacialexpression,acertainskillin'sitting'andnomore.Itmayseemparadoxicaltoextendthiscomparison to
the 'stars' of the screen, whose genuine artistry is unquestioned.Butsuchanimpression,toasignificantdegree,arisesfrom
anancientprejudice,accordingtowhichweareusedtoseeingthemodelasapurelyancillary,entirelypassive,impersonalthingand
consequently, to take no account of him or her in an analysis of a painting or statue. Such anattitude is explained and partially
justifiedbythefactthat,indeed,therun-of-the-millmodelusuallydidnotinspireeitherrespectorinterest:theprofessionalmodel,
inthemain,wasusedforexercisesanddetails,whilethe non-professional seemed accidental. Neither the one nor the other
seemedtopossessanyspecialskillsortalentswhatsoever.Suchanimage,however,isfarfrombeingcorrectorjust.Unfortunately,
thehistoryofthemodelandhisroleinthecreationofaworkofarthasnotbeenstudiedatall.Allthesame,itisknownthatartists
searchedlongandcarefullyfortherequirednature,whentheirtaskdemandedit,precisely,whentheywerelookingforparticular
expressiveness, distinctiveness or individuality. The famous French sculptor Rodin worked by observing models in their free,
arbitrarymovementsandposesandonlylookedforinthemexpressiveandinterestingangles.Heneverplaced'amodel.Evenifhe
neededaparticularposeorexpressionheonlycommunicatedhisoverallaimtothemodel.'Youseemtobemoreattheirservicethan
theyatyours,'afellow-artistoncesaidtohimonthistopic.'Iamattheserviceofnature,'Rodinreplied.And,judgingbycertain
highlydramaticsculpturesbyRodin,forexampleTheBurghersofCalais,withtheirprofoundlypsychologicalposesandthegeneral
tragicmeaning,hismodelsearnedthetitleofartistsjustasmuchasscreenactors.Probably,itisjustasdifficultinthecaseofmany
other artiststosaywhatpartnatureplayedintheirworks.'Naturecorrectlysetup,'onefamousartistsaid,'andthepainting'shalf
done already.' And, no doubt, in asuccessful pose of the model we should often give as much credit to him, right down to the
unconsciousexpressiveness,instinctivegrace,poweranddistinctiveness,astotheartist.Inanycase,thegreatestartistsandeventhe
greatest epochs of painting (for example, the Renaissance, Classicism, Impressionism) have worked predominantly with the
assistance of models.The famous French painter Manet81 was proud of the fact that only one of his works was not painted
entirelyfromnature.OurRepin82 also usedmodelsexclusively.AsweknowforhisnotedworkTheMurderofhisSonbyIvanthe
Terribleheusedasamodelthewell-knownwriterGarshin,whoforthishighly-chargedscenehad,ofcourse,toadopttherelevant
pose,thatis,inessence,toperformafunctionsimilartothatofthescreenperformer.ThefamouslegendconcerningtheAncient
GreekartistParrhasius,who,inordertoachievetheexpressionhedesiredoftheinhumansufferingofPrometheus,subjectedto
tortureaslaveboughtespeciallyforthispurpose,andasimilarpieceof'villainy'onthepartofMichelangelobearwitnesstothe
degreetowhichtheideaof'dramaticnature'isnaturallyclosetopainting,andtowhatextenttheartistsometimesdepends
on his model andis indebted, in his work, to the latter's expressive qualities, and even his initiative. The well-known artist V.
VereshchaginhimselftoldofhowhehadbesoughtGeneralSkobelev83tohandtwobanditssohecouldpainttheexpressionoftheir
facesinthenoosefromnature.
Oflate,illustrators,especiallytheEnglish,quitefrequentlyphotographmodelsincertainposeswhichcorrespondtothesubject
andthenretouchthephotographstoconcealthephotographicoriginsandcharacterofthe'drawing'.Thisallowstheillustrator,even
ifheisnotagreatartist,tocreateveryboldandevenoriginalsketches.Inthisway,graphicsisemploying,inessence,exactlythe
same devices of 'staging' as the cinema is. One only needstomakeonemorestep—toinviteprofessionalactorstoposeforthis
purpose—andthesimilaritybetweenthemodelandthecinemaactorwillbecomplete.
It is true that I know of only one instance when an artist has useda professional actor as a model. When Sorin once
painted for competition he besought the well-known Finnish actress Ida Aalberg, who was on tour in Petersburg, to pose as a
womanwho,throughherowninspiration,arousedotherstoachievegreatfeats.Itispossiblethatartistshavebeenafraidofthe
artificialityofthespecificallyactorlymannerandpreferredtheirnatureunartificialandimmediate.Butonemustpointoutthateven
onthescreenthedangerofactorlyartificialityexistsandthatitisdefinitelydetrimentaltothefilmsofConradVeidt,forexample.
Photographycannotstandanyfalseness.Byitsverynatureitdemandsnatureonlyasashootableobject.
9
Even such a thoughtful evaluator and propagandist of screen art as Bela Balazs84 sees in it, all the same, the art of human
expressiveness,thatis,ofacting,assertingthat,forthemostpart,thecinemaofferstheperformeropportunitiesformime,gesture
andmovementwhichwillalwaysremaininaccessibletotheatricalart.HereBalkshasinmindthepossiblityofhighlightinganydetail
inthecinema,atanymagnification—'inclose-up'sothatthespectatorseesquitedistinctlyeventhemostsubtletrickofmime.This,
however,doesnotconstitutetheparticularityofcinemaeitherinprincipleorinfact.Theartofactingundoubtedlypresupposesas
much mastery of mime as of speech. Moreover, the audience of the ancienttheatre, which sat right on the stage, quite
obviously, of course, could see allthe mime work of the actor. For the contemporary spectator, on the other hand, opera-glasses,
althoughtheydonotmagnifyhim,bringtheactorcloseenoughtoisolatequiteadequatelyeventhetiniestdetailofhisperformance.It
istruethatopera-glasses,inessence,destroythescenicimpressionbymechanicallynarrowingthefieldofvisionandisolatingone
detailfromthestagesetandtheactionasawhole.Butpreciselythefactthatasimilarhighlightingoftheface,onadifferentscale,
moreover — magnified severaldozen times, seems natural in the cinema, emphasises not the scenic, but pictorial, purely graphic
characteroffilm.Itispreciselyingraphics,especiallyinillustration,thatthisdevicehasbeenlongsinceused.Ontheotherhand,it
is in principle impossible on the stage. To show the spectatoronly eyes enormously magnified, taking up the whole screen as
TraubergandKozintsevdidinTheBigWheel85—thestagecannotdothisbecauseitdecisivelycontradictsthespatiallyrealnature
ofthestageandtheliving,physicalbeingoftheactor.Thesameshouldalsobesaidaboutthehighlightingofsmallobjects,detailsin
general, which are magnified severaldozen times, in close-up, and appear to be visible right next to us. This is impossible on the
stage.Keepingtothesamescale,thesameplaneisessentialandinevitableforthestage,giventhatthespectatorandthestageare
fixedinthesamespatialdimension.Consequentlyachangeintheangleofvision—replacingaviewfrominfrontbyonefromtheside
orabove—orachangeindistance,isimpossibleonthestage.Evenmoreunobtainableinthetheatrearethemorecomplicatedoptical
operationswhicharenaturalincinema:theshootingorprojectionofanimagewiththeaidofamagnifying-glass,—asinBattleship
Potemkin86wherethespectator,alongwiththeship'sdoctor,seesthewormssquirmingaroundinthemeatastheylookatit—oreven
with the aid of a microscope and telescope, and equally, a changein focus. In graphics, once again, especially in illustrations such
devicesareverypossibleandevenfairlycommon.OnceinmypresencethedirectorV.R.Gardin87wasbrowsingthroughanold
illustratedFrenchbookandwasstruckbythecinematicqualityoftheillustrations,havinginmindpreciselytheirdetailed,particular
'foreshortened'character.Ofcourse,therelation​shipisreallyjustthereverse:itiscinemaframeswhicharegraphic.
On the screen we can turn an actor to all sides, view him in anydimension,transposehim to any distance without
breaking the unity of thedramatic situation or interrupting the flow of action. Because in cinema space and its categories of
perspective, angle of vision, scale and distance arecompletelyfictitious.Tobemoreprecisethecorrelationwiththeviewerisnot
given in real space, but isincludedin the depiction itself. But this alsoconstitutes the essential mark of graphics and painting in
general.
Byvirtueofthesespecificfeaturesofthescreen,cinemaisnotatallrestrictedinitsdramaturgy,andinparticularinitstreatment
ofthedramaticimage,bythesameresourcesthatthestagehasatitsdisposal,withthehelpoftheactor.Onemayimagineafilmin
whichacomplexandevenpsychologicallymotivateddramaticactionunfoldsinsuchawaythatthehero'simageisneveroncegiven
in its entirety as a living being. His actions,his character, his spiritual experiences may be expressed exclusively in details: a foot
impatiently tapping the floor, a cane angrily gripped by a hand, a head pulled into the shoulders or sunk on his chest, trembling
shoulders and so on. Thus in D. W. Griffith' sIntolerance88 there is a highly expressive image of a woman which has great
significancefortheplot,andwhichisformedentirelybyshowingtwomoments,twodetails:herfaceandhands.Theimageasawhole
and its dramatic role in the scene are only suggested. Constructed on this principle, but with a different principle is thefilmThe
Freshman89(withHaroldLloyd)inwhichtheviewerseesthefaceoftheheroandcandiscoverthemysteriouspatrononlyatthevery
end. Thisis a purely graphic possibility, which the stage cannot achieve and which, ofcourse, creates decisively different
categoriesfortheconstructionofascreendramaascomparedwithoneonthestage.But,atthesametime,itisquiteobviousthat,
in accordance with these categories, the 'role' of the cinema performer in no way demands the all-round ability and skills which
constitute the actor's mastery in stage art. Here, enormous significance is laid not on acting, but on 'posing', that is, the skill of
adopting this or that position, of making this or that movement, not in general, but as applied tothe task and demands of the
production,withtheaimofdepictingthisorthatdetailfromtherequiredangle.Thisskillissofarremovedfromthatofanactorandis
inessencesoakintothatofamodelthatoneshouldreallycallitthe'artofposing'.
10
To a significant degree this mastery is conventional, just as the real significance of nature in the cinema is conventional. What is
more,itisalmostasfictitiousasnatureis.Indeed,onthestage,intheballet,thecircus,inthearenatheperformingartistpresentshis
masteryrealistically,inhardcash,inconvertiblecurrency:thetricksofmechanics,lighting,ofthesetsandpropsonthestagehave,in
general,averyslightsignificanceinrelationtotheactor.Ontheotherhand,cinema,byitsverynaturedoesnotknowthelimitsof
illusion.Atthesametime,illusionincinemaisofquiteadifferentorderthanonthestage,wherethesetsaresituatedinthereal,
three- dimensional space of the acting area, where amidst all this performs the actor who is equally of three dimensions and
contained within real space and where, finally, the audience's gaze is directed from a series of points. Incinema illusion is
unconditional,sinceeverythingexistsonlyintheflat,graphicdepictiononthescreen,andonthisthereisnoimpactcreatedeitherby
the position of the viewer or by the real spatial sizes of things and the distances between them. Whether what is shown is a real
landscapeoraset,arealbuildingoramodelofitsfaçade,amock-uporsimplyadrawing--anyoftheseinnowayalterstheimage
onthescreen,provided,ofcourse,thatthemodel,mock-uporsketchisphotographedproperly.
Thispurelygraphicalabsolutenessofillusiononthescreenalsomakesthescreenactor's'masteryasconventionalandfictitiousas
therealityofnature.Thedramaticimpactisinnowayhinderedbyourcertainknowledgethatthewildbeastcannotteartheheroto
piecesalthoughthereisnothingvisibleonthescreentopreventitfromsodoing.Itisonlynecessaryforthisnottobeseen.Butthanks
toawholeseriesofrecentdevicesofshootingandprinting,thereisagreatdealwhich,onthestage,inthecircusorballetcouldonlybe
createdbytheartist'smastery,canbeproducedonthescreenbymeansof'tricks'andthemasteryisthatofthecinematographer.The
heroofafilmcanleapfromimmenseheights,scaleanoverhangingcliff,clashwithwildanimals,juggleaboveawaterfall,inaword,
experienceanysortofcatastropheanddisplaywhatevermiracleofcourageyoucaretonamewithouttheperformerreceivingany
priortrainingorsufferinganyharmwhatsoever.Ifthestuntistoocomplicatedandexpensivethensometimesevensimplermeasures
maybeadopted:theperformerisreplacedbyadolloraprofessionalacrobat.Thus,BusterKeaton'sneck-breakingleapattheendof
TheThreeAges90isnotperformedbyKeatonhimself,butbyastuntman,butthisisamatterofcompleteindifferencetotheviewer:
graphically,itmakesnodifferenceatall.Asaresultofthespecialfeaturesinvolvedinperceivingafilmevensomethingthathappens
on the screen quite 'close by'allows of substitution. Thus, during the shooting of KaterinaIzmailova(directed by Sabinsky)91 the
leadinglady,becauseofillnesswasreplacedsothat'inreality'oneactressfallsoutofthesleigh,whileasecondonegetsup.
Itisacuriousfactthatpaintingtoohasitsownkindofstunts'involvingmodelsand,moreover,theyareexactlyanalogoustothose
used in shootinga film. Thus, artists during the Renaissance, when they were painting their frescoes on church vaults and palace
ceilingshadtotakeintoaccount,likethecameraman,notonlytheopticallawsofsuchplafonddrawings,whenviewedfrombelow,
butalsohadtouseforthisamodelwhowouldsit'lyingonthefloor,injustthesamewayasinthecinemawhen,inordertoshowonthe
screentheheroclamberingupasheercliff,onecanshoothimcrawlingoverasetspreadoutonthefloor.Insuchaway,bothin
principleandinpractice,thescreenartistperformsthefunctionofa'model',andhisspecificallyscreenskills,howeverelevatedthey
mayappearcomparedwiththoseofamodelinpaintingorsculpture,alwaysbytheirverynature,bytheverymethodsusedtoapply
them,remainexactlythesame.Andthereisanequallysubstantiveandprincipleddifferenceinfunctionbetweenthatperformedby
an artist in the cinema, and the function of the player on the stage. As a final result of the art of cinema, in a film, the actor's
creativityispresentednotbyitself,butinagraphic,screentransformation,thedegreeofwhichisnotsosubstantial.Butonthestage,
theactor'screativity,assuch,iswhatconstitutesscenicart.
11
The analysis carried out here, of necessity cursory and summary, is sufficient proof, all the same, that any sort of scientific
understanding of theessence of cinema is attainable only in the degree to which we resolve the fundamental principled and
methodologicalproblemswhichastudyofthisartplacesbeforecontemporaryaesthetics.
Firstofall,itbecomesclearthatcinema,likethestage,isacomplex,compositeart,inwhichparticipateformsofcreativityof
differentsortsandwithvariousclaims.Aworkofart,thefinalresultandaimofcinema—afilm—arisesbywayoftheprojection
of a series of photographic images, which by themselves possess a certain degree of artistry: but these shots, intheir own turn,
demandthepriorassemblingof'nature'accordingtoadefiniteplan,whichalsohasacreativecharacter,finally,theposingofthe
modelisalsoaparticularformofcreativity.Butalltheseformsofcreativity,alldifferentinthemselves,donotbecomepartoftheartof
cinema directly,per se, but are successively transformed so radically that each preceding stage is, as it were, annihilated in the
transition to the next, essentially different, type of creativity. The expressive skills of the model, the pictorialand architectural
masteryoftheset-designerandpropsmanareutilisedanew,asmaterialor'base'forthephotographicart.Likeartlessnatureall
these forms of creativity serve here merely as technical resources,' shootable objects', which are, in principle,
eliminatedbytheactofshooting.But,initsownturnthisseriesofphotographicshots,intheirphysicallay-outandrepetitiveness,
(withpartialchangesinsequence),aestheticallyceasestoexistonce,fusingtogetheronthescreenintoasingle,continuous'frame',it
presentsthebeginningofanewsortofwork—adramaofshadows.
Ontheotherhand,instageartallthedifferentformsofcreativitywhichformthewhole—acting,sets,props—dosodirectly,
simultaneously,onthesamelevel,andareonlysubordinatedtotheoverallplanofthedirectorfortheshow.Eventhesetsandmakeupwhichhaveadubioussignificanceinthemselvesandwhich,tobeproperlyperceived,requireparticularconditionsoflightingand
anemphasisontheparticularpositionoftheviewer(asinarchitecturalpaintingandsculpture),—evenso,theydonotchangetheir
essenceinscenicart.Therelationshipoftransformation,similartothevariousstagesincinema,onlyexistsbetweenscenicart
asawholeandthedramaasaliterarygenre.Inthisway,asopposedtothemixedartofthestage,wemaycallcinema'synthetic'art.
In actual fact, of course, a truly synthetic transformation of the previous stages is achieved only in a few, rare films. In the
majority of cases the filmincorporates the results of these stages more or less in their raw form, according to which the 'frame'
remains merely a photograph, as such, and even the dramatic image on the screen remains only a reproduction of the mimed
expressivenessofthe'actor'.Thisoccurs,ofcourse,becausereallytoproducethenecessarytransformationbymeansofamaterial
reworking of the results of the previous stage, as a 'basis' for the next— this, in general,is only possible in part, and, then, with
considerableeffort.Consequently,itisnecessarytotakethetransformationintoaccountbeforehand,intheposingitselfandin
thesettingupoftheobjectstobeshot,andintheactualshooting.Itispreciselythispreliminarythinkingoutoftheinternal task,the
finaldemandofthelastinstanceoftheartofcinema—thefilm—andtheabilitytofindthemostexpressiveresponsetoitinthe
correspondingconstructionofnatureandintheproductionoftheshotwhichunitestheconsecutiveactsofcinemacreativityintoan
integratedsynthesisofthefilm.Butforthis,firstofall,thereisaneedforasettowardsthissynthesis,theprincipledassertionof
whichconstitutesthefirsttaskofcinematicaesthetics.
However,evenwhenthereisthemostcompletesynthesisthefinal,culminatingresultofcinematicart—thefilm—retainswithin
itinevitablydeeptracesofthestageswhichhavebeenreworkedandwhichdetermineitsessenceinafundamentalway.Thishappens,
clearly,becausethecreativeresultofapreviousstageservesasits'texture',theconstructiveelement.Thus,afilmremains,byitsvery
nature, photographic, 'naturalised'. And the more 'naturalised' a shot is, the more powerfully is felt the mastery of theinternal
overcomingofnatureandthemoreimposingistheimpressionachieved.Ontheotherhand,ifwesuspectthatthisisashotfroma
set,amock-up,adoll,an'actor'whoisplayinga'part',ifwedoubtthe'realityofwhatisreproduced'weexperienceanannoying
senseoffalseness, ashatteringof thefundamental lawofcinema. Thestunt, substitution,fictitiousness,as soonas wespotthem,
destroytheaestheticimpressionoftheframe.EveninsucharemarkablefilmasTheCabinetofDrCaligarithesetsandmake-up
whichobviouslydisplaytheirtheatricalcharacter,spoiltheoverallimpression.Evenmoreglaringisthefalsenessofthefakeexotic
sceneryinTheIndianTomb92andTheWifeofthePharaoh93whichwerefilmednearBerlin.
12
Inthisway,inthelastanalysis,atthefinal,higheststageofcreationcinemaisa plot-based,'compositional'artofashadow-drama,
whichonemayoncemore,inthisrespect,comparewitharchitecture.Bythisveryfactitisclearthatwearenottalkingaboutthe
degree to which the 'fable' (fabula)94 is present. Of course, even in terms of its photographic nature, proceeding naturally from
natureand,uptonowmoreencumberedthanwell-endowedbyitsbulkytechnicalequipment,andmoreoverdeprivedofrelief
andcolour,cinema,clearly,oughttohavedevelopedalongthepathofthefable.Experimentsinmakingplot-less,orrather,fable-less
filmshavesofarnothadsubstantialresultsasoneshouldreallyhaveexpected.Onthecontrary,incinemaweseeadominancenotonly
ofthefable,butofitinitsmostnakedform:thatis,theadventurestory,themelodramaandthefarce.Butthediscussionheredoesnot
concernthefableassuch,butthemoregeneralspecificsof'plot-based'films.Thefableofafilmmaybeborrowedfromastory,a
play,apoemorfairy-tale.But,likeaplayinthetheatre,afilmalsorequiresaspecialtreatmentofthefableandanassessmentofit
according tothe specific principles of screen exposition. The scenario, in this respect, offers merely the same sort of schematic
frameworkasitusedtogiveItalianfolkcomedywhichhadnoknowledgeofliterarydramaturgy.Thisschemehas to be worked
overindetailinitsconcretescreenform,justasthedirectorworksoutthecourseofastage-show:frameafterframe
iscomposedindetail,takingintoaccountthelinksandinteractiononewithanother,andwiththegeneraltotalityasawhole.This
compositionofthefilmisrealisedthroughthemediumofmontage,that is, the co-ordination offrames,whichareessentialforthe
overalldesign,inthesequenceoftheplot.Theartofcinemainthefinalanalysis,thatis,inthecreationofafilm,residesinprinciple,
then,exclusivelyintheselectionandcombinationofpreparedphotographicshots.Ifweimaginetheexistenceofasufficientlylarge
collectionofallpossibleframes—multifariousviews,detailsandscenes—then,theartofmontagewouldmerelyboildowntoa
selectionfromthis'library'offrames(kadroteka)ofthenumbersrequiredtoexpresstheconceptionofthefilm,inthesamewaythat
mosaic art consists in the selection of separate, differently coloured and shaded fragments of stone inorder to compile the
preconceivedimagefromthem.But,assuchauniversalcollectionofframesdoesnotexist,itisnecessarytoordertherequisiteset
fromthefactory.And,ofcourse,itischeapertohaveamerelyadequateselectionofmodels,scenery,sets,etc.,usuallynotevenvery
wide-ranging,aslongastheydonotservetheexclusivedemandsofthehighlyartistic'hit'whicharefulfilledonaspecialorder.In
America,wherethingsaredoneonalargescale,theofficesofthefilmfactorieshaveinstockanalmostexhaustivecollectionofstock
shots(tipazh),evenintheportraitrange,and,moreover,aseriesofexamplesandvariantstochoosefromsothat,whenamodelof
PresidentRooseveltwasrequired,theofficewasabletoofferatoncemorethantwentyportraitsofhim,alreadycast.Toseekout
'nature'andeventosetupthephotographicsubjectsrequiredforaspecifictask—this,ofcourse,isartofanancillaryorder,inthe
natureofpropsandset-designingintermsofthestage.Withoutdoubt,theartofthecameramanisequallysubordinate.Thegenuine
creatorofafilm,clearly,mustbethoughtofastheonewhorealisesitsdramaticplanintheconcretecompositionoftheframesand
theircombinationintheconnected,plot-basedwholeofthescreendrama—thatis,thedirectorofthemontage.
Iamquitesurethatevennowitwouldnotbedifficulttocompose,fromtheseparateframesofvariousfilms,afurtherfilmwhich
wouldbehighlyoriginalintermsofitsplot,andwhichwouldperhapsbemuchbetterintermsofitscompositionthanallthe
filmsfromwhosepartsitisputtogether.[Thisassertioncannow,itappears,beconfirmedbyTheFalloftheRomanovs95which
wasmadepreciselyinsuchamontagemanner.]BythisIwishtoemphasisethepurelyconstructive,andcompositional,plotbasedcharacterofthesupremestageofcinemacreativity,themakingofafilm.
It may appear that such an understanding of the creation of a film,reducing it to the art of montage, excessively
impoverishesandsimplifiestheartofcinema.Butsuchanimpressionisarrivedatonlyifaverysuperficialattitudetothequestionis
adopted.Onthecontrary,montageinthesensewhichitisgiveninthepresentarticle—isthealphaandomega,thefoundationsand
crown of cinematic creativity: montage is the drama​turgy' of film in its concrete screen composition as a whole and in the
constructionofseparateframes.Howgreatandcomplexthisartactuallyis,canbeseenfromthesimplefactthatitdoesnotyethave
itsmasters—'dramatists' of film in the proper sense. So far it only has 'directors',producers, as was the case in the
theatreofantiquity,whichhadnoknowledgeofliterarydrama.Cinemahasstillnotworkedouttheformalmethodsforitsown
'word',itstilldoesnothaveitsown'language',whichwouldallowthecinematiccraftsmanto'thinkinframes'inthesamewaythata
poetthinksinverbalimages.Thisspecific,screen-basedthoughtprocessisstillveryunstableandindeterminatesothateven
the bestdirectorstodayworkpurelyempirically,notmerelytryingthingsoutbyexperiment,but,alsoliterallyfindingeachstepas
theygoalong.EvensuchasplendidmasterasEisensteindidnotforeseethatthemistyframesinBattleshipPotemkinwouldturnout
splendidly;onthecontrary,hewasafraidthatalltheseshotswouldturnouttobeofnouse.Herechanceofferedanexcellentcorrective
totheartist'splan.Ingeneral,chanceisaveryimportantcollaboratorintheartofcinema.Duringtheproductionofthecelebrated
Ben-Hur96fortycameraswereshootingthechariotracescenefromdifferentpositions,withthepreciseaimofincreasingthechances
oftheirmaterialbeingusedinthefilm.Itwasaconsciouscalculationoftheaccidentalartisticmoment.Andindeed—therewasa
widechoiceforthemontage:fromthe8000metresoffilmthathadbeenshottheyonlyhadtochoose400,thatis,onaverage,one
variantoutoftwenty.Asiswell-known,Chaplinalsolikesinhisfilmstheamountoffilmtobeatleasttentimesasmuchaswillbe
usedinthefinalversion.Andthisfigure,ofcourse,isanindicationofthedegreetowhichthecraftsmanisunclear,unsure,unableto
foreseeevents.Itisalsowell-knownhowoftenitispreciselygoodfortuneorevenamistakebythedirectororcameramanthathas
givenacompletelyunexpectedlyinterestingresultandhasledtovaluablediscoveriesandperfections.Inthisway,onecanguarantee
thatinanyfilmtherewillbeexcellenteffectswhichthedirectorhadnotatallforeseenandwhichhewasabletoseethevalueofand
includeinthefilmassupplementarymaterial.Theycreatedthemselves,quitefortuitously.Thus,duringtheshootingofthesamerace
inBen-Hur,sixteamsofhorses,eachconsistingof6animals,collidedwithMessala'soverturnedchariot—innowayaccordingto
thescenario—andthankstotheprudentpositioningoffortylenses'justincase'aframewascreatedwhichwascompletelyunplanned
in the director's scheme, but which, nevertheless, became a most effective frame in the film.From this one may imagine what
immenseexperience,whatanunusuallysubtleandprecisetrainingoftheeyeandwhatrichvisualimaginationandinventivenessis
demanded by cinema from its dramatist for the film really tobe entirelyhiswork, and not the result, to a significant degree, of
accidentalcircumstances.
Allthesequalities,obviously,arefirstandforemostpictorial,graphic,althoughalsohavingadramaticdimension.However,onthe
whole, master craftsmen of cinema are usually the least prepared in precisely this respect.More often than not, they are theatre
directors, who involuntarily transfer tocinema their deep-rooted prerequisites concerning stage art and whotherefore
consider,asarule,thattheirartconsistsofstaging',and,forthemostpart,virtuallyinthedirectionoftheactor's'playing'.Insuchan
understandingofthings,ofcourse,montageservesmerelyasthefinalcheckoftheframes,thedefinitiveselectionofvariants,ina
word—theestablishmentofthelastversionofthefilm.Inthisway,themostimportantmatter for the best cinema directors
turns out to be the shooting.Incidentally, in principle, aesthetically, the most important, of course,would be the
composition of the frames and their overall, dramaticconception.Onthecontrary,thecreationofafilm,inessence,ends
whenitisestablishedwhatprecisely,andhow,itshouldbeshot.Thesetting-upoftheobjectstobeshotandtheactualshootingare
onlyancillaryoperations,althoughalsoofacreativecharacter,butentirelysubordinatedtothehighestinstanceoftheartof
cinema—thedramaturgyofthescreen.
13
In as much as montage — the construction of screen, shadow drama — by its very nature is an original art genre of 'dramatic'
graphicsorgraphic'drama,itwouldbehighlyfruitfulfortheestablishmentofthefundamentalprinciplesofthisoriginaldramaturgy
ofthescreen(whichwecouldterm'cinematurgy')ifweweretostudythedevicesofthesequentialityofthegraphicexpositionofthe
plotinillustrativeandotherserialformsof'narrative'graphics,bearinginmind,ofcourse,thespecificsofthelatter,theserieswhich
areconditionedbytheinterruptednesspeculiartoit,—peculiarities,incidentallywhicharefarlessessentialthanmightappearat
firstsight.Unfortunately,suchaninvestigationofgraphicsfromthispointofviewhasnotyetbeendone,anditwouldbeoutofplace
togodeeperintothematterhere.However,ananalysisofnarrativegraphicswouldshowmuch in common in its devices with
thoseofmontage,thatis,thecompositionofafilm.ItissufficienttoleafthroughMenzel'ssketchesfortheHistoryofFrederick
theGreatorA.Benois'sillustrationstoTheQueenofSpadesandTheBronzeHorsemanorthoseofLanserettoHadzhiMurat97,or,in
general,anyrichlyillustratedbook,tobecomeconvincedofthis.
Ofcourse,itisperfectlynaturalthat,inthecompositionoftheseparateframes,thescreenartist,thecinematurge',follows
thesametasksandsubmitshimselftothesamelawsofperspective,distributionoflightandshade,thefillingofthefieldofvision,
thearrangementofthefiguresandsoon,asdoesthegraphicartist.Foreveryframetakenseparately,initself,isnoneotherthanan
'illustration' — a landscape, portrait, still-life, genrescene,oftenpresentedasastill.Onlyinthegenrescenesisthecinemato​‐
graphicframedifferentiatedinthat,bydepictingthesceneinaction,ithasthepossibilityofunfoldingthevisiblemovementinits
entirety,frombeginning to end, whereas an illustration, or a drawing in general, must, as aresult of its static nature, summarise,
generalisemotion,notconveyingtheseparatemomentasitis,butintransitiontothenextone;inotherwordsitdrawsintoasingle
whole,inessence,twomomentsofactionwhichareconsecutiveandmutuallydeterminingandinterpretingintermsoftheplot.Such
acoalescenceoftwonarrativestagesofmovement,byfusingthemintoasinglewhole,lendsthedrawingbothaninnerdynamism,
whichgivestheimpressionofduration,oftheconcretecompletion-in-processofthemovementintime,aswellasalivingpictureof
thedeveloping'action'whichinspirestheimaginationofthespectator.Sometimes,whenthereisacompositionwhichoperateson
several levels the artist or sculptor even manages to inspire the spectator with an impression of a complex plot whichunfolds
sequentiallyoverseveralstages.Suchqualitiesofdurationandsequentialityintimeispossessed,forexample,bytheMarseillaise'
group on the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, or by Watteau' s painting in the Louvre, 'Embarkation for the Isle of Cythera98 . I
would mention as well thatMoussinacrightlycompareswithcinematicmontagehisdescriptionofLeonardo's painting of
the flood, which represents a real 'montagescenario'. But it is precisely this inner dynamism of the drawing which
distinguishes it structurally from instant photography, ( which fixes only onemoment from the general flow of movement) which,
however,decisivelybringsitclosetothecinematicframe,inwhich—asimilaractoffusionofseparatemoments—inactualfact
thereunfoldsonthescreenmovementandaction,whichinadrawingarepresentonlypartiallyandcovertly,andarerathersuggested
tothespectatorbyaseriesofhints.Suchadynamicdrawingnotonlymaybecomparedwithascreenframeinprinciple,butalsois
formallyinessence,merelya'reduction'ofit,oratranslation,inthesamewayasonemayconveythecolouringofapaintingbythe
techniqueofitsgraphicreproduction.
Butonemayalsonotetheuniformityofthelawsofgraphicsinthelawsofnarrativecomposition,inthelinkingoftheframes,oneto
another.Firstofall,anillustration,exactlylikethemontageofafilm,makesuseoftransitionsfromtheover-viewtothe
foregroundandclose-up,thusbothexpandingand,then,narrowingthefieldofvision,thatis,firstbringingcloser,thendistancing
theimageand,bytheseprocesses,firstisolatinganimportantdetail,thenrestingattentiononaseparategroup,next,onthecontrary,
dissipatingourattentionbytheoverallimpression.Atthesametime,intermsoffunction,suchshiftshavethesamesemanticrolein
illustrations as in film, being in both cases transitions from an everyday or emotional (' mood') landscape to a characterising or
psychologisingportrait,fromthegeneraldescriptivenarrativetoadramatic'dialogue',therebyemphasisingtheintensityoftheplot;
othertransitionsmaybetospiritualanalysis,symbolismofanobjectandsimilarfunctionsofthedetail.Ofcourse,itisclearthat
in a film these transitions also have a rhythmicfunction, changing the smooth, descriptive flow of the general levels into the
dramatic tension of the foreground, or arresting it in a concentrated analysisof a detail of the close-ups, and vice versa. A series of
illustrationscannotgivethesameconcretesensationofthe'tempo'ofasimilarmovementofframes,butevenhereitiscapableof
suggestingacertainanalogy,provideditissufficientlysequential,completeandcompact.
Furthermore, illustrations, naturally, use a device similar to 'imprinting' and dissolve' for the creation of a second level, the
metaphorisation of the mood or thought, the depiction of visions, dreams, memories and so on. Thisis clearly a graphic device,
althoughinphotographictechniquesithashadaveryspecificdevelopment.Inanequalmanner,illustrationswillinglyapplychanges
intheangleofshot',oftenpresentingdepictionswhicharepartial,angled,emphasisingjustadetailorobject,striving,asalreadyshown
above,towardsamaximalexpressivenessandtakingintoaccounttheinspirationalpowerwhichsuchdepictionspossess.Asiswell
known,incinematootheuseofthesepowerfulmeansofinspirationplayanimmensepart.Finally,intermsofthemeansusedforthe
unfolding of the dramatic image, characterisation, the plot theme, the link between the various stages of the action, and so on,
illustrationsveryoftencoincidewiththeunfoldingoftheplotonthescreen.Inthosecaseswheretheplotisuncomplicated,andthe
illustrationsaresufficientlyfrequent,itisdifficultnottoacknowledgethattheypresentnotonlyasynopsis'ofthefilm,butsimplya
static'reduction'ofthemovingframes.Thus,inTheBronzeHorsemanBenoisofferedeightpicturesforthefloodwhichwouldhardly
needaddingtoinascreenmontageofthissubject,providedonewishedtoremainfaithfultothetext:theywouldonlybeopened
outspatiallyorprolongedinordertodeepentheimpressionoftheragingelementsandthedisastersproducedbythem:butoneshould
bearinmindthatsuchanopening-outwouldbenecessaryinafilmanyway,becauseimagesonascreenaremomentaryandbecause
thisopeningoutwouldonlyrestoretheadequacyoftheimpressioncreatedbytheillustration.Thenwouldfollowanequalnumberof
picturesfortheresultsoftheflood,observedbytheunfortunateYevgeny.Heretheartistsimplydidnotwanttoallowhisimagination
todeviateinanywayfromanaccuratefollowingofthetext.Montagewoulddemandhereanarrestingofattentionontheimageof
theheroandanintroductionofaclose-uptothisend.HereBenoisdoesnotgiveaclose-upatall,eitherfortheheroorforanydetail
whatsoever.Butitisperfectlyclearthattheartisthadeverychancetodothis,ifithadcorrespondedtohisplan.Finally,thelastfive
illustrationsperfectly cover the possible montage of the last scene. Benois shows the spectator five moments in such immediately
proximate narrative sequence that they simply correspond to one frame in a film, namely: (1) Yevgeny, atthe foot of the Bronze
Horseman, curses Peter, raising his hand in the air; (2) Yevgeny, half turning away and lowering his hand, frightened by his own
audacity; (3) Yevgeny, turning away, rushes from the monument, on whichthe Horseman awesomely stretches out his arm; (4)
Yevgenyrunsacrossthesquare,theHorsemangallopsafterhim;(5)Yevgenyisrunning,inthedistancetowersthegloomysilhouette
oftheHorseman.Nomontage,provideditistobefaithfultothetextwouldbeabletoinsertintothissequenceevenoneintermediate
moment, as they are linked and uninter​rupted in their narrative sequence; it could only present them on the screenfusedintoan
uninterrupted, single movement, and that is all. On the other hand one can indicate in a series of films the closest analogies with
painting,graphics, illustrations. Thus, in the film by Sabinsky which is in preparation (based on Leskov' sLady Macbeth)99, the
depictionoftheconvictsinprison(judgingbythestills)havetheexactappearanceofcopiesfromapainting;equally,thedepiction
oftheimmenselock,hangingonthegateswhichismeanttosymbolisethetightlylockedsoulofKaterinaintheheavyatmosphereof
themerchantfamily,justaskstobetransposedasatail-piecetothestory.ThefirstframeofRosita—thehandsplacedontopof
eachother—couldserveasafineleadingvignetteorfrontispiecefortheillustration of a story on the themeTheKingMakes
Mertyl00 One couldfind many examples of such frames, having resemblance to paintings, graphics or illustrations, especially
landscapesandstill-lifes,inanyfilm,whetherRussianorforeign.DouglasFairbankswasdirectlyreproachedforthepictorialquality
of his frames in RobinHoodl01.Even more substantive is the illustrative principle of film montage as a whole, which is beyond
question in series of films, such as,Robin Hood, Dorothy Vernon102 a n dThe Two Pretenders and, especially David
Copperfield103whichentirelyconsistsofseparate,short,almoststaticmoments,perfectillustrations,onlyinmotion(andeven
then,notverysignificantmotion).
Thisillustrativecharacteris,inprinciple,closertothenatureofcinemathanisscenicart,whichisveryoftenadheredto,evenby
majorcinemadirectors,suchasLubitschinOrphansoftheStorm104,Montmartre105andTheMarriageCircle106.Buthesinsagainst
thedramaturgyofthefilm.Cinematurgy,whoseaimisthecreationofshadowscreendrama,whileremainingfaithfultoitsgraphic
natureandtheillustrativelawsofitscompositionalresources,mustworkout,onthesefoundations,itsowndevicesfortheunfolding
oftheplotonthescreen.
14
Themontage,thatisthecompositionalandthoroughlyplot-basedcharacteroffilmmakesitparticularlydifficulttoconstructaspecial
stylisticsforit.Inpainting,thepictorialqualitiesaresometimescompletelyoverlaidbyqualitiesofcolouring,line,texture.A
painting,evenarepresentationalone,'natural'initscontents,canbeexecutedexclusivelyasadecorativeexercise,andwith
purelydecorativemeans.Afilm,evenoneincolourcanhardlybeapurelydecorative'pattern'.Thefactisthatpaintinghasatits
disposalthetactilematerialofcolouringsubstanceswhichcanbeusedcorrespondingtotheideaanddesignationofthepicture—
thatis,itmaydeploymoreorlessthickpaintonavarietyofbases(oil,water,clay),amoreorlesssoftandfatmassofsanguineand
pastel,ofdryandcrumblycharcoal,variousdegreesofhardnessofgraphite,variousqualitiesofindianink and so on. Depending
onthesevariousmaterialsthesurfaceofapaintingappears,toagreaterorlesserextent,uneven,grainyorsmooth,dryorgooey,
hardorsoft,dullorglitteringandsoon,tosaynothingaboutthevarioussurfacesonwhichthepaintisapplied(canvas,cardboard,
wood, plaster and so on). All these substances, yet again, may be applied with different instruments, and the actual method of
applicationandthewholeworkingoverofthesurfaceisveryvariedindeeddependingonthepurpose,resourcesandconditions.In
theseparticularfeaturesofitstexture,paintingpossessesdirectexpressivequalities,whichact,inindependenceofthecontentofthe
painting,bymeansofthepurelyemotionalimpactofthematerial.Moreover,onthesurfaceofthepaintingthereispreservedthe
cleartraceoftheartist'shand,hispersonalmannerofsmearing,stroke,line,whicharevisibletotheeyeandmaybefeltbythetouch.
Insuchaway,thetechniquesofpaintinganddrawingplayadefinitepartintheartisticstyleofthepainterand,togetherwiththe
qualitiesofthetextureitself,areincludedintheaestheticallysignificantaspectsofaworkofart.Cinema,which'paints'inalmost
insubstantialshadows,whichareintangibleandelusiveasamaterial,whichareuniformandwithoutcontent,intermsoftexture,does
not possess in these shadows, in themselves, a factor for emotional impact and aesthetic impression. Shadow is too abstract,
unchanging and inexpressive to fulfil an artistic function as such. It has a merely ancillary, purely technical, constructive
significance.But,evenwhenitispolychromatic,filmwillhaveatitsdisposalabstractcolour,and not concrete, materialpaint
whichpreservesthetracesoftheartist'sstyle.
Ontheotherhand,theentiretechnicalperformanceinafilmisinthehandsofthecameramanwhoseartistryderivesfromthe
previousstageofcinema—thephotographicstage.Butthesupremestage,thecreationofscreendrama,cinematurgyproper,consists
onlyinthemontageofthefilm,whichisofapurelycompositional,plot-basedorder.
Style in art may be crudely defined as the system or method in which theartist uses the artistic-technical and constructive
resourcespertainingtothegivenart:verbalresourcesinpoetry,pictorialinpainting,andsoon.Naturally,insuchacase,thestyleof
cinemashouldbesoughtinthedevicesofvisualexpressivenesswhicharespecifictofilm.Butthestylishnessofafilmdoesnot,of
course,consistinthepictorialqualitiesoftheframes,norinthestyleofactinginitself,norinthestyleoftheproductionassuch.Allthis
willbeonlystylisationwhichtiesthecinematothefunctionofpaintingasinFairbanks'sRobinHood,orofthestage,asinthemajority
ofcinema-plays,includingTheMarriageCircle,andwhich,bythisveryfact,ruinsthespecificexpressivenessofthescreen.Mime,
movement,looks,ingeneraleverythingthat'happens'onthescreenorisdepictedonit,—this,usually,eitherexclusivelyservesthe
plot,orworksdirectly,asmaterial.Whathasstylisticsignificanceisonlythe'how',wherebythiscontentisexecutedonthescreen,
thatis,inasmuchaswearetalkingabouteachseparateframe,thephotographicartistryofthecinematurge,inwhichwemayfeel
thepersonalstyle,artisticexperienceandinitiativeoftheartist.Anindividualstyle,consequently,isgiventoeachseparateframe,
like a photograph, by an original angle of vision, which creates perspective or camera angle, by asuitable general tone, a daring
distribution of light and shade, a successful composition and so on. A frame which is included in a film not simply because it
advances, develops or explains the action and not because it offers spectacular effects — fine views, beautiful faces, gripping
situations,unusual skills or exciting acting but because, independent of all this, it is valuable for its formal, qualitative
elements, will be a frame whichpossesses stylistic significance. Generally speaking, the functions of the frame which have
stylisticsignificancearethosewhicharenotplot-basedandwhicharenotpictorial,i.e.thosewhichare'decorative'orsymbolic'in
thewidestsense.
Thestyleofafilmiscreatedonlyinthenarrativesequenceoftheframes,intheconstructionofacoherentseriesofimages
on the screen in aparticular semantic order, which creates, in its totality, a single plot whole.Inother words,filmstylistics is
createdbymontage.
Butinasmuchasframesareusuallythoroughlypictorial,completelyplot-based,thestylisticfunctionsinthemareasinsignificant
asinaphotographandevenless,sinceaphotographhas'plot'toaninfinitesimaldegree by comparison with the frames of a
film.Theplotincinemasuppressesflashesofstyletosuchanextentthatitseemsasabsurdtotalkofthestyleofafilmasofthe
styleofanadventureorboulevardnovel.
A very stage-worthy melodrama, a very deftly written adventure novel may be very tense in terms of plot, compositionally
completely effective, but have no literariness at all, or artistry in expression — no style. In exactlythe same way we often see in
cinemagrippingplots,skilfuldevelopmentoftheaction,finelyconstructedandtechnicallyexecutedframes,butweveryrarelyfeel
any style whatsoever. Of our own films we can call 'stylish', or atleast inclined towards style, only Battleship Potemkin and The
Overcoat; of the American films — only the comic films of Buster Keaton and, in part,Harold Lloyd; of the German —The
CabinetofDrCaligariandOneNight;IdonotknowtheFrenchfilmsofAbelGance.
The point is that even the forming of the fable within the resources of screen expressiveness demands immense inventiveness,
experienceandeffortfromthecinemaartist,whobearsalltheworkduringtheproductionstage.Asyetapropercinematurgydoes
notexist,anditsfunctionsareperformedbythedirector.Inthisway,cinema,inthisrespect,isstillatthestagewhichthetheatre
passedthroughduringtheperiodofItalianpopularcomedy,whentheshowwasalsoconstructedaccordingtothescenarioandhadno
knowledge of artistic drama. On the other hand, the development ofthe skills of camera work is limited only by the technical
improvementoftheshootingofseparateframes.Naturally,therecanbenoseriousdiscussionaboutthestyleofafilm.
Indeed, the stylistics of a film, that is, the system of the devices of a formal, non-pictorial, 'decorative' significance, in the
narrativesequenceoftheframes,shouldbe,inevitably,veryabstract,verypoor.Stylisticsignificancemaybepossessedby
thedistributionofgeneral,foregroundshotsandclose-ups,aswellasbythetransitionsfromoneleveltoanother,inasmuchasthis
doesnotmerelyservefigurativeness.Thus,atransitiontoclose-up,topresenttheexpressivenessofmime,inthespiritofBelaBalks,
innowayhasanystylisticsignificance.Equally,nostylisticroleisplayedbyagradualtrackingfromclose-uptoamoregeneralshot
toshowtheexpansionofthefieldofvisionattheapproachofdawn(asinPudovkin)107.Butsuchswitcheswillbestylisticdevicesif
the montage director uses themas peculiar modulations, which impress purely visually. They may also, incidentally, take on a
semantic,symbolicexpressiveness,lendinganemotionalcolouringtotheplot-line—asubjectivetone,apsychologisinginclination,a
mood — or inspiring the impression of some inner change or shift. A stylistic significance, furthermore, may be obtained by a
changeintheprincipleofcompositionoftheframeorlighting,ormannerofshooting,ordirectionofmovementoftheframe,with
whichthechangeofframesisaccompaniedandbywhichthisorthattendencyofscreenactionmaybeexpressed;inparticular,one
shouldtakeintoaccountthedirectionoftheaxesofconstructionoftheframesandthemovementwhichisperformedwithinthem.
Finally,cinemahasapowerfulstylisticfactorinthetempooftheshootingandprojection,andinthegeneralrhythmofthefilm.
Onecould prolong the enumeration of such stylistic resources but one feelsthatenoughhavebeenindicatedtoclarifytheir
specificcharacter. All theseare,ofcourse,graphic,pictorialcategories,butwithinthespecificparticularitiesofthescreen.There
are not all that many, it seems. Only in the fields of camera-work and montage. Not even that. In essence, only in the field of
montage.
And indeed, only in this field does cinema possess special stylistic resources. Nothing else has stylistic sign- ificance in itself.
Becauseitisonlyinthearrangementoftheframes,towardswhichthecinematographer,themodelandtheset-designerallwork,that
filmartistryresides.
POETRYANDPROSEINCINEMA
ViktorShklovsky
translatedbyRichardTaylor
In literary art poetry and prose are not sharply differentiated from one another. On more than one occasion students of prose
languagehavediscoveredrhythmicsegments,therecurrenceofthesamephraseconstruction,inaprosework.TadeuszZielinski108
hasproducedinterestingstudiesofrhythminoratoricalspeechandBorisEikhenbaumhasdoneagreatdealofworkonrhythmin
pureprosethatisintendedtobereadratherthanrecited,althoughitistruethathehasnotpursuedthisworksystematically.But,as
problemsofrhythmhavebeenanalysed,theboundarybetweenpoetryandprosehas,itseems,beenconfusedratherthanclarified.It
ispossiblethatthedistinctionbetweenpoetryandprosedoesnotlieinrhythmalone. The more we study a work of art, the more
deeply we penetrate the fundamental unity of its laws. The individual constructional aspects of an artistic phenomenon are
distinguishedqualitatively,butthisqualitativenessrestsonaquantitativebase,andwecanpassimperceptiblyfromoneleveltoanother.
Thebasicconstructionofplotisreducedtoaschemaofsemanticconstants.Wetaketwocontrastingeverydaysituationsandresolve
themwithathird;orwetaketwosemanticconstantsandcreateaparallelbetweenthem;or,lastly,wetakeseveralsemantic
constantsandarrangetheminrankingorder.Buttheusualbasisofplot(syuzhet)isfable(fabula)i.e.aneverydaysituation.Yetthis
everydaysituationismerelyaparticularinstanceofsemanticconstructionandwecancreatefromonenovela'mysterynovel',notby
changing the fable but simply by transposing the constituent parts: by putting the ending at the beginning or by a more complex
rearrangement of the parts. This is how Pushkin's The Blizzard andThe Shotwere produced. Hence what we may call everyday
constants,thesemanticconstants,thesituationalconstantsandthepurelyformalfeaturesmaybeinterchangedwith,andmergeinto,
oneanother.
Aproseworkis,initsplotconstructionanditssemanticcomposition,basedprincipallyonacombinationofeverydaysituations.
Thismeansthatweresolveagivensituationinthefollowingway:amanmustspeakbuthecannotandsoathirdpersonspeaks
on his behalf. InThe Captain'sDaughter,for instance, Grinev cannot speak and yet he must in order to clear his name from
Shvabrin's slanders109. He cannot speak because he would compromise the captain's daughter, so she herself offers Ekaterina an
explanation on his behalf. In another example a man must vindicate himself but he cannot do so because he has taken a vow of
silence:thesolutionliesinthefactthathemanagestoextendthedeadlineofhisvow.ThisisthebasisforoneofGrimm'sfairy-tales,
TheTwelveSwans,andthestory,TheSevenViziers110.Buttheremaybeanotherwaytoresolveaworkandthisresolutionisbrought
aboutnotbysemanticmeansbutbypurelycompositionaloneswherebytheeffectofthecompositionalconstantcompareswiththat
ofthesemantic.
WefmdthiskindofresolutiontoaworkinFet's111verse: after four stanzasin a particular metre with caesura (a constant word
divisioninthemiddleofeachline),thepoemisresolvednotbyitsplotbutbythefactthatthefifthstanza,althoughinthesame
metre,hasnocaesura,andthisproducesasenseofclosure.
Thefundamentaldistinctionbetweenpoetryandproseliespossiblyinagreatergeometricalityofdevices,inthefactthatawhole
seriesofarbitrarysemanticresolutionsisreplacedbyaformalgeometricresolution.Itisasifageometricisationofdevicesistaking
place.ThusthestanzainEugeneOneginisresolvedbythefactthefinalrhymingcoupletprovidesformalcompositionalresolution
while disrupting the rhyme system. Pushkinsupports this semantically by altering the vocabulary in these last two linesand
givingthemaslightlyparodisticcharacter.
InthisnoteIamwritinginverygeneralisedtermsbecauseIwanttopointoutthemostcommonlandmarks,particularlyincinema.
Ihavemorethanonceheardfilmprofessionalsexpressthecuriousviewthat,asfarasliteratureisconcerned,verseiscloser
tofilmthanisprose.Allsortsofpeoplesaythisandlargenumbersoffilmsstrivetowardsaresolutionwhich,bydistantanalogy,we
may call poetic. There is no doubt that DzigaVertov'sA Sixth Part of the World112 is constructed on the principle of
poetic formal resolution: it has a pronounced parallelism and a recurrence of images at the end of the film where they convey a
differentmeaningandthusvaguelyrecalltheformofatriolet.
WhenweexaminePudovkin'sfilmMother113,inwhichthedirectorhastakengreatpainstocreatearhythmicalconstruction,we
observe a gradual displacement of everyday situations by purely formal elements. The parallelism of the nature scenes at the
beginningpreparesusfortheaccelerationofmovements,themontageandthedeparturefromeverydaylifethatintensifiestowards
the end. The ambiguity of the poetic image andits characteristically indistinct aura, together with the capacity for simul​taneous
generationofmeaningbydifferentmethods,areachievedbyarapidchangeofframesthatnevermanagetobecomereal.The
verydevicethatresolvesthefilm—thedouble-exposureangle-shotoftheKremlinwallsmoving—exploitstheformalratherthan
thesemanticfeatures:itisapoeticdevice.
Incinemaatpresentwearechildren.Wehavebarelybeguntoconsiderthesubjectsofourworkbutalreadywecanspeakofthe
existenceoftwopolesofcinema,eachofwhichwillhaveitsownlaws.
CharlieChaplin'sAWomanofParisisobviouslyprosebasedonsemanticconstants,onthingsthatareaccepted.
ASixthPartoftheWorld,inspiteofitsgovermentsponsorship,isapoemofpathos.
Motherisauniquecentaur,analtogetherstrangebeast.Thefilmstartsoutasprose,usingemphaticintertitleswhichfittheframe
rather badly, andends up as purely formal poetry. Recurring frames and images and the transformation of images into symbols
supportmyconvictionthatthisfilmispoeticbynature.
I repeat once more — there exist both prose and poetry in cinema and thisis the basic division between the genres: they are
distinguishedfromoneanothernotbyrhythm,ornotbyrhythmalone,butbytheprevalenceinpoeticcinemaoftechnicalandformal
oversemanticfeatures,whereformalfeaturesdisplacesemanticandresolvethecomposition.Plotlesscinemais'verse'cinema.
TOWARDSATHEORYOFFILMGENRES
AdrianPiotrovsky
translatedbyRichardTaylor
1
Everytheoryofcinemasoonerorlaterconfrontstheneedtoisolateitspoeticsfromneighbouringarts—literatureandtheatre,
theancientartsthathaveaconsistenthistoricallyestablishedtheory.Theinfluenceoftheatreandliteratureonthepracticeof
cinemaduringtheperiodofitsformationcannotbedisputedandwasquitenatural.Butthismakesitallthemore necessary to be
completely clear about the possible boundaries and limits of this influence, and all the more necessary to investigate carefully
whetherthetheoreticalprinciplesofAristotle,114Lessing115orVolkelt116 areapplicabletocinema.Ourbasicsloganshouldbe:no
ready-madetheatricalorliterarytheoryasabasisforthepoeticsofcinema!Thecompositionalprinciplesofcinemamustbejudged
fromthestandpointofthespecificmaterialofcinemaandthetechnicallawsthatgovernit.Thatishowthelawsthataregenuinely
cinematicmustbedistinguishedfromtherulesandnormsofLessingandAristotlethatarealientocinema.Obviously,todothis
means to create a poetics of cinema: a very difficult task, but anecessary one. The purpose of the present short
articleisinfinitelynarroweritistoexamine,fromtheaforementionedstandpointofthespecificmaterialofcinemaand
itstechnicallaws,thecatalogueoffilmgenresastheyhaveemergedinthetwenty-yearhistoryofcinema.Surelyitispossibleto
believethatevensuchafleetingexaminationmightrevealtheinternalfalsityofsomewidelydisseminatedgenreswhile,onthe
otherhand,thecompletetheoreticallegitimacyandvalidityofothersthatappearbyforceofhabitandtraditiontobetheatricaland
literarymightappearsuspectanddebatable?
Filmgenreisthenamewegivetothetotalityofconceptsofcomposition,styleandstory,linkedtoacertainsemanticmaterialand
emotional setting that are, however, completely confined within a certain 'generic' system of art,thesystemofcinema.Hence,in
order to establish 'film genres' we mustdraw specific conclusions from the basic stylistic laws of film art, from thelaws of
'photogeny'117 and 'montage'. Let us examine how the utilisation of 'space', 'time', 'people' and 'objects' alters from one genre to
anotherwithregardtomontageandphotography,howthesegmentsofthestoryarearranged,howalltheseelementsrelatetoone
anotherwithinthefilmgenre.Inallthisweshallbearinmindthewholetimethepracticalandtheoreticalinfluenceofliteratureand
theatrethathavealreadybeenmentioned.
Forthesereasonsitwouldbemostconvenienttobegina'catalogueoffilmgenres'onthepagemarkedwiththeveryconventional
term'filmdrama'.Giventhebroadmeaningofthistermforcinemaadministratorsandthepeoplewhowritefilmadvertisements,
letusconfineittotheconceptofpsychologicaldrama,usuallywithasocietyorahistoricalsetting,whichismostcharacteristicof
theFrench,Italian,pre-RevolutionaryRussianand,partly,oftheGermancinemas.'Filmdramas'ofthissortareoftentransfers
tothescreenoftheatricalproductions(filmslikeTheLadyoftheCamellias)but,evenwhentheirthemedoesnotderivefromthe
stage,thesettingof(1)theplot,(2)thedramaticaction,(3)theconflictbetweenthecharactersastheydevelop,seemscentralto
them.
The problem of 'film drama' can thus be broadened to the concept of the 'dramatic' in cinema. 'Drama', as it has emerged in
theatre(whichappearsasagenuineandauthenticelementinthedramatic),ischaracterisedbyaparticularinterpretationof'time',
'space' and, most important of all, by a specifically charged action. 'Time', in its dramatic, in its theatrical inter​pretation, is
exclusively subordinated to gradual, rectilineal movement.The theatre does not permit of either 'reverse motion' for time or
'mixed time' [khronologicheskoe sovmeshcheniel, i.e. the consecutive portrayal of simultaneous events. In actual fact, this sort of
mixedtimeissuretobeperceivedeitherasatechnicalblunder(thenotoriousheadofMarinoFalierithatfallstwiceintwo
adjacent scenes of Byron' s drama118) or as a deliberate piece of virtuoso exhibitionism (there are examples in Romanticand
Expressionistdrama,bothWesternandRussian).Attemptsat'reversemotion'justifiedby'memory'or'dream'alsoremainthe
exceptionindrama,nottomentionthefactthatattemptsofthiskindalwayssharplydiminishthedramaticeffectofthewhole.The
theatre's self-restraint in thisrespectisquitereasonable:itisconditionedbythepresenceofthelivingactor,'liveonstage'whose
actionscanonlygooneway—'forward',itisconditionedalsobythelivingsensationoftemporalrealitythatthetheatreinevitably
evokes.
Itisthuseasytobelievethatalltheseconventionallimitationsinthetreatmentof'time'arealsopresentin'filmdrama',where
theyhavebeenintroducedindirectandblindimitationofthetheatre.
But it is also easy to believe that the laws specific to cinema, the laws of montage, permit of other possibilities and
demandaquitedifferentapproachto'time'.
Any identification, even an illusory one, between 'time' on the screen andthe real passage of time in the auditorium is
quite unattainable andunnecessary. The complete and manifest artificiality of the movements on the screen, even if effected
through slow motion, would render absurd the very attempt at such an identification. The dramatic quality of the constant
developmentofthepsychologyoftheactorisalsounrealisableincinemaduetothepeculiaritiesoftheperceptionofthe'manonthe
screen', of whichmore later. That is why cinema can use 'dream', story', 'memory',momentary association as
justificationsfortimetranspositionsandtimejumpsthatareinnowayexternallyjustifiedandarejustproperlyedited.
Time'asafunctionofmontageistheformulaofcinema.Byrestrictingitselfinthissenseinfavourofthetheatre,the'filmdrama'
genrebythatveryfactcharacterisesitselfasanon-cinematicgenre.(Incidentally,attemptstomake a film showing a '24-hour
period'oronewherescreentimecorrespondswithrealtime'areequallyinorganicand,fortheverysamereasons,'theatrical'.)
Thetheatricalnatureoffilmdrama'isrevealedevenmoreclearlyinthetreatmentof'space'andthegeneralcompositionof
theactionthatisintimatelyconnectedwithit.Inthetheatrespace'isinevitablyregardedastheconstantrealityofthestagewhich
canonlybealteredbythescene-painterwithdifficultyandwithincertainlimits.Thecharactersinthetheatrearetherefore
'broughtbytheauthorontothestageandtheactionitselfisconcentratedinseveralbasicnodes,infive,ten,fifteenacts,scenesor
episodes.Thisexplainsthecanonicalauthorityaccordedtodramaticactionwiththeexpositionanddevelopmentinthefirstoneor
twoacts,abreak in the third, and peripeteia and denouement to conclude. In thetheatrespace'isamajor,almostabasic
compositional factor. But it does not play, even in the smallest measure, a similar role in cinema because of its material and its
technical laws. In cinema space' is not something that isconstant or given by reality. It is dynamised, blasted, set in motion. The
viewer too is dynamised, torn from his seat by montage, given theopportunity to see any sphere of action from many
variedvantagepoints.Forthefilmviewerspace'nolongerservesasthemoreusualassociationforonepartoftheplotoranother.It
ceasestobethefulcrumofdramaticcomposition.Itistransformedintogeographicalvisibility,afragmentofnature,itenters,in
somecaseswith'objects'andinsomecaseswith'people',asrawmaterialintothecompositionofthefilm.Itissubordinated
to the alternation of close-up and long-shot, it is still, to greater extent than 'time', a function of montage'. For this reason the
concentrationofactionincinemaintospatial(notemotional—ofwhichmorelater)nodesisunnecessary.Atthesametimethe'film
drama'genre,besidesbeingdirectlyinfluencedbytheatre,subordinatesthecompositionofthefilmtothiskindofspatialskeleton.
This gives rise to an unavoidable sensation of violation,to fragmentation of film action (curiously, the same fragmentation in the
theatreisregardedasanormalcompositionalconcept),andhencetotheirreversibledestructionofthatvisualcontinuity,thatsatiated
film 'atmos​phere' which, as everyday experience demonstrates, serves as the primary condition for the fascination of
photographyandthesuggestivityofmontage.
Thechargeddramaticqualityoftheatreisevenlesseasilytranslatedtocinemathanisspatialcomposition.Thisdramaticquality
essentially presupposes a view of the stage as a field for conflicting human emotions and desires, artificially isolated from
materialandnaturalassociations.Thisdoesnotapplytosomespecialkindsoflow-browtheatre,tofarceorcircusshows,butitis
trueonthewholeformainstreamtheatricalgenres.Manisthebasicandtheprincipalrawmaterialfordramaandthebasicprinciple
ofthedramatic.Incinemahoweverthispriorityfor'man'isbynomeanssoobviousorindisputable.Photographyplaces'man'onthe
same level of perception as 'object' or 'nature'. The isolated 'human drama' or 'drama of human desires' is not characteristic of
cinema,itdoesnotderivefromthenatureofcinema,itimpoverishesitsexpressivepossibilities.Butadramaof'objects'or'manobjects' is not possible without substantial modifications to the very concept of the dramatic. Let us recognise that thenature of
cinemamakesitnon-'dramatic'inthetraditionalunderstandingoftheword.Ifthe'dramaticquality'fallsaway,thensotoodoesthe
specificdramaturgicalconstructionofthewholeandtheparts.Theneedfora'break'thatservesindramaastheturningpoint in the emotional line isgone,theemotionalperipeteialosetheirrationale,therelationshiprequiredbydramabetweenthe
plotandthedenouement,likecauseandeffect,changes.Anotherseriesoftechnicalreasons,inpartthepresenceofIntertitles',casts
doubtontheconceptof'exposition'thatistraditionaltodrama.Allthesereasonscompelustoseekthebasesofcinemacomposition
farbeyondthefrontiersofdrama.Allthesereasonscondemnthe'filmdrama'genreforblindimitationoftheatreinstriving
topresenttheunfoldingofhumanpassions,inplotandtheconflictofhuman,andonlyofhuman,desires.Allthesereasonsrender
uselesseverypossibletheoryoffilmscenariothatderivesfromLessing'sorAristotle'sdefinitionofdrama.
Letmeconcludewithafewremarksaboutdenouementindramaandcinema.Thebasisofthetheatricaltheoryofdenouementis,
asweknow,stilltheconceptof'catharsis',theAristotelianconceptof'purification'.Thetragic ending is still typical of drama
— and this is quite justified. Atheatrical production is perceived by the spectator, completely indepen​dently of his
predispositionandhistastes,ontwolevels,onecorrespondingtothereal,livingperson—theactor—andtheothertothecharacter
thisactor is depicting. The tragic fall of the theatrical character acts as'catharsis', as a unique 'purification', so that,
after the character's fall, thelife of the actor/real person is seen to continue. The depressing effect of the'unhappy ending' is
negatedbythissensationandsublimatedintoauniquejoy.Butthetwolevelsofperception—thebasisof'tragicdenouement'—
areseriouslyobstructedincinema.Thefilmviewerhasnoreasontoseparatethepersonoftheperformerfromthemaskof
the character. They are made equal by the flatness of the screen. Hence an 'unhappy ending' leaves the film viewer without a
loopholeforartistic'consolation',thedepressionisinnowayresolvedandcontinuestoweighheavily.Thisisthetheoreticalreasonfor
thehappyendingsincinemathatsoirritateliteraryandtheatrecritics.Thegenreunderexamination,'filmdrama',thatsoassiduously
tries to imitate the most elevated theatrical genres, does, unlikeother cinema genres, frequently and readily employ 'unhappy
endings'. But there is a possible dilemma here: either these denouements have a negativeeffect,ortheyarejustifiedintheatrical
termsbythewholeoftheprecedingperformance,whichis,inactor'sterms,ontwolevels,i.e.onceagaindeeplyuncinematic.There
areplentyofinstancesinFrenchandItaliancinemabutourownTheBear'sWedding119willalsoserveasanexamplethatgenerally
providesamodelforthe'filmdrama'genre.
3
'Filmnovel'or'filmtale',oreven'filmnovella'inthelanguageofparticularlycultureddistributors—arethusquite
arbitrarytermsforafairlydiscretegenre.Letusagreetousethemtomeanscreenversionsofliteraryworksthatpreservenotjust
thethemeoftheoriginalbutalsotheplotandstory,andalsoworksthatarepurelyscreenproductionsbutthatborrowtheirstyle
fromnarrativeliteratureand,inparticular,fromthecontemporarypsychologicalnovelandshortstory.Anexaminationofthisgenre
leadsinevitablytothequestionoftherelationshipsbetweencinemaandliterature.Whatarethey?Thereisnodisputethataseriesof
basicmethods,bothinthedevelopmentofthenarrativeintime,andintheconstructionofplotandstoryrenderstheliterarygenres
of cinema, at least at first glance, more natural and more firmly grounded than its theatricalised varieties. However the living
experience of cinema compels us to cast doubtboth on the very method of cinefication of fiction and on the imitation of fiction
within cinema. The prime and most essential reason for the constantfailures in this sphere is apparently rooted in the profoundly
differing process of perception in literature and film. A literary work, at least since the development of written language and, in
particular,ofbookprinting,isaimedattheindividualreader,whointerpretswhathereadsthroughaseriesofsubjectiveassociations,
selectingofhisownfreewillthepaceatwhichhereadsandalwayshavingtheopportunitytostopoveranythingthatinterestsorper​‐
plexeshim,leafingthroughabookfrombeginningtoend,orviceversa.Itwouldbedifficulttodisputetheassertionthatthiswhole
seriesofcharacteristics,whichbecamestrikingaftertechnicalimprovementsinbookprinting,hasplayeditspartintheprocessof
extremesubjectivisationofliterarygenresthatcharacterisesthemoderneraandintheprocessofthecomplicationofplotandofits
psychologicalaggravation,whichledtothenineteenthandtwentiethcenturynovel.Filmisperceivedinacompletelydifferentway.
Here we find a public atmosphere, a precisely pre-determined length of performance and an inevitable appeal to the
collective,themassaudience.Herewefindtheconditionsofperceptionthatcharacteriseatheatricalperformance,onlyinamore
exaggeratedform,takentoextremes.
To an even greater degree than a theatrical performance, therefore, a filmmust employ objectively real, universally significant
methodsofattractionandexpression.Thisfacilitatesacomparativelyrapidformationofstablefilmgenresand,inaddition,makes
demandsonthe'filmnovel'genreunderexaminationthatitcannotsatisfy.Film,becauseofthewayinwhichitisshown, requires
simpleplotconstructionandcannottoleratewidelydispersedparallelactions.Itrequirestransparentmotivationandaneasily
unravelled,andfrequentlyapredictable,plot.Itrequirespreciselyandclearlydesignatedturning-pointsintheplot:theviewer
mustrecalltheminstantly and never lose sight of them afterwards. On the other hand, apurelypsychologicalmotivationfor
whatishappening,a'sub-plot',psychologicalenigmasanddigressionsareverydifficulttoachieveincinema.Allthisleavesfilma
verylongwayfromthenewestgenresofliterature.Ratherthecontrary—thecommoncharacteroftheirconditionsofperception
bringscinemaclosetopre-writtenfolkloricgenresofliteraturewhich,beingtransmittedbywordofmouthandfrompersontoperson,
hadtoelaborateconceptsofplotconstructionthatwereneartothosethataresometimesobservedincinema.But,ofcourse,wemust
not talk about the direct influence of these ancient low-brow genres; the 'film novel' genre is distinguished by the imitation of
modern,complexformsofnarrativeliterature,i.e.preciselythosethatprofoundlycontradicttheprinciplesofcinema. There is
therefore no reason to suppose that the technicaldevelopmentofcinemainthenearfuturewillstrengthenthepositionof
the'film novel' and smooth out the contradictions between cinema andliterature. On the contrary! The increasing
complexityofthetechnicalopportunities available to the cameraman and the director, which enrichandconstantlyrenewthe
visual aspect of film, attracting the viewer by the play of details, by unexpected focussing and lighting, compels film makersto
concentrateinevergreaterdetailonafewbasicmotifsandsituations,carefully'workingthemup'.Thisveryfactcastsdoubtonthe
veryprincipleofnarrativeincinema.Itisasifcinemaisbecomingincreasinglylyrical.Buteventhisdefinitionisfarfromexact.We
shouldthereforetestifyallthemorecarefullytothefactthatnarrative,intheacceptedsenseoftheword,likethedramaticmoment,
isalientothebasicnatureofcinema.
There are also other essential internal contradictions in the 'film novel' genre. One of them concerns the attributes of the
character.Theexpositionofcharactersincinemaisacomplicatedmatterrequiringtheemploymentofalargenumberofframesthat
areusuallyoflittleinterest.Deprivedofthepossibilityofverbaldescription,theauthorofafilmhasrecourseeithertotitles,ortoa
characterisingsubjector—andthisiswhatusuallyhappens—toacharacterisingexterior,totypage'.Byconvenientlyandlaconically
characterisingepisodicfigures,theprincipleoftypage,whenappliedtotheleadingcentralheroesofafilm,leadstotheemergence
ofconsistentperformers''masks',tothefusionofcinematicwithreal-lifeusage,to'name-types','name-images'.Theexpositionofa
film is greatly facilitated by this concept. The appearance on screen of Valentino120 , Pat andPatashon121, or Pearl
White122isenoughtoexplaintotheaudienceboththegenreofthefilmandthecharacteroftheheroes.'Name-images'are
entering more and more forcefully into the practice of cinema in America and, though somewhat belatedly, in Europe: they are
becoming the most serious compositional factor in film. But how far this concept, which sharplyreduces the opportunities for
psychological description, is from thenarrativesystemofthemodernnoveland,whatismore,hownearitistothefolkloric
low-browgenresofliterature(heroicfairytales,adventurestories)andoftheatre(thecomedyofmasks).
Thetransfertothescreenoftheparticularfairy-talestyleofindividualprose-writers,beitHoffmannorLeskovorGogol,isamore
complexmatter,albeit far from being to the film novel' genre's advantage. If such atranspositionwerefeasible,itwould
obviouslysignificantlywidentheopportunitiesforliterarygenres'incinema.Butcananauthor'scharacter,hissubjectiveattitudeto
events,betransferredtothescreen?Cinemaknowsanumberofwaysofovercomingthemuch-vaunted'objectivity'ofthecamerabut
everytimetherealworldisrefractedonthescreen,notindependentlyandinisolation,butthroughtheattitudeofthecharacters,the
heroesofthefilm,towardsit.Herewecanfindthepossibilityofbothaconsistentdepictionofnatureandtheobjectsinthefilminthe
colours of theleadingcharacter(justastheeccentricworldoftheAmericancomedyisrevealedthroughthefigureofChaplinor
HaroldLloyd,andnatureisrefractedidyllicallythroughtheimageofLillianGishorMaryPickford)andthetemporaldisplacement
ofrealrelationships,motivatedby'dream'or'intoxication',buttheimpartingtofilmofstylisedfeaturesthatareintendedtoconvey
the narrative style of the author (who remains outside the confines of the screen) is necessarily and in every case perceived as a
devicethatisartificial,notorganictocinemaandadevicethatrapidlybecomesirritating.Wemayuseasanexamplethatexcellent
modelofthe'filmtale',therecentfilmTheOvercoat123,inwhichthecombinedmasteryofthedirectorandthefactofthescreenplay
writerwereunabletoimparttocinematheGogoliannarrativedevicethatisalientoit.
Thus, if justice is to be done, both the historical society 'film drama' and the psychological narrative 'film-story' or 'film
novel'mustberemovedfromthecatalogueoforganicfilmgenres.Thatisthefirst,albeitnegative,conclusiontobedrawnfromour
shortinvestigation.Aspositiveconclusionswenote:(1)thenon-dramaticrealisationofthefilmstory,conditionedbytheequivalence
onscreenof'people'andobjects',(2)theobstructionofpsychologicalmotivation,whichisreplacedbyaseriesofsubsidiary
devices (names, images, etc.); (3) the diversion of cinema from the dramaticand narrative to specific expressive concepts, very
indistinctlydefined,likethe'lyric'ontheonehand,andthecomic'ontheother.
Thecircleofreally'cinematic'genresisthusdrawnquitenarrowly.Toasignificantextentwemustspeakhereofgenresthathave
alreadybeencreated,andthatdailydemonstratetheirvitality,andpartlyofgenresthatareonlyjusttakingshape.Itiscuriousthat,in
strengtheningitsnon-theatricalandnon-literarygenres,cinemanotonlyprogressesbutalsoapparentlyreturnstoitssources,tothe
times when the only genres of the newly discovered art of motion photography were strips of film of movement in nature ( sea
breakers,arunninghorse)andthelinkingtogetherofacrobatic,non-diegeticnon-psychologicalstunts.Relyingonlyonitsown,still
terriblylimitedbutallthemoreobvioustechnicalcapabilities,andnotyethavingembarkedonthepathofcompromisewithrelated
arts,cinema,inthoseheroicyears,quitecorrectlymarkedoutthelinesofitsfuturegrowth.Wemustnowlookmorecloselyatoneof
theseoriginalgenres,the'comic'.
4
Thestabilityofthisgenre,namedafterthecountrythatdevelopedandperfected it and justly called 'American comedy', is
amazing.Inthegenerallyfurioustempoofcinema'sevolutionthisgenre,fromitsfirststepsrightuptoChaplinandLloyd,moved
inanunchangingandnarrowlylimiteddirectionanditisonlyrecentlyinthefilmsofBusterKeatonthatithasencountered,ifnota
reform,thenaparodisticdeformationofitsbasicprinciples.Thereappeartobethreesuchprinciples:(1)theacrobaticstunt,(2)the
eccentric deployment of objects, (3) the fool's mask/image of the film's comic hero. Different variants of this mask/image bring
varietytothegenre,whilenotintheleastalteringitinessence.
Acrobaticstunts,jumpingintoabarrelofwater,throughawindow,offaroof,playfulfighting,fallingoffladders,somersaults,—
thisideahasplayedanenormouspartinthefirststagesoftheevolutionoftheAmericancomedy.Itischaracteristicof
cinema technique, which has not yetsucceededinrevealingtheinternalcomicnatureofobjectsthatcomestolightincloseups.Butthereissomethingelsethatwemustremembertheacrobatic stunt is non-diegetic and non-psychological. It derives
fromneithertheatrenorliterature.Itstraightawayleadsthegenrewearediscussingintotheelementofthepurelycomic,
bringingitnearer,ifyoulike,tothecircus,i.e.tooneofthelow-brow,primaryentertainmentgenresoncemore.Itistruethatthe
essential difference between the acrobatic stunton screen and in the ring lies in the fact that the purely physical fascinationof
dexterity and strength for the eyes of the audience for a jump turn is significantly reduced in the threefold artificiality of the
atmosphereofthescreen.This,perhaps,isoneofthereasonsfortherapiddeclineofthisconcept.Ithasserveditspurpose,ithas
become in part the raw material forcinematic parody (and nothing attests to the stability of the genre better thanthe incipient
parodying it), and in part, with a changed purpose and achangedemotionalcolouring,ithascrossedintotheclosely-related
genreoftheadventurefilm.Weshallhoweverreturntothislater.
The invention of close-ups was the factor that above all helped tostrengthentheeccentricsignificanceoftheobjectin
Americancomedy.Theobject,deployednotforitsstraightforwardpurposebutunexpectedlyandoutofcontext—toothbrushesasa
tooltoopenajamjar,acigaretteasatramcar,thecontrastingjuxtapositionofdeliberatelylargeandintentionallysmallobjects,orof
smallmeninlargetophatsandgiantsingnomes'caps—thisentiremadworldofincongruitieshasbeenopenedupbycinema.Itis
impossibletoenumeratethecombinationsofthisbasicconceptthathavealreadybeenemployedinAmericanfilms.Hereobjectsof
urbancivilisationcollidewiththerenovatedmarkofthelowlysimpleton,andthusinChaplin'sfilmstheeccentricplayof
objectsgrowstophilosophicalproportions.Theverysameobjectsofeverydaycitylifeacquireauniquepathos,humblyservingthe
cityfavourite,HaroldLloyd.InBusterKeaton'shandstheyevenbecometherawmaterialforparody.Itbecomespossibletospeakof
comic comparisons', of the paradoxical combinations of objects, of 'object-metaphors' and object-puns'. Colliding with one
another,flashinginthehandsofthecomicactor,objectshustlethroughtheframesofanAmericancomedylikefireworksofwitand
humour.Ishouldliketocompileawholedictionary,awholestylisticofthesematerialsemanticsignalsofcomedy.Butevenwithout
thatitisobvioushowlittlethereisincommonbetweenthisarsenaloflaughterandtheexpressivesystemoftraditionaltheatrical
comedy. To find something analogous to film comedy', we must look (if we must look for it at all) once more in folklore, in the
linguistic playofanecdotes,witandpuns,ontheonehand,andinthegraphicjokesofpopularfarcethatarematerialisedthrough
props and gestures. A comparative analysis of the ideas of Chaplin and, for instance Aristophanes, would probably produce some
curiousresults.Intruth,iftheinventionofcinemahadledtothismarvellouspanopticumofobjectsandnothingmore,itwouldfor
thatreasonalonehavebeenagreatart.Asalreadynoted,plotinthetraditionalsenseofthewordcanonlyservetoconstrainand
regulatethiswhirlwindofstunts.Theconceptofcompositionemployedbythe'Americancomedy'aredifferent,numerousandunique.
Theyare:semanticcircles,reversepuns,returningeventuallytotheirstandingpoint,thepunch-linesofjokes(sometimesunderlined
byatitle),aparticulargradationofjokes—thesearethearsenalofschemae,equallyalientohighbrowliteratureandtheatrebut
akintothecompositionalschemaeoffolkloricembellishmentsandfarce.However,theveryuseoftermsborrowedfromaliterary
poeticmayperhapsonlyobscuretheprofounduniquenessofthisremarkablegenre.Itrequiresitsownterminology.
Theplayingprincipleofcomicactor-masks,asChaplinandLloydcreatedit,dependsverycloselyontheeccentric
playofobjects.Thesemanticidentityofobject'and'man'onthescreenisperhapsnowhereasobviousashere.Thecomicactoris
automated by this aspect of objects; andthe object-patent that monopolistically characterises the comic mask (Chaplin's bowler,
Lloyd'sspectacles)onlyunderlinesthisidentity.Itisevendifficulttooffertheactorinacomedyaprimarilydynamicleadingrole.
Sincethediscoveryofthelawsofmontageandphotographybeganincreasinglytosupplanttheexternalimpetuosityofmovement,of
rushingaround,ofpursuitthroughtheinternaldynamicofmontagesegments,thedaringandunexpectedjuxtapositionofframes,since
astarchcollar,hangingonaweight-liftingcraneand,throughclose-upmontagedwithit,displayedasmuchdynamismasacarflying
throughtheframes—howcanwenowassertthatthecapacityformovementinherentinmanhasalreadybeenrealisedinthedynamic
of cinema? The actor's comic mask increasingly begins to serveas a unique bridge to the sympathies of the audience, as an
intermediarybetweentheaudienceandthewhimsicalworldofobjects.Comedyfilmsofpureobjectorfilmsinwhichtheactorplays
therolemerelyofapurelyindifferentandimpassiveguidethroughthepanopticumofunexpectedeventsarehoweverquitefeasible.
Thetraitsofsuchacold-bloodedguide,whodoesnotsmileinthemidstoflaughter-provokingobjects,arealreadyfoundinthemanwho
hasperfectedthe'comic'genre—BusterKeaton.
Thepureaspectof'Americancomedy'maysometimesenterintoacompromisefusionwiththeformsoftraditionalstagecomedy
thatareutterlyalientoit.Thusthereemergesanintermediategenre:awholeseriesofEuropeanso-calledfilmcomedies,like,for
instance, Lubitsch' s The Oyster Princess124 that is well-known here, may serve as an example. In thetreatment of its episodic
characters,initsuseofdetails,thisisfilmcomedy,butinitsbasiclovestoryitisasocietycomedy,sufferingfromthesamedefectsas
the'filmdrama'genredescribedabove.Eventheconceptofmask-imagesderivedfromthe'Americancomedy'undergoesacurious
deformationonaccountofthepsychologismthatismovingacrossEurope:then,forinstance,theDanesPatandPatashonwhoare
highly popular in distribution here. Because of their consistency, their considerable indepen​dence from plot situations — they are
masks.Buttheyareaggravatedbytheircharacteristicnatureandpsychology,andtheyfallintopurelytheatricalsituations,
intoplotcomplications,wheretheirmaskedcharacterbecomesadirectobstacle.ThatiswhythecompromisingDanesappearmore
naiveandprimitivethantheirAmericanprototypeswhoarecompletelydevoidofpsychologicalmotivation.
Thecuriousdevelopmentofthe'comedy'genremay,itseems,occurinSovietcinema.Thepathtoitliesintheattractionofa
socialclasssignintotheeccentricplayofobjectsandtheestablishmentofconsistentsocialcomicmasks.Inthiswaywemight
constructabrilliantgenreofpoliticaleccentro-comedy,firmlybasedonthetechnicalachievementsofAmericancomedy.Itistrue
thatuntilnowSovietcomedyhasapparentlybeenmorewillingtoimitatethecompromisedformsofsocietyfilmcomedy(The Three
MillionsTrial125etc).Thisisoneofthemostannoyingdelusionsofourcinema.
5
Havingshapedthesemanticwebofcomedy',filmstuntshavecontributedtothecreationofanothercinemagenrethatisalsooneof
the original ones,namely the adventure' film. This genre stands in roughly the samerelationship vis-a-vis the
psychological 'film novel' as the 'Americancomedy' does to the society 'film comedy'. The criticism levelled in its timeat
comedy' condemned cinema for the fact that, in creating the adventure' genre, it gave clear preference to the decadent boulevard
models of the adventure novel over the perfected form of the contemporary psychologicalnovel.On thecontrary, thispreference
derived completely from the nature of cinema. Cinema, as has already been demonstrated, has nothing in common with the
fragmentedpsychologicallymotivatedplotofanovel.Ontheotherhandthedevelopmentofplotonthebasisofthejuxtapositionof
externally dynamic segments, on the collision between several clearly outlined and consistent masks fully corresponded to the
capabilitiesofcinema,especiallyatthatoriginalstageofitsdevelopmentwhentheadventuregenrewasemerging. The social
mechanism of the largecapitalisticcityfurnishednewlabelsfortheancientmasksoftheadventurenarrativewhichhadfora
longtimebeenreinforcingincinemapracticetheadventurerandtheadventuress,thepolice-spy,thepoliceman,the'poetic'ofsafes
and strongrooms. The uniqueness of the individual film within thissharply delimited genre was defined once and for all by the
originalityofceaselesslyrenewedacrobaticstunts,themontagesegmentsofexternalmovementthatseemedtoprovidetheoriginal
compositionalfulcrumforthegenre.Thegradualexhaustionofthepossibilitiesforstunts,thedecipheringofthesecretsofcinema',
littlebylittlediscreditingtheadventuresses,suspendedonthetipofaclockhand,andtheheroes,jumpingfromaeroplane
toairship,andinparticulartheabovementionedmovebycinematowards the internal dynamic of montage, inevitably lead
this onceflourishing genre in the direction of automation. In this process the social change in the composition of the cinema
audience probably also played a certain role: this change meant that the basic mass of filmgoers consisted ofthe urban, and
particularlytheprovincial,pettybourgeoisiewhopreferredthemorefamiliarandmoreemotionalmaterialtoadventurefantasy.In
oureyes therefore the decline of the adventure genre was and remains complete;hence the star of Pearl White, the cinema's first
adventureheroine, is beginning to wane before the emotional images of Lillian Gish and Mary Pickford, the rising stars of the new
genres.ItisnoaccidentthateveninSovietcinema,withitsapparentlyinexhaustiblewealthofmaterialforheroicadventuresandwitha
consciousemphasisontheadventurefilm,thisgenrehasproducednothing but the utterly imitative DeathRay126 and the enormous
cinematicsuccessTheLittleRedDevils127.Withallthissuccess,andinspiteofit,thisfilmhasnotsucceededincreatingagenreand
the 'sequel' Savour the Grave128, descended into self-parody. The enormous historical significance of the adventure film is
nevertheless indisputable. It is enormous for the veryreason that it is precisely this genre that laid the foundation for the unique
composition of film material. Film stunts, which are, by their very essence,non-diegetic and non-psychological, are linked in
'comedy'bytheparticulartiesofsemantic'circles'and'parallelisms'(seeabove);intheadventuregenrethiscompositionalprinciple
is provided by a simple gradation, a simple intensification leading the hero from one stunt to another and one reelto another, the
tension of curiosity from one part to the next. It is quite clearhow far removed this jumpy composition is from both the
psychological-narrativeandthedramatictreatmentofaction.Theprincipleofsimplegradationnaturallyrequiredthegreatesttension,
the use of the most inventiveand most carefully prepared stunt just before the very end of the film, in oneof its final reels. It is
preciselytheselastreelsthathavebecomeahomeforrushingtrains,forhecticchases.Themortaldangerthatinevitablyhangsoverthe
hero in the fifth, sixth, seventh, etc. reels appears to be a necessary condition for the chase. But the train arrives in time, the chase
finishesonscheduleand,fulfillingthecinematicprincipleofhappyendings',theheroissaved.
That is how this semantic group (' catastrophe — chase — rescue')became a basic compositional factor of gigantic
importance;itledtothecreationofthegenrethathasvictoriouslyreplacedtheadventurefilm—the'Americanmelodrama'genre.In
itsfinestexamplesinBrokenBlossoms,OrphansoftheStorm,WayDownEast129thisgenreisassociatedwiththegloriousnameof
Griffith.Theterm'melodrama'isclearlyveryvague.Thisgenreisquiteremotefrom'melodrama'andfromotheraspectsoftheatrical
drama.Itisalsoremotefortheveryreasonthatitisinnowaydominatedbythestraightforwardactionorthedriveofdrama.Evenin
Griffith'smostaccomplishedproductionstheactionisplayedoutlikethis:inthefirstreelsofthefilmtheschemaoftherelationships
betweenthecharactersisoutlinedveryquicklyandinanycasewithoutanyattemptatoriginalityorartisticinnovation.Then,ina
seriesofcarelesslylinked,perhapsevensimplysketchedepisodes,thenecessarypreconditionsforcatastropheareestab​lishedand
the catastrophic situation is created. Finally, the catastropheitself follows, worked out in great detail, spread out over
hundreds offrames, brilliant in the unusual rapidity and unexpectedness of the montage,stretching moments out over dozens of
metres.Thisconceptofdevelopedcatastropheispossibleonlythankstothecompletelyexclusivefeaturesofthecinematictreatment
of'time'andspace'.Time'isherebrokenupintorapidlyflashinglayersofeventshappeninginparallel.Space'isdynamisedto a
greaterdegreeandbecomes,asitwere,acoordinateofrushingtime.Griffith'scatastrophe'isaconceptthatiscinematicinitsvery
flesh and bones, a veritable triumph of photography and montage and, in addition, a really concentrated node of the 'melodrama'
genre,itsprincipalandfundamentalartisticjustification.Asamodelforpurelycinematicstylethegroup'catastrophe—chase—
rescue'retainsitsfullsignificanceatthepresenttime.Inparticular,themotifofthedelayedchase,transferredfromtheadventure
film to the melodrama, has, in a fatal way, played its great rolethere and, emotionally enriched, achieved enormous force, even in
OrphansoftheStorm,withitsremarkableendingwheretheslippingbladeoftheguillotineisinter-cutinatension-inducingfashion
with the hooves of the horses galloping to the rescue. But the chase' is far from being the only possible motif in the group
catastrophe-rescue'and,whatismore,thismotifhasperhapsfallenintothegreatestdisuse.Attemptstorefreshitbyintroducing
'elementalcatastrophe'arebeingmadewithincreasingpersis​tence.Thisisacuriousexampleoftheequivalenceofhumanwillsand
naturalforcesincinemawhichwehavementionedmorethanonce.Theice-floesthatcarrytheunfortunategirltowardsthewaterfall
inthefilmWayDownEastfullyandtriumphantlyreplacetheevilwilloftheenemyintheendingofothersimilarGriffithfilms.On
thecontrary,weshouldratherrecognisethegreatergeneralsignificanceandexpressivepowerofthemotivationfor'ice-floes'and
'waterfall',asforthestorm'inLightinDarkness130,fortheavalanches'andlandslides'inotherfilms,thanforthehumandeedsthat
arealwayssodifficulttoexplainincinema.TothesuccessesofSovietcinemawemustaddthefactthat,bytheeffortsofitsyoung
directors, it has not just adopted lock, stock and barrel the stylistic group catastrophe — chase — rescue' and the compositional
principleofmelodramabaseduponit—ithasalsodevelopeditwithconspicuoussuccess.Thecomplexpreparationforcatastrophe
—catastrophe'(andthisistheschemaofAmericancomedy)isdoubledandtrebledbyourdirectorswithinasinglefilm.Thisisa
step towards the 'montage of attractions' elaborated by Eisenstein — for a different genre, admittedly. Pudovkin applieditinfull,
whileremainingwithintheboundariesofmelodrama,inhisremarkable filmMother.Despite the total dependence of theme
onnarrativeproduct(thethemeisanovelbyGorky),thisfilmisimmeasurablyfarremovedfromthecompositionoffiction,fromthe
'filmshortstory'genre.Thematerialishereconcentratedintothreegreatemotionalnodes('treachery','judgement','flight'),each
ofwhichisconstructedaccordingtotheschema'preparationforcatastrophe—catastrophe'.Theemotionaltensionofthewholeis
enormousandit,asdistinctfromthe'melodramaofGriffith',isspreadinequalmeasure.Itisasifanew,deeplycinematicgenreis
beingcreated,onethatderivesdirectlyfromAmericanmelodramabutperfectsit.Theenormousnumberofemotionalmotifsatthe
disposaloftheSovietcinemapromisesabrilliantfutureforthisgenreofemotionalfilm'.
6
Evenfurtherremovedfromthedramaticandnarrativecanon,evenmoreuniqueinitstreatmentof'time'and'space'therestandsa
genre that has notyet quite been defined and that we might subsume conditionally under the concept of 'lyric'. Like all authentic
cinematicgenres,itowesitsrisetotechnicaladvancesincinemaand,inparticular,totheapplicationof'close-ups'thathasalready
beenmentionedseveraltimes.Close-upsshowthedetailsofobjectsfromnewandevermoreunexpectedanglesandthusfurnishthe
lyricalatmosphereofthefilm.Close-upsplayhavocacrossthewholescreenwiththeactor'sface,hiseyes,hissmilingmouth,thus
bringingtheaudiencedirectlytothelimitsofhumanlyrics.Itisnaturalthat,withtheintroductionofclose-ups,lyricismbeganwith
increasing success to drive out of cinema the dramatic and narrative features that are so uncharacteristic of it. It is
interesting to trace this process in the example of the'American melodrama' already mentioned. Alongside the dryish films of
Griffith we here encounter a group of pictures that have sacrificedeverythingforlyricalexpression.Sucharethe'idylls'
ofAmericancinemawhereagainandagainindetailedandcloseshotstheminutiaeoffarmlifearedepicted,wistfulformscalveand
farrow,dozinginthehay,weseethecharmofchildren'slegssplashingthroughthespringpuddles,patchesofsunlightspillingin
thesepuddles.ThebasisofGriffith'sfilmwithMaryPickford,131whoisobviouslyinnowayadramaticheroinebutaremarkably
talentedgirlwhoorganicallyentersthislyricalworldoffilmidyllissimilar.Mary,playingPollyanna,Mary,thegirl,runningthrough
the rain, above allher very face smiling on the screen — all these are moments and methods ofpurely lyrical expression. Mary
PickfordisevenlesspartoftheplotthanthemasksofAmericancinemathatarerelatedtohersheisalivingnegationofplot on
screen.Thereisnodispute—thesocialatmosphereofthiswholegroupoflyricalfilmsandtheirprofoundlypettybourgeoissetting
are quiteobvious. But this is no reason to repudiate their great formal significance asthe purveyors of the lyrical foundation of
cinema.Thelyricalexperimentsof the young French directors appear to go even further in this direction andto break even more
daringlywiththetraditionofplot-orientatedmelodrama.IntheworksofLouisDelluc,MarcelL'HerbierandEpstein132theexpressive
nessoffilmisdeliberatelyconcentratedinwidelydispersed'atmosphere'fragments,indetailedpicturesofaharbourfair,ofacity,
withtheaim,incompletecontrasttoplot,ofconstructinglyricalimagesoflifeasitpassesby.InthisrespectReneClair'sfilmParis
QuiDorf133isevenmoredaring,drivingfreedomfromplotalmosttothepointwhereitmightbecalledplotlessness'intherelatively
colourfullanguageofpolemicalcriticism.
Thus,inrealearnest,wecometothesphereoffilmgenresthatarestillfarfrombeingelaborated,stillcompletely—andalmost
groundlessly — being denied but that, without doubt, reveal gigantic new opportunities for cinemaart. The denial of a plot as a
consequentiallymotivateddevelopmentofindividualfate(andsuchadenialisonlypossibleintheeventofaconsistentidentification
ofman-object-nature),therecognitionthatthestraightforwardprogressivemovementofreal'time',andtheveryprincipleof
'realtime' in cinema are not essential in cinema, the creators of these 'plotless' genres rely in their work on exclusively cinematic
meansofexpression,onanewandunexpectedpresentationofobjects,onnon-diegeticand,whereappropriate, on associative
andotherconceptsofmontagethatareinherentlycinematic.Itishoweverclearthatthesuccessofgenresofthistyperequires
theexclusivewealthofanewand,inaddition,emotionallysaturated, almost symbolically significant raw material of objects
andnature.Italsorequiresconsiderablefreedomfromanytraditionsofliteraryortheatricalisedcinema.Henceitisnoaccidentthat
itispreciselyintheSovietcinemawherewefindthefirstreallyconsistentandsuccessfulexperimentsinthisdirection.Theypointin
twodirections,alongthepathofthemonumentalheroicsofEisenstein(Strike,BattleshipPotemkin134)andalongtheroadofthefilm
demonstrationofVertovandtheCine-Eyes(Forward,Soviet,ASixthPartoftheWorld135).The difference betweenthemand
othergenresisnotallthatsignificantanditis,inanycase,notadifferenceinprincipleandnottheonethatpeopleoftenwanttosee.
Itisnotallthatimportantwhetherafilmincludesonlymaterialshotdirectlyfromnatureorwhetheritalsoincludes'directed"edited'
fragments. As long as 'nature' and 'directed' fragments are subjected in equal measure to stylised treatment during the process of
photographyandmontage,theywillservetheendsofemotionalexpressivenesstoanidenticaldegreeandthatselectionwillremaina
questionofmethod,aquestionoftechniqueandwillexercisenoinfluenceonthecharacterofgenre.ButinEisenstein'sfilmsthe
conceptofthenon-diegeticexpositionofobjectsandpeople(thesailorsinPotemkin,the workers from the idle factory inStrike)is
presentedinconjunctionwiththemethodofthe'montageofattractions'takenfromGriffithianmelodrama.Emotionallysaturated
objects (the 'horn' inStrike,the lion', thegunemplacement',the'redflag'inPotemkin)employedbyhimnotjustfortheir own
sake but also in semantic relation to what has come before and what will come after chronologically. If you like,Potemkinis a
compromisegenrebutitisoneofthosecompromisesthat,whilenotdazzlingintheirtheoreticalaudacity,doaboveallfacilitatethe
exposure and consolidation of style. On the other hand, the genre of A Sixth Part of the World is completely free from diegetic
cohesion, completely free from the illusion ofthe progressive movement of time. People and objects, people and nature, are here
shownasself-sufficientsemanticvalues.Theiralternationissubjugatedonlytotheself-sufficientlawsofmontageand,inparticular,
tothelawsofrhythmiccomposition.Thismoment,themomentofrhythm,canscarcelybedisputedforanyofthefilmgenresbut,in
theconstructionofnon-diegeticfilms,itssignificanceisquiteexceptional.Rhythmicallyregulatedmontageiswhatdistinguishesthe
genreofASixthPartoftheWorld,newlydiscoveredandrecognisedasart,fromthelongstandingcategoryofnewsreel,whichlies
outside cinema's artistic genres. An indication of rhythm is as much a basic compositional factor in the Cine-Eye' genre as is the
gradationofstunts'intheadventurefilmorthealternationofclose-upsinthe'lyricalidyll'.Byemployingthisconceptthe'plotless
genres'immediatelyseemtopassintoacategorythatiscomposi​tionallydistinctfromtheonesdescribedabove,onethat,continuing
touseliteraryterms,wemightcalla'poetic'categoryasdistinctfromprosegenres.Butthisisalreadyanewquestionofenormous
importance.HereweneedonlyunderlinetheexclusivesignificanceofthegenresthatarenowbeingopenedupinSovietcinema—
genresthatarenotonlyperipheraltocinemabut,onthecontrary,stemfromitsveryfoundations,logicallycompletingtheprocessof
freeing cinema from the power of literature and theatre that was begun by American directors. But perhaps, even more than any
othergenre,theseremarkablefilmsrequirespecialisedanalysisandthatissomethingtowhichthisshort'catalogue'cannotofcourse
layclaim.
THECAMERAMAN'SPARTINMAKINGAFILM
EvgenyMikhailovandAndreiMoskvin
translatedbyAnnShukman
TheCameraGroup
The main artistic responsibility for making a film falls not on any onepersonbutontheteamthatmakesuptheproduction
groupand,ofthem,mostlyonthedirector,thecameraman,andtheartdirector.
Theentireworkoftheproductiongroupcaninessencebesummedupastheprocesswherebyanaction,whicheitherhappensin
lifeorhasbeenspeciallyorganisedfortheshooting,andwhichinrealityexistsinthree-dimensionalspace,isimprinted,andafter
montageacquiresitsownpurelycinematographic,two-dimensionallifelikeness.
Knowledgeoftheconditions,factorsandworkingmethodsbywhichthiscinematographiclifelikenessproducesitsmostvividand
impressiveeffectonthevieweriscontinuallyprogressingandbeingperfected,andtheproductiongroupcanandmustorganiseand
createthenecessaryactiontomeettheserequirements.Whenworkingonafictionfilmitisamatterofprimeimportancebothfor
thecameragroupandfortheproductiongrouptoobservealltheseconditionsinordertoachievethenecessarygeneraltoneandstyle
ofthepicture.
Weshouldliketomakeafewremarksabouttheconditionsofworkandthe role of the cameraman in the creation of a
picture's style. Thecameraman'sworkiscloselytiedtothatofthedirectorandartdirector.Awellchosenteamofdirector,art
directorandcameramanistoagreatextentanassurancethattheproductiongroup'sworkwillbeofhighquality.Whenthemembers
oftheteamknowandsharethesametastesandinterests,areabletoworktogethertofindacommonlineandmethodsofwork,are
unitedintheirinterestinthematerialandthethemeoftheproduction,andwhen,finally,theyareongoodpersonalterms,then
conditionsarerightforcreatingafilm,andthisisnottheresultofdifferentpeopleeachgoingtheirownwaybuttheorganically
unifiedend-productoftheeffortsofwhatisessentiallyasinglecreator,theproductiongroup.Forthisreasonspecialattentionshould
bepaidtothesefactorswhenselectingmembersofaproductionteam.
Asfarasthecameraman'spartinthisworkisconcerned,itmightatfirstseemasifhissolefunctionwastomountthecameraon
itstripod,tocheckitslevel,ensure'correct'exposureandfocus,andthenmechanicallytoturnthehandle.Whilethisstateofaffairs
mayhaveexistedatthestartofcinematography,andsometimeseventoday,suchaprimitiveapproachtoshootingcannotnowadays
standuptocriticism,giventhepresentstageofdevelopmentincinemaart,itsmanysuccesses,andgiventhefactthatthetaskswhich
faceitarebecomingevermoredemanding.
Itmustnotbeforgottenthattheprocessofshootingisnot,oratleastshouldnotbe,asimplepoint-by-pointfixingoftheaction
takingplace,butistheprismthroughwhichthisactionacquiresitscinematographicessenceandlifelikeness,avitalfactor
in the whole process of production since the camerawork, being the material out of which the montageorganises the
finishedfilm,predeterminesthequalityofthefinishedproduction.
The task and function of the cameraman who is master of a whole series of technical and artistic resources (which will be
discussed below) is not toturn them into an end in themselves (technique for technique's sake) but to use them and blend them
organicallywiththeotherelementsofthepicture,intempo,atmosphereandtone,inordermaximallytoengrosstheviewerinthe
action.
The quality of a cameraman's work depends, apart from intellectual giftsand experience, on an enormous number of purely
objectivecausesexternaltohim.Besidessuchgeneralorganisationalfactorsastheallocationoftimeandoftechnical,materialand
other equipment, the cameraman's work is very largely dependent on the director and art director. The cameraman hasto give
artistic and technical form to the production materials; but thedirector and art director are themselves limited in their
selection andapproachtothesematerialsbytheactualrangeofmaterialandtheshootingcapabilitiesofthecameraman,sincehis
workingmethodsarecloselyboundupwiththeworkingmethodsofdirectorandartdirectorandalsowiththegeneralplanofthe
production.
Broadlyspeakingtheentireprocessoffilmproductioncanbedividedintothreemainstages:
1.Theworkingoutoftheworkingscenarioandoftheshootingplan,andalsotheorganisationalworktosetuptheshots.
2.Theshootingandlaboratoryprocessingofthefilm.
3.Montageofthematerialthathasbeenfilmedandprocessedinthelaboratory.
Thesethreeaspectsaresocloselyandindissolublyboundtogetherthatthecompletionofeventhemostinsignificantwork
inoneofthemrequiresfullanddetailedinformationaboutitintheworkplansoftheotherparts.
Thedirector'sworkingscenarioandthecameraman'sshootingplan
Thedirector'sworkingscenario,whichisthefoundationofthewholepicture,shouldbeadetailedplanofallthedirector'swork
from the very beginning to the very end, and a previously prepared dope sheet of the futurepicture. Theoretically speaking, the
montage itself is in this way an almost mechanical process of pasting up the separate sections of shot filmedstrictly in
accordancewiththisdopesheet.
In view of the close dependence that exists between the director's work and that of the cameraman in giving it artistic and
technicalform,wemayassume(atleasttheoretically)thepossibilityofdrawingup,alongsidetheworkingscenario,ascenariofor
the lighting and shooting, which would bestrictly thought out in accordance with the methods of lighting and shooting,and which
would keep in step with the rhythm and tempo of the picture. Inthiswaywewouldendupwithafilmrealisedaccordingtothe
desiredplanandstyleandstrictlyintegratedbothonthegeneralleveloftheworkandinitsminutestdetails.
Inaworkingscenario,boththatofthedirectorandthatofthelightingengineer,eachmontagesectionshouldhaveitsownspecial
significanceanditsownplacebothinrelationtothewholepictureandtothemontagesectionsnexttoit:theomissionor
transpositionofsections,givenaperfectlyworkedoutscenario,wouldresultinevitablyinthedestructionoftheintegrity,ifnot
ofbothtogether,thenalmostinvariablyofoneofthem.
Intheactualpracticeoffilm-making,evengivenourbarelyperfectedskills,oneisconstantlycomingacrosscaseswhen,asaresultof
free montage (notin accord with the working scenario) sections of film get out of place in theseries and thereby destroy the
perspectiveofplaceandtimeintheaction.
Itfollowsthatthereisaneedforthegreatestpossibleprecisionintheworkingscenariofromwhichthecameramanmightdrawup,
ifnotalightingandshootingscenario,thenatleastanapproximateshootingplan;inthiscaseitwouldbeessentialthatthemontage
ofthepicturebythedirectorshouldfollowasnearlyaspossibletheworkingscenario,aconditionthatisessentialtomaintainthe
visualintegrityofthepicture.
Ithastobesaidthatwegivetoolittletimeandattentiontothinkingouttheworkingscenario,andstilllesstotheworkingoutofthe
shooting plan andthe technical aspects of the filming. Without mentioning instances where the scenario was remade or totally
changedafterthestartoftheshooting,whenthewholeshootingplananddirector'splanwerefundamentallydepartedfromandthe
integrityofthepicturethusdestroyed,thecamera​man'sshootingplancanbedestroyedbyanydeviationfromthecorrectlyworked
outworkingscenario.
Thecameraman,whenembarkingontheshootingofanysceneordetail,must,inordertocarryouthislightingandshootingplan
ofwork,bethoroughly familiar with its montage construction, its relationship withothermontagesections,itssignificancein
thegeneralcourseoftheaction,itstoneandatmosphereandalsowiththeplanwhichthedirectorhasforit.Hemustusemethods
neededforthatshotwhichhavealreadybeenlaboratorytested.
However,astrictlyworkedoutscenarioandshootingplanmakessenseonlyiftheorganisationalworkforpreparingtheactual
shooting has been carried out strictly according to plan. If at the time of the actual shooting everything is in its place and all the
materialfortheshootingisproperlyorganised,ifeachtechnicianisfamiliarbythattimewiththematerialofhisworkandknows
whattodoandhowtodoit,thennormalworkispossiblethatproceedsmethodicallyandaccordingtoplan,asshouldbethecasein
allundertakings,butespeciallysoforsuchayoungoneasourfilmindustryandfilmtechnology.
In practice, inadequate preparation for the shooting continually gives riseto a mass of so-called unforeseen circumstances,
'accidents' (these most usually take the form of the unsuitability or lack of certain things, or of untoward questions about the
shooting,etc.)whichcouldeasilyhavebeenresolvedbeforehand;anyamountofconcentrationandenergyisdiverted• from the
mainoperation,itstempoandplanarelost,anelementofchancecomesintoplay,andfrequentlyasaresultofallthiswork
acquiressymptomsofwhatweusuallycall'abotchedupjob'.
Thecameraman,whogivesartisticandtechnicalformtothematerialbeingshot,mustbeinonthepreparatoryworkofallthe
othertechniciansandmustbefamiliarwiththematerialwithwhichhehastodeal.Inmanyquestionshisknowledgeandadviceare
not only essential but even have crucial significance ( for instance in the choice oftimes for location shooting,questions of colour,
furnishingthestudio,etc.).,..Itisessentialthatthecameramanbecloselyinvolvedintheorganisationalworkbecauseonthisdepends
mostdirectlyandcloselythequalityofhiswork,andheshouldbetheconstantconsultantonthetechnicalandartisticsideofthe
shootinginalmostallthepreparatoryworks.
It is only by actually subordinating and combining all the otherrequirements of production to the requirements of
technicalandshootingrealisationthatthewayisopenandpossibilitiesareaffordedbothforthequalitativeimprovementofthewhole
production,andforthecreationoftheartisticstyleofthepicture.
Directorandcameraman
Theactualshootingdemandsmaximumconcentrationandattentionfromthedirectorandfromthecameraman.
Whilethedirector'sextremelyresponsibleanddifficulttaskduringtheshootingismostlytoworkonthespatialformsinalltheir
possiblecombinationsandrelationshipstoeachother,thenolessresponsibletaskofthecameramanistotransfertheminthemost
advantageousexpressiveformontotherectangularsurfaceofthescreen.
Theworkofthedirectorandthatofthecameramanthroughouttheshootingareindissolublylinkedandthecollectiveprincipleof
film-creationrequiresthemaximumaccordintheactionsandthestaminaofdirectorandcameraman.
Whenthedirectorreallyunderstandstheimportanceofthecameraman'sworkinactuallygivingformtothedirector'smaterialin
conventionalcinematicforms,thisgoesalongwaytowardsharmonisingtheirworkandmakesitpossibleforthecameramantobring
outhisowncreativetalents;thismakesthematerialthatisbeingshotmoreexpressiveand,cinematically,morelifelike.Andconversely
whenthedirectordisregardstheimportanceofthecameraman'sworkordoesnotwanttotakeaccountofhisartisticandtechnical
tasks,thenthereisdiscord,thecameramanmayloseinterestinthework(thatisifheismorethanjustatechnician)andtheresult
maybethathisworkchangesfrombeingartistictobeingpurelytechnicalandconcernedwithmerelyfixingwhathastobefilmed
usingmethodswhichfailtorevealthehiddenessenceofthematerial.
During the shooting of each separate montage section the cameraman must simultaneously pay attention to a whole series of
factorsessentialifthesectionbeingfilmedistofitintotheplan.
Duringtheshootingthecameramanmust:
1. Continuallypayattentiontothestrictlytechnicalmatters(thecameralightingequipment,etc.)
2. Rememberhowthesectionbeingfilmedfitsintothemontageseriesandhowitrelatestothegeneralcourseoftheaction(he
mustknowtheworkingscenario).
3. Payattentiontothetoneandatmosphereofthescenebeingfilmedsothattheviewerwillperceiveitsmood(thecameraman
mustknowtheworkingscenarioplusthedirector'splan).
4. Dependingonwhichsectionisbeingfilmed,hemustapplythatmethodofshootingandlightingwhichhasbeenlaiddownin
theshootingplanandtestedinthelaboratorybeforehand(hemustcarryouttheshootingplan).
5. Coordinatehisworkwiththatofthedirector.
Ifthecameramancarriesoutalltheseconditionssimultaneouslyheisinapositiontocreatethevisual-technicalstyleofthefilm.
Thisvisual-technicalstyle,togetherwiththeproductionstyleandtheworkofdirectorandartdirector,iswhatconstitutesthestyleof
thefilmitself.
Thecameraman'sworkshouldnotcategorisethematerialbeingshotaccording to its seeming importance; it all depends
on the role andsignificanceofthismaterialinthecourseanddevelopmentoftheaction.Athing,anactor,thedecor,costumes,
landscape,etc.inturnacquireatparticularmomentstheirownmeaningandsignificance,anditcanhappenthatsomedetailwhichby
itself has nothing to say may by montage construction reduce the actor (material which is usually the most vivid and difficult to
shoot)totheroleofaninvoluntaryobjectinitshands.
Hencetheneedforthecameramantopayequalattentiontoallthematerialbeingfilmed,andthesearchwiththedirector
torevealtheessenceoftheobjectbeingshotineachparticularsceneandpictureand,followingfromthis,theapplicationofthose
technicaldeviceswhichhelphimmoreclearlytorevealandtoshowtheviewertheinnersignificanceofthings,whichispartlyhidden
ineverydaylife,andtheirhiddenfeatures—theartof'seeing'athingandofreproducingtheshootingmaterialinauniqueform.
Thecameraman'sartisticandtechnicaldevices
Whenchoosinghismethodofshootingthecameramanmakesuseofthetechnicalandartisticmeansathisdisposal,i.e.light,optics
with its differentqualities, the composition of the shot, laboratory facilities, etc. and he chooses the ones most suitable for the
production.
The perception of a film, that is the perception of the blocks of light and shadewhichareprojectedontotheflatscreenand
whichchangeinoutlineanddisposition,givestheviewerawholeworldofimpressionsinconventional,purelycinematic
formswhicharisefromtheprojectionoflightandshade.
Lightandshade(ifwediscountcolourandsoundashardlydevelopedyet)arethemainandindeedthesoleexpressivematerialof
cinematography.Intheseconventionallight-formsandonlyinthemtypesoflightinacertainorder,thegradualorabrupttransition
fromonetoanother,thedispositionandalterationoftheblocksoflightandshadeintheframe,theselection,whenshootingadjacent
montagesections,ofaparticularpartofthebackgroundwhichhassometypicalhighlight,andsoon.Light,beingtheindissoluble
element of the picture, can, if it is calculated and elaborated beforehand,increasetheeffectontheviewerandhelppreservethe
plannedlightingstyleofthepicture.Buttheimpossibilityofdoingthisinpracticemakesitallthemorenecessarytohaveatleastan
approximatelightingplanfortheshooting,asdiscussedabove.
Giventhecapacityoflighttocreatethedesiredmoodofthesectionbeingshotsoastoconveytotheviewertheatmosphereand
toneofthesceneandtocreateareactionontheviewer'spsyche,itisnotimportantornecessarythatthelightingshouldbelogicalor
realistic.
Thecreativepoweroflighttoadaptthematerialbeingshottothedemandsofthefilm,itscapacitytoisolatethetypical
from the general, to accentuate where needed, the breadth of the range of chiaroscuro — all thismakes light in the hands of the
cameramanhisbasicandmostpowerfulweaponandtoolforhiswork
Thebestworkingconditionsforthecameramanwithregardtoorganisingthelightingofhismaterialaretobefoundinastudio
equipped with variedlighting equipment in sufficient quantities and with sets which permit the best possible use of the lighting
equipment.
Onlyinthestudiocanthelightbewhollycontrolledatthewillofthecameraman:therehehasathisdisposallightingequipment
of all kinds of intensity and type, he can alter the general quantity of light and the positionof the equipment, and alter the
relationship of concentrated and softlighting. The cameraman can make use of all possible combinations of lightthat the
technicalqualitiesofthefilmandthelaboratoryprocessesallow,andbecompletemasterofallthosepossibilitiesofworkingwith
lightdescribedabove.
Thedifficultyofworkingwithlightinthestudioliesinthemainnotinfindingthegeneralquantityoflightnecessaryforshooting
inaparticularstudiobutinfindingthecorrectrelationshipofdiffusetoconcentratedlight.
Whereasanerrorofeven30%inthegeneralquantityoflightfortheparticularsetisnotcrucial,giventhequalityofthefilmand
thechemicalprocessingwhichpermitacertainvariation,asfarastherelationshipofdiffuseandconcentratedlightisconcerned,any
deviationhasaperceptibleeffectonthecharacterofthelightingandhencealsoonthecharacterofthescene.
Thegeneralnormsandrelationshipsofthemaintypesoflightingdependonthecharacterofthescene,ontheconstruction,the
coloursanddetailsofthestudio,onthecostumesandonawholeseriesofotherfactors.
Because of the absence of standardised construction materials, studio dimensions,etc.,evengiventhecameraman'sknowledge
and experience, itis difficult to make an immediate correct assessment of the quantity and relationship of the lighting. To avoid
possiblemistakesandtoadheretotheplanitisessentialtomakeatestshotofthelightofeachsectionofthesetwhoselightingis
complexorwhichisimportantinthepicture.
Theset
Anindispensablepartofstudioworkistheset.Theset,besidesgivingtheimmediatesettingandatmospherefortheaction,isalsoin
essence,asitwere,thedescriptivepartofthefilmwhichhelpstoshowtheviewerthesocialposition,thetastesandhabitsofthe
peoplelivingorworkinginit.Itspurposebesidesthisistoemphasisethecharacterofthescenestakingplace:wherenecessarytopoint
outtheircharacteristicfeatures,orattimestobemerelythebackgroundagainstwhichtheactiontakesplace.
The designer has to find the right forms, set, and things contained in it, to express the inner meaning and as well has to do it
technicallyinsuchawayastogivemaximumconveniencefortheworkofthedirectorandcameramaninit.
Since the demands of the purely artistic side and of the technical side arefrequently at cross purposes, almost every set is a
compromise.
Theconvenientlayoutofthesetforthefreedispositioninitofthelightingisavitalfactorintheworkofthecameraman.Hence,as
already mentioned,it is absolutely essential for cameraman and designer to reach preliminary agreementonallquestionstodowith
construction,colour,shades,furnishingsandsoon,andforcameramananddirectortobeinfullcontactoverquestionsofmise
ensceneandinagreementovertechnicalrequirements.
Afterthefinalsettlementofallthesequestionsitisessentialtocheckthesetwiththelightinginordertocorrectanyshortcomings.
Oftheexistingsetconstructionsystemsthebestandmostconvenientfromthepointofviewofthecameramanisthesystemof
constructionfromstandardisedstagepanelsthatistheassemblageofthesetfromelementscomparativelysmallindimension.Sucha
systemdoesawaywiththecrowdingofthestudio,whichoftenhindersthelighting,andwhichistheresultofbuildingthesetoutof
readymadeplywoodpanelsoftennotaccuratelycuttotherightsizefortheset.
Tocomebacktothequestionofstudiolighting,itshouldbeaddedthatbesidestheadvantagesenumeratedaboveofworkingwith
artificial light there are others as well: flexibility, constancy, the possibility of accurate calculation and independence of time and
weathermakeitexceptionallyconvenient;andbesidesitisonlywithartificiallightingthatonecanachievemaximumplasticity,thatis
relief,convexity,andairiness,inotherwordscreateontheflatnessofthescreentheillusionofperspectivaldistancebetweenlevels.
Alltheseadvantagesofstudiowork,whichmakeitpossibletoincreasetheexpressivenessofthefilmandtocommunicateallthe
intentionsandsituationsoftheproduction,explainthepresenttrendtomoveoutdoorshots,ifnotintotheactualstudio,thenat
least into the vicinity of the film factory in order to have artificial light to hand. This makes it possible, in accordance with the
stylisticdemandsoftheproductionandtheshooting,tocombineartificialandnaturallightinginordertoachievealightingresultonthe
filmthatreallyaccordswiththeplanoftheproduction.
Theresultofthismethodofworkisamuchhigherdegreeofexpressivepowerandofartisticunitythaninotherordinaryoutdoor
shotsandmakesforconsistencyofstyleinnature.
Simple outdoor shooting is essentially difficult and thankless because allits organisation comes from the other side: everything
dependsonwhatcannot be calculated beforehand, on a purely chance and capriciouselement—thestateoftheweather
andthelight.
Ifthecameramanhasafixedintentionanddesiretogiveaparticularcharacterandtonetoanoutdoorshot,thespotchosenis
goodonlyduringcertainatmosphericconditions(clouds/noclouds/stormclouds/mist,etc.)whichmaylastonlyhalfanhourtotwo
hours,andincertainexceptionalinstancesonly5to15minutes.
Itisdifficulttoensurethatonthedayappointedfortheshootingtheweatherconditionswillaccordwiththeplanand,ifitisnot
adheredto,theresultisthattheshootingwillloseallitssenseandartisticvalue.
Whileartphotographymaydemandwaitingfortherightconditionsforaparticularshotforalongperiod,theindustrialtypeof
film-makingcanonlyoccasionallyallowitselfthis.
An entirely natural shot thus almost always bears a compromise and chance character in relation to the plan of the
production and of theshooting. This does not exclude the possibility of achieving a montage section that is in all respects
excellent,onewhichcouldnotbeachievedinanyotherconditions,buteventhisisamatterofchanceandlucksincetoachievethe
sectionaccordingtotheplannecessitatestoolongaperiodandveryextensiveorganisationalcapacities.
Thesolutioninmanycasesmaybe,ifnotthecompletetransferofthenatureshotintothefactoryterritory,thentheavailabilityin
sufficientquantityofartificiallightingonmovablestandsonthesiteoftheoutdoorshootingor,asapalliative,theuseofmirrorsand
screens.
Whiletheconditionsandqualitiesofthecameraman'sworkwithlightaresocloselydependentontheplaceofshootingtheuseof
therestofhisshootingequipmentmakeshimindependentofthoseconditionsbyreworkingthesamelightandshadewithvarious
artisticandtechnicalmethods.
Thecompositionoftheframe,thatisthedispositionofthematerialtobefilmed within the confines of the frame ( a flat
rectanglewithsidesdeterminedtheonebytheother),delimitsandorganisestheviewer'sattentiontowardsessentialpointsinthe
action,andgivesacertainphotographicintegritybothtoeachmontagesectionandtotheirtotality.
Thecompositionofcinematographmaterialismademorecomplexincomparisonwithanormalplanebythemovingelementsthat
enteritandthetimeofthatmovement;partofthetaskofthecameramanis,togetherwiththedirector,tocombinethegenerallaws
ofsurfacecompositionwiththelawsofmovementacrossthestillandwiththecalculationandlayoutofthemovementintime.
Teaminguphisworkwiththatofthedirector,thecameramanisabletoarriveatthebestcompositionoftheframe.Hecando
thisbyalteringthepointofview,bydistancing,approaching,orraisingthecamerainrelationtotheobjectoftheshooting,orby
alteringtheangleofvisionofthelensandthetiltofthecamera,andhencealsoalteringtheangleandcharacteroftheperspective.
Byusingdifferentfilters,hoodsanddiaphragmsandsoonwhichgivevarietytotheshotsthecompositionoftheframe,aswellas
thewaythedesignisconveyed,maybeaffected.
Since every cinematographic depiction passes in the process of shootingthrough an optical instrument — the lens — the
characterofthedesignofthisimagedependsonthechoiceoflens.
Theuseoflensesofdifferentsystem,typeandfocallengthandthedifferentrelativeaperturesandexposurespeeds,togetherwith
theuseofvariousgauzesandadditionallensesmakesitpossibletogetimagesofallkindsfromthemostsharpandprecisetothe
softestandmostblurred,passingthroughallpossiblegradationsinbetween.
Thelensesusuallyusedincinematography(ofananastigmatictype),donotbecauseoftheirperfectdefinition,alwayssatisfythe
artisticdemandsoftheshotInordertoavoidtheexcessivesharpnessoftheimagespecialequipmentandopticalinstrumentshave
beencreated,eitherassupplementstothebasiclensorindependentofit,whichenabletheimagetobesoftenedtoanydegreeor
evenerased(theHerzseriesofsoftlenses,theVeritolens,Kodakdiffusionlensesamongothersandfinallysimplelenseswiththeir
variousdegreesofcorrection).
The purely technical consolidation of the cameraman's photographic artistic intentions depends entirely on the quality of the
laboratory processing of the exposed material. The basic laboratory process, the developing of the negative, can, if mishandled,
renderthewholeofthecameraman'sworknullandvoid.Failuresinthepositiveprocess,ifthenegativehasbeenproperlyprocessed,
arenotsocrucialsincetheycanbeeasilycorrectedinthenextreprinting.
The cameraman should have a thorough grounding in all the laboratory processes,firstofallinordertoknowthelightnorms
whicharethebestforthenormalchemicalprocessingoftheparticularlaboratory.(althoughthelaboratoryhasalsothemeansto
correctthecameraman'smistakes),andsecondlysothathecanimmediatelyrecognisewhichfaultsarehisandwhichthoseofthe
laboratoryprocessing.
Theintroductionofanexperimentalcontrolorgantoobservethequalityandconsistencyofthechemicalsused,theexactitudeand
purityofthesolutions,andthedegreeoftheirsuitability,—allthisaswellasthedirectparticipationonthepartofthecameramanat
least in giving his instructionsto the laboratory personnel who know his methods and requirements will ensurethatthelaboratory
workhasthetechnicalconsistencywhichitneedstofulfiltheaimsoftheproduction.
Thesuggestionswehaveoutlinedaboveneedtobeworkedoutseriouslyandindetail.Astheystandtheyareallincompleteand
somewhatchaoticexperiment.
Inessencetheworkofanyfilmproduction,ofallitstechnicians,theeffortsofallthepersonnelfromtheadministrationtothe
unskilled labourer,canbesummedupastheattempttoenableasmallgroupofcreativeartists(theproductiongroup)tocreatean
endproduct—theseriesoflittleshotsonacelluloidribbon.
Thefilmfactorymustpaymaximumattentiontotheartisticandtechnicalrequirementsoftheproductiongroupandcoordinateall
its work with theserequirements which have decisive significance for the quality of the production. The lack of established
elementary standard methods of organisational and technical work, which crucially diminishes the work capacity of the factory,
createsawholeseriesofunnecessarydifficultiesandaccidentsintheworkoftheproductiongroup,includingthecamera​man,which
haveanegativeeffectontheproduction.
Bystandardisedmethodsofworkweenvisagetheestablishmentofatleastbasicorganisationalandtechnicalmethodsofwork,
scientificallyproved, and we believe that the methodology of cinematography is aburningquestiondemandingimmediate
andserioussolution.
In every art the technique of working on the material is enormously important, and for cinema as an art that Is wholly
industrialised,therichness,diversity,furtherdevelopmentandinventionoftechnicalmeansareofvitalimportance,forinthemlie
thebasicstrengthandcapacities,andfuturepathsofdevelopmentoftheartofcinema.
Everydaycinemaproducesnewtechniqueswhichreinforceitsexpressivepower.
By techniques we do not have in mind only the cameraman's shooting techniques, but the whole work of the director, the
cameramanandtheartisticdirectorinorganisingthegreatmassofmaterialwhichfilmarthasatitsdisposal.
Thefactthatthecameramancan,withthehelpofthetechniquesathisdisposal,givethematerialtobeshotnotjustdocumentary
accuracy—whichmoreoftenthannotisquiteunnecessaryforcinemaasanart—butintheformwhichthefilmproductionrequires,
isenoughtodefinehisroleandsignificanceintheproductionofafilm.
Leavingoutofaccountthepurelyindividualgiftsofthecameraman,themainfactorsinvolvedinseekingsolutionstothequestion
ofhowtoraisethequalityofshootingingeneralandespeciallytothequestionofthephotographicstyleofafilmare(apart,ofcourse,
from the individual gifts of the cameraman) the following: coordination of the whole work of the factorywith the technical and
artistic requirements of the picture; the carefulselectionofpersonnel;standardisationofwork;theintroduction,parallelwith
this,ofmethodologicalworkonthelaboratoryside;andtheparticipa​tionofthecameramaninorganisationalworktocreatetechnical
and artisticconditions which will truly make both for an improvement in the quality ofhis production and for a development of
techniques.
Notes
ThenotesarebytheEditor,unlessotherwisestated.
SHUTKO:PREFACE
1. AdolphZukor(1873-1976)foundedtheFamousPlayersproductioncompanyin1912tobringsuccessfulBroadwayplaystothescreenundertheslogan'Famous
PlayersinFamousPlays'.HisprincipalstarwasMaryPickfordandhemadeafortune.In1916,after a merger, Zukor became president of the Famous PlayersLaskyCorporation,whichlaterbecameParamount,oneofHollywood'slargeststudios.Zukor'sautobio​graphywaspublishedin1953underthetitleThePublicisNever
Wrong.
2. BattleshipPotemkin,madein1925andreleasedinJanuary1926,wasSergeiEisenstein's(1898-1948)secondfeature-lengthfilmafterStrike.Thefilmwasamuch
greatersuccesswithaudiencesabroadthanwithintheU.S.S.R.Itbecameacausecélèbrepartlybecauseofthatandpartlybecauseofthefundamentalartisticproblems
thatitraised.Intheoriginalversionoftheclosingsequencetheflagwashand-paintedinred.
3. ASixthPartoftheWorld,madeandreleasedin1926,wasDzigaVertov's(1896-1954)attemptata'lyricalcine-poem'andatarealisationoftheideasondocumentary
filmandrealismexpoundedbyhisCine-EyeGroupintheirmanifestos'We.VariantofaManifesto'(1922)and'TheCine-Eyes.ATurning-Point',published
inLefin1923.
EIKHENBAUM:PROBLEMSOFCINE-STYLISTICS
4. (Author'snote).G.-MichelCoissacHistoireducinematographe(Paris,1925).Thisbookdoesnot,regrettably,giveahistoryofcinematographyatall,
butisanadvertisementfortheFrenchfilmindustry.
(Editor'snote).LouisLumiere(1864-1948)andhisbrotherAuguste(1862-1954)developedthecinematographcamera-projectorandprojectedtheirfirstfilmLaSortie
desUsinesLumiereon22March1895.Thefirstdemonstrationtoapayingpublic,generallyacceptedasthebirthdateofthecinemaasweknowit,tookplaceinParison
28December1895.
5.'Trans-sense'(adj.zaumnyi,noun:zaum),termsinventedbytheRussianFuturistsmeaning'beyondsense'orsenseless'.SeeRPT,4,pp.26-7.
6.'Photogeny'isaneologisminRussiantoo.Sometimesusedinterchangeablywith'photography'ithereimpliessomethinglikethe'specificsoffilmart'.
7.(Author'snote).L.Delluc,PhotogenyofCinema,[L.Dellyuk,Fotogeniyakino],translatedbyT.Sorokin(NovyeVekhi,Moscow,1924),p.96.
(Editor'snote).LouisDelluc(1890-1924)wasaFrenchdirector,screenplaywriter,filmcriticandtheoristwhoplayedamajorpartinestablishingthecinema'sstatusasan
artforminFrance.HefoundedtheFrenchfilmsocietymovementandtheschoolofindependentfilmcriticism.ThebookreferredtoherewaspublishedasPhotogeniein
Parisin1920.
8.'Dominant'(Russian:dominanta),aFormalisttermfortheleadingconstructionalprincipleinaworkofart.SeeRPT,4,pp.34-5.
9. (Author'snote).See,forexample,articlesinthecollectionTheatre.BookoftheNewTheatre[Teatr.Knigaonovomteatre](Shipovnik,St.Petersburg,1908).Articlesby
Sologub,Chertkov,Lunacharskyandothers.
(Editor'snote).TheRussianphrasesobornogo'teatrarnogodeistvameansliterallya"'communal"theatricalrite'.Sobornost'(communalityorconciliarism)isoneofthe
principlesofOrthodoxchurchlife,deistvoisafolklorictheatricalenactmentofareligioustheme.Thepointisthecollectiveexperience.
10.(Author'snote).B.V.Kazansky,TheMethodofTheatre.AnAnalysisoftheSystemofNNEvreinov[Metodteatra.AnalizsistemyN.N.Evreinova],(Academia,Leningrad,
1925).
11. The Cabinet of Dr Caligari,made in Germany in 1919 by Robert Wiene from ascreenplay by Carl Mayer, was the principal inspiration for the German
Expressionistfilm.ItstarredWernerKrauss,ConradVeidtandLilDagover.
12. OurHospitality,madebyBusterKeatonin1923.
13.ThismaybeareferencetoaRussianfilmmadein1914byUngernandGlagolinfromastorybyAlexanderKuprin.
14.AcomedymadeforGoskinoin1925byAlexeiGranovskyfromastorybytheleadingJewishwriterSholomAleichem.ThechiefcameramanwasEduardTisse.
15.Theoriginalfilmwasmadein1920byFredNibloandstarredDouglasFairbanks.
16.(Author'snote).L.Moussinac,TheBirthofCinema[L.Mussinak,Rozhdeniekino],translatedbyS.MokulskyandT.Sorokin(Academia,Leningrad,1926),p.50.
(Editor'snote).LeonMoussinac(1890-1964)was,withLouisDelluc,oneofthefoundersofFrenchfilmcriticism.Hisearlywritingswerecollectedinthe
volumeLaNaissanceduCinema(Paris,1925),whichisthebookreferredtohere.HewasresponsibleforintroducingBattleshipPotemkintoFrench
audiencesin1926andhelaterpublishedhisLeCinemaSovietique(Gallimard,Paris,1928).HisbookonSergeiEisensteinwaspublishedinFrenchin1964(Seghers,
Paris)andtranslatedintoEnglishin1970(CrownPublishers,NewYork).
17.(Author'snote).B.Balazs,DersichtbareMenschoderdieKulturdesFilms(Vienna,1924),p.143.(ThereisaRussiantranslation.)
(Editor's note). Bela Balks (1884-1949) was one of Europe's leading film theorists and aestheticians. Exiled from Hungary after the overthrow of the revolutionary
regime,Balazs(noHerbertBauer)livedinAustria,GermanyandtheUSSR,returningtohisnativelandonlyaftertheSecondWorldWar.Hecollaboratedonlibrettos
withBelaBartokandonthefilmadaptationbyG.W.PabstoftheBrecht/WeillThreepennyOpera(1931).Balazs'sothertheoreticalworksincludeTheSpiritofFilm,first
publishedinGermanin1930,andTheoryofFilm,publishedinRussiain1945.
18.(Author'snote).TheArtofCinemaandtheMontageofFilm[Iskusstvokinoimontazhfirma],(Academia,Leningrad,1926).
19. D.W.Griffith(1875-1948)wasprobablythesinglemostimportantfigureinthehistoryofAmericancinema.Hedevelopedsuchessentiallycinematictechniquesas
cameraangle,closeup,longshotand,aboveall,rhythmicediting,thusfreeingthecinemafromtheconfinesofstageconventions.Heexertedaconsiderableinfluenceon
Sovietfilmdirectors,aboveallEisenstein.HisfilmsincludedTheBirthofaNation(1915),Intolerance(1916),BrokenBlossomsandTrueHeartSusie(1919),
WayDownEast(1920)andOrphansoftheStorm(1922).
20.Griffith'slabyrinthineepicwithfourinterwovenstories,releasedin1916,andapparentlyoneofLenin'sfavouritefilms.
21.Releasedin1922andsetatthetimeoftheFrenchRevolution.
22.(Author'snote).OnthisseeB.Balázs,andS.Timoshenko,TheArtofCinemaandtheMontageofFilm,pp.42-4.
23.AlsotranslatedasTheDevil'sWheelthisfilmwasmadebytheLeningradgroupknownasFEKS(FactoryoftheEccentricActor)in1926.Theplotinvolvedsomesailors
fromtheAurora,theshipthatfiredtheshotsignallingthestormingoftheWinterPalaceinOctober1917,andtheclimaxtakesplaceinafairground.
24.Apauseinmusicalnotation.
25. Thereferencehereisunclear.ThefilminquestioncouldbeZirkusdesLebens(CircusofLife)madein1921andstarringWernerKrauss.Ontheotherhandthedateand
title suggest E.A. Dupont's Variete,made in 1925 and starring Emil Jannings and Lya de Putti. Krauss did not appear in this film, but he did appear in the next film
mentionedanditispossiblethatEikhenbaumishereconfused.
26. DiefreudloseGassewasmadein1925byG.W.Pabst.ItwasoneofAstaNielsen'slastfilmsandoneofGretaGarbo'sfirst.MarleneDietrichhadanunnamedpartand
WernerKraussandOregoniClunara(ofRussianextraction)alsoappeared.AstaNielsen(1883-1972)wasthelegendaryDanish'superstar'ofthesilentcinemainEurope.
27.(Author'snote).SeehisbookTheProblemofVerseLang-uage[Problemastikhotvomogoyazyka],(Leningrad,1924),p.48etseq.
28.(Author'snote).SeeTynyanov'sbookasabove,p.40.
29.ThisfilmadaptationoftheGogolstorywasmadebytheFEKSgroupin1926.
TYNYANOV:THEFUNDAMENTALSOFCINEMA
30.‘Velikiinemoi'('Thegreatdumb')wasapopularRussiantermforsilentcinema.
31.AndreiBely(1880-1934)wasaRussianSymbolistwriterbestknownforhisnovelPetersburg,writtenin1913-14.
32.Seenote29.
33.Seenote7.
34. AbelGance(1889-1981),FrenchfilmdirectorknownaboveallforhissilentmasterpieceNapoleon,releasedin1927.Partsofthisfilmwereshotbythreesynchronised
camerasandshownonawidetriplescreen.ThistriptycheffectwasknownasPolyvision.Thefilmhasbeendescribedas'virtuallyalexiconoftheentiretechnicalgrammarofthe
silentscreen'.
35.Seenote17.
36.MaryPickford(1893-1979),leadingactressofthesilentscreen,wasknownas'America'ssweetheart'.In1919shewentintopartnershipwithCharlieChaplin,
D.W.GriffithandDouglasFairbanks(herhusband1920-36)tofoundUnitedArtistsCorporation.SheandFairbanksvisitedtheUSSRaspartoftheirtourof
Europe in 1926.Their recommendations ('the greatest motion picture I have ever seen') were used toboost attendances forBattleship Potemkin.At
Lunacharsky'ssuggestiontheirvisitbecamethefocusforafilmentitledMary'sKiss,madebySergeiKomarovin1927.ThenamesofPickfordandFairbankswere,
forSovietcritics,synonymouswiththeappealofHollywoodentertainmentfilmsandtheglamourofthestarsystem.
37.Seenote23.
38. WilhelmWundt(1832-1920),Germanpsychologistandphilogist.In1875hebecameProfessorofPhilologyattheUniversityofLeipzigandlaterfoundedtherethefirst
InstituteforExperimentalPsychology.
AlexeiShakhmatov(1864-1920),theRussianphilologist,wasDirectoroftheDepart​mentofRussianLanguageandPhilologyoftheAcademyofSciencesfrom1906until
hisdeath
Paulhasnotbeenidentified.
39.HeinrichHeine(1797-1856),Germanpoet,publicistandcritic.
40. VladimirMayakovsky(1893-1930),theleadingfigureinRussianFuturism,knownasthe'poetoftheRevolution'.HeidentifiedclearlywiththeBolsheviksandwasactive
inproducingposter-poemsfortheRussianTelegraphAgencyROSTAduringtheCivilWar.Heisknownforhispolemicalpoemssuchas150,000,000andVladimir
IlyichLeninandforplayslikeTheBathhouseandTheBedbug.HewasoneofthefirstliteraryfigurestorecognisetheimportanceofcinemaandmadeTheLadyandthe
Hooligan,NotBornforMoneyandFetteredbyFilm,allin1918.Mayakovskyreturnedtoworkinthecinemain1926-7andwroteanumberofscreenplaysbutonlytwowere
filmed:TheThreeandDekabryukhovandOklyabiyukhov,bothin1928.
41.AlexanderPushkin(1799-1837),thegreatRussianpoetandplaywright.HeplayedaseminalroleinthedevelopmentofRussianliterature.Amonghisworkswerethenovel
TheCaptain'sDaughter,theplayBorisGodunovandthe'novelinverse'EugeneOnegin.OfhisRomanticpoems,TheFountainofBakhchisaraiwaswrittenin1823,andA
PrisonerintheCaucasusin1820.
42.Onfabulaandsyuzhet,seeRPT,4,p.40.
43. AmbroseBierce(1842-1914?),theAmericanwriterknownforhisironicandgrotesqueportrayalsoflifeintheAmericanWest.HisshortstoryAnOccurrenceatOwl's
CreekBridgewasfirstpublishedin1891.ItwasfilmedinFrancein1961.
44.ProbablyareferencetoLeoPerutz(1884-1957),awriterofpopularhistoricalandadventurenovels.
45.VictorHugo(1802-85),theFrenchnovelist,wroteLesMiserablesin-1862.
46.VasiliZhukovsky(1783-1852),RussianpoetandoneofthefoundersofRussianRomanticism.
47.BorisPilnyak(1894-1937),Russianwriterandsatirist.
48.LeonhardFrank(1882-1961),GermanExpressionistwriterwhoconcentratedontheworkers'milieu.Hisautobiography,publishedin1952wasentitledLinks,wodasHerz
ist(Left,WheretheHeartis).
49.NikolaiGogol(1809-1852),thegreatRussiannovelistandsatirist.HisworksincludeTheOvercoat,DeadSoulsandTheInspectorGeneral.Seealsonote29.
50.Seenote31.
51.Seenote2.
KAZANSKY:THENATUREOFCINEMA
52.KonstantinStanislavsky(1863-1938),Russiantheatricaldirector,actorandtheoretician.DirectedtheMoscowArtsTheatrewhenitwasstagingthepremieresofChekhov's
playsandwasaleadingproponentofthenaturalistschool.
53.EdwardGordonCraig(1872-1966),Britishtheatredirectorandtheoreticianofdrama.
54. Vsevolod, Meyerhold (1874-1940), leading Russian theatre director, actor and theoreti​cian, instigator of revolutionary methods of drama production based on
biomechanics',the application of modern technology and a proscenium-less stage that would encourageaudience involvement along the lines of the circus and
music-hall.TheMeyerholdTheatrewasliquidatedin1938,Meyerholdhimselfarrestedin1939,shotin1940andofficiallyrehabilitatedin1955.
55.AlexanderTairov(1885-1950),Russiantheatredirector.
56.PerhapsFrancoisBoucher(1703-70),FrenchpainterintheRococostyleandprotegeofMmedePompadour.
57.EmmanuelPoire,knownasCarand'Ache(1859-1909),Russian-bornFrenchcartoonist.HetookhispseudonymfromtheRussianwordkarandash,meaningapencil.
58.CamilleCorot(1796-1875),Frenchlandscapepainter.
59.AugustRodin(1840-1917),Frenchsculptor.
60.Notidentified.
61.Notidentified.
62.Notidentified.
63.Seenote2.
64.TheAlexanderColumnstandsinthemiddleofthePalaceSquareinfrontoftheWinterPalaceinLeningrad.
65.ValeriBryusov(1873-1924),Russianwriter.
66.Seenote16.
67.ThereferenceistoAbelGance'sNapoleon.Seenote34.
68.DouglasFairbanks(1883-1939),Hollywoodswashbuckler,businessmanandone-timehusbandofMaryPickford.Seenote36.
69.HarryPiel(1892-1963),Germanactoranddirector,knownparticularlyforhisuseofstunts.
70.TomMix(1880-1940),Americanstarofearlycowboyfilms.
71.WilliamS.Hart(1870-1946),Americanstarofsilentwesterns.
72.JackHolt(1888-1951),tight-lippedheroofHollywoodadventurefilms.
73.LillianGish(b.1896),Americanactress,knownforherperformancesinD.W.Griffith'sfilms,notablyBrokenBlossoms,TrueHeartSusie,WayDownEastandOrphans
oftheStorm.
74.PolaNegri(b.1894),Polish-bornstarbest-knownforherappearancesintheGerman-languagefilmsofErnstLubitsch.
75.CharlieChaplin(1889-1977),British-borncomicactorandfilmdirector,knowninRussiaforhisfeature-lengthsilentfilms,startingwithTheKid(1921).
76. BusterKeaton(1895-1966),Americancomicactorandfilmdirector,Chaplin'sgreatrival.HisbestknownfilmsinRussiaincludedTheThreeAgesandOurHospitality
(both1923),TheNavigator(1924)andlaterTheGeneral(1927).
77. HaroldLloyd(1893-1971),Americancomicactorremarkableforhisstuntsandhisdistinctivehorn-rimmedglasses.WithChaplinandKeaton,thethirdofthegreat
triumvirateofactorsoftheAmericansilentfilm.
78. Conrad Veidt (1893-1943), star of the German silent screen in films such asTheCabinet of Dr CaligariandThe Student of Prague.Laterappearedin
French,BritishandAmericanfilms,e.g.inCasablanca.
79. EmilJannings(1884-1950),Germanfilmactor,appearedinWaxworksandTheLastLaugh(1924),VarieteandFaust(1926),beforestarringinTheBlueAngel(1930)
andgoingontoactinNazifilmssuchasOhmKruger(1941).
80.AtermmuchusedbyLevKuleshov(1899-1970)todistinguishthosetrainedinhisWorkshopfromtheactorswhohadreceivedamoretraditionalstagetraining.
81.EdouardManet(1832-83),Frenchpainter.
82.IlyaRepin(1844-1930),Russianpainterofthenationalistschoolwhodescribedhimselfas'amanofthesixties'andsubordinatedhisartistictalentstohissocialideals.
83. VasiliVereshchagin(1842-1904).Russianartistwhospecialisedinpaintingbattlescenes.KilledduringtheRusso-JapaneseWarwhenthebattleshiphewason
blewup.GeneralMikhailSkobelev(1843-82)wasadjutantgeneralandcommanderoftheRussianinfantry.HeplayedaleadingpartintheRusso-TurkishWar
of1877-8andtheconquestofCentralAsia.TheSkobelevCommittee,namedafterhim,wasestablishedin1914tosupervisethefilmingofnewsreelsatthefrontfor
patrioticpropagandapurposes.
84.Seenote17.
85.Seenote23.
86.Seenote2.
87.VladimirGardin(1877-1965),oneofthefewpre-revolutionarydirectorsandactorstomakeasuccessfultransitiontotheSovietcinema.HewasfirstdirectoroftheState
FilmSchoolin1919andmadeHammerandSickle(1921),ASpectreisHauntingEurope(1923),TheLocksmithandtheChancellor(1924),CrossandMauser(1925),
andthecontroversialThePoetandtheTsar(1927).
88.Seenote20.
89.Madein1925.
90.Madein1923.
91.CheslavSabinsky(1885-1941),apre-revolutionaryfilmdirectorwhomadeKaterinaIzmailova,anadaptationofLeskov'sshortstoryLadyMacbethoftheMtsenskDistrict,
in1927.Shostakovichlatercomposedanoperaonthesametheme.
92.DasindischeGrabmalwasdirectedbyFritzLangin1921andstarredLyadePuttiandConradVeidt.
93.DasWeibdesPharao(U.S.title:TheLovesofPharaoh)wasmadebyErnstLubitschin1921andstarredPaulWegener,EmilJanningsandLydaSalmonova.
94.Seenote42.
95.AcompilationfilmmadebyEsfirShubin1927.
96.DirectedbyFredNibloandreleasedin1925.
97. ThereferencesherearetotheillustrationstoPushkin'sstoryTheQueenofSpadesandhis narrative poemThe Bronze Horsemanand Tolstoy'sHadzhi Murat.
AlexanderBenois(1870-1960)wasaleadingartistoftheWorldofArtgroupandwascloselyassociatedwithDiaghilev.
98.AntoineWatteau(1684-1721),aFrenchpainterwithaFlemishbackground.Thepaintingreferredtowasdonein1717asWatteau'sdiplomaworkfortheFrench
Academy.Asaresultofthisworkhewasthefirsttobedescribedasapainterof'fetesgalantes'
99.Seenote91.
100.RositawasmadebyErnstLubitschin1923andstarredMaryPickfordasastreetsinger.
101.MadebyFairbanksin1922,RobinHoodwasoneofthemostpopularfilmstobeshownintheSovietUnioninthe1920s.
102.DorothyVernonofHaddonHallwasmadein1924byMarshallNeilanasavehicleforMaryPickford,afterLubitschhadrefusedtocollaborate.
103.Ihavebeenunabletotraceeitherofthesefilms.
104.OrphansoftheStormwasmadebyD.W.Griffithin1922andisherewronglyattributedtoLubitsch,whowasmerelypresentatthepremiere.
105.MadebyLubitschin1922andstarringPolaNegriasYvette.ReleasedinGermanyasDieFlamme(TheFlame)in1923,inRussiaasIvettaandintheU.S.asMontmartre
in1924,afterthereleaseofhistwoAmericanfilms,RositaandTheMarriageCircle.
106.InspiredbyChaplin'sAWomanofParis,Lubitsch'sTheMarriageCirclewasmadein1924andstarredFlorenceVidorandAdolpheMenjou.
107.VsevolodPudovkin(1893-1953),leadingRussianfilmdirector,whosefilmsincludedMother(1926),TheEndofStPetersburg(1927),StormoverAsia(1929),ASimple
Chance(1932)andDeserter(1933).Whileacceptingtheimportanceofediting,helaidmoreemphasisthanEisensteinontheperformanceofhisactors.
SHKLOVSKY:POETRYANDPROSEINCINEMA
108.TadeuszZielinski(1859-1944),Polishphilologistandexpertonthelinguisticstructureofclassicalliterature.
109.ForPushkinseenote41.
110.Jacob(1785-1863)andWilhelm(1786-1859)Grimm,Germanwritersandcollectorsoffolk-tales.
111.AfanasiFet(1820-92),Russianpoetandtranslator.
112.Seenote3.
113.Seenote107.
PIOTROVSKY:TOWARDATHEORYOFFILMGENRES
114.ThereferencehereistoAristotle'sPoetics.
115.GottfriedEphraimLessing(1729-81),Germanpoet,criticandphilosopher.
116. JohannesVolkelt(1848-1930),Germanphilosopher.Hismajorworksonaestheticswere:DerSymbolbegriffinderneuestenAsthetik(TheConceptoftheSymbolin
theNewAesthetics,1876),AsthetikdesTragischen(TheAestheticsoftheTragic,1888)andthe3-volumeSystemderAsthetik(SystemofAesthetics,1905-14).
117.Seenote6.
118.InByron'sfive-actversedramaMarinoFallen:DogeofVenice,theDogeisexecutedinAct5,Scene3,andhisheadisseentorolldowntheGiants'StaircaseoftheDoge's
Palaceinthefollowingscene.
119. Made by Konstantin Eggert in 1925. The film was based on a play by AnatoliLunacharsky,People'sCommissarforEnlightenment,whichwasitselfan
adaptationofProsperMerimee'snovellaLokis.Thefilmwasavehiclefortheactress,NatalyaRozenel,Lunacharsky'swife.
120.RudolphValentino(1895-1926),theItalian-bornheart-throbofthesilentscreen,whostarredinFourHorsemenoftheApocalypseandTheSheik(1921),BloodandSand
(1922)andTheSonoftheSheik(1926).Hisfuneralwasmarkedbyscenesofmasshysteria.
121.Danish-borncomedystarsofthesilentera.
122.PearlWhite(1889-1938),Americanstarofearlysilents,whosefilmsincludedThePerilsofPauline(1914).
123.Seenote29.
124.DieAusternprinzessin,asatiricalfeature-lengthfilm,wasmadebyErnstLubitschin1919.
125.AcomedymadebyYakovProtazanovin1926andstarringIgorIlyinsky.
126.AnAmerican-stylethrillermadebyLevKuleshovin1925.
127.AnadventurefilmsetintheSovietCivilWarperiodandmadeinGeorgiain1923byIvanPerestiani.
128.AlsoknownasOntheWorkingFrontthissequelwasmadebyPerestianiin1926.
129.Seenote19.
130. Ihavenotbeenabletotracethisfilm.PickfordhadmadesomeearlyfilmswithGriffithbuttheirartisticcollaborationhadbeenreplacedbythebusinesspartnershipin
UnitedArtists(withFairbanksandChaplin)bythe1920s.ThereferencemaybetoTessoftheStormCountry,whichPickfordmadein1922,butwhichwasnotdirected
byGriffith.
131.ThereferencehereisobviouslytoMaryPickford'sPollyanna,madein1919,butthisfilmwasnotdirectedbyGriffith.InfactPiotrovskyseemstoattributemistakenlya
numberofAmericansilentfilmstoGriffith.
132.ForLouisDelluc,seenote7.
MarcelL'Herbier(b.1890),pioneeringdirectorofFrenchcinema.MajorfilmsincludeEldorado(1921),hailedbyDellueça,c'estducinema',DonJuanetFaust(1923)
andL'Inhumaine(1924).
JeanEpstein(1897-1953),Frenchfilmdirector,whosefilmsincludedPasteur(1922),CoeurFidele(1923)andLaBelleNivernaise(1924).
133.MadebyClairin1924thisfilm,imbuedwiththeattributesofAlfredJarryandMackSennett,DadaandApollinaire,isconcernedwithamadscientistwhoimmobilises
thewholecityofPariswithamysteriousray;buttheplotissubmergedinthelyricalphotography.
134.Seenote2.
135.Seenote3.