Film Theory of Bazin and Eisenstein - Essay Example

187576 INTRODUCTION "All the arts are based on the presence of man. Only photography derives an advantage from his absence. Photography affects us like a phenomenon in nature, like a flower or a snowflake whose vegetable or earthly origins are an inseparable part of their beauty" Bazin (1967, p.3). Eisenstein and Bazin are two very important people in the field of cinematic theories. Both created theories in the hitherto untouched are of cinematic art. Even though there are many similarities in their perspectives, the dissimilarities are more than them. Both appreciated the cinema and the inherent art in it; but their theories were very different from one another. At times, there is clear conflict with the other theory and the perspectives are very different. Eisenstein had the added distinction of being an extremely well-known director of many successful movies. Basin, in his short life, did not have any such practical involvement with the cinema, but his theories of the cinematic world stand apart above others even to this day. Andre Bazin, known as the best film authority the world has ever produced, was a film theorist, critic, and a humanist philosopher and has written many articles on film philosophy. His articles are translated into many languages, especially English. Basin is considered to be the sage of film philosophy and he has never been dethroned ever since he became popular, even though he was criticized for his theories by other film critics. He called cinema as 'an idealistic phenomenon'. He agrees that it is technical, but this factor is of secondary importance. Actually he agrees upon it after a pause, as an afterthought. His concentration on the technical side of the cinema is consequential and not primary. He always said that the mechanical mediation of the camera makes the cinema absolutely realistic. He placed cinema above the arts like painting, because he said, if the brush is pitted against the camera, camera makes a better job in duplicating reality than the brush, because camera is driven by technology, whereas the brush depends upon the eye and perspective of the artist, which could be entirely different from reality. No two people can have the same artistic eye sight. At the same time, cinema is capable of recording things and scenes better than a painting. While he does not deny the human intervention in the form of the person who wields the camera, he suggests that this should be kept to the minimum. "Although the potential for human intervention is always present, even granting the mechanical intervention, Bazin believes that the filmmaker owes it to the complexity of reality to refrain from false subjective manipulation and overwrought formalist mediation," http://www.horschamp.qc.ca/new_offscreen/bazin_intro.html To him cinema is a tool that fulfils the psychological needs of the society. He considered it as one of the ultimate art forms. He was positive that cinema fulfils the artistic and ethical obsession of people, which is a compelling trait that has an urge to be fulfilled. "For Bazin the situation was clear: either a filmmaker utilizes empirical reality for his personal ends or else he explores empirical reality for its own sake. In the former case the filmmaker is making of empirical reality a series of signs which point to or create an aesthetic or rhetorical truth, perhaps lofty and noble, perhaps prosaic and debased. In the latter case, however, the filmmaker brings us closer to the events filmed by seeking the significance of a scene somewhere within the unadorned tracings it left on the celluloid" Andrew (1976, 145). Basin thought that human beings have a weakness for creative psychology and they like to visualise illusions. These illusions become ardent desires and demand to be fulfilled and under such circumstances, creative and innovative art forms materialise. "It is essential to emphasize the skeptical aspect of Bazin's affirmations about psychology, his manifest awareness of human vulnerability to illusion and ideology. For Bazin, our receptivity to the world in which we live is inevitably conditioned by the desire we carry with us and the ideologies that have shaped that desire. This vulnerability is presented as an inescapable constant relevant to the consideration of all art including photography and the cinema." Younger http://www.horschamp.qc.ca/new_offscreen/bazin_ontology.html Basin also rendered a historical base and development to the cinema starting from the earlier ages. He argued that the entire concept is based on the human artistic replicating ability of reality. What must have started as mental illusionary desires must have taken artistic forms expressed through various cave drawings that are available in many parts of the world today. Then it must have reached mummification of bodies in an effort to preserve the likeness, engravings, and then various forms and developments of painting to culminate in the present photography and then its development to be the main theme of cinema. As he thought that cinema is the reflection of reality, which in turn, can be argued that it is the reflection of nature, people and their lives, customs, culture etc., the filmed image and its life counterpart have a very serious and inescapable relationship. He explains this relationship in the following terms: "1) The photographic image is "a kind of decal or transfer"; 2) "The photographic image is the object itself, the object freed from the conditions of time and space that govern it"; 3) Photography embalms time; 4) "The photograph as such and the object in itself share a common being, after the fashion of a fingerprint"; 5) "In no sense is it the image of an object or persons, more correctly it is its tracing"; 6) "The photograph proceeds ... to the taking of a veritable luminous impression in light - to a mold. As such it carries with it more than mere resemblance, namely a kind of identity ..."; 7) "The cinema ... makes an imprint of the duration of the object." The words Bazin uses are essentially synonyms: decal, transfer, fingerprint, tracing, mold, imprint" Totaro (2003) http://www.horschamp.qc.ca/new_offscreen/bazin_intro.html Cinema is perhaps becoming the best means of expression that could reach across cultures, languages and barriers. Naturally it is also becoming a serious field of research and conceptualisation and theorisation of cinema has become yet another full-fledged potentially growing study area. In the forward of 2004 edition of What is Cinema, Dudley Andrew, introducing Bazin's theories,- says: "This timeless Bazin, reduced over the simmering flame of debate to a key set of principles, attitudes, and predilections, has served those who would use or abuse him to flavour their own recipes for the cinema," Bazin (1967, p.xi). Basin's vocabulary is considered to be closer to that of Jean Paul Satre, leaning more on words like 'freedom', 'authenticity' and 'fate.' (Naremore, 1998, p.25). In Ontology of the Photographic image and Myth of total Cinema, he comes very close to Satre, especially if his work is compared with Satre's essay Essentialism and Humanism. Bazin's claim that Cinema's "existence precedes its essence" has become one of the main phrases in film theory. Bazin belongs to the 'cult of the Auteur' and unlike any other theorist, his theory is adored as very close to reality, human nature, philosophy, society, human feelings etc. Bazin was a lover of animals and was an extremely generous man throughout his short life. It is mainly due to him, that cinema is at last being recognised as scholar material. Hue Gray says: "Today at last, due in no small part to Andre Bazin, the cinema is being widely recognized as a serious and important field of study. Bazin looked at cinema as an art of reality in less philosophical terms" (Introduction). Bazin remained the theorist who gave more importance to realism than anything else. He did not use un-understandable words to present his theories. Compared to others, he wrote in much simpler way, so that it could directly affect the cinema and viewers of his days. For him both human psychology and aesthetic in life and society were important. He thought of cinema as an art form that imbibes both these qualities. Bazin's approach was more creative and he appreciated the pure art forms. Even though cinema cannot exist without the help of ongoing technological developments, Bazin thought that, technology or no technology, without the presence of artistic human mind, technological developments are of no use in producing art and cinema. In his Ontology of photographic image he says: "The Quarrel over realism in art stems from misunderstanding from a confusion between the aesthetic and the psychological; between true realism, the need that is to give significant expression to the world both concretely and in its essence, and the pseudo realism of a deception aimed at fooling the eye (or for that matter, the mind); a pseudo realism content in other words with illusory appearances," Bazin (1960, p.7). Another speciality of Bazin is his closeness to nature. For him all arts stemmed out of nature and if any art is segregated from nature, it is no art at all and this includes cinema too. Bazin argued that 'film was not an art in contrast to nature, but an art of nature'. He thought that nature was very important in human life and without nature there cannot be any art form. Art that is far removed from nature does not have a meaning, least of all, cinema. Eisenstein did not attach so much importance to nature or to the gentle growth of human art form culminating into cinema. For him, technology was more important than the aesthetic art forms. His theory about reality is very different from that of Bazin's. Aesthetic in life, society, and culture was important to him and as cinema is one of the versions of reality reflection, naturally it has to be aesthetic. Bazin thought that the dialogue and montage were incompatible; but unlike Eisenstein, he thought silence and montage had taken the film away from the proper path and the dialogue has returned it to where it should be going. This is very different from the argument of Eisenstein, who did not appreciate the sound, but appreciated the silent cinema of earlier days. For Bazin, sound was like another revelation. As he longed for reality in its perfect sense, and as nature and outside world has sound in it, as language is the best form of communication and human society could not be devoid of it, Bazin welcomed the sound in cinema, which, according to him, restored the complete, artistic and realistic form of the cinema for which he was craving. He was not particularly in favour of montage theory, because he thought that these theories do not combine all the silent films. According to him the film's effect and meaning are already existing in the visual images. He did not agree with the insistence of word and shot. He was also not happy with their rejection of sound as one of the source material of the meaning of a film. For him sound is very important to give a rounder meaning for the cinematic image. Basin argued that German expressionism and Russian symbolism are relegated into the background by the 1940s and a totally new form was taking shape depending on the analytic editing, dramatic techniques, and advancement of technology that allowed shots to mix in whichever way they wanted. He thought the new technique of shot/reverse was a major discovery in changing the cinema in a revolutionary way. For Eisenstein Russian symbolism remained important even after he shifted out of Russia and came to Hollywood. He also argued that shot-in-depth and the synchronous sounds both are great steps towards advanced cinematic language. Unlike Eisenstein, he thought the new cinema is capable of showing far greater reality than the old version. He felt that viewer will be more engrossed and become an integral part of the ongoing cinema with the new reality. His mental attitude will be much more receptive and he will interpret the images better now. As the outside world is full of sound, the viewer will find it extremely strange that the cinema, which is supposed to reflect the reality of the outside world, does not have such a sound and hence, the degree of reality is totally brought down there. When the sound came into the cinema, he said the viewer will be closer to it, because at last the cinema is reflecting the real life in every way. Some critics said Bazin's composition-in-depth is one kind of long take, where the camera pauses before the scene rich with 'interpretive possibilities'. The 'geological movement' of the cinematic language and the neo-realism depending on the 'vast stirring of the geological bed of the cinema' were important. But he also argued that there is a more fundamental causal factor in the shape of improvement in cinematography. He said that there is a change in human conscience due to the hardships and tragedies of war, mass brutality, inhuman killings, totalitarianism, and fascism. "Basin argued that this traumatic experience resulted in a renewed demand for freedom, and it was this, which, in turn, triggered the evolution in the language of cinema which occurred between 1938 and 1950," Aitken (2001, p.191). It is not right to say that Bazin kept himself unaffected by montage. Bazin did appreciate the greatness of montage; but unlike Eisenstein, he was not absolutely stunned or overwhelmed by it. He stated: "It would obviously be absurd to deny that montage has added considerably to the progress of film language; but this has happened at the cost of other values, no less definitely cinematic," (p.35). He acknowledged the virtues of montage; but along with its limitations. He also said "..to restore reality to a recital of events it is sufficient if one of the shorts, suitably chosen, brings together those elements previously separated off by montage," (p.51). He felt that there must have been a total evolution in the attitude of the viewers because in the initial days, the reconstruction of actual events was accepted by the general public. "If the paradox of the cinema is rooted in the dialectic of concrete and abstract, if cinema is committed to communicate only by way of what is real, it becomes all the more important to discern those elements in filming which confirm our sense of natural reality and those which destroy that feeling. On the other hand, it certainly argues a lack of perception to derive one's sense of reality from these accumulations of factual detail," (p.110). "With an emphasis on the image as mimesis, Bazin contributes the notion of 'camera obscura', claiming that the origins of cinema are located in photography, which determines *a priori* the subservience of film discourse to the laws of photographic realism. Bazin focuses on the importance of an illusion of unbroken space, as well as on a coherent and complete composition within the frame" Manning (1998). He wanted a cinema of absolute truth whose success depended on a director's 'finely tuned, disinterested observation' He had immense faith in the ability of audience to understand the scenes and draw intelligent conclusions. He never underestimated the audience and never thought that cinema could trick its audience into believing something un-aesthetic, unnatural or less creative. "The combination of authorial imprint with respect for the audience's ability to draw its own conclusions is Bazin's legacy. His stylistic ideals still make themselves felt in the work of Scorsese and other auteur directors" http://www.artandculture.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/ACLive.woa/wa/artistid=1291 EISENSTEIN On the other hand, Eisenstein was more radical in his thoughts of cinema. Radical perhaps is not the right word, because in certain perspectives, he was entirely radical, and in others, he was a bit of a prude. He is the most prominent figure in the soviet cinema, who can influence even many future generations. A theorist by his own right, he started his career as a film director and later ventured into multiple layers of theories and practical in the cinema world. The cinematic form envisaged by him did not gel well with his government's social realism. His all-consuming conception of montage was way beyond the cinema of 1930s in any country. Here he stood apart from the other theorists of his time. His view of montage was a conflict between a shot and its successor shot and according to him each shot is individualistic with immense potential. He said each shot is a complete entity and it need not depend on another shot for complement its meaning or to add strength to it. "He sees each shot as having a kind of potential energy which can display itself in purely visual terms; the direction of its movements, the volume of its shapes, the intensity of its light, and so forth. This potential energy becomes kinetic when the first shot collides with the succeeding one," Braudy and Cohen (2004. p.2). He thought even the collision was important because it produced the violent rhythm that was part of the expression. He divided the shots against illumination, imagination, rhythm, size, movement, distance etc. These created combinations of dark and light, sad and happiness, slow and fast, big and small, fast and slow, close-ups and distant etc. respectively and he combined many more such combinations. Dialogue, dialect, linkage of shots, interactions, word play, expression, imagery, played extremely prominent roles in every shot distinguishing them from others. He took all these differences into consideration before deciding the category and these diversities became part of his theory. Like Bazin, he too took cinema as a whole while theorising. But while proceeding further into the cinematic theories, his approach was more clinical than that of Bazin's, because Bazin's approach could be termed as dreamy, visionary and idealistic. Eisenstein was more tuned to the silent era and could not adjust his thought processes to the synchronised dialogues. He was more used to the music and asynchronised sound effects. He thought dialogues were incompatible with the montage perfection. Explaining the dynamic effect of a picture, he says: "The eye follows the direction of an element. It retains a visual impression which then collides with the impression derived from following the direction of a second element. The conflict between these directions creates the dynamic effect in the apprehension of the whole," Eisenstein (Beyond the Shot) in Braudy (p.27). Coming from the communist background he had more of Marxist theory and language in his writings. "Only in films is there a purely bourgeois absence of economy. Not only in budget. But thoughtlessness. And not only in schedule. But a total illiteracy and neglect of all that which in the Soviet period, with Soviet hands, on Soviet materials, and by Soviet principles, has been brought into and created in film culture," Eisenstein in Leyda (1949, pp. 109-110). According to him the visual dramaturgy is the result of conflict in the cinema arena. "Formulation and investigation of the phenomenon of cinema as forms of conflict yield the first possibility of devising a homogeneous system of visual dramaturgy for all general and particular cases of the film problem," Eisenstein in Leyda (p.55). He is considered to be the foremost in the use of montage relying heavily on film editing and he developed the Soviet Montage theory. He also argued on "A dialectic Approach to Film Form," and said "Montage is an idea that arises from the collision of independent shots." Very few theorists, including Bazin, have given absolute importance to montage as Eisenstein. Most of his theories of cinema stem from his reliance on montage and its perfection. He relied on it so much that he did not tolerate any encroachment into it. Even the slightest disturbance to his montage was disliked by him and he never made any compromises on his montage theory. As technology changed, most cinema theorists came into terms with the new methods and new ideas; but Eisenstein refused to do so, and perhaps today, his montage theory is considered to be the purest and the most classical one in film history. He had definite ideas and theories about the sequential elements of various shots. Even though he gave plenty of importance to the shot on its own, he did not completely neglect the continuation of shots. He argued: "Each sequential element is perceived not next to the other, but on top of the other" and this concept is accepted by almost all the theorists, partially by some. His theory of montage in plain language is a discontinuity of many kinds of rules and accepted concepts. It does not respect the usual 180 degree rule, graphic qualities and discontinued and sometimes terminated, and the creation of unbelievable special matches takes place. It is not a comfortable theory, but a theory of conflict and collision. Initially his theory shocked many and there were difficulties in accepting them. His opinion was that the changes between two shots become visible and the movement does not flow easily and is full of 'temporal ellipses'. He gave more importance to individual shorts and less to its continuity. This was not very acceptable to others, who argued that the concept of continuity is the cinema. But it was not possible to put him or his theories down. Eisenstein had a quality of bouncing back and vigorously fighting for his beliefs. This man was absolutely passionate about his arguments, theories and concepts and there are many stories about the drama through which he made certain discoveries. "He would, it seems, be suddenly struck by an intuition and be driven to ransack history, economics, art history, psychology and anthropology and countless other fields in order to substantiate that intuition," Andrew (1976, p.43). Critics have always maintained that summarising his theories is a very difficult task, because his theories, unlike those of Bazin's are not smooth-flowing; instead they materialise in spurts, jolts, and disturbing convulsive movements. At the same time, all his theories are highly dramatic and easily they catch the attention of scholars and people. If Bazin's theories are calm, collected and patient, but brilliant, Eisenstein presented his theories in a loud way. His theories were definitely great, but they are born out of conflicts and collisions, and hence, they are slightly 'violent' theories. The movement in his theories is very fast. He might lack the depth of Bazin; but it is impossible to ignore him or his theories. First of all he started with the idea that the films of his time were singularly inefficient. His insight into the film world was through Kabuki theatre. He compared the montage with the seemingly disjointed phrases of Haiku poetry. The methods of Haiku are thoroughly convulsive, because importance has not been given to continuation of any kind, either in form, or phrases, or even thoughts. He discovers five methods of montage where insists on the mathematical metric montage and here every conflict depends upon the length of the shot. At the other extreme, he pointed out that intellectual montage exists where "meaning is the result of a conscious leape by the spectacular between two terms of a visual metaphor or figure, (Andrew, p.52). He wrote many papers. He claims that conflict could be rhythmical, tonal or even overtonal. According to him, each depends on the conflict that exists between the particular shot's graphic elements. He argued that our minds analyse it either according to the conflict in the shot or through the similarity of attractions. In whichever way it is done, it results in total unity in our inner minds, because the inner minds change them into a connectivity unit and all the attractions and stimulations existing in the shot achieve a far greater significance through rhythm, tone, metaphor and overtone. His "Statement on Sound" is still considered to be height of adaptability of his montage theory. In a way he fused realistic and anti-realistic theories here with his ideas about film's raw material and montage construction. He was not comfortable about the sound and thought it was an outsider in the entire unity. "To use sound this way, it may well destroy the culture of montage, for every adhesion of sound to a visual piece increases its inertial in as a montage piece and increases the independence of its meaning - and this will undoubtedly be to the detriment of montage operating in the first place not on the montage pieces but on their juxtaposition," He is the supporter of Part-whole film theory, whereas Bazin was the supporter of theories of relation to the real. Theories belonging to these two had been the most influential of all the film theories. "However, Eisenstein did not abandon such avant-gardism under the pressure of socialist realist orthodoxy; but because he became intellectually committed to finding his own symbolist approach to socialist realism. Thus he developed a form of symbolist realism based on dialectical leap, the ecstasy of imagism, and an almost Hegelian belief that, through film, a union with the absolute could be achieved," Aitken (2001, p.44). There is no doubt that he was wildly talented, and the best film brain Russia has ever produced. He did not go well with the Russian administration of the day, who thought he was brash and too loud for a communist society; but even they acknowledged his talents. To a large extent, he was bound by the Western Marxist theories of film analysis. In today's film culture much of his theory of montage is questioned and its relevance in the mainstay culture has been marvelled it. All the theorists of today confirm that this is a stunning revelation. His work now sometimes gets referred as two distinct phases of 'Montage of attractions' and then, 'Fused structure of contrapuntal currents' or synaesthesia (Einstein, 1987, pp. 386-396). "Einstein maintained that artistic syntax was dependent on two instinctive human principles: that of hunting (plot as pursuit) and that of basket-weaving (interweaving)", p.70). He thought that unedited versions are mere mechanical reproductions of reality and lack authenticity and imagination. Listing the uses of metric montage, he says: "Metric montage lies between its two extremes of simplicity and complexity: alternating two varying piece-lengths according to two kinds of content within the pieces," Eisenstein in Leyda (1977, p.73). "Photography is a system of reproduction to fix real events and elements of actuality. These reproduction or photoreflections, may be combined in various ways," he said (Film Form, p.3). Both argued about real in different ways. While Bazin does not take the real beyond its realm, Eisenstein does. "The real is the starting point for both Eisenstein and Bazin. One of the principal differences between them is that Eisenstein goes beyond the real, and cinema's relation to it, and that Bazin does not. It is obviously of primary importance to determine what each meant by the real: since this term is the theoretical foundation for each, it determines in some degree everything that comes after it," Henderson (1971). CONCLUSION Many more theorists came in the field later and keep coming. But these two remained as the best theorists who were conversant with every aspect of cinema. There were many differences between their theories; actually more differences than agreements; still both thought that film was a language. Eisenstein's concern mainly was between parts and cinematic wholes, while Bazin was preoccupied with the relationship of cinema with the reality. Both of them were the best and the most complete. One was the supporter of Part-whole film theory, whereas Bazin was the supporter of theories of relation to the real. Theories belonging to these two had been the most influential of all the film theories. "Theirs are also the theories closest to actual films and based on fullest knowledge of cinema history. Closeness to subject does not guarantee a good theory; in the case of Eisenstein and Bazin however it insured that the theoretical concern of each were nearly always those of cinema itself," Nichols (1985, p.390). In his own life, Eisenstein is presumed to have had two distinctly different phases, according to some writers. "In the interval, Eisenstein remained highly creative and active, but a combination of internal searching and governmental opposition, and simple bad luck kept him from finishing any of the numerous projects that he began. Another Einstein begins emerge during this time, as he seeks to articulate his artistic vision within changed circumstances," La Valley (2001, p. 3). In a way, his entire life was dedicated to the cinema in one way or the other. Bazin had a film journal, where he started writing about his theories, so well thought-out; but initially his theories went unappreciated. Even in real life, looks and the way they lived, there was hardly any resemblance. There of course exists a similarity: both died young and at the height of their power and strength. Today, film study has become a major field, thanks to theorists like them. Both the theories are relevant even now. Eisenstein had his own arguments against Bazin's auteuric theories. If we reassess their similarities and dissimilarities, it is not surprising they have many. Still in a way, they were similar to one another, because both cared for the film as an important art, perhaps the best of the kind. Through their theories, cinema attained a particularly scholar-oriented place. Fit enough to gain scholar and research attentions. Both came to the cinematic field around the Second World War and are imbibed with the thought of freedom, democracy and fraternity. Every problem and theory was accessed from this angle. Both the theories have a liberated air in them. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Andrew, Dudley (1976), The Major Film Theories, an Introduction, Oxford University Press, London. 2. Aitken, Ian (2001), European Film Theory and Cinema, A Critical Introduction, Edinburgh University press. 3. Antoinne-Dunne, Jean and Quigley, Paula (2004), The Montage Principle, Einstein in new Culture and Critical Contexts, Rodopi, Amsterdam. 4. Bazin, Andre (1967), What is Cinema California University Press. 5. Bazin, Andre, 'The Ontology of the Photographic Image', Film Quarterly, Vol. 13, No. 4. (Summer, 1960), pp. 4-9. 6. Braudy, Leo and Cohen, Marhall (2004), Film Theory and Criticism, Oxford University Press. 7. Carroll, Noel (1996), Theorizing the Moving Image, Cambridge University Press. 8. Henderson, Brian, 'Two types of Film Theory', Film Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 3. (Spring, 1971), pp. 33-42. 9. 10. Leyda, Jay (1949), Sergei Elsenstein, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers, San Diego. 11. La Valley, Albert and Scherr, Barry (2001), Eisenstein at 100: A Reconsideration, New Brunswick, Rutgers University Press. 12. Manning, Erin, 'A Critical Ellipsis: Spacing as an alternative to criticism', Film-Philosophy, vol. 2 no. 17, July 1998 13. Nichols, Bill (1985), Movies and Methods, University of California Press. ONLINE SOURCES: 1. Prakash Younger (2003), http://www.horschamp.qc.ca/new_offscreen/bazin_ontology.html 2. http://www.horschamp.qc.ca/new_offscreen/bazin_intro.html 3. http://www.artandculture.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/ACLive.woa/wa/artistid=1291 4. http://www.artandculture.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/ACLive.woa/wa/artistid=1291 5. Read More