65

The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)
Page 2: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

RUSSIANPOETICSINTRANSLATION

Volume9:ThePoeticsofCinema

Page 3: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

RussianPoeticsinTranslationisaseriesdesignedtobringtotheEnglishspeakingreaderthebestofrecentRussianworkinthefieldofsemiotics,structuralismandliterarytheoryaswellasclassicsofRussianFormalism.

GENERALEDITORAnnShukman, OldSchool House, Somerton, OxfordOX54NEEDITORIALBOARD:LeonBurnett(Essex)PeterFrance(Edinburgh)

TerenceHawkes(Cardiff)L.M.O'Toole(Murdoch)ChrisPike(Keele)

Enqu i r i e s abou t th i s ed i t i on to : L .o too le@murdoch .edu . au o r Ann .Shukman@vi rg in .ne tThepictureonthefrontcoveris'ArchitectonicComposition(1920-21)'byKliun(IvanKliunkov)

Page 4: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

THEPOETICSOFCINEMA

e d i t e d b yB.M.EIKHENBAUM

withaPrefacebyK.SHUTKO

MOSCOWKINOPECHAT'LENINGRADKinoIzdatel'stvoRSFSR

Page 5: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

CONTENTSPREFACEK.SHUTKOTranslatedbyRichardTaylorPROBLEMSOFCINE-STYLISTICSB.EIKHENBAUMTranslatedbyRichardSherwoodTHEFUNDAMENTALSOFCINEMAYURYTYNYANOVTranslatedbyL.M.O'TooleTHENATUREOFCINEMAB.KAZANSKYTranslatedbyJoeAndrewPOETRYANDPROSEINTHECINEMAV.SHKLOVSKYTranslatedbyRichardTaylorTOWARDSATHEORYOFFILMGENRESA.PIOTROVSKYTranslatedbyRichardTaylor

THECAMERAMAN'SPARTINMAKINGAFILME.MIKHAILOVANDA.MOSKVINTranslatedbyAnnShukman

Page 6: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

EDITOR'SINTRODUCTION

This is thesecondvolumeofRPTtobedevoted tofilm.Thefirst (Volume8),published in1981,wascomposedofcontemporaryarticlesbyVyacheslavIvanov,YuriLotmanandAlexanderZholkovskyonthegeneralsemioticsofcinemaasanartform.Theeditorsof that first volume, Ann Shukman andL.M. O'Toole, suggested in their introduction that those articles showed that 'the earlytheorisingandteachingofEisensteinandDzigaVertovstillhasaseminalcontributiontomakeincontemporaryfilmmakingandcriticism'.

We did initially consider constituting a second volume of texts by Eisenstein and Vertov. But, although many of their mostimportant texts arenoteasilyavailable, theyaremoreeasilyavailable (at least in thecaseofEisenstein) than thewritingsof theirequallyillustriouscontemporaries.WethereforedecidedtotranslatePoetikakino(ThePoeticsofCinema),which is arguablytheFormalistcontributiontotheliteratureontheaestheticsoffilm.The Poetics of Cinemawas 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 LeninLibrary,Moscow.ApartfromitssignificanceintheliteratureofFormalism,thecollectionhasawiderimportanceintheliteratureofcinema.It represents thefirstconcerted,andat leastrelativelycoherent,attempt tosuggest thespecificdefiningcharacteristicsoffilmasanartform.TheworkofDellucandMoussinacinFrance,andBalázsinAustriaandGermany,representthecontemporaryapproachesofindividualsratherthanthestatementsofaschool.InthissenseThePoeticsofCinemaechoesintheaestheticspherethe political importance of the first statement on film as a propaganda weapon,Cinema. A Collection ofEssays(KinematografSbornikstatei),publishedinPetrogradin1919.ThesetwocollectionsfurnishinsomewaysaframeworkforthepoliticalandaestheticdebatesthatsurroundedandengulfedtheSovietcinemainthe1920s.

I have chosen to limitmy editorial introduction to a few brief remarks. Ido this in the belief that the text should, as far aspossible,beallowedtospeakforitself.TothisendIhaveconcentratedmyobservationsintheexplanatorynotesgatheredattheendofthevolume.Itrustthatthereaderwillfindthemhelpful.IhavetriedtocaterbothforthosewhoseinterestsareprimarilyRussianandthosewhoseinterestsarecinematic.Ihopethatthereaderwillthereforeunderstandiftheoccasionalnoteappearstostatetheobvious.Ihaveusedthestandardformoftransliterationinthenotesandasimplifiedsystemforthegeneralreaderinthetextitself.

IshouldliketoexpressmygratitudetoAnnShukmanandL.M.O'Tooleforinvitingmetoserveasguesteditorforthisvolume.Ishould like to thankthem and the other translators, JoeAndrew andRichard Sherwood, fortheirpainstakingworkand theirefficient collaboration. They have all contributed towards making the editorial chores both lighter and more enjoyable. I amgrateful also toFrantisekGalan for allowingme to seesomeunpublishedtranslationsandpermittingmetoadoptsomeofhisturnsofphrase.

RICHARDTAYLOR

SwanseaFebruary1982

Richard Taylor is the author of The Politics of the Soviet Cinema, 1917- 1929 ,Cambridge University Press, 1979;FilmPropaganda: SovietRussia and Nazi Germany,Croom Helm, London, 1979. He is nowworking on a volume oftranslations,The Film Factory: Soviet Cinema in Documents, 1917-1936 to be published by Routledge Kegan Paul and HarvardUniversityPress.

Page 7: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

NOTESONTHEAUTHORSBoris Mikhailovich

EIKHENBAUM(alsoEichenbaum)(1886-1959),theeditorandauthoroftheessayon'Problemsofcine-Stylistics'wasoneoftheleadingFormalisttheoristsandcritics.HelecturedatLeningradUniversityandInstitutefortheHistoryoftheArtsandwasa principalmember of OPOYAZ, the Society for the Study of Poetic Language. Hismany books covered thewhole history ofRussianliteraturefromDerzhavinandPushkintoAkhmatovabutheconcernedhimselfprimarilywiththestructureandcompositionoftheirworkratherthanwithahistorical-biographicalapproach.SeealsoRPT,4,pp.2-3.

EvgenyMIKHAILOVwasassistantcameramantoAndreiMoskvinonTheOvercoat(1926).

AndreiNikolaevichMOSKVIN(1901-1961),co-authorofthefinalessay,wasoneoftheSovietUnion'sleadingcameramen.HebeganworkwiththeFEKS(FactoryoftheEccentricActor)groupinLeningrad,ledbyGrigoriKozintsevandLeonidTrauberg.WiththemhemadeTheBigWheel,TheOvercoat,LittleBrother(a111926),S.V.D.(1927),NewBabylon(1929),Alone(1931),TheYouthofMaxim(1937)andTheVyborgSide(1938).HewasresponsiblefortheinteriorshotsinbothpartsofEisenstein'sIvantheTerrible(1943-5).HereturnedtoworkwithKozintsevonDonQuixote(1957)andhislastfilmwasIosifKheifits'sTheLadywiththeLittleDog(1960).

Adrian IvanovichPIOTROVSKY (1898-1938), author of the essay'TowardsaTheoryofFilmGenres',wasafilmcritic,theorist,authorandplaywrightHewroteanumberoffilmscripts, includingthatforTheBigWheel,andfrom1928 to1937wasArtisticDirectoroftheLenfilmStudioinLeningrad.AmongthefilmsproducedunderhisaegiswereCounterplan(1932),Chapayev(1934),PeterI(1937)andtheMaximfilmsmentionedabove.HewrotetheintroductiontotheRussiantranslationofBalazs'sDersichtbareMenschoderdieKulturdesFilmsin1925,buthismostimportantworkwasprobablyTheArtisticCurrentsinSovietCinema(Leningrad,1930).

ViktorBorisovich SHKLOVSKY (b. 1893), author of Poetry andProse inCinema' is one of themost prolificRussian authors,critics,scriptwritersandtheorists.HisearlyworksoncinemaincludeLiteratureandCinemaandChaplin(both1923),ThirdFactoryandA Journey into the Land of Film (both 1926), numerous essays on Eisenstein, Vertov, FEKS, Abram Room, AlexandraKhokhlova,twovolumesofmemoirs—ForFortyYears(1965) andThey Lived—TheyWere(1966) and amonographonEisenstein (1973). Shklovsky played an active part in the Soviet filmindustry andwrote the scripts forBy theLaw(1926),BedandSofaandTheHouse on Trubnaya(both 1927) among other films.HisThirdFactoryandMayakovskyandHisCircleareavailableinEnglish.SeealsoRPT,4,pp.6-7.

YuriNikolaevichTYNYANOV(1894-1943),authorofthepieceon‘TheFundamentalsofCinema'wasaleadingFormalistwriterandtheoristInadditiontonumerousstudiesofliteraturehewroteonproblemsoflinguisticstructureandvocabulary,producingananalysisofLenin'soratoryin1924.Hewroteanumberoffilmscripts,includingTheOvercoat(1926)andS.V.D.(1927)forFEKS,andLieutenantKije(1934).SeealsoRPT,4,pp.9-10.

IhavebeenunabletotraceanybiographicaldetailsofBorisV.KazanskyorKirillI.Shutko.R.T.

Page 8: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

PREFACE

KirillShutko

translatedbyRichardTaylor

Thearticlespresentedinthiscollectionposeanumberofquestionsthat,takentogether,shouldbringusnearertoresolvingor,attheveryleast,postulatingasinglebasicquestion:whatkindoffilmsshouldbeshownnowadays?Hencethetitleofthecollection,ThePoeticsofCinema,isnarrowerthantherangeofproblemsposedinit.Thisresultsnotjustfromthemodestywithwhichtheauthorsofthearticlesapproachtheirtaskbutalsofromthefactthatanyonewhosetsouttoexamineproperlytheessenceofcinemapassesbeyond the limits of the text and enters the field of very complex questionswhich, at first glance, seem to have a very tenuousrelationshipwiththephenomenaofcinema.

Clearly,whenyouareexamininga largeissue,youcan limityourself tooneorotherof itscomponentpartsbut, ifyouare toachieveevenminimalresultsfromthislimitedarea,youmuststillsubsumethepartintothewhole.

Ifyoustudycinemayoucansetout todemonstrate:whatare thecharacteristics thatconstitute thenatureof thefilmproduct,whatareitsforms(genres),whatdoescinemastyleconsistin,etc.,but,whenyoulookateachfactorseparately,youmustbearinmindthewholeparticularconcreteconnectionbetweentheelementsofcinemaperception.

DoweinSovietRussia,wherefilmproductionisonlyjusttakingitsfirststeps,needtowasteoureffortsnowontheorising,onphilosophisingaboutfilms? Is thisnotapointlessoccupation? Is itnot toosoon to try tocreateatheory of factwhen there isobviously a shortage of facts? These arelegitimate questions but, with all their practicality, they are very impractical,idlegrumbles.

Itispreciselynow,whilethetraditionsofthetastesandlawsofSovietfilmshavestilltobeestablished,thatwemustarmourselveswiththecorrecttheoreticalarsenalsothatwecanmoreeasilyandmoreproductivelyembarkuponproducingthefilmthatweneed.

Let us admit that the views expounded in this collection are limited and narrow but, if we are to fix even these negativeadmissions,wemustreflectontheessenceofcinema,itslaws,itsstyle,etc.

WemustdothisnotmerelybecauseofBorisEikhenbaum'sviewthat'theperiodwhenthesocio-economicsignificanceofcinemawasontheincreaseisalreadypassingintohistory',butbecausethesocio-economicsignificanceofcinemaisgrowingasneverbefore;from a technical invention or an individual skill cinema is being transformed into a powerful economicevent, closelyconnectedwiththewholesocio-economicsystemofcontemporarysociety.

Theassertionthatcinemaisonlynowbeingfavouredwithrecognitionbypoetsandresearchersisperhapsonlycorrectasfarasthehigh priests of art are concerned. Their magnanimous amnesty for this lowbrow spectacle hascome only now, but the wholetempestuousdevelopmentofcinemaoverthelastdecadeandahalfatteststotheceaselessorganisationalactivityofthosewhoactuallyproducethefilms.

Wemustbemorecarefulandmorecircumspectinourattitudetowardstheinterestincinemaexpressedrecentlybythetraditionalrepresentativesof the old and highly experienced arts, for this interest is rarely of anunselfishcharacter.At the1stParisInternationalCongressofCinema-Ownersin1912anunsophisticatedtheoryoffilmplotconstructionwasproclaimed:'theplotsofpicturesmust be constructed so that they arouse inthe masses the emotions of beauty, generosity, truth and good, andconstantlyremindthemoftheircivicduties(Cine-Phonojournal,1912).Itneeded thereleaseof7,000Americanfilmsforthis'formal'directivetobeexpoundedintheformofinflatedtheoreticallecturesinthespecialisedfilmfacultiesofAmericanuniversities.

Warningagainstthiskindofscholasticism,AdrianPiotrovsky,whenheconstructshistheory(supposedlyspecificallycinematic)of the so-called 'happy' ending in theordinarycontemporaryAmerican film,doesnot take intoaccount suchbitsof ‘theoretical'dogmaasAdolphZukor's'declarationthat'hisdreamistoprovidethepeopleofthewholeworldwithhealthydiversion...they(thepeoples)wanttolaugh,forlifeisnotalwayshappy...thatiswhythe"happyending"toafilmisaruleofourorganisation.'

Thisdeclaration,inthefullpovertyofitstheoreticalcontent,mustbeconsideredstraightawayinanyexaminationofthe'laws'ofthe contemporary film product. We must display a little less theoretical enthusiasm fordiscovering the cinematic laws ofcontemporaryfilmart,bearinginmindthat,accordingtoB.Geiss,'theneedtoproduce600filmsayearrequiresverymanycreativeforces.Theproductionworkerstrainthedirectorsandscriptwriters . . . theyattract experiencedwriters andteach themthetechniqueoffilmcomposition.'

For this reason it is sometimes amusing to read of the idle experiments ofcertain theorists who try to time such cinematicmasterpiecesasTheTobacco-GirlfromSevilleorTheSpanishDancerandwhodiscoveranamazingregularity:eachactlasts11-12minutes.Theirtheoreticalbrainsare already ticking over, a cinematurgic 'law' for the construction of asectionofafilmisreadytobeborn,butittranspiresthatthisisalltheresultofthemore-or-lessconstantlengthofeachreel,andnothingelse.

In our theoretical excursions into the secrets of contemporary cinema wemust not forget that film production is not adivinely inspired creativeprocess but the result of a finely calculated financial, economic and social reckoning that has beenachievedthroughthemostcomplextechnicalmethod.

Page 9: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

Thediploma'edfilmtheoristsoftheWestdonotconcealthis.Oneofthem,W.Bloem,writesthat'thetaskofthefilmmasterisandmustalwaysbetheidentificationofartwith"business"(Geschaft);anyonewhodoesnotrealisethisisanunwittingaccompliceafterthefactthatcinemaorganisationsareforcedtoproducemoney-spinningtriflesformassconsumption'.

In our Soviet conditions the need to combine artwithGeschaft is not so imperative but this can in no way justify theidealistic complacencyexpressed, for instance, in Eikhenbaum's proclamation of the hope that led him to study theoreticalquestions,thehopethat'theinsanecommercialsuccessofcinema,havingleftitsmarkonthewholehistoryofits"golden"youth,isalreadyontheeveofcrisis'.

Firstofallitisnotinfacttruethatcinemahada'golden'youth:thegoldisonlynowbeginningtoflow.Second,itispreciselythisdependenceofthecinemaongoldorofgoldonthecinemathatmustaffectthewayinwhichafilmisconstructed.

TosumupeverythingthatIhavesaid:itshouldbepossibletodiscerntheconditionsforafruitful practicaltheoreticisation,sotospeak,inthiskindofgeneralsense.

Postulating, or attempting to postulate, a number of questions relating tothe essence of film, isa necessary and urgent taskbecausethetheoreticalkitchenofthecontemporarybourgeoiscinemaisguidedbyappetitesthataretootransparentlyclass-basedandexploitativeforustodineseriouslyonthisdietinourownfilmwork.

Wemustexaminetheveryrootsofthenatureofthephenomenonofcinema,createdbythewholeofthepre-existingcinemaintheshapeofits'greatest'andbestproducers.Wemustexaminetheformalcategories(whichareoftenborrowed from,orimposedby,atraditionthathasabsolutelynorelationtothesubjectoffilm)incloseliaisonwithallthematerialthatgoesintotheconstructionofafilm.

Itwouldbebetternottoprovideourselveswithwhateverlawofcinematheremightbeforanotheryearbuttoimmerseourselvesmore deeply in thejungle of cinema, confronting it without a ready terminology that isfrequently alien to it ( all theauthors in the collection concede this), even ifwhat really has been examined anddiscovered in the filmworld is only roughlydefinedforus.

Itisthenperhapsthatthesepseudo-definitions,'poetryandproseincinema',thelawsofplotconstruction,thesemanticnatureoffilm,willbecome intelligible and therewill be a clarificationof theapparent contradiction between the definition of filmgenres as mere artisticphenomena and the actual exclusion from these definitions of every trace ofcontemporary works ofcinema(inPiotrovsky,inasfarasheismovingtowardsapositionwhereitisonlythegenresthatarestillbeingopenedupintheSovietcinema thatderive from thevery fundamentalsofcinema). Itwill,perhaps, emerge that thevery 'fundamentalsofcinema' arenotgiven,butmaybecreatedfromscratch,bothbythepresenceofthetasksthatareentrustedtoitandbytheattractionoftheresourcesfor their fulfilment. Then it will be possible to define more clearly and intelligibly the nature ofthe compromise in BattleshipPotemkin2andwhythelong-standinggenreof the newsreelmay inASixthPartof theWorld3be perceived as art.Lastly,itwillperhapsbecomeclearthattosqueezecinemaintotheconceptsolelyofartisanactivitythatwill,bylogicalextension,leadtothepointwhereViktorShlovskybeginshis articleonprose andpoetry.Perhaps itwilltranspire that, to create cinema,weneednot a'poetic' but an all-embracing militant theoretical system that will ruthlessly and precisely eradicate frompractical use all thegarbageofscholasticformalism.Withthiskindoftheoryoffilmworkitwillbepossibletoovercomeandtoorganiseeverythingthatcanbesubjectedtothefilmcamera, thestrictestperformerofaspecificsocial task.Thetheoreticalessaysinthiscollectionshouldberegardedasacalltotheoreticalworkinthefieldofcinema.

Page 10: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

PROBLEMSOFCINE-STYLISTICS

BorisEikhenbaum

translatedbyRichardSherwood

1

Artsassuch,asnaturalphenomena,donotexist—whatdoesexistisaneedforartinherentinman.Thisneedissatisfiedinvariousways—indifferentages,differentpeoples,differentcultures.Theseparateelementsofnaturewhichplayaroleintheconstructionofhumanlifeareisolated,andwhenexposedtoaparticularculturetheybecomethebasisofthisorthatart.Asmaterialforarttheseelementsmust possess certain qualities or 'capacities',and exist within certain particular relationships to life. These relationshipschange—theactualformsofartchangeaswellastheactualarrangementoftheseforms.

Cinemadidnotbecomean art straight away. In thehistoryof cinema twofeaturesmust bedistinguished: the inventionof themovie-camera which made possible the reproduction of movement on the screen, and the use of this camera to transformphotographicfilmintocine-film.Inthefirststagecinemawasjustacamera,amechanism;intheseconditbecameaspecialsortofinstrument in the hands of the cameraman anddirector.Neither of these of course occurred by chance.The first appeared as anaturalconsequenceoftechnicalimprovementsinthesphereofphotography;thesecondwasanaturalandinevitableconsequenceofnewartisticrequirements.Thefirstrelatestothesphereofinventions,whichevolvethroughtheirownlogicalrules;thesecondcanberelatedmoretothecategoryofdiscoveries:itwasdiscoveredthatthemovie-cameracouldbeexploitedtoorganiseanewart—andjustthatverytypeofartforwhichaneedhadlongsincebeenfelt.

Theinventorsofthemovie-cameracouldscarcelyhaverealisedthattheywerecreatingconditionsfortheorganisationofanewart.Itissymptomaticthatabout20yearspassedbeforeitwasrealisedthatcine-technicscouldbethetechnicsofcine-art.Intheearlyyearsinterestwasconcentratedontheactualillusionofmovement.Cinemawasperceivedasatechnicaltrickandwentnofurtherthantheprincipleofmovingphotography.Therewasnoquestionofscenariosormontage.Until1897theydidnoteventhinkofsplicingbitsoffilmtogether.Thetechnicalperfectionofthecameraassuchheldthecentreofattention.

Thecine-film,nomorethan17metresinlength,wasusedtoproducesomesinglesceneorother, likeLaSortiedesUsinesbyLumiere4.Foralongtimeastapleplaceinthecine-repertoirewastakenupby'travelfilms'—filmslikemovingpostcards.Thiswasthe initial stage of scenes and landscapes from life (which established, by the way, the photogenic qualityof water). Quicklyfollowingontheseoriginalgenreswerethecomedyfilmswhichplayedagreatpartintherealisationofcinemaasart:thankstotheveryessenceofcomedythesefilmsmadedowithoutcomplicatedmotivationsandinterweavingsofplot,workedonmaterialfromeverydaylife,andinadditioncreatedthefirstfoundationsforthecine-tricksofthefutureandestablishedawholeseriesoftypicalpatternsneededforacine-grammar.Buttheprincipleofmovingphotographywasstillfirstandforemost.

Theinventionofthemovie-camera,properlyspeaking,breathednewlifeintothesphereofphotographyproper,whichhaduptillthen been very restricted. The usual sort of photograph, despite all its tendencies to become 'artistic', could not assume anindependentplaceamongtheartsinasmuchasitwasstatic,andthereforemerely‘depictive'.Incontrasttodrawing,whichallowstheartistenoughfreedomtobring intobeinghisvariousconceptions,photography,naturally,provedtobesomethingsecondary,purelytechnical,with none of the qualities of 'style'. It thereforemost definitely entered general use in everyday life, and had no otherprospectsbefore it.Themovie- camera dynamised the snapshot, transformed it from an enclosed, static unitinto a filmshot—anendlesspartofamovingstream.Thereby,forthefirsttimeinhistory,anartwhichwas‘depictive'byitsverynaturebecameabletoevolveintimeandprovedtobebeyondanycomparison,classificationoranalogy.Whileassociatingitselfinitsvariouselementswiththeatre,withdrawing,withmusic,andwithliterature, italsoappearedassomethingcompletelynew.Themechanicalresourcesofphotography(chiaroscuro,shotsoutoffocus,printsizesandsoon)tookonanewsignificancewhentheybecametheresourcesofaspecial cine-language. Together with the development of cine-technics and with the realisation of the various possibilities ofmontagearosethatdifferentiationbetweenmaterialandconstructionwhichisnecessaryandcharacteristicforall typesofart.Inotherwords,theproblemofformhadappeared.

Faced with cinema the sphere of simple photography became finally defined as having an elementary, everyday, appliedfunction.Therelationshipbetweenthephotographandcinemaisratherliketherelationshipbetweenpracticalandpoeticlanguage.Themovie-cameraallowedthediscoveryandexploitationofcertaineffectswhichsimplephotographycouldnotandwouldnot evenbegintoutilise.Theproblemof'photogenicquality'arose(LouisDelluc),thechiefsignificanceofwhichlayinthatitbroughtintothesphereofcinematheprincipleofthechoiceofmaterialaccordingtospecificsigns.

Artlivesbybeingabstractedfromeverydayuseinthatithasnopracticalapplication.Theautomatismofeverydayusageofwords

Page 11: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

leavesmassesofphonic,semanticandsyntacticshadingsquiteunexploited—butthesefindtheirplaceintheartofliterature(ViktorShklovsky).Thedanceisbuiltonmovementswhichhavenopartinaperson'snormalgait.Ifartdoesemployeverydaythingsthenitisasmaterial—withtheaimofpresentingitinanunexpectedinterpretationordisplacedform,inanemphaticallydeformedshape(agrotesque).Fromthiscomestheunfailing‘conventionality'ofart,whicheventhemostextremeandconsistent'naturalists'cannotovercome,solongastheyremainartists.

Theprimarynatureofartisaneedforthedischargingofthoseenergiesofthehumanorganismwhichareexcluded fromorfindonlypartialapplicationineverydayuse.Thisisalsothebiologicalbasisofart,whichimpartstoittheforceofavitalneedseeking fulfilment. This basis, which isessentially 'play' and is unconnectedwith precisely expressed 'meaning', is embodied inthose'trans-sense",end-in-itselftendencieswhichshinethroughineveryartandaretheorganicfermentforart.Byexploitingthisfermenttotransformitinto'expressiveness'artbecomesorganizedasasocialphenomenon,asaspecialsortof'language'.Theseend-in-itselftendenciesareoftenlaidbareandbecomeasloganforrevolution—thentheystarttalkingabout'trans-sensepoetry',absolutemusic'andsoon.Aconstantlackofconvergencebetween'trans-sense'and'language'—thisistheinternalantinomyofartwhichdirectsitsevolution.

Cinemabecameanartwhenthesignificanceofthesetwofeaturesinitwasdetermined.Photogeny6is indeed the 'trans-sense'essenceofcinema,andisanalogousinthissensetothe'trans-sense'ofmusical,verbal,pictorial,motiveandotherarts.Weobserveitonthescreenoutsideanyconnectionwithplot—infaces,objects,alandscape.Weseethingsafresh,andperceivethemasunfamiliar things.Dellucremarks: 'Alocomotive,anoceanliner,anaeroplane,arailwayarebytheverynatureof theirstructurephotogenic.Everytimethatshotsof"cine-actuality"runonthescreen,showingusthemovementofafleetoraship,thespectatorexclaimswithdelight"Itis,ofcourse,notaquestionoftheactualstructure'oftheobjectbutofitspresentationonthescreen.Anyobject 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,longshotsandotherelementswhicharethebasisofcine-stylistics.

2

Demandforanewmassarthaslongbeenevident—anartwhoseactualartisticmethodsshouldbeaccessibletothe'masses',andinparticulartheurbanmasseswhohaveno ‘folklore'of theirown.Thisnewart,beingdirected towards themasses, hadto appear as a new 'primitive' inrevolutionaryopposition to the refinedformsofolderartsexisting inisolation.This'primitivism'couldbecreatedthroughaninventionwhich,bybringingtotheforeanewartisticelementandmakingitaconstructivedominant'wouldmakepossibleaspecialformofmerging(syncretisation)oftheseparatearts.

Theevolutionofart,iftakenassomethingindivisible,isexpressedinconstantfluctuationsbetweenisolation(differentiation)andmerging.Everyseparateartexistsanddevelopsinamilieuofotherarts—bothasaparticularaspectandasavarietyofforms.Invariousagesthisorthatartstrivestobecomeamassartandisinspiredbytheurgeofsyncretism,tryingtoabsorbwithinitselfotherarts. Differentiation and syncretisation are constant and equally significant processes in the history of the arts, and theyevolverelatively toeachother.Syncretic formsarebynomeans thepropertyoftheartofsavagesorof'thepeople'alone,aswasformerly believed; the tendency to construct these forms is a constant fact of art culture. Themusical dramas ofWagner or thesymphonicdancesoftheinnovatorsinballetareseparatemanifestationsofthesyncretictendenciesofthenewage.Thesemusicaleffortsdidnothaveenoughofthatspiritofrevolutionary'primitivism'necessaryforanewformtoacquirethesignificanceofamassartwhichputsitselfinoppositiontootherartsbytheverybreadthofitsinfluence.Thegeneralcrisisofculture,whichinmanywaysisbringingusbacktotheprinciplesoftheearlymiddleages,hasbroughtforwardadecisivedemand—ademandforthecreationofa new art, free from traditions, primitive in its 'linguistic' (semantic) methods andwith immense possible influence on themasses.Likethe'technicism',underwhoseimprintthecultureofouragelives,thisarthadtobebornfromthewomboftechnology.

Initsinitialstagecinemaappearedaspreciselythissortofart.Itistypicalthatinitsfirstyearsofexistence(perhapsrightuptotheFirstWorldWar)cinemawasjudgedtobeavulgar,'low'art,usefulonlyforthemasses.Itgaineditsfirstfootholdsintheprovincesandinsuburbanareas.Theintellectualwhohadbeenenticedbytheadvertisementsandhaddroppedinatacinemawouldfeeluneasyatmeetinganotherintellectualthere:Soyouwereluredintoo?'wasthethoughtofbothofthem.WhocouldthenhavethoughtthatthegreathalloftheLeningradConservatorywouldbeusedasacinema?Thisistheusualsortofpictureintheevolutionoftheartsandoftheseparategenres.

Bycontrastwithotherartscinemalookedlikesomethingprimitive,almostshabby,andoffensivetorefinedtaste.Theveryfactthat thenewartwascreatedon thebasisofphotographydestroyedourusual 'high'preconceptionsaboutcreativeart.Themovie-cameracynicallywithstoodthesham'craftsmanship'oftheolderartsandtosomeextentgavethem(especially the theatre) anarchaic flavouring. Into the midst of artsprotectedby traditions thereburstan impudentnovice threatening to turnart intosomethingsimplytechnical.Thefilm-showwas,theysaid,somesortofwholesale 'lowering'of theatrical spectacle, startingwith thespectatordressedinhisovercoat,asifhe'djustdroppedininpassing,andendingwiththenakedscreenwhichreplacedboththecurtainandthestage.Mechanicalreproduction,mechanicalrepetition(twoorthreeshowsanevening),factoryproductionetc.etc.Itisquitenaturalthattheintelligentsia,whoforthemostpartlivedonthetraditionsoftheoldartculture,shouldignorecinemaat

Page 12: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

firstasbeingamechanicalprimitive,suitableonlyforsatisfyingthe'street'.It goes without much saying that war and revolution hastened the processof spreading cinema among the masses. In other

historicalcircumstancescinemawouldprobablyhavehadtosustainamuch longerandmorecomplexstruggle.Itiscurioustorecall,incidentally,thatevenbeforethewar,atthetimewhenSymbolismwasdecaying,theoristsintheatreandtheatredirectorswerefascinatedbytheideaofthe'communal'[sobornyi]theatricalrite'.Asortofimpoverishmentwassensedintheatrical life,whichtheytriedtoovercomebyexperimentingwitharefined-resurrectionof'antiquetheatre',commediadell'arteandsoon.Togetherwiththeideaof'communality'thereappearedasapiquantparadoxtheideaof'theatrefortheatre'(N.Evreinov),whichwasevidenceofthecrisisintheatricalart,andtheatricalparodypouredoutinagreatflood'10.Meanwhilethereweremoreandmoresignsofacoolnesstowardstheatre,notonlyonthepartofspectators,butamongactorsaswell.

Thedreamsof'communality'didnotmaterialise,andremainedasacharacteristichistoricalsymptomoftheageofdecayinthetheatre,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 actualproduction.Asasyncreticformandtechnicalinventioncinemagatheredarounditmassesofdifferentspecialists,andforalongtimefilmsappearedbeforethespectatorwithoutanynames,withno'authorship',asthefruitoftheunitedeffortsofawholecollective.

Howeveritwasavery longwayfromthis typeof 'communality' tothesortdreamtofbytheSymbolists:thiswascommunalityinsideout.Eventheveryconceptof‘massart'inconnectionwithcinemaneedsawholeseriesofqualifications.We,thewitnessesof the 'birthof cinema', arenaturallypronetoacertainromanticisationofit.Butifweforceourselvestothinkitovercalmlythenthemassartofcinemaisnotaqualitativeconceptbutaquantitativeonewhichisnotconnectedwiththeessenceofcinema.Itisa featureof the successof cinema, i.e.of apurely socialphenomenon, conditionedbyawhole seriesofhistorical circumstancesunconnectedwithcinemaassuch.Onthecontrary—cinemadoesnotinitselfinanywayrequirethepresenceofthemass,eveniftheatredoes.Anyonewithaprojectorcanwatchafilmathomeandthereforebeoneofthemassofcinemaspectatorsevenwithoutenteringacinema.Apart fromthatwedonot, inessence,feelourselves tobemembersofamassatall,orparticipantsin amassspectacle,whenwearesittinginacinema;onthecontrary—conditionsatafilm-showinducethespectatortofeelasifhewereintotal isolation, and this feeling is one of the particular psychological delights ofwatching films.The filmdoesnotevenawaitourapplause — there is no-oneto applaud other than the projectionist. The spectator's condition is close tosolitary, intimatecontemplation—heobserves,asitwere,somebody'sdream.Theslightestoutsidenoiseunconnectedwiththefilmannoyshimmuchmorethanitwouldifhewereinthetheatre.Talkingbyspectatorsnexttohim(e.g.readingthetitlesaloud)preventshimconcentratingonthemovementofthefilm;hisidealisnottosensethepresenceoftheotherspectators,buttobealonewiththefilm,tobecomedeafanddumb.

Soitturnsoutthatcinema,withallits'mass'characteristics,issuitedtobeingabovealla'chamberart'.Ofcourseafewcinemagenres,bytheirverynature,havethemassinmind,butitisimpossibletotransferthispeculiarityofseparategenresontocinemaasawhole.Weshouldbearinmindthatthe'mass'periodofcinema—aperiodwhenitwaswinningforitselfapositionamongtheotherartsandwasreinforcingitssocio-economicsignificance—isalreadyrecedingintothepast.Nowandthenfilmsappearwhicharetheresultofartisticexperimentationandwhich,assuch,arenotorientatedtowardsthemassspectator.Cinemaalreadyhasnotonlyacommercialbutalsoacertainartistichistory—ahistoryofstylesandschools.Alsothefilmspectatorhasalreadyacquiredacertainstability of taste, has got used to certain clichés he does not like to depart from. This in itself is an indicationof that complexrelationship of the two sideswhich is characteristic for every type of art.TheCabinet ofDrCaligari 11,as a film for themassspectator,wasaflopthroughoutEurope,butinthehistoryofcinemathisfilmisamostimportantdevelopment,whoseinfluencewas felt in a wholeseries of subsequent films.Our Hospitality12with Buster Keaton, which again poses the problem ofcomedy in cinema (tragic situationscontrastingwiththecomicbehaviourofthehero),turnedouttobesimplytoocleverafilm,toocomplicatedinitsartisticintent,toevoketotaldelightfromthespectators—themuchmoreelementarycomicalityofTheCoward13naturallygetsthroughmoreeasily.Itisquitepossiblethattherunawaycommercialsuccessofcinema,whichhassetitsstamponthewholehistoryofcinema's'goldenchildhood'isalreadyonthevergeofacrisis:cinemaisenteringitsadolescentperiod,amuchmoredifficultperiod,butalsoamorepromisingone.It isonlywith thishopethat it isworthposingthosecomplextheoreticalproblemsthatIamtryingtoindicateinthisarticle.

3

Wearenowlivinginastageofcinemainwhichitrepresentsanewsyncreticformofart.Theinventionofthemovie-cameramadepossibletheexclusionofthebasicdominantoftheatresyncretism—theaudibleword,anditsreplacementbyanotherdominant—themovementobservedindetails.Andsothetheatricalsystemboundupwiththeaudiblewordwasturnedupsidedown.Thefilmspectatorfindshimselfincompletelynewconditionsforperception,whicharethereverseoftheprocessofreading:fromtheobject,fromtheobservedmovement,tothecomprehensionofthem,totheconstructionofinternalspeech.Thesuccessofcinemaispartlyconnectedwithpreciselythisnewtypeofmentalactivity,whichdoesnotdevelopineverydayusage.Wecansaythatourageisleastof all a verbal age—so far as art is concerned.Cine-culture, like a signof the age, resists that cultureof theword,bookish andtheatrical,whichreignedinthelastcentury.Thefilmspectatorseeksarestfromtheword—hewishesonlytoseeandsurmise.

Page 13: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

Yetitisincorrecttocallcinemaa'silent'art:itisnotaquestionof'silence',butofthelackoftheaudiblewordandofanewrelationshipbetweenwordandobject.Thetheatricalrelationship,inwhichmimicryandgestureaccompanytheword,isabolished,butthewordasarticulatorymimicrypreservesitsforce.Thefilmactorspeaksduringtheshootingofthefilm,andthishasitseffectonthescreen.Thefilmspectatorisreallytransformed,asitwere,intoadeaf-mute(thequestionofmusicistackledlater),butthisdoesnotannihilatetheroleoftheword,butmerelytransfersittoanotherlevel.Therewasawell-knownincidentinanEnglishcinemawhenagroupofdeaf-and-dumbpeoplewereatafilm-showandprotestedatthecontentofthesentencesspokenbytheactors,whichhadnocorrespondenceatalltothescenesdepictedonthescreen.Itappearsthat,forthedeaf-and-dumb,cinemaisamuchmore'verbal'artthantheatre,where,becauseofactualperformingconditions(distancebetweenthestageandthespectator)theycannotclearlyseethemovementsofthespeechorgans.Theordinaryfilmspectatordoesnotcatchthearticulationassuch,butitdoeshavesome meaning even for him, in that the actors do not perform on the screen as deaf-mutes and do not play out merepantomimes. The treatment ofarticulatorymimicryonthescreenisaproblemforthefuture;atanyrateitmustnotbejustapassiverelicfromtheshootingofthefilm.

Oneotherfactisevenmoreimportanthowever—theprocessofinternalspeechonthepartofthespectator.Forastudyoftherulesofcinema(andmontageaboveall) it ismost important torecognise thatperceptionandcomprehensionofafilmare inseparablylinkedwith the formation of an internal speechwhich links the separate shots together. Only the 'trans- sense' elements ofcinemacanbeperceivedoutside thisprocess.Thefilmspectatormustperformacomplicatedmental task in linking together theshots(theconstructionofcine-phrasesandcine-periods),ataskvirtuallyabsentineverydayusagewherethewordformsacoveringand excludes other means of expression. The spectator must constantly compile a chain of cine-phrases — otherwise he willcomprehendnothing.Thisiswhysomepeoplefindthiscinematicmentaltaskdifficult,wearying,unaccustomedandunpleasant.Oneofthechiefconcernsofthedirectoristomakesurethateachfilmsceneshould'reach'thespectator,i.e.toenablehimtodivinethemeaningofanepisode,or,inotherwords,toswitchthespectatorontothelanguageofhisowninternalspeech;thisspeechtherebycomesintoaccountintheactualconstructionofthefilm.

Cinema demands from the spectator a certain special technique ofdivination, and this technique, along with thedevelopmentofcinema,willnaturallybecomemorecomplex.Directorsalreadyoftenusesymbolsandmetaphorswhosemeaningrestsdirectlyoncurrentverbalmetaphors.Film-viewingisaccompaniedbyacontinuousprocessofinternalspeech.Wearealreadyusedtoawholeseriesoftypicalclichésofcine-language;eventheveryslightestinnovationinthisspherestrikesuswithnolessforcethantheappearanceofanewwordinlanguageitself.Itisimpossibletotreatcinema,asanart,asatotallynon-verbalart.Thosewhodefendcinemafrom'literariness'oftenforgetthattheaudiblewordisexcludedfromcinema,butthethought,i.e.internalspeech,isnotexcluded.Astudyofthepeculiaritiesofthiscine-speechisoneofthemostpressingproblemsinthetheoryofcinema.

Connectedwiththeproblemofinternalspeechistheproblemoftitling.Thetitleisoneofthenecessarysemanticaccentsofafilm,butweshouldnottalkabouttitles 'ingeneral'.Wemustdistinguishtheirtypesandfunctionsinafilm.Thetypeoftitleswhicharemostdisagreeableandalientocinemaarethosetitlesofanarrativenature,titles'fromtheauthor',expounding,butnotamplifying.Thesetitlesreplacewhatoughttobeshownanddivinedby thespectator through theessenceofcine-art.Theyare thereforeevidenceofdeficienciesofthescenarioorofadeficientcinematographicdesignbythedirector.Atitlelikethisinterruptsnotonlythemovementofthefilmonthescreenbutalsotheflowofinternalspeech,makingthespectatorchangeforatimeintoareaderandmemorisewhat the 'author' is telling him in words.Conversationtitles, composed with due account takenof the peculiarities ofcinemaandinsertedattheappropriatetimes,areanothermatter.Shorttitlesappearingatmomentswhendialogueistakingplaceonthe screen, and accompanying the precise and characteristicgestures of the actors are perceived as a completely naturalelement of the film. They do not replace what could be done in some other way, and do notundermine the cinematic thoughtprocessesiftheyaredoneinconformitywiththerulesofcinema(theactualgraphicsofthetitlesplayabigpartinthis).Wheneverthedialoguehastoreachthespectatorthentheaidofatitleisnecessary.Aconversationtitledoesnotfillinagapintheplotnordoesitintroduceintothefilmanarrative'author',butjustfillsinandaccentuateswhatthespectatorseesonthescreen.

Experience, among other things, shows that comedy films need conversation titles more than other films, and these titlessometimesheightenthecomiceffectquitenoticeably;weonlyneedrecallthetitlesofJewishHappiness'4,TheMarkofZorro('Haveyoueverseenanythinglikeit?'),andTheCoward('Sitdown!').Thishappensbecausecomedyisusuallyathingbearingmeaning,andisthereforecloselyconnectedwithwords.Acomedyfilmisusuallybuiltuponthedetailsofseparatesituations,andthesedetailscan'reach'thespectatoronlybymeansoftitles.

Atanyrate,onceweacceptthatcinemaisnotjustavarietyofpantomimeandthatwordsarenotexcludedfromitasanormalrule,thentitlesareacompletelylegitimatepartofthefilm,andthewholeproblemissimplythattheymustnotturnintoliterature,butenterthefilmasanatural,cinematographicallyrealisedelementofit.Anotherproblemalsoconnected,ontheonehand,withtheproblemofcine-perception,and,ontheother,withthefactoftheexclusionoftheaudibleword,istheproblemofmusicincinema.Thisproblemhasasyetbeenalmostcompletelyunelucidatedintheoreticalterms,whileinpracticaltermsitscarcelyarousesanydoubts.Theexclusionoftheaudibleworddemandedreplacements,andmusicappearedastheequivalentofcertainaspectsoftheword.Musicbearstheroleofanamplifierofemotions,andaccompaniestheprocessofinternalspeech.Butthisexplanationisfarfromresolvingproblemsaboutthenatureofmusicincinemaandaboutwhatrelationshipispossiblebetweenthefilmanditsmusicalillustration.Whatshouldorcanbetheprinciplesofthismusicalillustration?

Page 14: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

InFrancetheideaofthe'musicalfilm'isverypopular.ForexampleL.Moussinactalksofitwithgreatenthusiasmifwithlittleprecision:Thephrasesoflightmustblendwithmelodicphrases;rhythmsmustharmonise,penetrateandmutuallycomplementeachotherwiththegreatestaccuracyandsimultaneity.’16IncontrasttothisfloridsentenceitisinterestingtoquotethewordsofBelaBalazswho is inclined towards a totallydifferent resolutionof this problem: 'It is typical thatwe immediatelynotice the lackofmusic,butpaynoattentiontoitwhenitispresent.Anymusicissuitableforanyscene...formusicarousesquitedifferentvisionswhichonlyinterferewiththevisionsonthescreenwhentheytouchonthemtooclosely.'17Balazssetsmoreserioushopesonthereversecompilationonthecreationoffilmstoaccompanymusicalworks.

Balasz’scommentisverycorrectandtothepoint.Agoodfilmsoabsorbsourattentionthatwesomehowdonotnoticethemusic; at the same time a film without musical accompaniment seems impoverished. What is this —habit, or a requirementconnectedwiththenatureofcinemaitself?IthinkthisproblemcanberesolvedinconjunctionwithwhatIsaidabouttheintimacyofcine-perception, about the observation of the film as a dream. These peculiarities of perception require that a film should bewrappedinaspecialemotional,conventionalisedatmosphere,thepresenceofwhichmaybeasimperceptibleasthepresenceofair, but all the same just as necessary. The internal speech of the cinema spectator is much more fluid and undefined thanpronounced speech—andmusic does not destroy its flowbut assists in its formation.The intimate process of forming internalspeechisinalliancewiththemusicalinterpretationinshapingsomethingindivisible.Weshouldalsonoticethatmusicassists,toacertainextent,thetransmissionofemotionsarousedbythescreenintotheworldofactualartisticemotions—afilmwithoutmusicsometimes creates a terrible impression. And so we can state that the musical accompaniment to a film eases the process offormationofinternalspeech,andpreciselybecauseofthisisnotsensedforitsownsake.

In thiscomplexproblemthere isstilloneunclarifiedaspect—theproblemofcinemarhythmanditscorrespondenceorkinshipwithmusicalrhythm.Peoplewhoreadilytalkoftherhythmoftheshotsorofthemontageareoftenplayingwithametaphororare using theword 'rhythm' in that generalised and rather unproductive sense in which they speak of rhythm inarchitecture, inpainting,etc.Inmoderncinemawedonothaverhythminanyexactsense(aswedoinmusic,indance,inpoetry),butwedohaveacertaincommonrhythmicalitywhichhasnoconnectionwiththeproblemofmusicincinema.Itistruethatthefootageoftheshotscantosomeextentactasabasisforconstructingacine-rhythm,butthisisathingforthefuturewhichisdifficulttocommentonhere.Itmaybethatinthefutureevolutionofcinema(whenitproceedsfromadolescencetoyouth)itsrhythmicpotentialwillbemoreclearlyapparent,and thenparticular rhythmicgenrescanbedetermined,withemphasisnotonthestory,butonphotogeny.Itmaybe thatthis form (analogous to verse) will be born directly out ofexperimentsinthecine-illustrationofmusicalworks.Atthattime the problem ofmusic in cinema will also bemore clearly defined.Meanwhile music's role is actually a typical one for asyncreticperiod.

4

Socinemahascometobedefinedasanartof`photogeny',usingalanguageofmovements(facialexpressions,gestures,posesetc.).Onthisgroundithas entered into competitionwith theatre—andhas triumphed.Asignificantroleinthistriumphwasplayedbythecircumstancethatthecinemaspectatorwasenabledtoseethedetails(facialexpressions,objects,etc.),andwithaneaseequaltohisimaginationtobetransportedfromoneplacetoanother,toseebeforehimpeopleandobjectsinvariousscales,angles,illuminationsandsoon.Cine-dynamicsasitevolvedonthescreenconquered theatre, and transposed it to thepositionof asortof'fondbygone'.Theatremustfinditsidentityanew—nolongerasasyncreticform,butasaseparateartinwhichthewordandbodyoftheactormustbeliberatedfromeveryotherart.

Oneoftherealdeficienciesoftheatre,sofarasithasbeenasyncreticart,andadeficiencywhichitispossibletoovercomewithintheconditionsoftheatricalspectacletoonlyalimitedextent,wastheimmobilityofthestagearrangement,andlinkedwiththistheimmobilityofpointofviewandperspectives.Visualeffectsoftheatrepresentation(mimicry,gesture,decorations,objects)inevitablycomeupagainst theproblemof thedistancebetween the immobile stageand the spectator.Makingplaywithvisualdetails inthetheatreprovesalmostimpossible;bythesametokenmimicryandgesturearefrozenintheirdevelopment,andtheactorendowedwithjustsuch a gift of mimicry cannot display it in the theatre. The immobility of thestage leads to the actor having to act with abackgroundofpropsset inasingleposition; thisconstricts thedramatistandintroduces into theverbaldynamicsof theatricalartsomethingalien,surplus,static.Theobject intheatreplaysatotallypassiverole,beinganoutsidewitnessorspyfortheactorandboringthespectatorbyitspresence.Thedivisionoftheatricalspaceintoparts(byturningonandoffthelights),theuseofrevolvingstagesetc.doesnotaltertheessenceofthething,anditisperceivedasapitifulimitationofcinema.Whatistheessenceandnatureofcinemacomesoutascoarseandheavyinthetheatre,likebirthpainsforthewitofamanwhoiswitless.Theatremust,ofcourse,proceedalongadifferentpath—thepathtoconvertingthestagearrangementintoanareaexclusivelyfortheactivityof theactor,thepath toeliminating theatricalspaceasafixedplaceofaction,inotherwords—thepathforreturningtotheprinciplesofShakespeareantheatre.

Cinema has eliminated the very problem of the stage setting, itsimmobility and the distance between it and thespectator.Thescreenisanimaginarypoint,anditsimmobilityisalsoimaginary.Thedistancebetweenthefilm-actorandthespectatorconstantlychanges—ortobemorecorrect—thereisnodistanceatall,butjustscalesandperspectives.Theactor'sfacecanbe

Page 15: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

presentedinexaggerateddimensions inwhichtheslightestmuscularmovementcanbeseen; thespectator, if thepaceof thefilmdemandsit,canseetheslightestdetailofgesture,costume,setting.Nothingjuststandsandwaitsforitsturn—placesofaction,partsof scenes andviewsof them, (from the side, fromabove, etc.)—all keep changing.All these technical possibilities havemadecinemaarivalnotonlyinrespectoftheatre,butofliteratureaswell.Untiltheinventionofcinemaandtherealisationofmontageliteraturewastheonlyartsuitableforunfoldingcomplexplotconstructions,fordevelopingparallelsinthestory,forfreelychangingtheplaceofaction,fordistinguishingdetailsandsoon.Now,inthecontextofcinema,manyoftheseprivilegesofliteraturehavelosttheirrighttoamonopoly.Literature,liketheatre,byfertilisingcinemaandassistinginitsdevelopmenthasatthesametimebeendeprivedofitsformerposition,andmusttakeaccountofthepresenceofthenewartinitsfurtherevolution.If,apartfromwhathasalreadybeensaid,wetakeintoconsiderationthelinkalreadyexistingbetweencinemaanddepictiveart(athemerequiringaspecialanalysis),thenthecharacteristicsofmoderncinema,asasyncreticform,seemjustified.Cinema,truly,hasinonewayoranotherimpingedonthewholesystemoftheold,separateartsand,whilepushingitselfawayfromthemitisatthesametimehavingadecisiveinfluenceontheirfutureevolution.Wehaveanewfactbeforeus:photogenyandmontagehavemadepossibleadynamismofvisualimagessuchasisunavailableforanyotherart.Thisdynamism,whoseperspectivesarestillfarfrombeingexhausted,hasforthemomentmadetheotherartsgatheraroundandserveanewcentre.Variousstylesoffilmshavebeguntobedetermined,dependingonthisorthatmethodofworkingthematerial,oronthisorthat'bias'.Particulareine-stylesarestillonlybeinghintedat,andcinematheoryhasstillhardlytouchedonthisquestion.

Peoplecommonlyspeakofthe'naturalism'ofcinemaandconsiderthisits special property. This view,when expressedin a primitive andcategorical form, is of course a naive one, and itmust be resisted because itobscures the specific rules ofcinemaasanart.Itisquitenaturalthatinitsearlyperiod,wheneventheactual'verbal'methodsofcinemahadnotyetbeendefined,cinemahadstillnotrealiseditsartisticpossibilitiesandwasconcernedexclusivelywiththecreationofillusionandwithgettingcloset o'nature'. Thereafter, coinciding with the use of the movie-camera as an instrument, full-view scenes, being the most highly'naturalistic',andwhichhadnotyetbrokenwithpurelyphotographicprinciples,losttheiroriginalsignificance,andcinemabegantodevelopthepossibilityofhavingitsownconventions—conventionsfarfromprimitivenaturalism—suchastheblown-upshot,thedissolve,cameraangleandsoon.

Theprincipleof‘photogeny'hasdefinedthebasicessenceofcinemaasbeingatotallyspecificandconventionalone.Fromnowonthedeformationof the realworldhasassumeditsnaturalplace incinema,as in theotherarts.Inthehandsofthecameramanthemovie-cameraisalreadyworkingjustlikepaintinthehandsoftheartist.Oneandthesameaspectoftherealworld,filmedfromvariouspoints, invariousperspectives,andwithvaryingillumination,producesvariousstylisticeffects. Inrecent timesshootingonlocationhasmoreandmorefrequentlybeenreplacedbystudiofilming,preciselybecausetherealworldpreventsthemaintenanceofadefinitestylistictoneinthefilm.Producersareconcernednotonlywiththecompositionofthefilm(montage),butalsowiththecomposition of separateshots, and we are already being guided by purely depictive principles— ofsymmetry, proportion, thegeneralrelationshipoflines,thearrangementoflightandsoon.Onceitisaquestionoffilmstylesandcompositionofshotsitfollowsthat the notorious 'naturalistic' approach is only one of several possible styles, and is therefore no less conventionalised than theothers.Thedemandsof'type-casting'and,withit,theproblemofthefilmactor(theactorand'reallife')didnotappearbecausecinema is naturalistic, butthroughtheconditionsofcinemaprojection: theclose-upandthepeculiaritiesofphotogenypreventtheuseofmake-uptothedegreeitisusedintheatre.Hencewehavetotallydifferentprinciplesofexpressivenessandoftheactualfilmacting.

Sonaturalismincinemaisnolessconventionalthanliteraryortheatricalnaturalism.Itistruethatcinemacanintroduceintofilmthe realworld,which theatre, forexample, cannotdo.The film-directorcanhavea sortof 'note-book' inwhichhe canpreservescenesfromlifeshotinpassing,soastousetheminthemontageofsomefilmorother(e.g.inafilmofthe'physiological' type),buthecandothis,justasawritercan,onlyonconditionthathesubordinatesthismaterialtothegeneralstylisticimprintofthefilmandtoitsgenre-pattern.

5

Inconsideringthisorthatfilmstylethenatureoftheshooting(perspectives,angles,lighting,apertures,etc.)andthetypeofmontagehavedecisiveimportance.Weareusedtothinkingofmontagejustas'plot-construction',whereasitsbasicfunctionisastylisticone.Montageisaboveallasystemofshot-controlorshot-linking;itisasortofsyntaxoffilm.

Plot-constructionisinitselfdeterminedbythescenariooreventhelibretto;ifitdoesalsodependonthemontagethenitisonlytotheextenttowhichthemontagegivesitthisorthatstylisticcolouration,bymotivatingthealternationofparallels,impartingthis or that tempo, using close-ups andso on. Cinema has its own language, i.e. its own stylistics and its owndevices ofphraseology.OfcourseIusethesetermsnottobringcinemaclosetoliteraturebutthroughacompletelylegitimateanalogywhichalsoallowsonetospeak,forexample,ofa'musicalphrase','musicalsyntax'etc.Thephenomenonofinternalspeech,socharacteristicofcine-perception,givesmeeveryrighttousethisterminologywithoutdestroyingthespecificfeaturesofcinema.

S.Timoshenko" tried to 'enumerate' thebasicdevicesofmontageandgivea 'description'of them.Butbeforeenumeratinganddescribing (if this iseven generally possible),wemust construct a theory ofmontage, and in hisbook there is no such thing. In

Page 16: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

Timoshenko'senumeration(15devicesareindicated)firstlythepurelystylisticdeviceslikethe'deviceofcontrast'areconfusedwithdeviceswhichhaveothersignificance,andsecondlymontageassuch,i.e.thequestionofprinciplesanddevicesofshot-control,isleftcompletelyononeside.Forexample'changeof location'isinitselfneitheradevicenormontageatall;itisatechnicalpossibilityaffordedbythemovie-cameraandthescreen,asare 'changeofangleofshot'and'changeofperspective'.Montage isadeviceforexploitingthispossibility,whosevariantsdependbothonthegenreofthefilmandonthestylisticmannerofthedirector.Howtomovefromonelocationtoanother,fromoneparalleltoanother—thisisthebasicproblemofmontagewithachangeoflocation,orofafilmasitisdeterminedbythemovementofplot.Itisaproblemofstylistics(logic)andmotivation.

Wecanseeachangeoflocationinanyfilm,butonedirectorcanbedistinguishedfromanotherpreciselybythemontageofthischange,bythedevicesofpreparingforandoperatingit.

Themovementofafilmisbuiltupontheprincipleoftemporalandspatiallinking.Thedynamicsofcinema,whichgivethedirectortherightfreelytointermixlocations,perspectivesandcameraangles,andtoalterthetempo,alsoimposetheirowndemandswhichare not found in either literature or theatre in the same form— demands of temporal and spatial continuity. This is the verypeculiarityof cinemawhichBalkshappily callsvisuelleKontinuitaf '(visual continuity). In talkingabout filmsmade from literaryworksBalksobservesthatthereisalwayssomethinglifelessandfragmentaryaboutthem:'Astorythathasbeenthoughtupinliteraryform jumpsovermanyof those very features a filmmust not jumpover.Aword, a conception,a thoughtexistoutside time.Apicture has the concrete strengthof the present, and lives only in the present...Therefore the film, especiallyin thedepictionofspiritualmovements,demandsfullcontinuityoftheseparatemoments.'

Herethedirectorstumblesuponthe'oppositionofthematerial'whichhemustsomehowovercome:cinemademandsmontageofasortbywhich,albeitwithin the limitsof theseparateparts,asensationof timeis producedin thespectator, i.e.a sensationofacontinuous sequence of episodes. Thetrick is not in the 'unity of time' as it was understood in the theatre, but in thetemporalrelationshipsoftheseparatemomentsbeingsensed.Everysuchmomentcanbeshortenedorlengthenedasappropriate(oneofthebasicmontageeffectsoftempo),andinthisrespectcinemapossessesveryrichconstructivepossibilities,buteverythingfollowingmustbeinthisorthattemporalrelationshiptowhatprecedesitThisisalsowhytheadjacentshotsinafilmareperceivedasprecedingandfollowing—thisisageneralruleofcinema:itisthedirector'sjob,inconformingwiththisrule,touseitfortheconstructionoftime,i.e.tocreatetheillusionofcontinuity.Ifapersoninafilmleavesahouse,theninthenextshothemustnotbeshownenteringanotherhouse—thiscontradictsboth

timeandspace.Hence theneedfor the so-called link-shots'which in thehandsofinexperienceddirectorsusuallyweighdownthefilm,becausetheyintroducesuperfluousandthereforesenselessdetails.Itisattheseverypointsthatthewitandinventionofthedirectorareneeded,becausethisiswheretheartofmontagetells:tousethenecessity,asdictatedbythenatureofthematerial,asastylisticdevice(deceivingthespectatorandhidingfromhimthepoweroftherule').Allthesedonots',asinanyart,areofcourserelative,andatanymomentcanbeturnedintoa'may'.Butthiscanbedoneonlyin

certainconditionsofstyleandgenre.Onemaybreakaruleinart,butonecannotsimplyavoidit.Ifthereisnopositivemotivationthentheremustbenegativemotivation.Andsofromherewereachtheconceptofmontageascine-stylistics.Therealityandsignificanceofthisproblemarevalidated,I

think,bywhatIsaidaboutthe'internalspeech'ofthefilmspectatorandabouttherulesofshot-control('visualcontinuity'andthelogicof linkages). InavoidingproblemsconcerningtheprinciplesofmontageS.Timoshenkoimmediatelydepriveshimselfofthepossibilityofarrangingtheactualdevicestoavoidcrossingandmixingthemup.Thedeviceofcontrast',forexample,isaparticularcaseofmotivationwithachangeoflocation;inotherwordsitisoneofthedevicesofmontageandhasapurelystylisticcharacter.Hereisanexamplebytheauthorofthebookhimself:'ArichAmericansitsinacomfortablechairafteraheavymeal.Thenextshot—inaprison;acriminal,oneoftheworkersfromtherichman'sfactory,sitsintheelectricchair.TherichAmericanpressesthebuttonofanelectricbell:asplendidchandelierlightsup. In theprisonabutton ispressed:electriccurrent runs through theworker'sbody'etc.InTimoshenko'ssystemofenumeration'thisisallsimultaneous,boththedeviceofchangeoflocation'andthedeviceofcontrast',andsobothofthemrelateto'plot-construction'.Inrealitythisiseithermotivationofachangeoflocation(iftheplotdemandsthis),ortheuseofcontrastfor ideologicalends,asortoforatoricaldeviceofcomparison.Hencethefactthatthemeaningofadevicedependsonitsfunction.ToaddtowhatIsaidearlierabouttemporalsequenceImustalsopointoutthatamontagebasedontheprincipleofasimultaneity

ofepisodesdoesnotcontradictthis.Thissimultaneityisnotthetypewehave,forexample,inliterature,whentheauthor,passingfromsomecharacterstoothers,says:'At the very timewhen' etc. In literature timeplays the completelyconventionalroleoflinking— it is merely pointed out, and the author can deal with it as he pleases, insofar as he is telling the story. In cinemasimultaneityisthatsamesequence,butisjust implementedbywayofacrossingofparallels(Iamdeliberatelyusingtheseterms,contrarytothegeometricalconceptofparallels).Onlysequenceisinterruptedinordertocontinueinothermaterial.Thisalsomakespossiblenotonlythecreationoftheillusionofcontinuitybuttheconstructionoftimeitselfinvariousways—allthemoresointhatitisalsolinkedwithspace.Ishallturntothedetailsofthisproblem,inconnectionwiththeproblemoftempo,lateron,inthesectiononthecine-period.

Inowturntoproblemsofcine-stylisticsinthenarrowsenseoftheword,i.e.problemsofcine-syntax(theconceptionofthecine-phrase,montageofthecine-period)andcine-semantics(thesemanticmarksofcinema,metaphorandsoon).

These problems of course demand a special study using thematerial of separate films— I am confiningmyself here almost

Page 17: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

entirelytoasimplestatementoftheproblems.

6

Everyart,theperceptionofwhichproceedsduringaperiodoftime,mustcontainwithinitselfanarticulation,inasmuchasitis,toagreaterorlesserextent,a'language'.Startingfromthetinypartswhichconstitutetheactualmaterial,onecangofurtherandreachthearticulationswhichrepresentthepredeterminedconstructiveparts,whichareactuallyperceivable.Thusthefeetinalineofverseformamechanical,abstractarticulation,althoughtheydoundoubtedlyparticipateintheconstructionoftheverse;intheprocessofperceptionitisnotthefeetwhichreallyexist,butgroupsofelementswhichareunitedandcontrastedthroughrhythmicaccentuation.

In cinemawemust distinguish between the actual film-strip (the reel of film) and itsprojection on the screen.The film-striprepresentsanidealmechanicalsetofdivisions.Itconsistsofrectangles(frames)each1/52macross;eachframetakenseparatelyisthesmallestpartofonemovementwhichinreallifeiscontinuousandindivisible.Thisisamechanical,andinthatsenseabstract(notperceivableonthescreen)setofdivisions,andnotarticulation.Thisisthetechnicalbasisofcinema,withoutwhichitcouldnotexist.Likeanyartcinemaexistsanddevelopsonthebasisofitsownparticular,artificiallycreated,conventionalisedand,asitwere,secondarynature,whichwasformedasaresultofthetransformationofreallifeintomaterial.Whenitisartisticallysplitupintoabstractparts(frames)movementisonceagainformedonthescreenbeforethespectator'seyes,butnotinitsnaturalform,butaccordingtotherulesofcinema.Cinemawascreatedthankstothetwomeanswhichconstituteitsparticular,secondarynature:thetechnical(fromthenatureofthemovie-camera)andthepsycho-physiological(fromthenatureofthehumansenseofsight).Thefirstofthesemakeswhatisinrealitycontinuous—dividedandinterrupted;thesecondre-impartstothemovementofseparateframestheillusionofcontinuity.

Sotheframesexistseparatelyonthereeloffilmpreciselyinordertobeeliminatedonthescreen,tobefusedintoonemovement.Inotherwordsthefilm(photographic)frameisforthespectatoranimaginary,abstractarticulation—asortoffilmatom.Fromthiswegetthatcharacteristicdualityoftheactualterm'frame'inthejargonoffilmpeople:thefilmframe,asitexistsseparatelyonlyonthereeloffilm,andthemontageframe,whichS.Timoshenkodefinesas'aseparatepieceoffilm,fromonesplicetothenext,shotthroughonelens,fromoneangle,inoneperspective.'

Itisobviousthatinthisquestionofthearticulationofcine-speechitisnotthephotographicorfilm-reelframesthatarebasicallysignificant,butthemontageframes,becauseitisthesewhichareperceivedasrealdivisions.Itisthemontageframes,linkingonewiththenext,whichorganisethesystemofshot-control,whichisalsothebasicproblemofeine-stylistics.Inthissystemweshouldobviously differentiate smaller-scale and larger-scale articulations, in accordance with how the internal speech of the cinemaspectatorisformed.Montageispreciselymontage,andnotasimplesplicingofseparatepieces,insofarasitsprincipleistheformationofmeaningfulunitsandthelinkingoftheseunits.Thebasicunitofthislinkingisthecine-phrase.

Ifby theword 'phrase'wegenerallyunderstanda certainbasic typeof articulation,which is actuallyperceivedas a segment (verbal,musical,etc.)ofmovingmaterial,thenitcanbedefinedasagroupofelementsclusteredaroundanaccentualnucleus.Themusical phrase, for example, forms a group of tones around a rhythmical-melodic or harmonic accent, in relationto which theprecedingmovementrepresentsapreparation.Incinemathegroupingofvariousphotographicperspectivesandforeshorteningsplaysananalogousrole.

In cinema we have three basic movements on screen: movementpast the spectator, movement towards the spectator, andmovementfromthespectator into the distance.The first of these,which can be calledpanoramic, is anelementarymovement untypical for cinema; itwasdominantintheearlystageofcinematography('landscape'pictures),wheneverythingwas shown in a general perspective, without montage, and the cinema was still only moving photography and not far from theprinciplesofthemagiclantern.Alongwiththetransitionfromcine-reeltocine-filmcamearealisationofthesignificanceofmontagenotonlyasaplotformbutalsoasastylisticform(shot-control).Thecreationofcine-speech,withitsspecialsemantics, required thecreation of accentualmoments onwhich cinephrases canbeplannedbywayofhighlighting thesemoments. In thisway thestylisticsignificanceofperspectivesandcameraanglesbecamedefined.

The purely technicalmethods of photographywere realised as beingmethods for articulating cine-speech. The long shotwasretainedonlyasalocatingelementofthecine-phrase,asasortof'adverbofplaceortime', tousetheold-fashionedgrammaticalterminology.Accentualpartsofthephrasearecreatedbythenearandclose-upperspectiveswhichrepresentasortofsubjectandpredicate of the cine-phrase.Themovement ofperspectives(fromalongshottoamediumandthentotheclose-up,orintheotherorder),at thecentreofwhich,asabasicstylisticaccent,standstheclose-up—this is thebasicruleofconstructionforthecine-phrase,fromwhichdeviationsareofcoursepossiblejustastheyareinanyartfromany'rule'.Includedhereisthechangingofangles(asortofsubordinateclause),whichintroducessupplementaryaccentsintothepatternofthecine-phrase.Wegetasceneinalongshot,theninamedium,andthenthesameperspectivebutwithadifferentangle(fromabove)etc.

Canwenowpickoutsomeparticulartypesofcine-phrase?Weneed,ofcourse,amuchmoredetailedanalysisofthisproblem,conductedinlaboratoryfashionusingseparateframes.Anisolatedclarificationwouldhardlybeworthwhile,butwecansayatleastsomethingonithere.Forthecinemaspectatorthedifferencebetweenalongandshortcine-phraseiscompletelyreal.Themontageofthecine-phrasecanbelengthenedandshortened.Insomecasesthelongshotcanhaveconsiderablesignificance—lengtheningit

Page 18: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

gives the impressionofa long,slowlydevelopingphrase; inothercases, conversely, aphrase is constituted fromrapidlyalternatingforeground and close-up shots,whichproduce an impressionofjerkiness, or laconicism.Apart from this a vital distinction in thestylisticconstructionofthecine-phrasedependsonthepaceoftheperspectives:fromdetailsshowninclose-up,toapanorama,orvice-versa.Inthefirstcasewegetsomethinglikeanenumerationleadingtoatotal—thespectatordoesnotknowthesumtotal,butpeersatthedetailsandatfirstcatchesonlytheirphotogenyandsignificanceasobjects:ahighfence,ahugepadlock,adogonachain.Thenapanoramaunfolds—andthespectatorcomprehends:thecourtyardofastrictly-orderedmerchant'shouse.Thisisatypeofphraseinwhichthespectatormustmakesenseofthedetailsafterthelongshot—bycomingbacktothem.Inotherwordsthisistheregressivetypeofcine-phrase.Itspeculiarityliesnotonlyintheorderoftheperspectivesbutinthefactthatthedetailsmust be endowedwith a certain particular semantic symbolism,whosemeaning can be guessed by the spectator before theconcludingaccent. Themontage of this sort of phrase is built on the principle of the riddle.Another type of cine-phrase, theprogressive,leadsfromthelongshottothedetails,sothatthespectator,asitwere,drawsneartothepicturehimself,andwitheveryframelocateshimselfmoreandmorecloselyamongtheeventshappeningonscreen.Itcouldalsobesaidthatthefirsttypeofcine-phraseisclosertoadepictiverole,whereasthesecondapproximatestoanarrativerole.Itisonlynaturalthatthesetypesofcine-phrasearepresentedwithespecialclarityandconsistencyrightatthebeginningofthefilm,whenthespectatormustbebroughtintotheveryatmosphereofthepicture.Sothecine-phraseisplannedbythegroupingofmontageframesonthebasisofamovementofperspectivesandcameraangles

unitedbyaccentualmoments.Stylisticvariationofcine-phrasesdependsonthedevicesofmontage.

7

Fromthecine-phrasewenowturntothequestionofthelinkingofphrasesandtheconstructionofthecine-period.Themovementof frames, once started, requires a meaningful linking according to the principal of spatiotemporal continuity. It is a question,naturally,oftheillusionofcontinuity,i.e.ofthefactthatthemovementofspaceandtimeonthescreenmustbeconstructed,becausethespectatormustbeawareofit.Spatio-temporalrelationshipsincinemaplaytheroleofabasicsemanticlinkwithoutwhichthespectatorcannotlocatehimselfamongthemovementofframes.Intheatretheproblemofspaceandtimehasacompletelydifferentsignificance—connectedwiththefactthattheatrehas

onlya singletemporalandspatialperspectiveandastaticnature.Inthisrespecttheatreismuchmore'naturalistic'thancinema.Time in theatre ispassive—it simplycorrespondswith the real timeof the spectator.Thedramatist can,ofcourse, quicken thetempoofactionorintroduceintooneactamuchlargernumberofeventsthanispossibleinreality,butthiscanbedoneonlyoncondition the spectator, like the reader, forgets about time, and is indifferenttowards the motivation. The theatre cannot offerconventionalisedcontinuity:timeintheatreisfilledup,butisnotconstructed.Ifanactor,intheprogressofaplay,hastositdowntowritealetterthenhecandonothingbutwrite itunder thegazeof thespectator,—theparallelismofactionwithwhichthefilm-directorconstructscine-timeisonlypartiallypossibleintheatre,anditsfunctionisquitedifferent.The'unityoftime'intheatreisaproblem,inessence,notoftime,butofplot,whereasincinematheplotcanitselfembraceasmuchtimeasitlikes(ayear,manyyears,alifetime),andthe'unityoftime',asaproblemofmontage(thetemporalcontinuityofseparateparts),isaproblemoftheactualconstructionoftime.

In cinema time is not filled up, but is constructed. Through theinterruption of scenes and the changing ofperspectives 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 byGriffith19 are well known(Intolerance20,OrphansoftheStorm21)—thetempoofactionslowsdownalmosttoimmobility,whilethetempoofmontagespeedsupandreachesafrenziedrapidity.22

Incinemawethereforehavetwotypesoftempo:thetempoofactionandthetempoofmontage.Thecrossingofthesetwotypesformsaspecialsortofcine-time.The two typescanbothcoincideandnotcoincide.ForexamplethefirstpartofTheBigWheel23is only an exposition and an initiationof the intrigue (the sailors of theAurorago to thePeople'sHousewhereShorinbecomesacquaintedwithValya);theactiondevelopsveryslowlyonaccountof thedetails (the switchback, thewheel), andthemontageofthedetailsgoesataveryrapidtempo.

Timeincinemaisinseparablylinkedwithspace(Balazsusesaspecialsingle-wordterm—Zeitraum).Inthetheatretheactorwholeavesthestagealsogoesoutbeyondthelimitsofthescenicarea,i.e.thesolespatialareaintheatre.Thestageremains 'empty',andiftheactisnotfinishedthensomeoneelsemustreplacethedepartedactor,atleastuntilhereturns.Fromthiswegetthose 'coincidences' of exits and entrances. which are typical for theatrical montage, and constitute theatre's obligatory conventionality.Inotherwordstheatricalspaceisaspassiveastheatricaltime—itdoesnotparticipateassuchinthedynamicsoftheplay,butissimplyfilledup.Thecinemaspectatorthinksinspace—itexistsforhimquiteapartfromthecharacters.Thetheatreactorisboundbythescenicareaandcannotthrowitoff,becausebehinditthereisavoid,anegativespacewhichforthespectatorjustdoesnotexist;thefilmactorisabeingsurroundedbyalimitlessspace,inwhichhemovesaroundfreely.Ifafilmactorhasgoneoutofahousethenquiteapartfromtheconventionsofcine-timethespectatorcanonewayoranotherwatchhisprogresstoanotherplace.In other wordsspace in cinemahasnot somuch the significanceofplot as the significanceofstyle (syntax).Hence theneedfor

Page 19: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

'linkingscenes'; this isnot 'naturalism',butaspecialsortofcinema logic,at thebasisofwhich is theprincipleofspatio-temporalcontinuity.

It is by this principle that the montage of linking cine-phrases isdetermined, inasmuchasweare talkingabout theactualstylisticfunctionofmontage.Thecine-period,whosesizecanofcoursebeveryvariable,issensedasasortofenclosedpieceprecisely to the extent that themovementof the frames which constitute it is linked by the continuity of spatiotemporalrelationships.Thetreatmentoftheseparatespatio-temporalmoments(cine-phrases)andtheirlinkingtogetherisendedbyasortofsummaryof them,by theestablishingof semantic relationshipsbetween them.When the spectator startswatchinga filmhe seesseparateparts;aftertwoorthreecine-phraseshebeginstounderstandtherelationshipsbetweenthecharacters, theplaceofaction,themeaningoftheiractionsandconversations,butallofitstillonlypartially.Thenamomentcomeswhenthesemanticrelationshipsofalltheelementsconstitutingthemontagematerialofanygivenpartbecomecleartohim;thecine-periodcloseswiththecrossingofmontageframesataprecisepointwhichclarifiesthemutualconnectionoftheprecedingpiecesandterminatestheirmovement.Asaconcludingmomentthereisusuallyaclose-upfiguringinaspecialroleanalogoustothemusicalfermata24,aflowoftimeasitwerecomestoastop,thefilmholdsitsbreath—thespectatorsinksintocontemplation.

Fromthesegeneralcharacteristicsofthecine-perioditfollowsthatthebasicstylisticproblemofitsmontageiscontainedinthemotivationofthetransitionsfromonecine-phrasetoanother.Plotmotivationdoesnotinitselfsolvethisproblembecauseithasnoconnectionwiththeproblemofthetempoofmontageandoftheconstructionofspatio-temporalrelationships.Thestylisticandstyle-related devices ofmontage have their effect precisely in the fact that the director controls the frames, uniting onemomentoftheplotwithanother.Heremostofallwecanseethedifferencebetweenaflowing,slowmontage,whichsmashescine-timeintotinypartslinkingtogetherinsequence(forexampleonesceneproceedingwitheverydaydetailsorwithavarietyofcameraangles),andarapidmontagewhichcanreachthestageof'flashing'or'cutting',whenseparatemomentsarepresentedtothespectatorinonlyashortfootageoffilm.Thisisonesideofcine-syntax.Itsothersideisseeninhowthedirectorproceedsfromonescenetothenext.

Thecruxofthematteristhateverysceneispresentedtothespectatorinpieces,injerks.Thereisalotwhichthespectatordoesnotentirelysee—theintervalsbetweenthejerksarefilledupwithinternalspeech.Butforthisinternal speech to be constructedandforittogivethespectatoranimpressionoffullnessandlogicalitythejerksmustmovewithinacertaindefinedlinkageandthetransitionsmustbesufficientlymotivated.Certainover-motivatedpicturesaresodistortedthatthemontageturnsintoasortoftwitch, so that no internal speech is formed within the spectator, and he understands nothing ( an example from last autumn'srepertoire—CircusTwins25withWerner Krauss, and before that—The Joyless Street26with Asta Nielsen and Chmara). If acharactermovesfromonepointtoanotherthenthedirector,dependingononeoranotherstylisticintention,canactinvariousways:hecaneithershowusindetailthecharacter'sjourney,orhecanjumpaheadseveralmomentsandreplacetheseomittedmomentswithmaterial from another episode.Montage is usually constructed on changes of this sort— itsmovement ismultilinear. Theillusionofspatio-temporaldiscontinuityiscreatednotbyarealdiscontinuitybutbyanequivalentofit:whilethefamilyhasdinnerinanotherplacesomethingishappening.Parallelsareusedaccordingtotheprincipleofmovingsimultaneity—theycrosseachotherintheinternalspeechofthespectatorlikecoordinatesintime.

Butheretherearisestheproblemofmotivation.Wheretointerruptalineandhowtoproceedtothenext?Inotherwordswith what logicalconnections should the parallels or pieces of the cine-period be tiedtogether in order to turn thenecessityofthetransitionintoastylisticconformity?

Ihavealreadymentionedthisinpart,inconnectionwithS.Timoshenko'sbook.Thisiswherethesignificanceofsuchdevicesascontrast,coincidence,comparisonandsoonbecomesclear.Thevarietyinthisareaisinexhaustible,butoneoranotherassociationservesasageneralbasis.Sometimes,ofcourse,a title intrudes in thematter,but this isexactlyan instanceofwhenatitle is least tobedesired.Thedevicesofassociatingthepartsoftheperiod—thisisthebasicstylisticproblemofmontage.

Iamconcludingwith thisdeductionbecause, I repeat, further investigationof thisproblemmustbedoneona laboratorybasis.Inevitably,ofcourse,thequestionofthestylisticandgenrevariationsofafilmariseshere,butIamdeliberatelybarelytouchingonthisatpresent.

8

Itonlyremainsformetomention(again,ofcourse,inaverygeneralway)thebasicpeculiaritiesofcine-semantics,i.e.thosesignalsthroughwhichcinemaletsthespectatorcomprehendthesenseofwhatishappeningonscreen.Inotherwordsitisaquestionofhowtheseparatemomentsofafilm'reach'thespectator.

Ihavealreadynotedthatthecinemaspectatormustguessalot.Intheend,cinema,likeeveryotherart,isaspecialsystemofallegory(inthat,generally,itisusedasa‘language').Themainpeculiarityofcinemaisthatitgetsbywithouttheaidofthespokenword—itisthelanguageofphotogenybeforeus.Thedirector,actor,andcameramanaregivenatask—to'tellwithoutwords',andthespectator'staskistounderstandthis.Thisiswheretherearebothenormousadvantagesforcinemaandenormousdifficulties,andmasteringthesedemandsspecialgeniusandspecialtechnique.

Cine-languageisnolessconventionalthananyother.Thebasisofcinesemanticsismadeupofthatstockofexpressivityinmime

Page 20: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

andgesturewhichweassimilateineverydaylifeandwhichis‘directly'comprehensibleonthescreen.Butthisstock,firstly,istoomeagre for the construction of a film, and secondly, and this is themain thing, it is by itself sufficientlypolysemantic.Besides,cinema,likeanyotherart,isinclinedtocultivatethoseveryelementsofthissemanticswhicharenotutilisedineverydaylife.Cinemahasnotonlyitsown'language',butitsown‘jargon',whichisbarelyaccessibletotheuninitiated.

Agestureoffacialexpressiontakenseparately,likea‘dictionary'wordtakenseparately,ispolysemantic,undefined.Thisiswherethetheoryofbasicandsecondary(fluctuating)signsofmeaningisfullyapplicable—thetheorydevelopedbyYu.Tynyanovinhisanalysisofthesemanticsofverse:

Aworddoesnothaveonesingledefinedmeaning.Itisachameleon,inwhicheverytimenotonlyvariousnuancesarise,but sometimes even various colorations. The abstraction of'theword', properly speaking, is like a circlefilledupeachtimeinanewwaydependingonthelexicalsysteminwhichitoccurs,andonthefunctionswhicheachelementofspeechcarries.Itisasitwereacross-sectionofthesevariouslexicalandfunctionalsystems.27

Allofthisalsoholdsgoodinstudyingcine-semantics.Theseparatephotographicsnapshotisasortofdetached,'dictionary'cine-word.Thesemanticsofthephotograph,whichhasno'context'andstandsoutsidea'sentence',andthereforeoutsideany'lexicalplan',ispoorandabstract.Theclassical'Smile,please,withwhichsomephotographersalerttheirsubjects,isdictatedbythelackofasemantictask,thelackofcontext'.Ashowcaseofphotographsisa'dictionary',whereasashowcaseoffilm-stillsisacollectionofquotations.Itisinterestingtocomparetheimpressiongainedfromthesestillsbeforethefilm-showandafter.Inthefirstinstanceyoucanguessatonlyaverygeneralmeaningoftheseparatescenes—'Theyarekissing','Oneisfollowingtheother'andsoon;inthesecondinstancethestillscomealive,justasaquotationfromafamiliarbookcomesalive—becauseyouknowthepicture,youknowthe'context'.

Wecanmakeadeductionfromallthathasbeensaid:incinemawehaveasemanticsofframesandasemanticsofmontage.Thesemantics of the frame as such is rarely separately apparent, but certain details in the composition of the frames, connectedparticularly with photogeny, sometimes have an independent semantic significance. However the basicsemantic rolebelongs,ofcourse, to themontage, since it is themontagewhichcolours theframes,beyond theirgeneralmeaning,withdefinitesemanticnuances.Therearewell-knowninstanceswhenduringthereeditingofafilmthesameframesasbefore,butoccurringinanewmontage'context',cangainacompletelynewsense.Injustthesamewayaframewhichentersanewsreelfilm(thisiswhereanexclusivesemanticsof theframe isevident,becausemontageplaysno independent semantic role)canbeused in thefilm,but itsmeaningwillalreadybedifferent,becauseitwillenterthesemanticsofmontage.Thefactisthatcinemaisathoroughlysequentialart,28startingfromtheframesoffilmandendingwiththeframesofmontage:thesenseoftheseparateframesisgraduallyrevealedthrough their contiguity and sequence. The basic signs of theirmeaning are in themselves extremely changeable and are createdwithintheboundsofcinemalikesemanticcyphers,onwhichtheexperiencedcinemaspectator'sattentionnolongerdwellsforanygreattime.

Thesequentialityof cinema has a particular nature in connection withthe fact that montage does not give a completesequence, but an interruptedsequence.Mimicry on the screen, for example, is quite different frommimicry on the stage. Themimicryofthetheatreactoraccompaniesthewordshepronounces,isaconcomitanttothem;thetheatreactorreallydoesmimic—notatfocalpoints,butcontinuously.Thefilm-actordoesnotinanywayhavetogivethatgamutofmimicrywhichisessentialfortheperformanceof the theatreactor. Incinema there isnomimicry in this senseof theword,— there are simply the separate facialexpressions,posesorgestures,likesignalsofthisorthatmeaning.Thisiswhycine-mimicryissimultaneouslybothricherandpoorerthan theatremimicry— it proceeds in a quite different perspective and is subject to quite different rules of expressivity. ThemimickingmannersofChaplinorKeatonhaveasemanticeffectonlyincinema—wheretheyareconnectedwithclose-upsandotherparticularitiesofmontage.Stagemimicryisperceivedonthescreenas'over-acting'preciselybecauseforcinemaitistoofragmentary, toomuch constructed on the principle of the gamut of expressions. Cinemimicry ismuchmore static because thedynamicsareconcentratedinthemontage;incinemasemanticclarityintheseparatefacialexpressionsisimportant,type-castingisimportant,butmimicryisquiteunimportantandunnecessary.Beforeusonscreentherearejerks,flashingmoments;thesemustbekeptinmindfortheirownsake,whiletheirsemanticnuancesaregivenbythe'context'ofthefilmandbythesemanticsofthefilm'smontage.Thereisstillonegeneralproblem,whichconcernsthoseinstanceswhenadirectormustgiveaninterpretativecommentarytothisor

thatfeatureinafilm,ortoafilminitsentirety,i.e.whensomething'fromtheauthor'hastoappearinthefilmquiteapartfromtheplotitself.Theeasiestwayistogivethiscommentarybywayoftitles,butmoderncinemaisalreadytryingtoworkwithalternativemethods. I have inmind the appearanceofmetaphor in cinema,which sometimes acquires even a symbolic character.From thesemanticpoint of view the introductionofmetaphor into cinema isparticularlyinteresting,becauseityetagainreaffirmstherealsignificanceofinternalspeechnotasachancepsychologicalelementofcine-perception,butasaconstructiveelementoftheactual film.Thecine-metaphor isfeasibleonlyontheconditionthatitissupportedbyaverbalmetaphor.Thespectatorcanunderstanditonlyincircumstanceswherethereisacorrespondingmetaphoricalexpressioninhisstockoflanguage.Ofcoursethefuturedevelopmentofcinemamaysee theformationof itsownsemanticpatterns—patternswhichcanserveas thebasis for the

Page 21: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

constructionofindependentcine-metaphors,butthispossibilitydoesnotalterthebasicsituation.Thecine-metaphorisasortofvisualrealisationofaverbalmetaphor.Itisnaturalthatonlycurrentverbalmetaphorscanserveas

materialforcinemetaphors— the spectator quickly grasps them just because they arefamiliar tohimandare thereforeeasilyguessedatasbeingmetaphors.Thus,forexample,theword'fall'isusedinlanguagemetaphoricallytomeanaroadtoruin;hencethemetaphorprovedfeasibleinTheBigWheel:intheinnwherethesailorShorinfindshimselfabilliardtableisshown—andthebilliardballfallsintothepocketThetotallyepisodicnatureofthisscenegivesthespectatortounderstandthatitssenseisnotpartofthestory,butpartofacommentary:itisthestartofthefall'ofthehero.Anotherexample—fromTheOvercoat29:inthescenebetweenAkakyAkakievichandthe'ImportantPerson'thecameraangleschange:frombelow,whenAkakyAkakievichislookingatthe 'Important Person', and from above, when the 'Important Person' is shouting at Akaky Akakievich. 'From above— frombelow' are taken from a verbal metaphor ('to look down onsomeone'). The last example, by theway, gives grounds forthinkingthatthecine-metaphorhasabigfuturebeforeit,becauseitcanbeconstructedonthedevicesofcameraangle,illumination,etc.

Inthewholeofthisproblemitisextraordinarilyinterestingthattheverbalmetaphordoesnotbyitselfgobeyondthelimitsofpurelyverbalsemanticsiftheauthorhasnospecialtendencytoimpartacomicsensetoit.Ithasoftenbeenpointedoutthattheunfoldingorrealisationofaverbalmetaphorappearsinliteratureprimarilyasaparodyingdevice(seee.g.Mayakovsky).Thecine-metaphorisasitwereagenuinerealisationofaverbalmetaphorimplementedonscreen—sohowisitthatitcanbeperceivedseriously?Itisevidentlythecasethatincinema,firstly,wearemovingwithinthelimitsofcinematographic,notverbal,motivation,andthat,secondly,theinternalspeechofthecinemaspectator,formedbymeansoftheframes,isnotrealisedintheshapeofexactverbalformulations.Wegetareverserelationship:ifaverbalmetaphorisnotrealisedintheconsciousnessofthereader before a clear visual imageappears (i.e. the literal sense isovershadowed by the metaphoric sense), then the cine-metaphor is not realised in theconsciousnessofthecinemaspectatorbeforethelimitsofafullverbalsentenceappear.

Alotmorecouldbesaidabouttheconventionalisedsemanticsignsofcinema(thedissolve,shading,imprintingandsoon),theinterpretationofwhich is linkedeither tometaphorically renewedverbalpatterns,or to thepatternsofphotographyandgraphicsalready familiar to the spectator.But this must be discussed in detail. Cine-semantics is a new and complextheme whichdemandsaspecialanalysis.ForthetimebeingIhavemerelywantedtoestablishtheimportanceofthesemanticroleofmontage,andtoemphasisethesignificanceofthecine-metaphor,asinstancesoftheuseofverbalmaterialonthescreen.

Page 22: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

T H E F U N D AM E N T A L S O F C I N E M A

Y u r i T y n y a n o v

translatedbyL.M.O'Toole

1Theinventionofthecinematographwasgreetedjustasenthusiasticallyastheinventionofthegramophone.InthisenthusiasmtherewassomethingofthefeelingofprimitivemanwhenhefirstdepictedonthebladeofhisaxetheheadofaleopardandsimultaneouslylearnedtopiercehisnosewithastickThenoisecreatedbythejournalswaslikeachorusofsavagesgreetingthesefirstinventionswithahymn.

Primitivemanprobablycamequiterapidlytotheconclusionthatastickthroughone'snoseisn'tallthatmarvellousaninvention,butat least it tookhimmore timetoreachthatconclusion thanforaEuropeantobereducedtodespair through thegramophone.Presumablythepointisnotsomuchthatthecinematographisatechnicaldeviceasthatcinemaisanart.

Icanremembercomplaintsaboutcinemabeingflatandcolourless.Idonotdoubtthatwhentheprimitiveinventordepictedtheheadofaleopardonhisaxeacriticturneduppointingouttohimthepoorresemblanceofhisdrawing,andthathewasfollowedbyasecondinventorwhoadvisedthefirsttosticksomerealleopardfuronhisdrawingandtoinsertarealeye.Butprobablythefurstuckratherbadly to the stoneand from thecarelesslydrawnheadof the leopardwritingcame intobeingbecause thecarelessnessandinaccuracydidnothinderbuthelpedthedrawingtoturnintoasign.Secondaryinventorsusuallydonothavemuchsuccessandtheprospectsofthekinetophone,orsoundcinema,ofstereoscopicandcolourfilmhadnotexcitedusverymuch.Thereasonbeingthatyoustilldonotgetarealleopardand,what ismore,becauseartcannotdoanythingwith realleopards.Art, justlikelanguage,strivestoabstractiviseitsresources.Hencenoteveryresourcecanbeused.

Whenmandepictedtheheadofananimalonthebladeofhisaxe,hewasnotmerelydepictingit,itgavehimamagicalcourage—his totemwas righttherewith himonhisweapon; his totemwouldplunge into the breast of hisenemy. In other words, hisdrawing had two functions: a materialreproductivefunctionandamagicfunction.Anincidentalresultofthiswasthefactthattheheadoftheleopardappearedonalltheaxebladesofthewholetribe—soitbecamethesignofthedistinctionoftheirownweaponsfromthoseoftheenemy,becameamnemonicsign,henceanideogram,aletter.Whathadhappened?Theconsolidationofoneoftheresultsandatthesametime,aswitchingoveroffunctions.

Thisishowthetransitiontakesplacefromtechnicalresourcestotheresourcesofart.Livingphotography,whosemainroleistoresemblethenaturalworldbeingdepicted, turned into theartof thecinema.Thisinvolvedaswitchingoverofthefunctionofalltheresources—theywerenolongermerelyresourcesinthemselvesbutresourceswiththesignofart.Andherethe'poverty'offilm,itsflatnessanditscolourlessnessturnedouttobepositiveresources,thegenuineresourcesofart,justastheinadequacyandprimitivenessoftheancientdepictionofatotemturnedouttobepositiveresourcesonthewaytowriting.

2

Theinventionofthekinetophoneandofstereoscopiccinemaareinventionsthatremainatthefirststageofthecinematograph,sincetheir intendedfunction isareproductivematerialone, 'thephotographassuch'.They takeastheirstartingpointnottheshotunit,whichbearssomemeaningasasign,dependingonthewholedynamicsoftheshotsequence,butontheshotassuch.

Presumably,audienceswillperceiveaconsiderablenaturalresemblancewhentheyseeinstereoscopicfilmtheconvexwallsofhousesandconvexpeople's faces,but theconvexitiesexchanged in theprocessofmontage formore convexities, convex facesfloatingintootherconvexfaces,wouldseematotallyunauthenticchaoscomposedofseparateauthenticities.

Presumably,natureandmancolouredinnaturalcolourwouldverymuchresembletheoriginalsbutanenormousfaceinclose-upcoloured naturallywould be amonstrous and quite unnecessary strain, rather like a painted statuewith eyes revolvingonpivots.Besideswhich,colourexcludesoneof themainstylistic resources—that is, thealternationofvariouslightingsofamaterial of asinglecolour.

Theperfectkinetophonewouldhave tousesuchabominablyaccuratemontage that theactorswouldbeproducingsounds thattheyneeded(andthatcinemadidnotneed)quiteindependentlyofthelawsoftheunfoldingofcinematicmaterial.Onewouldendupnotmerelywithachaosofunnecessaryspeechesandsounds,butthiswouldmaketheregularchangeoverofshotsquiteunrealistic.

Weonlyhavetoimaginethedeviceofthedissolvewhenaspeakerrecallsanotherconversationtoremainquiteindifferenttothisrespectedinventor.The'poverty'ofthecinemais,infact,itsconstructiveprinciple.Sowereallyshouldhaveceasedalongtimeagotoutterthesourcompliment‘TheGreatSilent30.Afterall,wedonotcomplainaboutversesnothavingattachedtothemphotographs

Page 23: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

oftheheroineswhosevirtuesarebeingproclaimedandnobodycallspoetry‘TheGreatBlind'.Everyartmakesuseofsomesingleelementoftheperceivedworldasitscrucialconstructiveelement,whiletheotherelementsbecomemerelyimaginedbeneathitssign.Thusvisualandpicturesqueimagesarenotbanishedfromthesphereofpoetry,butacquirebothaparticularqualityandaparticularuse:inthedescriptivepoemofthe18thcenturyalltheobjectsofnaturearenotnamed,forinstance,butdescribedmetaphorically,throughlinksandassociationsfromotherseries.Inordertosay:teapouringoutofateapot,suchapoemwouldsay:‘afragrantboilingstreambubblingfromtheshiningcopper'.Thusthepictorialvisualimageisnotgivenhereanditperformsasthemotivationforthelinkingofmanyverbalseries—thatis,theirdynamicsisbasedontheriddlethathasbeenset.Itisnogoodpointingoutthatinthisconnectiontherealvisualrepresentationsarenotgiveneither,butmerelyverbalrepresentationsinwhichthesemanticcolouringofthewordsandtheirplayisimportantbutnottheobjectsthemselves.Ifweputstringsofrealobjectsintothestringsofwordsweshallgetanunbelievablechaosofobjectsandnothingmore.

Inthesameway,cinemaalsouseswords,butonlyeitherasamotivationforthelinkingofshots,orasanelementwitharoleonlyinrelationtotheshot,contrastiveorillustrative,andifwefillupthefilmwithwordsweshallgetnothingbutachaosofwords.

Forcinema,too,asanartform,noinventionsexistjustfortheirownsake:therearepurelytechnicalresourceswhichhelptoperfectits basic characteristics and these are selected according to the basic devices of the art form. This is where the interaction oftechniqueandartarises,quitethereverseofwhatwehadtostartwith:nowartitselfimpingesonthetechnicaldevices,artselectstheminitsmovementforwards,changestheiruseandtheirfunction,andfinallyrejectsthem—butitisnotatechniqueimpingingonart.Theartofcinemaalreadyhasitsbasicmaterial.Thismaterialmaybevariedorimproved,butthatisall.

3

The'poverty'ofcinema,itsflatnessanditscolourlessnessareinfactitsconstructiveessentials:thispovertydoesnotdemandnewdevicestofillitout,butnewdevicesarecreatedbyit,growonitsbasis.Theflatnessoffilm(whichstilldoesnotdepriveitofperspective),thistechnical'failing'isexpressedintheartofcinemathroughthepositiveconstructiveprinciplesofsimultaneityofseveralsequencesofvisualimages,onthebasisofwhichaquitenewinterpretationofgestureandmovementisachieved.

Wearepresentedwiththefamiliardeviceofthedissolve:apaperwithclearlydefinedprintisheldbysomefingers:theprintgoespale,theoutlinesofthepaperfade,throughittherebeginstoemergeanewshot,theoutlinesofmovingfiguresgraduallybecomingmoreconcreteandfinallycompletelydisplacingtheshotofthepaperwithprint.Clearlythislinkingofshotsisonlypossiblebecauseoftheirflatness;iftheshotswereconcave,inrelief,thenthisinterpenetrationofthem,theirsimultaneity,wouldbeunconvincing.Onlythroughtheuseofthissimultaneitycanthecompositionbemadepossiblewhichisnotmerelyareproductionofmovementbutisitselfconstructedupontheprinciplesofthatmovement.Dancecanbepresentedinashotnotonlyasa 'dance',butbya 'dancing'shotitself—throughthe'movementofthecamera'or'movementoftheshot'—everythingintheshotundulates,onerowofpeopledances on topof another.Herewehavepresented the special simultaneity of space.The lawof the impermeability of bodies isovercomebytwodimensionsofcinema,itsflatnessanditsabstractness.

Butboththesimultaneityandthesinglespaceareimportant,notfortheirownsake,butasthemeaning-bearingsignoftheshot.Oneshotfollowsanother,carriesforwardinitselfthemeaning-bearingsignofthatpreviousshot,iscolouredbyitsemanticallyfrombeginningtoend.Ashotwhichisconstructedaccordingtotheprinciplesofmovementisfarfrommateriallyreproducingmovement.Itprovidesasemanticimageofmovement.(SometimesasentenceinthewritingsofAndreiBely31isconstructedinthisway:itisimportant,notforitsdirectmeaning,butforitsveryphrasalcontour).Thecolourlessnessofcinemapermitsittocommunicatenotthematerialbutthesemanticjuxtapositionofdimensions,amonstrousnon-coincidenceofperspectives.Chekhovhasastory:achildisdrawinga largeman andbeside it a small house.Perhaps this is precisely thedeviceof art:scale is separated from itsmaterial-reproductivefoundationandmade intooneof themeaning-bearing signsofart; the shotwhich is filmedmagnifyingall objects isfollowedbyashotwithareducingperspective.Ashotfilmedfromabovewithasmallpersonisfollowedbyashotofanotherpersonfilmedfrombelow(takeforinstancetheshotofAkakiiAkakievichandtheImportantPersoninthesceneofthetelling-offinTheOvercoat32).A natural colouringwouldhere obliterate thebasic orientation, that is, a semantic attitude to scale.The close-upwhichpicksoutanobjectfromthespatialandtemporalconcurrenceofobjectswouldloseitsmeaninginnaturalcolour.

Finallythewordlessnessofcinema,orrather,theconstructionalimpossibilityoffillingtheshotwithwordsandsounds,revealsthecharacterofitsconstruction;cinemahasitsown'hero',itsspecificelementandtheparticularcharacteristicsofthetitleshot.

4

Differencesofopinionariseconcerningthis'hero'whicharetypicaloftheverynatureofcinema.Initsmaterial,cinemacomesclosetothespatialrepresentationalartssuchaspainting,whileintheunfoldingofthematerialitcomesclosetothe'temporal'arts,thatis,verbalandmusical.

Hencesuchfloridmetaphoricaldefinitionsas: 'cinema ispainting inmotion' (LouisDelluc)33or 'cinema is themusicof light'(AbelGance)34.Butdefinitionsofthiskindamounttopracticallythesameas'thegreatsilent'.

Toname thecinema in relation to theneighbouringarts is justasunproductiveasnaming thoseartsaccording to thecinema:

Page 24: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

painting—'immobile cinema',music— 'the cinemaof sounds', literature— 'thecinemaoftheword'.Thisisparticularlydangerous in thecaseofanewart.It isanexpressionofareactionarycultof thepast (passeism):callingsomenewphenomenonaccordingtooldones.

Inthemeantimeitisnotdefinitionsthatartrequiresbutstudy.Anditisquiteunderstandablethatintheearlystagesthe'hero'ofcinemawaspronouncedtobethereproduciblematerialobject—'theman-as-seen','the-thing-as-seen'(BelaBalazs)35.Buttheartsare distinguished not only and not so much by their objects as by their attitude towards those objects.To take a counter-example, the art of thewordwould be a simpleconversation,speech.Afterall,inspeechtoowegetthesame'hero'asinverse—theword.Butthepointispreciselythatthereisno'word'inageneralsense:thewordinverseplaysnothinglikethesameroleasitdoesinconversation,andthewordinprose—dependingonthegenre—playsnothinglikethesameroleasitdoesinverse.

And the selectionof 'theman-as-seen' or 'the thing-as-seen' is not inaccuratebecause cinemacanbe realisedwithout objects, butbecauseherethereisnoemphasisonthespecificuseofthematerial,—andyetitisthisusealonethatturnsthematerialelementintoanelementofart,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 arepresentedasameaning-bearingsign.

Itisfromthefirstpropositionthatwegetthenotionoffilmstyle,whilefromthesecondwegetthenotionoffilmstructure.Thesemantic relativityof theworld-as-seen is transmitted through its stylistic transformation. In thisprocess the relationshipbetweenpeopleandthingswithintheshot,therelationshipamongpeople,andtherelationshipofparttowhole—whatwearewonttorefertoas the 'composition of the shot', the camera angle and perspective inwhich they are taken and the lighting, all acquire colossalsignificance.Herefilm,preciselybecauseof its technicalflatnessandmonochromequality,overridesflatness;comparedwith themonstrousfreedomoffilmintheuseofperspectiveandpointofview,thetheatre,whichpossessestechnicalthree-dimensionalityandconvexity(preciselyduetoitsownpeculiarities),isconfinedtoasinglepointofviewandtoflatnessasanelementoftheartform.

Cameraanglestylisticallytransformstheworldasseen.Ahorizontal,slightlyslopingfactorychimney,orthecrossingofabridge,shotfrombelow,arepreciselythesamekindoftranslationoftheobjectintheartofcinemaasawholeassortmentofstylisticresourceswhichmakeathingnewinverbalart.

Not all camera angles and not just any lighting, of course, are equally powerful stylistic resources and powerful stylisticresourcesarebynomeansalwaysusable;butherewehaveaconstantartisticdistinctionbetweencinemaandtheatre.

5

Forcinematheproblemoftheunityofplacesimplydoesnotexist;theonlyproblemswhicharecrucialforitarethoseoftheunityof point of view andlighting.A single 'interior' shot in cinema is hundreds of varied camera anglesand lighting effects and hencehundredsofdifferentrelationshipsbetweenpersonandobjectandamongobjects—itishundredsofdifferent'places';fivesetsinthetheatreonlyamounttofive'places'withasinglepointofview.Hence,complextheatricalinteriorswithacomplicatedcalculationofperspectivearequitefalseinthecinema.Forthesamereasonthereisnojustificationforthesearchforphotogeneity.Objectsarenotphotogenicinthemselves,itiscameraangleandlightingthatmakethemso.Thereforethenotionofphotogeneity'ingeneralmustgivewaytothenotionofcinegeneity'.The same thing applies to all the stylistic devices of cinema.Adetail ofmoving legs in place of peoplewalking concentrates

attentiononanassociativedetailinexactlythesamewayassynecdochedoesinpoetry.Inbothinstancestheimportantthingisthat,insteadoftheobjectonwhichattentionisorientated,wearegivenanotherobjectlinkedtoitinassociation(infilmtheassociativelinkwill bemovement or a pose). This substitution ofa detail for the object switches the attention: through a single orientating signdifferentobjects(thewholeandadetail)aretransmitted,andthisswitchbreaksdownthevisibleobjectasitwere,makingitastringofobjectswithasinglemeaning-bearingsign,themeaning-bearingobjectoffilm.Itisquiteobviousthatintheprocessofthisstylistictransformation,(whichisnecessarilyalsoasemantictransformation),itisnot

the`man-as-seen'andnot the `object-as-seen'whichare the 'hero'ofcinema,buta 'new'mananda 'new'object—peopleandobjects transformedwithin thedimensionof theartform—that is, `man'and'object'ofcinema.Thevisiblerelationshipsbetweenvisiblepeoplearebrokendownandreplacedbyrelationshipsbetweencinematic'people'—everyinstant,unconsciouslyandalmostnaively — so deeply rooted is this principle in the very basis of the art form. Mary Pickford36, playing a little girl,surroundsherselfexclusivelywithtallactorsandisnot`cheating',probablynotevenbeingawarethatinthetheatreshewouldnotmanageto'cheat'inthisway.(Here,ofcourse,itisnotastylistictransformation,butmerelythetechnicaluseofoneofthelawsoftheartform.)

6

Butwhatisthephenomenonofthisnewmanandnewobjectbasedon?Whydoescinematicstyletransformthem?

Page 25: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

Becauseeverystylisticresourceisatoneandthesametimeasemanticfactor.Givenonecondition,ofcourse,thatthestylemustbeorganised,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 theordinaryandthestrange;hesitantlyhefollowsbehindtheauthor,hehashis'perspective'onthingsandtheir'lighting'shifted(thisisthecase,forinstance,inConrad'snovelTheHeartofDarkness,whereasimpleevent—ayoungnavalofficerreceivescommandofaship—growsintoagrandiose'shifted'event).Herethepointisintheparticularsemanticstructureofthings,intheparticularwaythereaderisintroducedtotheaction.Wehavethesamekindofpossibilitiesincinematicstyletoo,andessentiallytheprocessisjustthesame:ashiftoftheviewer's'perspective'isatthesametimeashiftintherelationshipbetweenthingsandpeople,andinvolvesasemantic replanningof theworld ingeneral.Thevariouschangesinlighting(orthesustainingofasinglelightingstyle)replantheenvironmentinexactlythesamewayascameraanglereplanstherelationsbetweenpeopleandthings.Onceagain,the'thingasseen'isreplacedbythethingofart.

Thesignificanceofmetaphorincinemaisverymuchthesame—asingleactionpresentedintermsofitsothervehicles—itisnotpeoplekissing,butdoves.Here, too, the thingasseenisbrokendowninto itscomponentparts,throughasinglesemanticsign. Itsvariousvehiclesarepresented,various things, but at the same time the action itself is brokendown and in a secondparallel (thedoves)aspecificsemanticcolouringistransmitted.

Eventhesesimpleexamplesaresufficienttoconvinceusthatincinema,bothnaturalisticmovementandmovementas-seen'aretransformed — thismovement-as-seen can be broken down, perhaps presented through a different object.Movement in cinemaexistseithertomotivatetheangleofpointofviewofthemovingperson,orasamodeof characterisinga person(gesture),orasachangeintherelationsbetweenpeopleandthings;anapproachtowardsanddistancingfromaperson(orthing)ofspecificpeopleandthings, i.e., movement in the cinema, does not exist for its own sake, butas a particular meaning-bearing sign. Thus outside itsmeaning-bearingfunction,movementwithintheshotisnotatallessential.Itsmeaningfunctioncanbetakenoverbymontage,asachangeoverofshotsinthecourseofwhichtheseshotsmayevenbestaticones.(Movementwithintheshotasanelementofcinemaisgenerallystronglyexaggerated;runningforalloneisworthweariesone.)Andifincinemaitisnotmovement-as-seen',allthesameitdoesoperatein 'itsowntime'.Inordertoestablishthedurationofsomesituationorother,cinemacanrepeatashot—theshot is interrupted a minimal number of times in either a variation or in the same form— and that is its duration, which isindisputably very far from the normal notion of duration-' as-seen', a duration which is entirely relative; if arepeated shot isinterruptedbyalargenumberofshots,this'duration'willbeconsiderableinspiteofthefactthattheduration-as-seen'oftherepeatshotmaybeminute.Relatedtothis is theconventionalmeaningofbothadiaphragmanddissolveasasignofa largespatialandtemporalseparation.

Thespecificityortime'incinemaisrevealedinadeviceliketheclose-up.Aclose-up abstracts a thingordetail or a face froma set of spatialrelationshipsandatthesametimetakesitoutofthestructureoftime.InthefilmTheBigWheel37thereisascene:burglarsareemergingfromarobbedhouse.Thedirectorsneededtoshowtheburglars.Theydidthisbyshowingthemasagroupinalongshot.Theresultwasincoherent:whyweretheburglarswastingtime?Butiftheyhadbeenshowninclose-uptheycouldhavesloweddownasmuchastheywantedbecausetheclose-upwouldhaveabstractedandtakenthemoutofthetimestructure.

Inthiswaythedurationofashotiscreatedbyitsbeingrepreatedandthatmeansthroughtheinterrelationshipbetweenshots.Buttemporal abstraction comes into play as a result of the absence of relatedness between the objects(or groups of objects) amongthemselveswithintheshot.

Both the first and second emphasise that cinema-time' is not realdurationbut a conventionaldurationbasedon therelatabilityofshotsortherelatabilityofvisualelementswithintheshot.

7

Theevolutionofthedevicesofanartalwaysbearsthetraceofitsspecificnature.Theevolutionofthedevicesofcinemahasagreatdealtoteachus.

Cameraangleinitsearliestformwasmotivatedasthepointofviewofaspectatororthepointofviewofoneofthecharacters.Similarlyadetailedclose-upwasmotivatedasbeingtheperceptionofacharacter.

Motivatedbythepointofviewofacharacteranunusualcameraanglelackedthismotivationandwaspresentedforitsownsake;bythisveryfactitbecamethepointofviewoftheviewer,bythisveryfactitbecameastylisticresourceofcinema.Thegazeofoneofthe characters in the shotmight fallon someobject or detail and that objectwas presented in close-up.When thismotivation isremoved,theclose-upbecomesanindependentdevicefortheselectionandemphasisoftheobjectasameaningfulsign—outsidealltemporalandspatial relationships.Normallyclose-upplays theroleofan 'epithet'ora 'verb' (afacewithanexpressionwhichisemphasisedinclose-up),butotherusesarepossibleaswell:theveryfactofbeingoutsidetimeandoutsidespacewhichispeculiartotheclose-upisusedasastylisticresourceforthefiguresofsimileandmetaphorandsoon.

Now,iffollowingtheshotinwhichamaninameadowispresentedinclose-upwegetalsoinclose-upashotofapigwalkingin

Page 26: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

thesameplace,thenthelawofsemanticrelativityoftheshotsandthelawoftheextra-temporalandextra-spatialmeaningof theclose-upoverrideswhatmighthaveappearedtobesuchapowerfulnaturalisticmotivationasthewalkingaroundofamanandapigatthesamepointintimeandspace;asaresultofthissequenceofshots,wegetnotatemporalorspatialcontinuityfromthemantothepig,butthesemanticfigureofsimile:themanisapig.

Thisishowtheindependentsemanticlawsofcinemaasanartformcomeintobeingandareconsolidated.Thesignificanceoftheevolutionofcinematicdevicesistobefoundinthisgrowthofitsindependentsemanticlawsandintheir

beingstrippedofnaturalistic'motivationingeneral'.Thisevolutionhas involvedwhatmighthaveappeared tobesuchfirmlymotivateddevicesasthe'dissolve-in'.This

device is very firmlyandquite consistentlymotivated as 'memory', 'vision', 'story'.But thedeviceofa'shortdissolve'—whenwithintheshotwelabel'memory'wegetaflashtooofthefaceoftheoneremembering—thisdestroystheexternal literarymotivationofthe 'memory'asamomentsequencedintime,andtransfersthecentreofgravitytothesimultaneityoftheshots;thereisno'memory'or'story'intheliterarysense,—whatthereisis'memory' inwhich thefaceof theoneremembering issimultaneouslycarried on, — and in that purely cinematographic meaning, this shotcomes close to another one: thedissolveofafaceagainstalandscapeorscenewhichistotallyoutofproportiontoitinmagnitude.Thislastdevice in itsexternal literary motivation is immeasurably far from'memory' or 'story', but cinematographically theirmeaningsareveryclose.

Thisisthewaythatcinematicdevicesevolve:theybecomeseparatedfrom'external'motivationsandacquireameaning'oftheirown';inotherwords,theyareseparatedfromasingle,externallydefinedmeaningandacquiremanyinternallydefinedmeanings'oftheirown'.Thismultiplicityorpolysemyofmeanings iswhatmakespossible the survivalof aparticulardevice andmakes it a'proper' element of the art, in this particular casemakes it the 'word'ofcinema.Wenotewithsomesurprise that there isnoadequatewordinthelanguageandtheliteratureforthenotionofadissolve.Ineveryparticularcaseorusewecandescribeitinwords,butthereisnowaythatwecandiscoveranadequatewordornotionforitinthelanguage.Thesamegoesforthepolysemyoftheclose-upwhichatonemomentprovidesadetailfromthepointofviewofbothcharactersoraspectator,whileatanothermomentitmakesuseoftheresultofthisisolationofthedetail,itsexistenceoutsidetimeandspace,asanindependentmeaning-bearingsign.

8

Thecinemaderivedfromphotography.Theumbilicalcordbetweenthemwascutatthatmomentwhencinemabecameawareofitselfasanartform.Thepointisthat

photographyhasitsowncharacteristicswhichhavenotbeenmadeexplicit,whichare,as itwere,unratifiedaestheticqualities.Themainorientationofphotographyisresemblance.Resemblanceisoffensive,wegetoffendedbyphotographsthatresembleustooclosely.Therefore,photographysecretlydeformsitsmaterial.Butthisdeformationispermittedonlywithoneassumption—thatthebasic orientation to resemblance will be sustained. However much the photographer may deform our face through the pose(positioning),thelightingandsoforth,allthisisacceptedwiththegeneraltacitassumptionthattheportraitwillbeararesemblance.From thepoint of viewof thebasicorientationof photography to resemblance anydeformation appears to be an'inadequacy'; itsaestheticfunctionisnotratified.

Cinema has a different orientation, and what is an 'inadequacy' for photography is transformed into a virtue and an aestheticquality.Thisistheradicaldistinctionbetweenthephotographandthefilm.Atthesametimephotographyhasotherinadequacies'aswellwhichhavebeenturnedinthecinemainto'positivequalities'.

Essentially, every photograph deforms its material. We only have toglance at photographs of' views' ; perhaps this is asubjective statement,but Ionlyperceive resemblanceofviews through theorientatingor, rather,differentiatingdetails—throughsomesingletree,orbenchorshop-sign.Andthisisnotbecauseitdoesnot 'bearageneralresemblance'butbecausetheviewhasbeenpickedout.Whatinnatureexistsonlyinconnection,andwithoutboundaries,inthephotographispickedoutandmadeintoadistinctindependentunity.Abridge,ajetty,atree,agroupoftreesandsoondonotexistinourvisionasunits;theyarealwayslinkedtotheirsurroundings;tofixonthemisamomentaryandtransitoryact.Thisfixing,onceitisconfirmed,exaggeratesamilliontimestheindividualfeaturesoftheviewand,preciselythroughthis,causestheeffectof'dissimilarity'.

This is also true of general views'— the choice of a camera angle,however innocent itmightbe, thepickingoutofaplacehoweverspaciousthatplacemightbe—leadstothesameresults.

Thepickingoutofmaterialinaphotographleadstotheunityofeveryphotograph,toapeculiarcrowdingofrelationshipsamongalltheobjectsorelementsofasingleobjectwithinthephotograph.Asaresultofthisinnerunitytherelationshipbetweentheobjectsorbetweentheelementswithinoneobject,isover-determined.Theobjectsbecomedeformed.

But this 'inadequacy' of the photograph, these inarticulated and 'uncanonised' qualities, to useViktor Shklovsky's expression,cometobecanonisedinthecinema,becomeitsstartingqualities,itscrucialpoints.Aphotographproducesasolitaryposition;inthecinemathatbecomesaunitofmeasurement.Ashotisthesamekindofunitasaphotographorasaclosed-offlineofverse.Iamusinghereandthroughoutthecommonterm'shot'inthesenseofasectionoffilmwhichisunifiedbyasinglecameraangleandlightingeffect.Infacttheframewillhavethe

Page 27: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

samerelationshiptotheshotasthefootinversehastotheline.Thenotionoffeetinverseisprimarilypedagogicalandinanycaseisrelevantonlyforaveryfewmetricalsystems,andthelatesttheoriesofverse-formdealwiththelineasametricalseriesandnotwiththefootaswithascheme.Forthatmatter,infilmtheory,thetechnicalconceptofaframeisnotsignificant,itisentirelyreplacedbythequestionofthelengthoftheshotsequence.

In the first lineaccording to this lawofunity, all thewordscomprisingthelineareinaspecialrelationshipinatighterdegreeof interaction;hence themeaningof theword inverse isnot the same, it isdifferent incomparisonnotonlywithall thevarietiesofpracticalspeech,butincomparisonwithprose.Inthisprocessallthelittleservicewords,allthoseunnoticedsecondarywordsofaspeech,becomeextraordinarilynoticeableandmeaningfulinverse.

Thus in theshot too thisunityextendsbeyond thesemanticmeaningofalltheobjectsandeveryobjectbecomes relative to theothersandtothewholeshot.

Withthisinmindwemustraiseafurtherquestion:inwhatconditionsdoallthe'heroes'oftheshot(peopleandthings)becomerelativetoeachother,orratheraretherenoconditionswhichpreventtheirbeingrelatedtoeachother?Theansweristhatthereare.

The'heroes'oftheshot,liketheword(orsounds)inverse,havetobedifferentiated,distinctive,andonlythenaretheyrelativetooneanother.Onlythendotheyinteractandmutuallycoloureachotherwiththeirmeaning.Hencetheselectionofpeopleandthings,hencetoo,cameraangleasastylisticresourceordelimiting,distinguishinganddifferentiating.

'Selection'arosefromthenaturalisticresemblance,fromthecorrespondenceofthepersonandthingofthecinematothepersonand thing of everyday life, what in practice is known as 'typecasting'. But in cinema, as in every art, whatever is imported forparticular reasons begins to play a rolequite beyond those original reasons. 'Casting' or selection serves in the firstplace todifferentiatetheactorswithinthefilm,i.e.itisnotmerelyanexternalselection,butaselectioninternaltotheartoffilm.

Hencetoo, themeaningofmovementwithin theshotresultsfromthedemandsfordifferentiationof the 'heroes'of theshot.Thesmokefromashipandfloatingcloudsarenecessarynotonlyassuchandfortheirownsake,justasanincidentalmanwhohappenstobewalkingalongadesertedstreet,orafacialexpressionandgestureofapersoninrelationtoanotherpersonorthingareallrequiredasdifferentiatingsigns.

9

Thisapparentlysimplefactdefinesthewholesystemofpantomimeandgestureinthecinemaanddistinguishesitdecisivelyfromthesystemsoffacialexpressionandgestureswhicharelinkedwithspeech.Thefacialexpressionandgesturesofspeechrealiseor'makemanifest'inamotorvisualsensethespeechintonation;inthisrespectthey,asitwere,complementverballanguage.Herethedisputeamonglinguistsaboutimpersonalsentencesismostintriguing.IntheopinionofWundt(whichPaulcontests)intheimpersonalsentence:'It'sburning!',theroleofthesubjectisplayedbythegesturepointingtotheburningobject(ahouse,orinitsmetaphoricalusesomeone'sheartandsoon).ThelinguistShakhmatovproposesthattheroleofthesubjectisplayedincaseslikethisbytheintonationofthespeech.Thisexampleshowsclearlytherelationshipbetweenspeechgesturesandmimeontheonehandandspeechintonationontheother.38

Thisistheroleofgesturesandpantomimeinthespokentheatre.Theroleofgesturesandfacialexpressionsinpantomimeliesinthe substitution for the word taken out. Pantomime is an art form based on what has been takenaway; a kind of play withsuppression.Herethewholeessenceispreciselyinthereplacingofanabsentelementbyothersbutinverbalartitselftherearemanycaseswhen 'complementary'mimeandgesturesareahindrance.HeinrichHeine39used tomaintain thatmimeandgestureswereharmfultoverbalwit:'thefacialmusclesareintoopowerfulandhighlystimulatedmovement,andthepersonobservingthemseesthethoughts of the speakerbefore they have been uttered. This hinders sudden jokes'. This means that the realisation of speechintonationinmimeandgestureisahindrance(inparticularcases)totheverbalstructureanddestroysitsinnerrelationships.Heine,at theendofhispoems,providesa sudden jokeand innowaywantshighlymobile facialexpressionsoreven thebeginningofagesturetosignalthejokebeforeithasbeenmade.Ofcoursethespeechgesturedoesnotonlyaccompanythewordbutitsignalsitandanticipatesit.Thisiswhytheatricalmimeissoalientocinematography:itcannotaccompanyverbalspeechsincethatislackinginthecinemabutitsignalsthewordandgivesitaway.Thesewordswhichareanticipatedbygesturesturnthecinemaintoakindofincompletekinetophone.

Facialexpressionandgesturewithintheshotareaboveallasystemofrelationshipsbetweenthe'heroes'oftheshot.

10

Butevenfacialexpressionmaybepresentintheshotwithoutrelationtoanything,andthecloudsmaynotbefloating.Relativityanddifferentialmaybetransferredtoanothersphere—fromtheshottothechangingofshots,tomontage.Evenstillshots,followingoneaftertheotherinaparticularway,allowonetoreducemovementwithintheshotstoaminimum.

Montageisnottheconnectingofshots,itisthedifferentialexchangeofshotsbut,preciselybecauseofthis,theshotswhichcanbeexchanged havesomerelationshipbetweenthem.Thisrelationship, thisrelativity,maybenotmerely in termsofplotbut toafar

Page 28: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

greaterdegreeintermsofstyle.Inpracticeweonlyhaveplotmontagesofar.Cameraangleandlightinginthiscasearenormallyjustpiledonanyhow.Thisisamistake.

Wehaveestablishedthatstyleisasemanticfact.Thereforestylisticdisorganisationandachanceorderingofcameraanglesandlightingisratherlikethejumblingupofintonationsinverse.Ontheotherhand,lightingandcameraangle,becauseoftheirmeaning-bearingnaturearenaturallycontrastiveanddifferentialandthereforetheirexchangealsocontributestothemontageofshots(makingthemrelativeanddifferential),justlikeaplotexchange.

Shotsinfilmdonot'unfold'inasequential,gradualorder,theyarepreciselyexchanged.Thisisthefoundationofmontage.Theyreplaceeachotherjustasasingleverseline,asinglemetricalunit,replacesanotheroneonapreciseboundary.Filmmakesajumpfromshottoshot,justasversemakesajumpfromlinetoline.Itmayseemstrange,butifwearetomakeananalogybetweenfilmandtheverbalarts,thentheonlyjustifiableanalogywillbenotwithprose,butwithverse.

Oneof themainconsequencesof the jumpingcharacterof film is thedifferentiatednessof shots and their existenceasunits.Shotsasunitsareequivalentinvalue.Alongshotmaybereplacedbyaveryshortshot.Thebrevityoftheshotdoesnotdepriveitofindependenceorofitsrelatednesstoothershots.Actually,theshotisimportantasa'representative':inamemory'throughdissolve'wegetnotalltheshotsofthescenerecalledbythehero,butadetail—asingleshot,andsimilarlytheshotingeneraldoesnotexhaustaparticularplotsituation,butismerelyrepresentativeofitintherelatednessofshots.Thisallowsoneinpracticethroughcross-cuttingtocutdownshotstoaminimumortouseasa'representative'ashotfromaquitedifferentplotsituation.

Oneofthedifferencesbetweenthe'old'and'new'cinemawasinthetreatmentofmontage.Whereasintheoldcinemamontagewasawayofparcellingoutandstickingtogetherandaresourceforexplainingplotsituations,aresourcewhichwas,initself,unperceivedandconcealed,inthenewcinemaitbecameoneofthecrucialandperceptiblefactors,thatis,perceivedrhythm.

Thatishowitwaswithpoetry:asafemonotonyandtheimperceptibilityofpetrifiedmetricalsystemswasreplacedbyasharpperceptionofrhythminfreeverse'.InMayakovsky's40earlyversealineconsistingofasinglewordmightfollowalongline,andanequal amount of energy fallingon thelong linewould then fall on the short line (lines as rhythmic strings are equivalent to eachother),thereforetheenergyadvancedinbursts.Itisthesamewithperceptiblemontage:theenergyfallingonalongbitthenfallsonashortbit.Theshortbit,consistingofa 'representative' shot isequivalent tothelongoneand—justlikethelineinversewhichmayconsistofoneortwowords—ashortshotofthiskindstandsoutinitsmeaningfulnessandvalue.

Thusthesequenceofmontageisassistedbythedifferentiationoftheclimaxes.Whereasinunperceivedmontageagreateramountoftimeisdevotedtotheclimax,withmontagewhichhasbecomeaperceivedrhythminthefilm,theclimaxisdifferentiatedpreciselybecauseofitsbrevity.

This would not have been the case if a bit of film as a unit had not been arelativemeasure,a unit of film measure. Wespontaneouslymeasurefilmaswearethrownfromoneunittothenext.Thisiswhywearephysicallyirritatedbythefilmsofthoseeclecticdirectorswhoinonepartofafilmusetheprincipleofoldmontage,thatis,montageasconnection,wherethesolemeasureis the exhaustiveness of the 'scene' (plot situation), while atanother point they use the principle of newmontage,wheremontagehasbecomeaperceptibleelementinthestructure.Ourcreativeenergyisgivenaparticular task,aparticulardirectionandsuddenlythistaskchanges,theinitialimpulseislostandsinceithasalreadybeenacceptedbyusinthefirstsectionsofthefilm,thenewoneisnotsensed.Thisishowgreatthepowerofmeasureisinthecinema,ameasurewhoseroleissimilartotheroleofmeasure,thatismetre,inverse.

Ifweputthequestioninthisway,whatthencanbetherhythmofcinema—atermwhichisveryoftenusedandoftenabused?Rhythm is the interactionof stylistic choiceswithmetrical ones in theunfoldingof the film, in its dynamics.Camera angle andlightinghavesignificancenotonlyintheexchangeofshot-bits,butasasignmarkingtheexchange,butevenintheseparationofbitsasculminationpoints.Thishastobetakenintoaccountintheuseofparticularcameraangles,modesoflighting.Theymustnotbeincidental, not just 'good' and 'beautiful' in themselves,— but good in the particular case in their interaction with themetricalprogressofthefilm,withthemeasureofmontage.Cameraangleandlightingwhichpickoutaseparatebitmetrically,donotplayatallthesameroleascameraangleandlightingwhichpickoutinametricalsenseaweaklydefinedbit.Theanalogyoffilmwithverseisnotessential.Ofcoursefilm,justlikeverse,isaspecificartform.Butthemenoftheeighties

wouldnothaveunderstoodourcinemaanymorethantheywouldunderstandcontemporaryverse:

Ourcenturyoffendedyou,inoffendingyourverse.The'jumping'characteroffilm,theroleinitoftheshotasaunitandthesemantictransformationofeverydayobjects(wordsin

verse,thingsinfilm)makefilmandversecloserelatives.

11

Thusthefilm-novelisjustaspeculiaragenreasthenovelinverse.AfterallPushkin41himselfsaid:amwritingnotanovel,butanovelinverse.There'sahellofadifference'.Whatisthis'hellofadifference'betweenafilmnovelandanovelasaverbalgenre?

Page 29: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

Thedifferenceisnotjustinthematerial,butinthefactthatstyleandstructurallawstransformincinemaalltheelementswhichmighthaveseemedtobedistinctandequallyapplicabletoallformsofartandtoallitsgenres.Thesamesituationobtainswiththefable(tabula)andplot(syuzhet)incinema.Inresolvingtheproblemofthefableandplot,we

alwayshavetotakeintoaccountthespecificmaterialandstyleofanartform.ViktorShklovsky, thecreatorof thenew theoryofplot,proposed twosituations: ( I) theplotasanunfolding,and (2) the link

between the devicesof plot organisation and style. The first of these—which transfers the studyof plot from the dimension ofstudyingstaticmotifs(andtheirhistoricalrealisation)tothewayinwhichmotifsaremadetopenetratetheconstructionofthewhole—hasalreadyprovedproductiveandhastakenroot.Thesecondargumenthasnotyettakenrootandseemstohavebeenforgotten.

ItisaboutthisthatIwanttotalk.Sincetheproblemofthefableandplotinfilmhasbeentheleastresearched,andsinceforthis considerablepreparatory studies are required that have not yet been carried out, I will permit myself to explain therelationshipthroughliterarymaterialwhichismorethoroughlyresearched,butmyaimwillbemerelytoposetheproblemhereofthefableandplotincinema.Thiswill,Ithink,seemreasonable.

Firstofallwemustagreeabouttheterms:fable(tabula)andplot(syuzhet)42Thefabulaisnormallyusedtorefertoastaticschemeofrelationshipsof•thetype:'Shewasnice,andhelovedher.He,however,

was not nice and shedid not love him', an epigraph by Heine. Theschemeof relationships (fable)of Pushkin's Fountain ofBakhchisaraiwillthenbesomewhatasfollows:GireilovesMariya,Mariyadoesnotlovehim.ZaremalovesGirei,hedoesnotloveher'. It's absolutely clear that this scheme explains nothing at all inTheFountain ofBakhchisarai,or inHeine's epigraph, and isequallyapplicable to thousandsofdifferent things,all thewayfromthephraseof theepigraph to thewhole poem.Let us consideranotherapparentnotionoffable:aschemeofaction.Thefablewillthenbedenotedinitsminimalformmoreorlessasfollows:GireihasfallenoutoflovewithZaremabecauseofMariya.ZaremakillsMariya'.ButwhatarewetodowhennosignofthisdenouementistobefoundinPushkinatall?Pushkinonlypresentsuswithapossibilityofguessingatthedenouement,thatis,thedenouementisdeliberatelyveiled.TosaythatPushkinhasdeviatedfromourfableschemewouldberatherboldbecausehenevertookaccountofitatall.Thisisratherliketappingoutthemetre(aniambicscheme)followinghisversesatthebeginningofEugeneOnegin:

MoidyádyasámykhchéstnykhprávilKogdánevshútkuzanemógMyuncle—highidealsinspirehim;butwhenpastjokinghefellsick,(TranslationbyCharlesJohnston,1977)andsayingthatinthewordzanemog[fellsick]Pushkindeviatedfromtheiamb.Butwoulditnotbebettertogiveuptheschemethantoconsidertheworkitselfadeviation'fromit?Andindeeditmakesmoresensetoconsiderthemetreofthepoemnotaloot-scheme',butawholeaccentuated(stressed)projectforone.

Thenthe'rhythm'willbethewholedynamicsofthepoemproducedthroughtheinteractionofmetre(markedstress)withspeechlinks(syntax)andwithsoundlinks(alliteration,soundechoes',etc.).

Thesameappliestotheproblemoffableandplot.Weeitherriskcreatingschemeswhichcannotbefittedintothework,orwehavetodefinethefableasthewholesemanticintentionoftheaction.Thentheplotofthepiecewillbedefinedasitsdynamicsproducedthroughtheinteractionofallthelinksinthematerial(includingthoseofthefable,aslinksintheaction)—whetherofstyleoroffable,etc.Thelyricpoemalsohasplot,butherethefableisofquiteadifferentorderandithasatotallydifferentroleinthedevelopmentoftheplot.Theplotmaybeoutoflinewiththefable(AsViktorShklovskyfirstshowedinhisessaysonSterneandRozanov).Hereseveraltypesofrelationshipbetweentheplotandthefablearepossible.

1.Theplotrestsforthemostpartonthefable,i.e.onthesemanticsoftheaction.Here thearrangementof the linesof fablebecomesespecially important,withone lineretardinganotherandsetting theplot in

motionintheprocess.Onecuriousexampleofthistypeiswhentheplotdevelopsalongafalselineoffable.Forinstance,inAmbroseBierce'sIncidentatOwlCreek43amanisbeinghanged,hebreaksfreeintothecreek—theplotgoesondevelopinginafalselineoffable—heswims,runsaway,runstoahouse—andoncethere,dies.Inthelastlinesittranspiresthathewasimagininghisflightduringtheminutebeforedeath.ThesamethinghappensinPerutz'sALeapintotheUnknown44.

Interestinglyenough, inoneof themost fable-centrednovels,Hugo' sLesMiserables45, the 'retardation' is achieved boththrough themass ofsecondarylinesoffableandthrough theintroductionofhistorical,scientificanddescriptivematerials—fortheirownsake.Thisistypicalforthedevelopmentoftheplot,notthefable.Thenovel,asalarge-scaleform,demandsthiskindofplotdevelopmentoutside the fable.Aplotdevelopmentadequate to thedevelopmentof the fable is typicalof theadventure story.(Incidentally, 'largescaleform'inliteratureisnotamatterofthenumberofpages,anymorethaninthecinemait isamatteroffootage.Thenotionof'large-scaleform'isaquestionofenergy,accounthastobetakenoftheworkinreconstructionexpendedbythereader, (orviewer).Pushkincreateda largeforminverse throughdigressions.APrisoner in theCaucasusisnobiggerinscalethansomeoftheepistles'byZhukovsky,butit isalargeform,becausethedigressions'throughmaterialthatisfar

Page 30: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

fromthefableextend toa remarkabledegree the space'of thepoemand induce the reader towork throughanequalnumberofversesinanEpistletoVoeikovbyZhukovsky46andinPushkin'sAPrisonerintheCaucasuswithaquitedifferentamountofeffortexerted.IamadducingthisexamplebecausePushkinusedmaterialfromZhukovsky's'epistles'inhispoem,butmadeitadigressionfromthefable.)

Thisprincipleofretardationthroughtheuseofquitedistantmaterialisparticularlycharacteristicofthelarge-scaleform.So,too,incinema: 'large-scalegenres'differfrom'chambergenres'notmerely in the numberof lines of fable, but in the

amountofretardingmaterialingeneralaswell.2.Theplotdevelopsatoddswiththefable.Inthiscasethefableisguessedat,withtheriddleandsolutiononlymotivatingthedevelopmentoftheplot—andthesolutionmay

notbegivenatall.Inthiscasetheplotistransferredtothearticulationandpackagingofthepartsofthespeechmaterialoutsidethefable.Thefableisnotgiven,andinitsplacethe'searchforthefable'createsthetensionandleadsitforward,astheequivalent,orsubstituteforthefableitself.ManyofPilnyak's47andLeonhardFrank's48pieces,forexample,areofthiskind.In'searchingforthefable'thereaderevaluatesandarticulatestheseparatepartswhicharelinkedonlystylistically(orbythemostgeneralmotivationsuchasunityofplaceortime).

Quiteclearly,whatstandsoutinthistypeasthemainmotoroftheplotisthestyle,thestylisticrelationsofthesectionsbeinglinkedwitheachother.

12

Theconnectionbetweenthedevicesofplotcompositionandstylecanalsobediscoveredinworkswheretheplotisnotoutoflinewiththefable.LetusconsiderGogol's49storyTheNose.Thethrustofthefableandthesemanticsoftheactioninthispiecearesuchastobringtomindalunaticasylum.Oneonlyhasto

followtheoutlineofasinglelineofthefable,thatofthe'nose':MajorKovalev'scutoffnose..strollsalongtheNevskyProspectas'MrNose';'MrNose',tryingtomakehisescapeinacarriagetoRiga,isinterceptedbytheregionalsuperintendentandreturnedwrappedinaragtohisformerowner.

Howcouldalineoffableactionlikethisberealisedinaplot?Howcouldthemerelyidioticbecomeapieceofartistic'idiocy'?Thewholesemanticsystemofthepieceturnsouttoplayarolehere.ThesystemofnamingthingsinTheNoseiswhatmakesitsfablepossible.

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,butfromtheseexcerptsitis 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'insuchawaythatthereader,alreadypreparedandalreadydrawnintothissemanticworld,findshimselfeventuallyreadingwithoutatraceofsurprisesuchcrazysentencesas:'ThenoselookedattheMajoranditsbrowsfrownedslightly'.

Thusaparticularfablebecomesaplotelementthroughthestylewhichinvestsobjectswithasemanticatmosphere.ItmaybeobjectedthatTheNoseisanexceptionalwork.Butonlyspacepreventsmefromprovingthatthesamethinghappensin

Bely's50novelsPetersburgandTheMoscowEccentric(infactwejusthavetopointtothe'wornout'fableintheseotherwisesuperbnovels)andmanyotherworks.

Whenwecometothoseworksorauthorswhosestyleis'restrained'or'pallid',etc.,weshouldnotsupposethatthestylehasnorole—justthesame,everyworkisasemanticsystem,andhowever'restrained'thestylemaybe,itexistsasameanswherebythesemanticsystemisconstructedandthereisadirectlinkbetweenthissystemandtheplot,whetheritisaplotdevelopingwithinoroutsidethefable.

Systemsvary,however,indifferentthings.Butthereisonekindofverbalartwherethemostprofoundlinkbetweenthesemanticsystemandtheplotisquiteobvious.Thisisthesemanticsystemrepresentedbyverse.

Inpoetry,whetherintheheroicodeoftheeighteenthcenturyorinanepicbyPushkin,thislinkisquiteclear.Argumentsaboutsystemsofmetrealwaysturnoutwithpoetrytobeargumentsaboutsemantic systems—andinthefinalanalysisthequestionof

Page 31: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

howtheplotishandledinpoetryandoftherelationofplotandfabledependsonthisissue.Thisisbecausetheproblemofgenresisboundupwiththisquestion(oftherelationofplottofable).Thisrelationdoesnotmerelyvaryindifferentnovels,shortstories, longpoemsandlyrics—butvariesaccordingtogenre:the

novelversustheshortstory,thelongpoemversusthelyricpoem.

13

InthisarticleIonlywanttoposethequestion:(1)abouttheconnectionbetweenplotandstyleincinema,and(2)aboutfilmgenresbeingdefinedbytherelationshipbetweenplotandfable.

InordertoposethesequestionsIhave'gallopedoffandtriedtoclarifytheissueintermsofliterature.The'leapback'intocinemarequiresstudyatlength.Aswehaveseeninliterature,onecannottalkoffableandplot'ingeneral'andanyplotiscloselyconnectedtoaparticularsemanticsystemwhichis,initsturn,governedbystyle.

The role in the plot ofTheBattleshipPotemkin51of the stylistic-semanticresources is quite clear, but it has not been studied.Furtherstudywillrevealthisinlessobviouscasestoo.Talkingabouta'restrained'styleora'naturalistic'styleinparticularfilmsbyparticulardirectorsisnotisolatingtheroleofstyle.Thesearejustdifferentstylesandtheirroleswillvaryaccordingtothewaytheplotdevelops.Thestudyofplotincinemainthefuturewilldependonthestudyofitsstyleand,inparticular,itsmaterial.Justhownaiveweareinthisrespectisprovedbythatmodeofdiscussingfilmwhichhasbecomeestablishedandmadefashionable

byourcritics:ascenario(ofanalreadymadefilm)isdiscussed,thenthereisadiscussionbythedirector,etc.Butweshouldnottalkaboutscenariointermsofafilmthathasalreadybeenmade.Thescenarioalmostalwaysconveysthe'generalfable',withacertainapproximationtothestaccatonatureoffilm.Thescenariowriterdoesnotknowhowthefableisgoingtobedevelopedorwhattheplotwillbe,anymorethanthedirectordoesbeforehehasviewedthefilmedsequences.Andatthispointthepeculiaritiesofaparticularstyleandsubjectmattermaypermitthewholescenariofabletodevelop—thefableofthescenarioentersthepicture'whole'—ormaynotpermitit,andintheworkingprogressthefablechangesimperceptiblyinitsdetailsandispushedinacertaindirectionbythedevelopmentoftheplot.

Wecan talkof cast-iron scenarios' in thosecaseswhere there arestandardstylesofdirectionandacting,i.e.whenthescenariotakesanestablishedfilmstyleasitsstarting-point.

14

Thelackofworkontheoryleadstoevenmorecriticalerrorsinpractice.Thequestionoffilmgenres,forinstance.Genreswhichhavecomeintobeinginverbal(includingdramatic)artareoftentransferred,wholesaleandready-made,tofilm.The

result?Unexpected.Take,forinstance,historicaldocumentary.Whenitistransferredwholesaleintothecinemafromliterature,itmakesthe

filmprimarilyareproductionofamovingportraitgallery.Thepointisthatinliteraturethemainassumption(thatitbelife-like)isprovidedofitsownaccord—byhistoricalnames,dates,etc.,whereasincinemathemainquestionwithadocumentaryapproachofthiskindislifelikeness.Theviewer'sfirstquestionwillbe:'Diditlooklikethat?'

WhenwereadanovelaboutAlexanderI,whateverhisactionsinthenoveltheyarestilltheactionsof'AlexanderI'.Iftheyareunconvincing,then'AlexanderIhasbeendepictedinaccurately',butthe'AlexanderI'remainstheassumptionfromwhichwestart.Incinemaanaiveviewerwillsay'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,buteventhecine-

lyric-poem.Itisonlytimiditythatpreventspeopleadvertisingahistoricaldocumentaryasa'movingportraitgallery'fromsuch-and-suchanepoch.

Imust repeat that the question of howplot relates to style in the cinema and the role they play in defining cinematic genres

Page 32: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

requireslengthycarefulstudy.HereIhaveconfinedmyselftoposingthequestion.

Page 33: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

THENATUREOFCINEMA

BorisKazansky

translatedbyJoeAndrew

1Inorder toconstruct any sortof authoritativeormerelyconsequentialpoeticsoffilmonedefinitelyneedsapriorstatementconcerningatleastthebasicprinciplesofageneraltheoryofcinema,whichonemighttermacinematology'.Althoughtherealreadyexistsaconsiderableliteratureoncinemathemostsubstantivequestionsofthisarthavenotbeenelaboratedmethodically;indeed,theyhavenotevenbeendelineatedinascientificfashion.Thissituationcan,ofcourse,bepartiallyexplainedbytheveryyouthofthecinema,andinpartbytheantiquityofaestheticviewswhicharestilldominantinthefieldofart.Itistruethatthenewaestheticisactivelyengagedinarevisionoftraditionaloutlooksonthebasisofthemethodsemployedincontemporaryscience,buteventhisaestheticisexclusivelyconcernedwith the 'serious'artforms,whosehistoryhasbeenelaborated inmoredetail.Cinema,however,remained,untilrecently,alow-browandvulgargenre,asortofhybridorartsurrogate,locatedsomewherebetweenthecircusandradio.However,theoutstandingplaceincontemporaryculturewhichcinemahasmanagedtoattaininamerethirtyyears—thatis,in comparisonwith other art formswhich have existed for several thousandyears—would seem to give it the right to somespecial attention. To thesefacts one might add two circumstances which make the construction of a theory of cinema ofimportanceinprincipleforageneral,scientificaesthetic.

Cinema has emerged in living memory and has developed literally beforeour eyes. Consequently a study of it presentsopportunitiesandpromisesresultswhich cannot be afforded by the other arts, whose origins areshroudedinthemistsoftimeandareconcealedfromsoberresearchbythefogoflegendsandthedogmaoftradition.

Cinemaemergedfromphotographyandremainspartofitbyitsverynatureandbyitstechniques.Itdevelopedintoadiscretebranchofindustrywithenormouscapitalandahugework-forceandcomplexindustrialequipment.Thesetechnicalaspectscauseasharpdivisionbetweenitandtheother 'serious'arts,whichgenerallyremain,at least in termsof themeansofproduction,attheelementarystagesofahandicraftor'domesticart'.Contemporaryaestheticswhicharebasedexclusivelyonastudyoftheselatterart forms, of necessity, inevitably preserve unchanged the very fundamentals of traditional aesthetics, even though theyattempt toovercometheseaesthetics.Itshouldbesaid,however,thatthesignificanceoftechnicalaspectsinthedevelopmentofcertainartsisundoubtedlyverylarge.Itissufficienttorecalltheroleofmusicalinstrumentsinthehistoryofmusic,orstagesetsintheevolutionofthetheatre,ortheemergenceofsuchnewgenresofpaintingasengraving,lithographyandsoon.Inthisrespecttoostudyofcinemawillbefruitfulforartistictheorybywideningthescopeofresearchintoitandbyilluminatingaseriesofimportantphenomenawhichhavesofarremainedintheshadowsandhaveeludedobservation.

But, of course, precisely this problematic of cinema, which poses itself inthe method and terminology of scientifictheorising about art, lays aprofoundresponsibilityontheresearcherandpresentsparticulardifficulties.Accordinglyoneshouldmakethereservationthatthepresentarticlehasasitsaimmerelythedefiningofthepathforfutureresearchandofindicatingthefundamentalsignpostsforsuchresearch.

2

Withoutquestioncinemaisashow.Withoutquestioncinemaisadramawhoseplotoftenduplicatesplays,orstorieswhichhavebeenstaged.Likethem,piecesforcinemaaredirectedbyadirector,playedbyactors,havesetsandpropsandareaccompaniedbymusic.Itwouldseemthatitwouldbenaturaltoconsidercinemaasatypeoftheatre.However,suchaformulationencountersconsiderabledifficulties.Theatreartisamixedartwhich,throughthemillenia,hasretainedtheprimordialanthropologicalandsocialcharacterof a syncretic action-play', in the sense that it is adirect depiction ofman and his immediate impact upon others. Dance,wrestling,acrobatics,ontheonehand,andoratory,singingandnarrationontheother,have,justasactingdoes,thesamefundamentalcharacteristic factofaliveperformancebytheartist,the'player'whohasadirectimpactonthespectatorand,inhisownturn,issubjecttothelatter'simpactonhim.Thisinteractionisobviouslyapartofactingand,atthesametime,involvesthespectatorintheplay, includinghimnotonlyexternally,byvirtueof thefact that the stageand theauditoriumare located in the samespace,butinternally too, in the very creation of the story. By virtue of this immediatecreative interaction the stage, in principle, does notconstitutean'artobject'whichisseparatefromtheprocessofperformance,detachedfromtheartist,final,closedandexistinginitsownrightCinema,bycontrast,isanon-immediateart.Itcreatesafilm,whichisasindependentanobject,asfinalaproductasa

Page 34: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

statueorapainting.Thespectator'sattitudesarenotincluded.Theplaceofactionislocatedinacompletelydifferentspacefromthespectator's,asspacehereisimaginary,justasfictitiousasinapainting.

But,perhapsfilmisjustthekindofworkwhichtheatre.arthassofarlacked,andwithoutwhichitcouldnotbecomegenuineart,the'artobject'whichthestage-showaspiredtointhethinkingofStanislavsky52,Craig3,Meyerhold54andTairov55?Theanswer isno,forthedirectlinkbetweentheactorandhispublicinthesamerealspacepertainstotheveryessenceofstageart.Thefactofliveperformance,theinfectionofthespectator,comprisetheveryessenceofactingandtheotherperformingarts,asopposedtothe arts which are the domain of the creative artist. Everyattempt tocreate suchan 'object'of theatreart,whichmightbecontemplatedassituatedinawindow,asitwere,contradictsinprincipletheveryessenceofthestagewhichdoesnotallowofsucha'museum'approachtoitselfandwhichisdestroyedbysuchacontemplation.

Moreover,anaccurateandcompletereproductionofastageshowremainsapurelytechnicalfact,likearecordofasongormusicbroadcastontheradio.

However,theredoexiststage-showswhichareundoubtedlyartisticinwhichthefactofliveperformance,thatis,acting,isabsent.Puppets,withwhichCraigdreamedofreplacingactors,areonesuchexample,asaretheChineseshadowplays.Bothofthese,byanalogywiththestage-show,areoftencalled'theatre'.Butitisquiteobviousthatthisisananalogyonlyonthelevelofcontentandthat it exists onlybecauseof themanifestly imitativenatureof these genres, just as 'tableauxvivants' are so calledbecauseof thepictorial tendencies of these performances. The analogy is in no way comparable with that of the voice and violin which arecompletelyofthesameorderacoustically.Atthesametimeitisusefultorememberthatthe'panorama'isalsoakindofstage-show,thatis,afterall'theatre',andthatthisisaformwhichindisputablybelongstopainting.Similarexamplesofthiskindoftheatreareagroupofwaxautomata(undoubtedlyaformofsculpture)and,finally,evenanartificiallandscape,whichisdefinitelyabranchofarchitecture.

Allofthismakesitclearthat'theatre',asdistinctfrom'thestage'isaveryimpreciseterm.Literallyitdesignatesa'spectacle'.Butitisquiteobviousthataspectacle'couldbeanynaturalphenomenon,anyfactfromeverydaylife,ingeneral,anythingthatiscapableofattractingorcaptivatingthehumangaze.However,thegivenphenomenonistherebyconsideredanalogouslywithartworks,thatis,asapainting,asculpturalgroup,scenicactionandsoforth.Inexactlythesamewaya'spectacle'inthissamegeneralsensecanbeapainting,astatue,abuilding,astage-showorevenabookasitisread.Inthesamegeneralsense,asanobjectoftheviewer'sperceptionafilmtoo,ofcourse,canbecalleda'spectacle'.Butthisideabringsusnonearertoanunderstandingoftheessenceofthecinema.Ascontemporaryscientificaesthetictheorytellsus,thespecificfeaturesofagivenartformmustbesoughtinitstexture,thatisinthematerialandtechnicalbaseofthegivenart,whichinitsownturn,determinestheentireformalsystemofitsdevicesandthewholevarietyofitsstyles.Accordingly,inordertounderstandthenatureofcinema,onemustaddressoneselftoaformalanalysisofitsproductions—thatis,thefilmitself.

3

Afilmisaseriesofimagesinshadows,whichappeartomoveonthelightfieldofthescreen:inthefinalanalysisitisalwaystheplayofdarklinesandpatchesagainstawhitebackground.Afilm,inmaterialterms,doesnotcontain,norcanitcontainanythingbutthis.Inthisway,formallyspeaking,cinemaisapeculiarartofshadow-painting,thatis,aspecialformof'graphics'.Justasapaintingiscreatedbyputtingsomecolouringmaterialoranotheronasurface,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.Screendepiction ismobile.By this fact itpossessessequentiality,thatis, ithasatemporalaswellasaspatialdimension.Becauseofitscapacityforexpressingmovementcinema,furthermore,takesoncertainplotpossibilitieswhich,ofcourse,arenotaccessibleeventothemostplot-orientatedofthefinearts,namelypainting.ItistruethatpaintingtoomaybesequentialandevennarrationalasinthecycleofcaricaturesbyBoucher56andCarand'Ache57,asinaseriesofillustrationsoranalbumofsketches,whicharelinkedtooneanotherbyacommontheme,andwhichtherebyacquireanundoubtedlytemporaldimension,despitetheintermittentnatureoftheseseries.Buthoweversequentiallyandconnectedlypaintingmayconveytheseparatestagesofmovementoractionitcanonlymoreorlessapproximatetotheircompletedepiction,justastheaugmentingofsidestoapolygononlyformstheapproximationofthecircumferenceofacircle.Cinemaalonedepictstheveryflowofactioninanuninterruptedformand,bythisfact,hasthecapacityforconveying,asaspectacle,adramaticsubject in thesameway that theatre art does. It is this that has given cinema such anoutstanding place in comparisonwith theotherpictorialarts.However,thefollowingmustalsobenoted.

Dramatism,assuch,maybeafunctionofavarietyofarts—painting,music,dance, literature,andforeachformcreatesonly one stylisticgenre,suchas theballad inpoetryor thenovella innarrativeart.Thedepiction of action in itself, beingonlyonecategoryofthecontent,equallydoesnotcreateaseparateart,butonlyagenre,suchas'martial'or'genre'painting.Butitcanbeconnectedwithakindoftransformationwhichcreatesanewsystemoftexture, that is,anewart.Similarly, thesametextureofhumanexpressivenesswhichliesatthebasisofactingbutwhosecontentisorganisedbythedirectionintothesystemofthestage-show,createsanewart—scenicart.Suchalsoistheessenceofarchitectureinwhich,fundamentally,weseea

Page 35: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

transformationinanewsystemofelementswhichare,itwouldseem,sculpturalandpictorial.All thepartsanddetailsofarchitecturewhentakenseparately—columns,steps,arches,spiresandsoon,tosaynothingofstatuary,reliefsandlines which have a pictorial and decorative significance— are all, in fact, sculptural works, which have a certain independentexistence and value. Butwhen they are used as secondary elements, defined and interlinked by the particular principle oforganisation, as integratedelements of a new whole in a different order, they acquire new functions which are thenmeasured in the currencyof a new systemof art.Architecturedoesnotarticulatesurfacesandmasses,aspaintingandsculpturedo,butrather 'space'.Moreprecisely, itorganisessurfacesandmasses(ortheirrelationships)inspaceand,hence,deservesthetitleofaseparateart.

In thecinemathegraphic,orpictorial textureequally takeson itsownparticular organisation, which conditions, in itsturn, the dramaticqualities.Filmisaparticularsortof'graphicdrama'whichwecanjustlycounterposeto theatredrama.Wecouldtermcinema,perhaps'screentheatre',iftheveryconceptofthetheatredidnotrequireafundamentalreassessment.Buttheessenceofcinemadoesnot liehere.Thedramaticqualities of a film are only the result of a special organisation of itstexture. The basis of the specificity of cinema, as an art, consists of the particular features of its structure and the technicalpreconditionswhichdetermineit.

4

Possibly,thereisanevenmoresubstantivedistinctionbetweencinemaandotherpictorialartsthanitstemporal,sequential,dramaticcharacter.

A painting or statue is created by an artist directly bymeans of the technical reworking of the relevant,more or less pliablematerial.Butthematerialoffilm—lightandshadow—isnon-corporeal,non-material,elusive.Wearenotyetabletoworkinlightandshadedirectly,freely, 'byhand'.Itisstillnecessarytouseacomplex,unwieldymethod,involvingtheplacingofthenecessaryimage on to photographic film, and then projectingit on to a screen.Consequently, this image is achievedby the shooting of therelevantobjects—whetherasuitablebitofsceneryorspecialsets,whichhavetobe,ipsofacto,selectedormountedinadvance.Inthisway,whatisofparticularvalueinpainting—theindividualartisticexecutionofthework—ismanifestlyabsentincinema.And, in reverse, the real contentof painting and sculpture cede so much in importance to the mastery of theartist that it isabsolutelyinsignificantwhatnaturegavetheartist,orevenwhetheritgavehimanythingatall.Incontrast,afilmiscreated,fromfirsttolast, preciselyby 'nature',whichonlyneeds tobe shot.Therefore, it appearsthat mastery in cinema, in essence, is almostnever comparable to themastery of a painter.Moreover, it seems at first glance, that, in the final analysis, the art of cinemaresidespreciselyinthecombinationofnature,thecompositionofthesets,themountingofparticularscenes'or 'tableauxvivants',whicharethenmerelyreproduced,thatis,transposedontothescreen,purelymechanically,withtheaidofacameraandprojectionlamp.

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'smastery isshownexclusivelyat the stageof conception andcomposition—ordrawing andcalculation— in therelevantmaterial, of course,whetheritbewood,stoneorferro-concrete.Theworkonthematerialsandtheoverallprocessofbuildingisperformedbyworkmenin a purely technical fashion.Bronze casts, lithography and engraving areproduced in an equally technicalmanner.Here the artobjectistheprint,producedinwhateverquantityitmaybe.The'original'—thatis,thesketchonametalplate,oronstone,oraclaymouldremainsunknownandisevendestroyedintheprocessofreproduction'.Itplaysapurelyancillaryroleandnotinfrequentlyhasaquiteconventional,schematiccharacter.Thus,aposterorjacketdesignmaybeproducedbyasimpletypo-lithographic 'montage'accordingtothespokeninstructionsoftheartistInsuchaway,themain,orevensole,contentoftheworkincertaingenresofpictorialart is theconceptionandcomposition, in the relevant texture,ofcourse.Such,precisely,are theartsofarchitectureandcinema.

Thiscomparisonwitharchitectureisinnowayaccidental,butarisesfromafundamentalidentityinthenatureofthesetwoarts.Both these arts are cumbersome to the degree that they are abstract. Cinema is obliged to pile up a mass of artisticallyindifferent material and apply the mostcomplex of techniques in order to develop a minimal aestheticallysignificantelement,inpreciselythesamewayasarchitecturedemandsenormousmassesofbuildingmaterialsandtechnicalefforttoachieve,astheendresult,thedesiredform.Bothartsarerequiredtogathertogetherapileofcobblestones,whilealltheyneedfromthemisafleetingplayoflightonthem.Architecture,asthemostabstractofarts,isthemostcumbersomeandcrudeinitstechnicalprocesses. But the texture of cinema too—shadow— is almost non-material.Consequently it does notwork directly inthemediumofshadow,butobliquelyviatheintermediaryofamaterialwhichisbothmoretangibleandperceptible—withtheaidofphotography.

5

Page 36: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

Cinemaarosefromphotographyandremainsphotographyintermsofitstextureandtechniques.Nurturedinthespiritoftraditionalaestheticsitdisplaystheweaknessofbeingashamedofitsdubious,lowlyorigins.But,inrejectingitsmother,itisobligedtopassitselfoffasthechildofthestageinorder to achieve recognition in theworld of art.However, even onceadoptedbythestage,cinemaremains the illegitimate, 'natural'offspringofthestagewithoutanyrightstodirectinheritance,awretchedparasite, likeapuppettheatre.However,cinema,intermsofitstechniques,hasnothingtobeashamedofbeforethe'serious'arts.Therewasatimewhen these ancientaristocrats toowere plebeians,mere 'products'which served the needs of everyday life.On the contrary, thetechnical 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.Itispreciselyinitsphotographicnaturethatcinemashouldseekits own laws and, simply by remaining faithful to photography and by rejecting all demandswhich are alien to photographywillcinemafinditstruepathofdevelopmentasanart.Thisisnotsimple,byvirtueoftheessenceoftherelationshipsandresourcesatthedisposalofcinema,aswehaveshownabove.But,firstandforemost,thebusinessathandistheprincipledjustificationofthetechniquesofcinema.Otherwise,itwillbenecessarytoseeinitmerelyadeviceofmechanicalreproduction,liketheradio.

In itself, photography is not yet an art, however highly we estimate the technical perfection of its performance. But there isinherentinitthemerestminimumofartistry,whichmayserveastheprimaryelementofart.Aphotographofanyview,themostordinarylittlescene,themostmundaneobject,already,bytheveryartofreproductiononasegmentofsurface,setsapartaseparatepieceofreality,isolatesitfromitsrealsettingandenclosesitintheframeofthephotograph,therebyendowingitwithadefinition,completenessandindependencewhichit lacksinthesettingoftheindeterminateandindifferentcomplexofnature.Thearbitrarycontentofthefieldofvision,turnedinwhateverdirectionandcombinedintowhateverdiversity,beingfixedwithcertainlimits,fromacertainpointofview,foreshortenedinaparticularway,—allthismakesitaseparatefact,removedfromlivingreality,makesita'picture',a 'frame'.Itisknownthatamemory,byneutralisingtherealtoneofperception,istheelementaryactofcreation.In thisrespectonemaycomparephotographywiththeactionofmemory:inreproducinganindividualandaccidentalimpressionitobjecti‐fiesit,therebygivingitageneralsignificance.Inthissituationalltheelementsofthegivensectionofnature,beingdetachedfromthelinkswhichleadthemindefinitelyfarandinwhateverdirection,arelockedintoasinglewhole,becomefinal,finished,and,thereby,enterintoconnectionsamongthemselveswhicharecloserandmoremutuallydetermining.

Thismomentofcapturing'nature'ataparticularturning-pointisthesamesimplestandmostbasicactof'theartofseeing'ofpainting,thankstowhichtheartistdiscernsintheindifferentmassoftheseenthepreciseunityofpictorialqualitiesanddiscoverstheturning-pointwhichcreatesthisunityandmoreover,themostadvantageousturning-point,thatis,themostexpressiveintermsofcolouring,perspective, lighting,reliefandsoon.Thesameobtains inphotography. It isquiteobvious that the 'picturesqueness'ofnatureiscreatedbythisveryskilloftheartist.Butthesameappliestothenotorious'photogenic'qualities.Thereareno'photogenic'views, faces or objects in themselves.Any object, any phenomenon can be preciselywhat is required by the artist— beautiful,characteristic,dramatic,generallyexpressiveifonlyhediscernsthecorrectanglefortheshotinthegivencircumstancesand forthegivenaim. 'The talentof thepainter', saidCorot58, isfirstandforemost theability tosettledowntowork'.EvenRodin59,anexceptionallyindividualsculptortaughtthat'theonlyprincipleofartistoreproducetheseen.Theonlyproblemistosee.Everyothermethodisdeleterious'. 'Naturecorrectlyset',saidanotherartist, 'isapicturealreadyhalf-painted.'Asisknownthenaturalistsstrictlylimitedtheaimofarttothereproductionofreality.Impressionismwasaspecific,almost technicalmethodofseeingthingsastheyare',eliminatingtheadditionofanypersonalfantasy,emotionorevaluation.Andsincetheauthenticallyseen was for them the authentically pictorial, the 'flat' appearance of the world, then, in relation to the sketch, such a 'nakedreproduction'didnotconstituteforthemaprincipledproblemsincemanual-dexteritydoesnotentertheartisticmethod.Insuchaway,theirartisticmethodwastheoretically'photographic'.

Thismomentofestrangementfromtherealworld,ofenclosurewithinaparticularturning-point,issufficientlycleareveninanarbitrary,moreorlesssuccessfulphotograph.Eveninsimpletravel-filmsornewsreelsitisquitedefinitelyperceptible.Thus,whoeverhas seenAwinterwalk in thehills60will surely remember the superb effect of the setting sun, seen through an arch formedby thebranchesofthepinesortheascentbetweenthesheerrocksthroughdeepsnow.Thisfeelingisevenstrongerinconnectionwiththegeneralideaoftheseries.Thus,inthefilmMologoles61apositiveimpressionisproducedbythemomentwhenamightytreecrashesdown,spreadingitsbranches,likeamanfallingonhisback,orwhenthehugethinks,oneafteranother,pileintothechuteoftheconveyer-belt and are obediently lifted along the endless chain. The mastery of the cameraman (Aptekman62), thanks to theoriginalityofhiscameraangleandthewayheinspireswhatisseenwiththoughtsothatitbecomesthespecial'drama'oftheforest,— thismastery has placed on these shots the imprint of asubjectivesynthesiswhichisinherentintheartist'ssketch.ThisimprintisevenmorecomplexandprofoundinmanymomentsofthefilmBattleshipPotemkin°,inwhichthepurelyvisualorstill-lifeimpressionisreinforcedbynarrativeandcontextualideassothatit takesonadramaticsignificanceandisthusimbuedwithgreatemotional tension. The slow, heavy turning ofthe gun tower with the threemuzzles of the huge cannon conveys the effectof apowerful andgloomy threatThepince-nezof the ship'sdoctorwho is thrownoverboardandwhichgets caughton thecable andhangs in theairactsasacruelgrotesquerie.This is to saynothingof suchmasterpiecesof shootingas theremarkablefallof thewoundedVakulinchukwhohelplesslytumblesdowntherigging.Evenifoneleavesasidethesenseofthisframeintermsoftheplot,theveryseriesofcameraanglesofthisbodyasitslipsdownwardscreatesanimpressionofpurelygraphictension.

Equally,theproblemofadequatereproductionhasinphotographythesameaestheticsignificanceasinpainting.Leavingaside

Page 37: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

thetechnicaltranspiredthatthedepictionsofthestormandseabattleweremuchmoreimpressiveintheversionshotinthestudiousingminiaturemodelsofshipsina'sea'aboutthesizeofadining-table.Insuchaway'nature'incinemaismoreandmorebecomingafiction.

By contrast, it is becoming more and more obvious that it is preciselyin photographic devices, in the acts of shooting,developing, printing, projection, in directwork on the film, that cinema has at its disposal, in thepowerful tools ofworking on'nature', purely creative possibilities of transforming it in accordance with the artistic task. By using the power of thecinematographer,bypurelyphotographicmeans,anexpresstraincanbestopped,amanorhorseisabletomoveatincrediblespeed.Beforeoureyesaplantsprouts,risesup,blossomsandgivesfruit;atwill,allthingsdiminishoraremagnifiedinsize,disappearorappearasifbymagic.Theyareduplicated,asinamirror,sothattheherocanmeethimself,orlightacigarettefromhisown,whilethesameactorcanplaytwopartsinthesamescene.Allmovementscanbereversed,sothatthingsthathavebeenthrownawayflyback,likeboomerangs.Inanimateobjectsmoveoftheirownaccord,whilepeopleridemammothsandotherprehistoricanimals,leapunharmedfromanyheight,fitintoabottle,fightwithanant,andsoon.Inaword,allcategoriesofspace,motion,weight,volumeandperspectiveareeliminatedonthescreen.Thecinemahasitsownlawsofgeometry,mechanicsandphysics,accordingtowhichthemostimpossiblesituationsbecomepossible.

7

Onlyinonerespectdoescinemaunquestionablydependon'nature'—initsdepictionofman,inasmuchasthenarrative,dramaticcharacterofafilmobtainsitscentralimpactbythedepictionofhumanactioninit.However,itdoesnotnecessarilyfollowfromthisthatthemostimportantsignificanceincinemabelongstothe'star',astheaverageviewermaythink.Indeed,theplaceofthe'actor'incinemaisinprinciplecompletelydifferentfromhisplaceonthestageorinthemusic-hall.Firstofall,cinemaonlydemandsfromhimvisualexpressiveness.Cinemadoesnotdemandqualitiesofvoice,richnessofintonation,alltheprofound,powerfulandsubtleexpressivenessofspeechinallitscomplexityandinorganicsynthesiswiththeexpressionofmime,gestureandmovement.Atthesametime,asfarasthescreenactorisconcerned,theredisappearsalltheimmensefieldofthespokenwordwithitsideological,intellectual and emotional content,with itspowerofpsychological analysis,with its everydayandpersonalcharacteristics,with itsartisticstyleandbeautiesofimagery,eloquenceandwit, tosaynothing of the charms of poetry. Furthermore, the wholeaspect ofemotional,sympatheticexcitementandinfluencewhichpertainstoanactorwhoappearsbeforealiveaudienceandwhichisconnectedtotheexpressiveimagecreatedbyhim,notonlyphysiologicallyandpsychologically,butalsocreatively—allthissideofthingsisabsentincinema.Finally,bytheverynatureofcinematicart,thescreendramaisdeprivedofthecoherence,durationandelaborationwhichmakesdramaticactiononthestagesosaturatedandcomplicated.A'role'inafilm,deprivedoftheresourcesofmonologueanddialogueandreducedtothepurelyvisualaspectofaction,isextremelylimitedbycomparisonwithastagerole,aseachmomentofitmustbepainstakinglyprepared,sothatitcanbecorrectlyandfullyunderstood.Hencethenecessityforthestrictestlinks and determining factors between frames, which inevitably forces the action to be direct and simple. Hence the typicalconstructionofa film inwhicha 'role'consistsofa seriesof separate, short sceneswhich,moreover,mayhavebeenshotatanyinterval, in no particular order, but at themost suitable time. Can this becomparedwith the immense general intensity of all hisexpressive resources,which isdemandedfromanactor throughoutanentireplay,which lastsacompleteevening,duringwhichhesometimesdoesnotleavethestageinthecourseofanentireact?Moreover,ahightaskisplacedbeforetheactor:theimagehecreatesisdictatedtohimbythedramaandisthuscontrolledbythespectator, andmustbearcomparisonwith the imagecreatedbytheimaginationofthespectator.Inafilmthisdualismofthedramaticandscenicimageisabsent,sincethepublic,asarule,hasnoknowledgeofthescript.Therefore,thecinemaactorisfreefromanycontrolbyhisaudienceandfromtheriskofhavingtocompetewiththeaudience'simagination.

It is true that one might think that the performance of a 'part' which is fragmented into separate moments, withinterruptionsandunderthe'muzzle'ofacamerais,perhaps,evenharderthanplayinginterruptedlyinanensemble,intheillusorysurroundings of a stage set and with the help ofthe audience, particularly if we are talking about scenes written in the mostemotionally charged style. This is very possibly the case. But we are not talking about the difficulties of the psycho-physiological'set'oftheperformer,butaboutthescope,complexityandsignificanceoftheartisticimagecreatedbyhim.

Thestraightforwardnessandfragmentarynatureofthedramaticimageinafilmareveryfarfrombeingcompensated,ofcourse,bythepossibilitieswhichcinema,asopposedtothestage,afforditbywayoftheopeningoutoftime,placeandthecharacteroftheaction.Onthecontrary,itispreciselythewideningofthefunctionsofthe'cinematicactor'inthedirectionofcircusstunts—horsemanship,acrobaticsandsport—whichgiverisetosuspicionaboutthetruthfulnessofthenatureofsuch'acting'.Theseskillsaremuchmoreelementarythanthemasteryofactingwhichisorganisedinthesystemofdramaticart.TocallDouglasFairbanks68,HarryPie69,TomMix70,WilliamHart61,JackHolt62andothersuchcowboys,sportsmen,acrobatsandathletes'actors'wouldmeandissipatingthisconceptandconfusingtheissuesincetheseperformers,fineintheirownfashion,donotpossessthescenicqualities,thedramatictemperament,thetheatricalexperience,thetechnicalexpressivenesswhichthestageofnecessitydemandsandwhich,indeed,constitutetheauthenticmasteryofacting.

But even the fact that the best screen artists — Lillian Gish73, PolaNegi74, Mary Pickford, Chaplin75, Keaton76,

Page 38: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

Lloyd77,Veldt78,Jannings79—areundoubtedlyactorswithadequatestageexperience,doesnotchangetheassertionputforwardinthisarticlethattheoriginalofthedramaticimageonthescreenisnottheactor.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. Inprinciple,itisofnosignificancethatheisanactor.Hecouldsimplybethetypethathedepicts.Thefactthathepossessesexpressiveskillsis,intheend,onlythegoodfortuneoftheartistandisjustasarbitraryintermsofartasabeautifulfaceoragracefulfigure.Itisjustasincorrecttotermascreenperformeranactorasitistocallafilmaplay.Oncethecinemaisconsidered'paintinginshadows',thatis,agraphicart,thentheactor,reproducedinthescreenimage,shouldbe,inprinciple,merelyamodel.

8

Asregardssecond-rankperformerswho takepart incrowd-scenesorrandomepisodes,thismuchisfairlyobvious.Cinemademands of them exactly what a painter or sculptor does from a model: the appropriate type,that is, external given factors, aparticularposeandfacialexpression,acertainskillin'sitting'andnomore.Itmayseemparadoxicaltoextendthiscomparison tothe 'stars'of thescreen,whosegenuineartistry isunquestioned.Butsuchanimpression,toasignificantdegree,arisesfromanancientprejudice,accordingtowhichweareusedtoseeingthemodelasapurelyancillary,entirelypassive,impersonalthingandconsequently, to take no account of himor her in an analysis of a painting or statue. Such anattitude is explained andpartiallyjustifiedbythefactthat,indeed,therun-of-the-millmodelusuallydidnotinspireeitherrespectorinterest:theprofessionalmodel,inthemain,wasusedforexercisesanddetails,whilethenon-professional seemedaccidental.Neither theonenor theotherseemedtopossessanyspecialskillsortalentswhatsoever.Suchanimage,however,isfarfrombeingcorrectorjust.Unfortunately,thehistoryofthemodelandhisroleinthecreationofaworkofarthasnotbeenstudiedatall.Allthesame,itisknownthatartistssearchedlongandcarefullyfor therequirednature,whentheir taskdemandedit,precisely,whentheywere lookingforparticularexpressiveness, distinctiveness or individuality. The famous French sculptor Rodin worked by observing models in their free,arbitrarymovementsandposesandonlylookedforinthemexpressiveandinterestingangles.Heneverplaced'amodel.Evenifheneededaparticularposeorexpressionheonlycommunicatedhisoverallaimtothemodel.'Youseemtobemoreattheirservicethantheyatyours,'afellow-artistoncesaidtohimonthistopic. 'Iamattheserviceofnature,'Rodinreplied.And,judgingbycertainhighlydramaticsculpturesbyRodin,forexampleTheBurghersofCalais,withtheirprofoundlypsychologicalposesandthegeneraltragicmeaning,hismodelsearnedthetitleofartistsjustasmuchasscreenactors.Probably,itisjustasdifficultinthecaseofmanyotherartiststosaywhatpartnatureplayedin theirworks. 'Naturecorrectlysetup,'onefamousartistsaid,'andthepainting'shalfdone already.' And, no doubt, in asuccessful pose of themodelwe should often give asmuch credit to him, right down to theunconsciousexpressiveness,instinctivegrace,poweranddistinctiveness,astotheartist.Inanycase,thegreatestartistsandeventhegreatest epochs of painting (for example, the Renaissance, Classicism, Impressionism) have worked predominantly with theassistance of models.The famous French painterManet81 was proud of the fact that only one of his works was not paintedentirelyfromnature.OurRepin82alsousedmodelsexclusively.AsweknowforhisnotedworkTheMurderofhisSonbyIvantheTerribleheusedasamodel thewell-knownwriterGarshin,whoforthishighly-chargedscenehad,ofcourse, toadopt therelevantpose,thatis,inessence,toperformafunctionsimilartothatofthescreenperformer.ThefamouslegendconcerningtheAncientGreekartistParrhasius,who,inordertoachievetheexpressionhedesiredoftheinhumansufferingofPrometheus,subjectedtotortureaslaveboughtespeciallyforthispurpose,andasimilarpieceof 'villainy'onthepartofMichelangelobearwitnesstothedegree towhich the ideaof 'dramaticnature' isnaturallyclose topainting,andtowhatextenttheartistsometimesdependson his model andis indebted, in his work, to the latter's expressive qualities, and even his initiative. The well-known artist V.VereshchaginhimselftoldofhowhehadbesoughtGeneralSkobelev83tohandtwobanditssohecouldpainttheexpressionoftheirfacesinthenoosefromnature.

Oflate,illustrators,especiallytheEnglish,quitefrequentlyphotographmodelsincertainposeswhichcorrespondtothesubjectandthenretouchthephotographstoconcealthephotographicoriginsandcharacterofthe'drawing'.Thisallowstheillustrator,evenifheisnotagreatartist,tocreateveryboldandevenoriginalsketches.Inthisway,graphicsisemploying,inessence,exactly thesamedevicesof 'staging'as thecinema is.Oneonlyneedstomakeonemorestep—toinviteprofessionalactors toposefor thispurpose—andthesimilaritybetweenthemodelandthecinemaactorwillbecomplete.

It is true that I know of only one instance when an artist has usedaprofessionalactorasamodel.WhenSorinoncepainted for competitionhebesought thewell-knownFinnishactress IdaAalberg,whowason tour in Petersburg, to pose as awomanwho,throughherowninspiration,arousedotherstoachievegreatfeats.Itispossiblethatartistshavebeenafraidoftheartificialityofthespecificallyactorlymannerandpreferredtheirnatureunartificialandimmediate.ButonemustpointoutthatevenonthescreenthedangerofactorlyartificialityexistsandthatitisdefinitelydetrimentaltothefilmsofConradVeidt,forexample.Photographycannotstandanyfalseness.Byitsverynatureitdemandsnatureonlyasashootableobject.

9

Page 39: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

Even such a thoughtful evaluator and propagandist of screen art as Bela Balazs84 sees in it, all the same, the art of humanexpressiveness,thatis,ofacting,assertingthat,forthemostpart,thecinemaofferstheperformeropportunitiesformime,gestureandmovementwhichwillalwaysremaininaccessibletotheatricalart.HereBalkshasinmindthepossiblityofhighlightinganydetailinthecinema,atanymagnification—'inclose-up'sothatthespectatorseesquitedistinctlyeventhemostsubtletrickofmime.This,however,doesnotconstitutetheparticularityofcinemaeitherinprincipleorinfact.Theartofactingundoubtedlypresupposesasmuchmastery of mime as of speech. Moreover, the audience of the ancienttheatre, which sat right on the stage, quiteobviously, of course, could see allthemimeworkof the actor.For thecontemporary spectator,on theotherhand,opera-glasses,althoughtheydonotmagnifyhim,bringtheactorcloseenoughtoisolatequiteadequatelyeventhetiniestdetailofhisperformance.Itistruethatopera-glasses,inessence,destroythescenicimpressionbymechanicallynarrowingthefieldofvisionandisolatingonedetailfromthestagesetandtheactionasawhole.Butpreciselythefactthatasimilarhighlightingoftheface,onadifferentscale,moreover—magnified severaldozen times, seemsnatural in thecinema,emphasisesnot the scenic,butpictorial,purelygraphiccharacteroffilm.Itispreciselyingraphics,especiallyinillustration,thatthisdevicehasbeenlongsinceused.Ontheotherhand,itis in principle impossible on the stage. To show the spectatoronly eyes enormously magnified, taking up the whole screen asTraubergandKozintsevdidinTheBigWheel85—thestagecannotdothisbecauseitdecisivelycontradictsthespatiallyrealnatureofthestageandtheliving,physicalbeingoftheactor.Thesameshouldalsobesaidaboutthehighlightingofsmallobjects,detailsingeneral,whicharemagnified severaldozen times, inclose-up,andappear tobevisible rightnext tous.This is impossibleon thestage.Keepingtothesamescale,thesameplaneisessentialandinevitableforthestage,giventhatthespectatorandthestagearefixedinthesamespatialdimension.Consequentlyachangeintheangleofvision—replacingaviewfrominfrontbyonefromthesideorabove—orachangeindistance,isimpossibleonthestage.Evenmoreunobtainableinthetheatrearethemorecomplicatedopticaloperationswhicharenaturalincinema:theshootingorprojectionofanimagewiththeaidofamagnifying-glass,—asinBattleshipPotemkin86wherethespectator,alongwiththeship'sdoctor,seesthewormssquirmingaroundinthemeatastheylookatit—orevenwith the aidof amicroscope and telescope, and equally, a changein focus. Ingraphics, onceagain, especially in illustrations suchdevicesareverypossibleandevenfairlycommon.OnceinmypresencethedirectorV.R.Gardin87wasbrowsingthroughanoldillustratedFrenchbookandwasstruckbythecinematicqualityoftheillustrations,havinginmindpreciselytheirdetailed,particular'foreshortened'character.Ofcourse,therelationshipisreallyjustthereverse:itiscinemaframeswhicharegraphic.

On the screen we can turn an actor to all sides, view him in anydimension, transposehimtoanydistancewithoutbreaking the unity of thedramatic situation or interrupting the flow of action. Because in cinema space and its categories ofperspective,angleofvision, scaleanddistancearecompletelyfictitious.Tobemoreprecise thecorrelationwith theviewer isnotgiven in real space, but isincludedin the depiction itself. But this alsoconstitutes the essentialmark of graphics and painting ingeneral.

Byvirtueofthesespecificfeaturesofthescreen,cinemaisnotatallrestrictedinitsdramaturgy,andinparticularinitstreatmentofthedramaticimage,bythesameresourcesthatthestagehasatitsdisposal,withthehelpoftheactor.Onemayimagineafilminwhichacomplexandevenpsychologicallymotivateddramaticactionunfoldsinsuchawaythatthehero'simageisneveroncegivenin its entirety as a living being.His actions,his character, his spiritual experiencesmaybe expressed exclusively in details: a footimpatiently tapping the floor, a cane angrily grippedby ahand, aheadpulled into the shouldersor sunkonhis chest, tremblingshoulders and so on. Thus in D. W. Griffith' sIntolerance88 there is a highly expressive image of a woman which has greatsignificancefortheplot,andwhichisformedentirelybyshowingtwomoments,twodetails:herfaceandhands.Theimageasawholeand its dramatic role in the scene are only suggested.Constructed on this principle, butwith a different principle is thefilmTheFreshman89(withHaroldLloyd)inwhichtheviewerseesthefaceoftheheroandcandiscoverthemysteriouspatrononlyattheveryend. Thisis a purely graphic possibility, which the stage cannot achieve and which, ofcourse, creates decisively differentcategoriesfortheconstructionofascreendramaascomparedwithoneonthestage.But,atthesametime,itisquiteobviousthat,in accordancewith these categories, the 'role' of the cinemaperformer in nowaydemands the all-round ability and skillswhichconstitute the actor'smastery in stage art.Here, enormous significance is laid not on acting, but on 'posing', that is, the skill ofadopting this or that position, of making this or that movement, not in general, but as applied tothe task and demands of theproduction,withtheaimofdepictingthisorthatdetailfromtherequiredangle.Thisskillissofarremovedfromthatofanactorandisinessencesoakintothatofamodelthatoneshouldreallycallitthe'artofposing'.

10

Toa significantdegree thismastery isconventional, justas the real significanceofnature in thecinema isconventional.What ismore,itisalmostasfictitiousasnatureis.Indeed,onthestage,intheballet,thecircus,inthearenatheperformingartistpresentshismasteryrealistically,inhardcash,inconvertiblecurrency:thetricksofmechanics,lighting,ofthesetsandpropsonthestagehave,ingeneral,averyslightsignificanceinrelationtotheactor.Ontheotherhand,cinema,byitsverynaturedoesnotknowthelimitsofillusion.Atthesametime,illusionincinemaisofquiteadifferentorderthanonthestage,wherethesetsaresituatedinthereal,three- dimensional space of the acting area, where amidst all this performs the actor who is equally of three dimensions andcontained within real space and where, finally, the audience's gaze is directed from a series of points. Incinema illusion is

Page 40: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

unconditional,sinceeverythingexistsonlyintheflat,graphicdepictiononthescreen,andonthisthereisnoimpactcreatedeitherbythe position of the viewer or by the real spatial sizes of things and the distancesbetween them.Whetherwhat is shown is a reallandscapeoraset,arealbuildingoramodelofitsfaçade,amock-uporsimplyadrawing--anyoftheseinnowayalterstheimageonthescreen,provided,ofcourse,thatthemodel,mock-uporsketchisphotographedproperly.

Thispurelygraphicalabsolutenessofillusiononthescreenalsomakesthescreenactor's'masteryasconventionalandfictitiousastherealityofnature.Thedramaticimpactisinnowayhinderedbyourcertainknowledgethatthewildbeastcannotteartheherotopiecesalthoughthereisnothingvisibleonthescreentopreventitfromsodoing.Itisonlynecessaryforthisnottobeseen.Butthankstoawholeseriesofrecentdevicesofshootingandprinting,thereisagreatdealwhich,onthestage,inthecircusorballetcouldonlybecreatedbytheartist'smastery,canbeproducedonthescreenbymeansof'tricks'andthemasteryisthatofthecinematographer.Theheroofafilmcanleapfromimmenseheights,scaleanoverhangingcliff,clashwithwildanimals,juggleaboveawaterfall,inaword,experienceanysortofcatastropheanddisplaywhatevermiracleofcourageyoucaretonamewithouttheperformerreceivinganypriortrainingorsufferinganyharmwhatsoever.Ifthestuntistoocomplicatedandexpensivethensometimesevensimplermeasuresmaybeadopted:theperformerisreplacedbyadolloraprofessionalacrobat.Thus,BusterKeaton'sneck-breakingleapattheendofTheThreeAges90isnotperformedbyKeatonhimself,butbyastuntman,butthisisamatterofcompleteindifferencetotheviewer:graphically,itmakesnodifferenceatall.Asaresultofthespecialfeaturesinvolvedinperceivingafilmevensomethingthathappenson the screenquite 'close by'allowsof substitution.Thus,during the shootingofKaterinaIzmailova(directedbySabinsky)91 theleadinglady,becauseofillnesswasreplacedsothat'inreality'oneactressfallsoutofthesleigh,whileasecondonegetsup.

Itisacuriousfactthatpaintingtoohasitsownkindofstunts'involvingmodelsand,moreover,theyareexactlyanalogoustothoseused in shootinga film.Thus, artistsduring theRenaissance,when theywerepainting their frescoesonchurchvaults andpalaceceilingshadtotakeintoaccount,likethecameraman,notonlytheopticallawsofsuchplafonddrawings,whenviewedfrombelow,butalsohadtouseforthisamodelwhowouldsit'lyingonthefloor,injustthesamewayasinthecinemawhen,inordertoshowonthescreentheheroclamberingupasheercliff,onecanshoothimcrawlingoverasetspreadoutonthefloor.Insuchaway,bothinprincipleandinpractice,thescreenartistperformsthefunctionofa'model',andhisspecificallyscreenskills,howeverelevatedtheymayappearcomparedwiththoseofamodelinpaintingorsculpture,alwaysbytheirverynature,bytheverymethodsusedtoapplythem,remainexactlythesame.Andthereisanequallysubstantiveandprincipleddifferenceinfunctionbetweenthatperformedbyan 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'screativityispresentednotbyitself,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 scientificunderstanding of theessence of cinema is attainable only in the degree to which we resolve the fundamental principled andmethodologicalproblemswhichastudyofthisartplacesbeforecontemporaryaesthetics.

Firstofall,itbecomesclearthatcinema,likethestage,isacomplex,compositeart,inwhichparticipateformsofcreativityofdifferentsortsandwithvariousclaims.Aworkofart,thefinalresultandaimofcinema—afilm—arisesbywayoftheprojectionof 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,theposingofthemodelisalsoaparticularformofcreativity.Butalltheseformsofcreativity,alldifferentinthemselves,donotbecomepartoftheartofcinema directly,per se, but are successively transformed so radically that each preceding stage is, as it were, annihilated in thetransition to the next, essentially different, type of creativity. The expressive skills of the model, the pictorialand architecturalmasteryof theset-designerandpropsmanareutilisedanew,asmaterialor 'base'for thephotographicart.Likeartlessnatureallthese 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',itpresentsthebeginningofanewsortofwork—adramaofshadows.

Ontheotherhand,instageartallthedifferentformsofcreativitywhichformthewhole—acting,sets,props—dosodirectly,simultaneously,onthesamelevel,andareonlysubordinatedtotheoverallplanofthedirectorfortheshow.Eventhesetsandmake-upwhichhaveadubioussignificanceinthemselvesandwhich,tobeproperlyperceived,requireparticularconditionsoflightingandanemphasisontheparticularpositionoftheviewer(asinarchitecturalpaintingandsculpture),—evenso,theydonotchangetheiressenceinscenicart.Therelationshipoftransformation,similartothevariousstagesincinema,onlyexistsbetweenscenicartasawholeandthedramaasaliterarygenre.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 themajority of cases the filmincorporates the results of these stagesmoreor less in their raw form, according towhich the 'frame'remains merely a photograph, as such, and even the dramatic image on the screen remains only a reproduction of the mimedexpressivenessofthe'actor'.Thisoccurs,ofcourse,becausereallytoproducethenecessarytransformationbymeansofamaterial

Page 41: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

reworkingof the results of the previous stage, as a 'basis' for the next— this, in general,is only possible in part, and, then, withconsiderableeffort.Consequently,itisnecessarytotakethetransformationintoaccountbeforehand,intheposingitselfandinthesettingupoftheobjectstobeshot,andintheactualshooting.Itispreciselythispreliminarythinkingoutoftheinternal task,thefinaldemandofthelastinstanceoftheartofcinema—thefilm—andtheabilitytofindthemostexpressiveresponsetoitinthecorrespondingconstructionofnatureandintheproductionoftheshotwhichunitestheconsecutiveactsofcinemacreativityintoanintegratedsynthesisof thefilm.Butfor this,firstofall, there isaneedforaset towardsthissynthesis, theprincipledassertionofwhichconstitutesthefirsttaskofcinematicaesthetics.

However,evenwhenthereisthemostcompletesynthesisthefinal,culminatingresultofcinematicart—thefilm—retainswithinitinevitablydeeptracesofthestageswhichhavebeenreworkedandwhichdetermineitsessenceinafundamentalway.Thishappens,clearly,becausethecreativeresultofapreviousstageservesasits'texture',theconstructiveelement.Thus,afilmremains,byitsverynature, photographic, 'naturalised'. And the more 'naturalised' a shot is, the more powerfully is felt the mastery of theinternalovercomingofnatureandthemoreimposingistheimpressionachieved.Ontheotherhand,ifwesuspectthatthisisashotfromaset,amock-up,adoll,an'actor'whoisplayinga 'part',ifwedoubtthe'realityofwhatisreproduced'weexperienceanannoyingsenseoffalseness,ashatteringof thefundamental lawofcinema.Thestunt, substitution,fictitiousness,assoonaswespot them,destroytheaestheticimpressionoftheframe.EveninsucharemarkablefilmasTheCabinetofDrCaligarithesetsandmake-upwhichobviouslydisplaytheirtheatricalcharacter,spoiltheoverallimpression.EvenmoreglaringisthefalsenessofthefakeexoticsceneryinTheIndianTomb92andTheWifeofthePharaoh93whichwerefilmednearBerlin.

12

Inthisway,inthelastanalysis,atthefinal,higheststageofcreationcinemaisaplot-based,'compositional'artofashadow-drama,whichonemayoncemore,inthisrespect,comparewitharchitecture.Bythisveryfactitisclearthatwearenottalkingaboutthedegree towhich the 'fable' (fabula)94 is present.Of course, even in terms of its photographic nature, proceeding naturally fromnatureand,uptonowmoreencumberedthanwell-endowedbyitsbulkytechnicalequipment,andmoreoverdeprivedofreliefandcolour,cinema,clearly,oughttohavedevelopedalongthepathofthefable.Experimentsinmakingplot-less,orrather,fable-lessfilmshavesofarnothadsubstantialresultsasoneshouldreallyhaveexpected.Onthecontrary,incinemaweseeadominancenotonlyofthefable,butofitinitsmostnakedform:thatis,theadventurestory,themelodramaandthefarce.Butthediscussionheredoesnotconcernthefableassuch,butthemoregeneralspecificsof'plot-based'films.Thefableofafilmmaybeborrowedfromastory,aplay,apoemorfairy-tale.But,likeaplayinthetheatre,afilmalsorequiresaspecialtreatmentofthefableandanassessmentofitaccording tothe specific principles of screen exposition. The scenario, in this respect, offersmerely the same sort of schematicframeworkasitusedtogiveItalianfolkcomedywhichhadnoknowledgeof literarydramaturgy.Thisschemehas tobeworkedoverindetailinitsconcretescreenform,justasthedirectorworksoutthecourseofastage-show:frameafterframeiscomposedindetail,takingintoaccountthelinksandinteractiononewithanother,andwiththegeneraltotalityasawhole.Thiscompositionofthefilmisrealised throughthemediumofmontage,that is, theco-ordinationofframes,whichareessentialfortheoveralldesign,inthesequenceoftheplot.Theartofcinemainthefinalanalysis,thatis,inthecreationofafilm,residesinprinciple,then,exclusivelyintheselectionandcombinationofpreparedphotographicshots.Ifweimaginetheexistenceofasufficientlylargecollectionofallpossibleframes—multifariousviews,detailsandscenes—then,theartofmontagewouldmerelyboildowntoaselectionfromthis'library'offrames(kadroteka)ofthenumbersrequiredtoexpresstheconceptionofthefilm,inthesamewaythatmosaic art consists in the selection of separate, differently coloured and shaded fragments of stone inorder to compile thepreconceivedimagefromthem.But,assuchauniversalcollectionofframesdoesnotexist,itisnecessarytoordertherequisitesetfromthefactory.And,ofcourse,itischeapertohaveamerelyadequateselectionofmodels,scenery,sets,etc.,usuallynotevenverywide-ranging,aslongastheydonotservetheexclusivedemandsofthehighlyartistic'hit'whicharefulfilledonaspecialorder.InAmerica,wherethingsaredoneonalargescale,theofficesofthefilmfactorieshaveinstockanalmostexhaustivecollectionofstockshots(tipazh),evenintheportraitrange,and,moreover,aseriesofexamplesandvariantstochoosefromsothat,whenamodelofPresidentRooseveltwasrequired,theofficewasabletoofferatoncemorethantwentyportraitsofhim,alreadycast.Toseekout'nature'andeventosetupthephotographicsubjectsrequiredforaspecifictask—this,ofcourse,isartofanancillaryorder,inthenatureofpropsandset-designingintermsofthestage.Withoutdoubt,theartofthecameramanisequallysubordinate.Thegenuinecreatorofafilm,clearly,mustbethoughtofastheonewhorealisesitsdramaticplanintheconcretecompositionoftheframesandtheircombinationintheconnected,plot-basedwholeofthescreendrama—thatis,thedirectorofthemontage.Iamquitesurethatevennowitwouldnotbedifficulttocompose,fromtheseparateframesofvariousfilms,afurtherfilmwhichwouldbehighlyoriginalintermsofitsplot,andwhichwouldperhapsbemuchbetterintermsofitscompositionthanallthefilmsfromwhosepartsitisputtogether.[Thisassertioncannow,itappears,beconfirmedbyTheFalloftheRomanovs95whichwasmadepreciselyinsuchamontagemanner.]BythisIwishtoemphasisethepurelyconstructive,andcompositional,plot-basedcharacterofthesupremestageofcinemacreativity,themakingofafilm.

It may appear that such an understanding of the creation of a film,reducing it to the art of montage, excessivelyimpoverishesandsimplifiestheartofcinema.Butsuchanimpressionisarrivedatonlyifaverysuperficialattitudetothequestionis

Page 42: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

adopted.Onthecontrary,montageinthesensewhichitisgiveninthepresentarticle—isthealphaandomega,thefoundationsandcrown of cinematic creativity: montage is the dramaturgy' of film in its concrete screen composition as a whole and in theconstructionofseparateframes.Howgreatandcomplexthisartactuallyis,canbeseenfromthesimplefactthatitdoesnotyethaveitsmasters—'dramatists' of film in theproper sense.So far it onlyhas 'directors',producers, aswas the case in thetheatreofantiquity,whichhadnoknowledgeofliterarydrama.Cinemahasstillnotworkedouttheformalmethodsforitsown'word',itstilldoesnothaveitsown'language',whichwouldallowthecinematiccraftsmanto'thinkinframes'inthesamewaythatapoetthinksinverbalimages.Thisspecific,screen-basedthoughtprocessisstillveryunstableandindeterminatesothateventhebestdirectorstodayworkpurelyempirically,notmerelytryingthingsoutbyexperiment,but,alsoliterallyfindingeachstepastheygoalong.EvensuchasplendidmasterasEisensteindidnotforeseethatthemistyframesinBattleshipPotemkinwouldturnoutsplendidly;onthecontrary,hewasafraidthatalltheseshotswouldturnouttobeofnouse.Herechanceofferedanexcellentcorrectivetotheartist'splan.Ingeneral,chanceisaveryimportantcollaboratorintheartofcinema.DuringtheproductionofthecelebratedBen-Hur96fortycameraswereshootingthechariotracescenefromdifferentpositions,withthepreciseaimofincreasingthechancesoftheirmaterialbeingusedinthefilm.Itwasaconsciouscalculationoftheaccidentalartisticmoment.Andindeed—therewasawidechoiceforthemontage:fromthe8000metresoffilmthathadbeenshottheyonlyhadtochoose400,thatis,onaverage,onevariantoutoftwenty.Asiswell-known,Chaplinalsolikesinhisfilmstheamountoffilmtobeatleasttentimesasmuchaswillbeusedinthefinalversion.Andthisfigure,ofcourse,isanindicationofthedegreetowhichthecraftsmanisunclear,unsure,unabletoforeseeevents.Itisalsowell-knownhowoftenitispreciselygoodfortuneorevenamistakeby thedirectororcameramanthathasgivenacompletelyunexpectedlyinterestingresultandhasledtovaluablediscoveriesandperfections.Inthisway,onecanguaranteethatinanyfilmtherewillbeexcellenteffectswhichthedirectorhadnotatallforeseenandwhichhewasabletoseethevalueofandincludeinthefilmassupplementarymaterial.Theycreatedthemselves,quitefortuitously.Thus,duringtheshootingofthesameraceinBen-Hur,sixteamsofhorses,eachconsistingof6animals,collidedwithMessala'soverturnedchariot—innowayaccordingtothescenario—andthankstotheprudentpositioningoffortylenses'justincase'aframewascreatedwhichwascompletelyunplannedin the director's scheme, but which, nevertheless, became a most effective frame in the film.From this one may imagine whatimmenseexperience,whatanunusuallysubtleandprecisetrainingoftheeyeandwhatrichvisualimaginationandinventivenessisdemanded by cinema from its dramatist for the film really tobe entirelyhiswork, and not the result, to a significant degree, ofaccidentalcircumstances.

Allthesequalities,obviously,arefirstandforemostpictorial,graphic,althoughalsohavingadramaticdimension.However,onthewhole,master craftsmen of cinema are usually the least prepared in precisely this respect.More often than not, they are theatredirectors, who involuntarily transfer tocinema their deep-rooted prerequisites concerning stage art and whothereforeconsider,asarule,thattheirartconsistsofstaging',and,forthemostpart,virtuallyinthedirectionoftheactor's'playing'.Insuchanunderstandingofthings,ofcourse,montageservesmerelyasthefinalcheckoftheframes,thedefinitiveselectionofvariants,inaword—theestablishmentofthelastversionofthefilm.Inthisway,themostimportantmatter for thebest cinemadirectorsturns out to be the shooting.Incidentally, in principle, aesthetically, the most important, of course,would be thecomposition of the frames and their overall, dramaticconception.Onthecontrary,thecreationofafilm,inessence,endswhenitisestablishedwhatprecisely,andhow,itshouldbeshot.Thesetting-upoftheobjectstobeshotandtheactualshootingareonlyancillaryoperations,althoughalsoofacreativecharacter,butentirelysubordinatedtothehighestinstanceoftheartofcinema—thedramaturgyofthescreen.

13

In asmuch asmontage— the construction of screen, shadowdrama—by its very nature is an original art genre of 'dramatic'graphicsorgraphic'drama,itwouldbehighlyfruitfulfortheestablishmentofthefundamentalprinciplesofthisoriginaldramaturgyofthescreen(whichwecouldterm'cinematurgy')ifweweretostudythedevicesofthesequentialityofthegraphicexpositionoftheplotinillustrativeandotherserialformsof'narrative'graphics,bearinginmind,ofcourse,thespecificsofthelatter,theserieswhichareconditionedbytheinterruptednesspeculiartoit,—peculiarities, incidentallywhicharefar lessessential thanmightappearatfirstsight.Unfortunately,suchaninvestigationofgraphicsfromthispointofviewhasnotyetbeendone,anditwouldbeoutofplacetogodeeperintothematterhere.However,ananalysisofnarrativegraphicswouldshowmuch in common in its deviceswiththoseofmontage,thatis,thecompositionofafilm.ItissufficienttoleafthroughMenzel'ssketchesfortheHistoryofFredericktheGreatorA.Benois'sillustrationstoTheQueenofSpadesandTheBronzeHorsemanorthoseofLanserettoHadzhiMurat97,or,ingeneral,anyrichlyillustratedbook,tobecomeconvincedofthis.

Ofcourse,itisperfectlynaturalthat,inthecompositionoftheseparateframes, thescreenartist, thecinematurge',followsthesametasksandsubmitshimselftothesamelawsofperspective,distributionoflightandshade,thefillingofthefieldofvision,thearrangementofthefiguresandsoon,asdoesthegraphicartist.Foreveryframetakenseparately,initself,isnoneotherthanan'illustration'—a landscape,portrait, still-life,genrescene,oftenpresentedasastill.Onlyinthegenrescenesisthecinemato‐graphicframedifferentiatedinthat,bydepictingthesceneinaction,ithasthepossibilityofunfoldingthevisiblemovementinitsentirety,frombeginning to end,whereas an illustration, or a drawing in general,must, as aresult of its static nature, summarise,

Page 43: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

generalisemotion,notconveyingtheseparatemomentasitis,butintransitiontothenextone;inotherwordsitdrawsintoasinglewhole,inessence,twomomentsofactionwhichareconsecutiveandmutuallydeterminingandinterpretingintermsoftheplot.Suchacoalescenceoftwonarrativestagesofmovement,byfusingthemintoasinglewhole,lendsthedrawingbothaninnerdynamism,whichgivestheimpressionofduration,oftheconcretecompletion-in-processofthemovementintime,aswellasalivingpictureofthedeveloping'action'whichinspirestheimaginationofthespectator.Sometimes,whenthereisacompositionwhichoperatesonseveral levels the artist or sculptor even manages to inspire the spectator with an impression of a complex plot whichunfoldssequentiallyoverseveralstages.Suchqualitiesofdurationandsequentialityintimeispossessed,forexample,bytheMarseillaise'groupon theArcdeTriomphe inParis,orbyWatteau' spainting in theLouvre, 'Embarkation for the Isle of Cythera98. Iwould mention as well thatMoussinacrightlycompareswithcinematicmontagehisdescriptionofLeonardo's painting ofthe flood, which represents a real 'montagescenario'. But it is precisely this inner dynamism of the drawing whichdistinguishes it structurally from instant photography, (which fixes only onemoment from the general flow ofmovement)which,however,decisivelybringsitclosetothecinematicframe,inwhich—asimilaractoffusionofseparatemoments—inactualfactthereunfoldsonthescreenmovementandaction,whichinadrawingarepresentonlypartiallyandcovertly,andarerathersuggestedtothespectatorbyaseriesofhints.Suchadynamicdrawingnotonlymaybecomparedwithascreenframeinprinciple,butalsoisformallyinessence,merelya'reduction'ofit,oratranslation,inthesamewayasonemayconveythecolouringofapaintingbythetechniqueofitsgraphicreproduction.Butonemayalsonotetheuniformityofthelawsofgraphicsinthelawsofnarrativecomposition,inthelinkingoftheframes,oneto

another.Firstofall,an illustration,exactly like themontageofafilm,makesuseoftransitionsfromtheover-viewtotheforegroundandclose-up,thusbothexpandingand,then,narrowingthefieldofvision,thatis,firstbringingcloser,thendistancingtheimageand,bytheseprocesses,firstisolatinganimportantdetail,thenrestingattentiononaseparategroup,next,onthecontrary,dissipatingourattentionbytheoverallimpression.Atthesametime,intermsoffunction,suchshiftshavethesamesemanticroleinillustrations as in film, being in both cases transitions from an everyday or emotional ('mood') landscape to a characterising orpsychologisingportrait,fromthegeneraldescriptivenarrativetoadramatic'dialogue',therebyemphasisingtheintensityoftheplot;othertransitionsmaybetospiritualanalysis,symbolismofanobjectandsimilarfunctionsofthedetail.Ofcourse,it isclearthatin a film these transitions also have a rhythmicfunction, changing the smooth,descriptive flowof thegeneral levels into thedramatic tensionof theforeground,orarresting it inaconcentratedanalysisofadetailof theclose-ups,and vice versa.Aseries ofillustrationscannotgivethesameconcretesensationofthe'tempo'ofasimilarmovementofframes,butevenhereitiscapableofsuggestingacertainanalogy,provideditissufficientlysequential,completeandcompact.Furthermore, illustrations, naturally, use a device similar to 'imprinting' and dissolve' for the creation of a second level, the

metaphorisation of themood or thought, the depiction of visions, dreams, memories and so on. Thisis clearly a graphic device,althoughinphotographictechniquesithashadaveryspecificdevelopment.Inanequalmanner,illustrationswillinglyapplychangesintheangleofshot',oftenpresentingdepictionswhicharepartial,angled,emphasisingjustadetailorobject,striving,asalreadyshownabove,towardsamaximalexpressivenessandtakingintoaccounttheinspirationalpowerwhichsuchdepictionspossess.Asiswellknown,incinematootheuseofthesepowerfulmeansofinspirationplayanimmensepart.Finally,intermsofthemeansusedfortheunfolding of the dramatic image, characterisation, the plot theme, the link between the various stages of the action, and so on,illustrationsveryoftencoincidewiththeunfoldingoftheplotonthescreen.Inthosecaseswheretheplotisuncomplicated,andtheillustrationsaresufficientlyfrequent,itisdifficultnottoacknowledgethattheypresentnotonlyasynopsis'ofthefilm,butsimplyastatic'reduction'ofthemovingframes.Thus,inTheBronzeHorsemanBenoisofferedeightpicturesforthefloodwhichwouldhardlyneedaddingtoinascreenmontageofthissubject,providedonewishedtoremainfaithfultothetext:theywouldonlybeopenedoutspatiallyorprolongedinordertodeepentheimpressionoftheragingelementsandthedisastersproducedbythem:butoneshouldbearinmindthatsuchanopening-outwouldbenecessaryinafilmanyway,becauseimagesonascreenaremomentaryandbecausethisopeningoutwouldonlyrestoretheadequacyoftheimpressioncreatedbytheillustration.Thenwouldfollowanequalnumberofpicturesfortheresultsoftheflood,observedbytheunfortunateYevgeny.Heretheartistsimplydidnotwanttoallowhisimaginationtodeviateinanywayfromanaccuratefollowingofthetext.Montagewoulddemandhereanarrestingofattentionontheimageoftheheroandanintroductionofaclose-uptothisend.HereBenoisdoesnotgiveaclose-upatall,eitherfortheheroorforanydetailwhatsoever.Butitisperfectlyclearthattheartisthadeverychancetodothis,ifithadcorrespondedtohisplan.Finally,thelastfiveillustrationsperfectlycover thepossiblemontageof the last scene.Benois shows the spectator fivemoments in such immediatelyproximatenarrativesequence that they simplycorrespond tooneframe ina film,namely: (1)Yevgeny,atthe footof theBronzeHorseman, curses Peter, raising his hand in the air; (2)Yevgeny, half turning away and lowering his hand, frightened by his ownaudacity; (3) Yevgeny, turning away, rushes from themonument, on whichthe Horseman awesomely stretches out his arm; (4)Yevgenyrunsacrossthesquare,theHorsemangallopsafterhim;(5)Yevgenyisrunning,inthedistancetowersthegloomysilhouetteoftheHorseman.Nomontage,provideditistobefaithfultothetextwouldbeabletoinsertintothissequenceevenoneintermediatemoment,as theyare linkedanduninterrupted in their narrative sequence; it couldonlypresent themon the screenfusedintoanuninterrupted, singlemovement, and that is all.On the other handonecan indicate in a seriesof films the closest analogieswithpainting,graphics, illustrations. Thus, in the film by Sabinsky which is in preparation (based on Leskov' sLadyMacbeth)99, thedepictionoftheconvictsinprison(judgingbythestills)havetheexactappearanceofcopiesfromapainting;equally,thedepiction

Page 44: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

oftheimmenselock,hangingonthegateswhichismeanttosymbolisethetightlylockedsoulofKaterinaintheheavyatmosphereofthemerchantfamily,justaskstobetransposedasatail-piecetothestory.ThefirstframeofRosita—thehandsplacedontopofeachother—couldserveasafineleadingvignetteorfrontispiecefortheillustrationof a storyon the themeTheKingMakesMertyl00One couldfind many examples of such frames, having resemblance to paintings, graphics or illustrations, especiallylandscapesandstill-lifes,inanyfilm,whetherRussianorforeign.DouglasFairbankswasdirectlyreproachedforthepictorialqualityofhis frames inRobinHoodl01 .Evenmore substantive is the illustrative principle of filmmontage as awhole,which is beyondquestion in series of films, such as,Robin Hood, Dorothy Vernon102 a n dThe Two Pretenders and, especially DavidCopperfield103whichentirelyconsistsofseparate,short,almoststaticmoments,perfectillustrations,onlyinmotion(andeventhen,notverysignificantmotion).

Thisillustrativecharacteris,inprinciple,closertothenatureofcinemathanisscenicart,whichisveryoftenadheredto,evenbymajorcinemadirectors,suchasLubitschinOrphansoftheStorm104,Montmartre105andTheMarriageCircle106.Buthesinsagainstthedramaturgyofthefilm.Cinematurgy,whoseaimisthecreationofshadowscreendrama,whileremainingfaithfultoitsgraphicnatureandtheillustrativelawsofitscompositionalresources,mustworkout,onthesefoundations,itsowndevicesfortheunfoldingoftheplotonthescreen.

14

Themontage,thatisthecompositionalandthoroughlyplot-basedcharacteroffilmmakesitparticularlydifficulttoconstructaspecialstylisticsforit.Inpainting,thepictorialqualitiesaresometimescompletelyoverlaidbyqualitiesofcolouring,line,texture.Apainting,evenarepresentationalone,'natural'initscontents,canbeexecutedexclusivelyasadecorativeexercise,andwithpurelydecorativemeans.Afilm,evenoneincolourcanhardlybeapurelydecorative'pattern'.Thefactisthatpaintinghasatitsdisposalthetactilematerialofcolouringsubstanceswhichcanbeusedcorrespondingtotheideaanddesignationofthepicture—thatis,itmaydeploymoreorlessthickpaintonavarietyofbases(oil,water,clay),amoreorlesssoftandfatmassofsanguineandpastel,ofdryandcrumblycharcoal,variousdegreesofhardnessofgraphite,variousqualitiesofindianinkandsoon.Dependingonthesevariousmaterialsthesurfaceofapaintingappears,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 ofapplicationandthewholeworkingoverofthesurfaceisveryvariedindeeddependingonthepurpose,resourcesandconditions.Intheseparticularfeaturesofitstexture,paintingpossessesdirectexpressivequalities,whichact,inindependenceofthecontentofthepainting,bymeansofthepurelyemotionalimpactofthematerial.Moreover,onthesurfaceofthepaintingthereispreservedthecleartraceoftheartist'shand,hispersonalmannerofsmearing,stroke,line,whicharevisibletotheeyeandmaybefeltbythetouch.Insuchaway, the techniquesofpaintinganddrawingplayadefinitepart in theartisticstyleofthepainterand, togetherwith thequalitiesofthetextureitself,areincludedintheaestheticallysignificantaspectsofaworkofart.Cinema,which'paints'inalmostinsubstantialshadows,whichareintangibleandelusiveasamaterial,whichareuniformandwithoutcontent,intermsoftexture,doesnot 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, constructivesignificance.But,evenwhenitispolychromatic,filmwillhaveat itsdisposalabstractcolour,andnotconcrete,materialpaintwhichpreservesthetracesoftheartist'sstyle.

Ontheotherhand,theentiretechnicalperformanceinafilmisinthehandsofthecameramanwhoseartistryderivesfromthepreviousstageofcinema—thephotographicstage.Butthesupremestage,thecreationofscreendrama,cinematurgyproper,consistsonlyinthemontageofthefilm,whichisofapurelycompositional,plot-basedorder.

Style in art may be crudely defined as the system or method in which theartist uses the artistic-technical and constructiveresourcespertainingtothegivenart:verbalresourcesinpoetry,pictorialinpainting,andsoon.Naturally,insuchacase,thestyleofcinemashouldbesoughtinthedevicesofvisualexpressivenesswhicharespecifictofilm.Butthestylishnessofafilmdoesnot,ofcourse,consistinthepictorialqualitiesoftheframes,norinthestyleofactinginitself,norinthestyleoftheproductionassuch.AllthiswillbeonlystylisationwhichtiesthecinematothefunctionofpaintingasinFairbanks'sRobinHood,orofthestage,asinthemajorityofcinema-plays,includingTheMarriageCircle,andwhich,bythisveryfact,ruinsthespecificexpressivenessofthescreen.Mime,movement,looks,ingeneraleverythingthat'happens'onthescreenorisdepictedonit,—this,usually,eitherexclusivelyservestheplot,orworksdirectly,asmaterial.Whathasstylisticsignificanceisonlythe'how',wherebythiscontentisexecutedonthescreen,thatis,inasmuchaswearetalkingabouteachseparateframe,thephotographicartistryofthecinematurge,inwhichwemayfeelthepersonalstyle,artisticexperienceandinitiativeoftheartist.Anindividualstyle,consequently,isgiventoeachseparateframe,like a photograph, by an original angle of vision,which creates perspective or camera angle, by asuitable general tone, a daringdistribution of light and shade, a successful composition and so on. A framewhich is included in a film not simply because itadvances, develops or explains the action and not because it offers spectacular effects— fine views, beautiful faces, grippingsituations,unusual skills or exciting acting but because, independent of all this, it is valuable for its formal, qualitative

Page 45: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

elements, will be a frame whichpossesses stylistic significance.Generally speaking, the functions of the framewhich havestylisticsignificancearethosewhicharenotplot-basedandwhicharenotpictorial,i.e.thosewhichare'decorative'orsymbolic'inthewidestsense.

Thestyleofafilmiscreatedonlyinthenarrativesequenceoftheframes,intheconstructionofacoherentseriesofimageson the screen in aparticular semanticorder,whichcreates, in its totality, a singleplotwhole.Inotherwords, filmstylistics iscreatedbymontage.

Butinasmuchasframesareusuallythoroughlypictorial,completelyplot-based,thestylisticfunctionsinthemareasinsignificantasinaphotographandevenless,sinceaphotographhas'plot'toaninfinitesimaldegreebycomparisonwith the framesof afilm.Theplotincinemasuppressesflashesofstyletosuchanextentthatitseemsasabsurdtotalkofthestyleofafilmasofthestyleofanadventureorboulevardnovel.

A very stage-worthy melodrama, a very deftly written adventure novel may be very tense in terms of plot, compositionallycompletely effective, but have no literariness at all, or artistry in expression—no style. In exactlythe samewaywe often see incinemagrippingplots,skilfuldevelopmentoftheaction,finelyconstructedandtechnicallyexecutedframes,butweveryrarelyfeelany stylewhatsoever.Of our own filmswe can call 'stylish', or atleast inclined towards style, onlyBattleshipPotemkinand TheOvercoat;of theAmerican films—only the comic filmsofBusterKeaton and, in part,Harold Lloyd; of the German—TheCabinetofDrCaligariandOneNight;IdonotknowtheFrenchfilmsofAbelGance.

Thepoint is thateven the formingof the fablewithin the resourcesof screenexpressivenessdemands immense inventiveness,experienceandeffortfromthecinemaartist,whobearsalltheworkduringtheproductionstage.Asyetapropercinematurgydoesnotexist,anditsfunctionsareperformedbythedirector.Inthisway,cinema,inthisrespect,isstillatthestagewhichthetheatrepassedthroughduringtheperiodofItalianpopularcomedy,whentheshowwasalsoconstructedaccordingtothescenarioandhadnoknowledge of artistic drama. On the other hand, the development ofthe skills of camera work is limited only by the technicalimprovementoftheshootingofseparateframes.Naturally,therecanbenoseriousdiscussionaboutthestyleofafilm.

Indeed, the stylistics of a film, that is, the system of the devices of a formal, non-pictorial, 'decorative' significance, in thenarrativesequenceoftheframes,shouldbe,inevitably,veryabstract,verypoor.Stylisticsignificancemaybepossessedbythedistributionofgeneral,foregroundshotsandclose-ups,aswellasbythetransitionsfromoneleveltoanother,inasmuchasthisdoesnotmerelyservefigurativeness.Thus,atransitiontoclose-up,topresenttheexpressivenessofmime,inthespiritofBelaBalks,innowayhasanystylisticsignificance.Equally,nostylisticroleisplayedbyagradualtrackingfromclose-uptoamoregeneralshottoshowtheexpansionofthefieldofvisionattheapproachofdawn(asinPudovkin)107.Butsuchswitcheswillbestylisticdevicesifthe montage director uses themas peculiar modulations, which impress purely visually. They may also, incidentally, take on asemantic,symbolicexpressiveness,lendinganemotionalcolouringtotheplot-line—asubjectivetone,apsychologisinginclination,amood—or inspiring the impression of some inner change or shift.A stylistic significance, furthermore,may be obtained by achangeintheprincipleofcompositionoftheframeorlighting,ormannerofshooting,ordirectionofmovementoftheframe,withwhichthechangeofframesisaccompaniedandbywhichthisorthattendencyofscreenactionmaybeexpressed;inparticular,oneshouldtakeintoaccountthedirectionoftheaxesofconstructionoftheframesandthemovementwhichisperformedwithinthem.Finally,cinemahasapowerfulstylisticfactorinthetempooftheshootingandprojection,andinthegeneralrhythmofthefilm.Onecouldprolong the enumerationof such stylistic resourcesbut one feelsthatenoughhavebeenindicatedtoclarifytheirspecificcharacter.All theseare,ofcourse,graphic,pictorialcategories,butwithinthespecificparticularitiesofthescreen.Thereare not all thatmany, it seems.Only in the fields of camera-work andmontage.Not even that. In essence, only in the field ofmontage.And indeed, only in this field does cinema possess special stylistic resources.Nothing else has stylistic sign- ificance in itself.

Becauseitisonlyinthearrangementoftheframes,towardswhichthecinematographer,themodelandtheset-designerallwork,thatfilmartistryresides.

Page 46: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

POETRYANDPROSEINCINEMA

ViktorShklovsky

translatedbyRichardTaylor

In literary art poetry and prose are not sharply differentiated from one another. On more than one occasion students of proselanguagehavediscoveredrhythmicsegments,therecurrenceofthesamephraseconstruction,inaprosework.TadeuszZielinski108hasproducedinterestingstudiesofrhythminoratoricalspeechandBorisEikhenbaumhasdoneagreatdealofworkonrhythminpureprosethatisintendedtobereadratherthanrecited,althoughitistruethathehasnotpursuedthisworksystematically.But,asproblemsofrhythmhavebeenanalysed,theboundarybetweenpoetryandprosehas,itseems,beenconfusedratherthanclarified.Itispossible that thedistinctionbetweenpoetryandprosedoesnot lie inrhythmalone.Themorewestudyaworkofart, themoredeeply we penetrate the fundamental unity of its laws. The individual constructional aspects of an artistic phenomenon aredistinguishedqualitatively,butthisqualitativenessrestsonaquantitativebase,andwecanpassimperceptiblyfromoneleveltoanother.Thebasicconstructionofplotisreducedtoaschemaofsemanticconstants.Wetaketwocontrastingeverydaysituationsandresolvethemwithathird;orwetaketwosemanticconstantsandcreateaparallelbetweenthem;or,lastly,wetakeseveralsemanticconstantsandarrangetheminrankingorder.Buttheusualbasisofplot(syuzhet)isfable(fabula)i.e.aneverydaysituation.Yetthiseverydaysituationismerelyaparticularinstanceofsemanticconstructionandwecancreatefromonenovela'mysterynovel',notbychanging the fablebut simplyby transposing the constituentparts: byputting the ending at thebeginningorby amorecomplexrearrangement of theparts.This is howPushkin'sTheBlizzardandThe Shotwereproduced.Hencewhatwemaycall everydayconstants,thesemanticconstants,thesituationalconstantsandthepurelyformalfeaturesmaybeinterchangedwith,andmergeinto,oneanother.

Aproseworkis,initsplotconstructionanditssemanticcomposition,basedprincipallyonacombinationofeverydaysituations.Thismeansthatweresolveagivensituationinthefollowingway:amanmustspeakbuthecannotandsoathirdpersonspeakson his behalf. InThe Captain'sDaughter,for instance,Grinevcannot speakandyethemust inorder toclearhisnamefromShvabrin's slanders109.He cannot speakbecause hewould compromise the captain's daughter, so she herself offersEkaterina anexplanationonhisbehalf. In anotherexampleamanmustvindicatehimselfbuthecannotdo sobecausehehas takenavowofsilence:thesolutionliesinthefactthathemanagestoextendthedeadlineofhisvow.ThisisthebasisforoneofGrimm'sfairy-tales,TheTwelveSwans,andthestory,TheSevenViziers110.Buttheremaybeanotherwaytoresolveaworkandthisresolutionisbroughtaboutnotbysemanticmeansbutbypurelycompositionaloneswherebytheeffectofthecompositionalconstantcompareswiththatofthesemantic.

WefmdthiskindofresolutiontoaworkinFet's111verse: after four stanzasin aparticularmetrewith caesura (a constantworddivisioninthemiddleofeachline),thepoemisresolvednotbyitsplotbutbythefactthatthefifthstanza,althoughinthesamemetre,hasnocaesura,andthisproducesasenseofclosure.

Thefundamentaldistinctionbetweenpoetryandproseliespossiblyinagreatergeometricalityofdevices,inthefactthatawholeseriesofarbitrarysemanticresolutionsisreplacedbyaformalgeometricresolution.Itisasifageometricisationofdevicesistakingplace.ThusthestanzainEugeneOneginisresolvedbythefactthefinalrhymingcoupletprovidesformalcompositionalresolutionwhile disrupting the rhyme system. Pushkinsupports this semantically by altering the vocabulary in these last two linesandgivingthemaslightlyparodisticcharacter.

InthisnoteIamwritinginverygeneralisedtermsbecauseIwanttopointoutthemostcommonlandmarks,particularlyincinema.Ihavemorethanonceheardfilmprofessionalsexpressthecuriousviewthat,asfarasliteratureisconcerned,verseisclosertofilmthanisprose.Allsortsofpeoplesaythisandlargenumbersoffilmsstrivetowardsaresolutionwhich,bydistantanalogy,wemay call poetic.There is no doubt thatDzigaVertov'sASixthPartof theWorld112 is constructedon theprincipleofpoetic formal resolution: ithas apronouncedparallelismanda recurrenceof imagesat theendof the filmwhere theyconveyadifferentmeaningandthusvaguelyrecalltheformofatriolet.

WhenweexaminePudovkin'sfilmMother113,inwhichthedirectorhastakengreatpainstocreatearhythmicalconstruction,weobserve a gradual displacement of everyday situations by purely formal elements. The parallelism of the nature scenes at thebeginningpreparesusfortheaccelerationofmovements,themontageandthedeparturefromeverydaylifethatintensifiestowardsthe end. The ambiguity of the poetic image andits characteristically indistinct aura, togetherwith the capacity for simultaneousgenerationofmeaningbydifferentmethods,areachievedbyarapidchangeofframesthatnevermanagetobecomereal.Theverydevicethatresolvesthefilm—thedouble-exposureangle-shotoftheKremlinwallsmoving—exploitstheformalratherthanthesemanticfeatures:itisapoeticdevice.

Page 47: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

Incinemaatpresentwearechildren.Wehavebarelybeguntoconsiderthesubjectsofourworkbutalreadywecanspeakoftheexistenceoftwopolesofcinema,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 symbolssupportmyconvictionthatthisfilmispoeticbynature.

I repeat oncemore— there exist both prose and poetry in cinema and thisis the basic division between the genres: they aredistinguishedfromoneanothernotbyrhythm,ornotbyrhythmalone,butbytheprevalenceinpoeticcinemaoftechnicalandformaloversemanticfeatures,whereformalfeaturesdisplacesemanticandresolvethecomposition.Plotlesscinemais'verse'cinema.

Page 48: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

TOWARDSATHEORYOFFILMGENRES

AdrianPiotrovsky

translatedbyRichardTaylor1

Everytheoryofcinemasoonerorlaterconfrontstheneedtoisolateitspoeticsfromneighbouringarts—literatureandtheatre,theancientartsthathaveaconsistenthistoricallyestablishedtheory.Theinfluenceoftheatreandliteratureonthepracticeofcinemaduringtheperiodof itsformationcannotbedisputedandwasquitenatural.But thismakesitall themorenecessary tobecompletely clear about the possible boundaries and limits of this influence, and all the more necessary to investigate carefullywhetherthetheoreticalprinciplesofAristotle,114Lessing115orVolkelt116 areapplicabletocinema.Ourbasicsloganshouldbe:noready-madetheatricalorliterarytheoryasabasisforthepoeticsofcinema!Thecompositionalprinciplesofcinemamustbejudgedfromthestandpointofthespecificmaterialofcinemaandthetechnicallawsthatgovernit.ThatishowthelawsthataregenuinelycinematicmustbedistinguishedfromtherulesandnormsofLessingandAristotlethatarealientocinema.Obviously,todothismeans to create a poetics of cinema: a very difficult task, but anecessary one. The purpose of the present shortarticle is infinitelynarrowerit istoexamine,fromtheaforementionedstandpointofthespecificmaterialofcinemaandits technical laws, thecatalogueoffilmgenresas theyhaveemergedin the twenty-yearhistoryofcinema.Surely it ispossible tobelievethatevensuchafleetingexaminationmightrevealtheinternalfalsityofsomewidelydisseminatedgenreswhile,ontheotherhand,thecompletetheoreticallegitimacyandvalidityofothersthatappearbyforceofhabitandtraditiontobetheatricalandliterarymightappearsuspectanddebatable?

Filmgenreisthenamewegivetothetotalityofconceptsofcomposition,styleandstory,linkedtoacertainsemanticmaterialandemotional setting thatare,however,completelyconfinedwithinacertain 'generic' systemofart, thesystemofcinema.Hence, inorder 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 examinehow the utilisationof 'space', 'time', 'people' and 'objects' alters fromone genre toanotherwithregardtomontageandphotography,howthesegmentsofthestoryarearranged,howalltheseelementsrelatetooneanotherwithinthefilmgenre.Inallthisweshallbearinmindthewholetimethepracticalandtheoreticalinfluenceofliteratureandtheatrethathavealreadybeenmentioned.

Forthesereasonsitwouldbemostconvenienttobegina'catalogueoffilmgenres'onthepagemarkedwiththeveryconventionalterm'filmdrama'.Giventhebroadmeaningofthistermforcinemaadministratorsandthepeoplewhowritefilmadvertisements,letusconfineittotheconceptofpsychologicaldrama,usuallywithasocietyorahistoricalsetting,whichismostcharacteristicoftheFrench,Italian,pre-RevolutionaryRussianand,partly,oftheGermancinemas.'Filmdramas'ofthissortareoftentransferstothescreenoftheatricalproductions(filmslikeTheLadyoftheCamellias)but,evenwhentheirthemedoesnotderivefromthestage, thesettingof(1)theplot,(2)thedramaticaction,(3)theconflictbetweenthecharactersastheydevelop,seemscentral tothem.

Theproblemof 'filmdrama'can thusbebroadened to theconceptof the 'dramatic' incinema. 'Drama', as ithasemerged intheatre(whichappearsasagenuineandauthenticelementinthedramatic),ischaracterisedbyaparticularinterpretationof'time','space' and, most important of all, by a specifically charged action. 'Time', in its dramatic, in its theatrical interpretation, isexclusively subordinated to gradual, rectilineal movement.The theatre does not permit of either 'reversemotion' for time or'mixed time' [khronologicheskoe sovmeshcheniel, i.e. the consecutive portrayal of simultaneous events. In actual fact, this sort ofmixedtimeissuretobeperceivedeitherasa technicalblunder(thenotoriousheadofMarinoFalierithatfallstwiceintwoadjacent scenes of Byron' s drama118) or as a deliberate piece of virtuoso exhibitionism (there are examples in RomanticandExpressionistdrama,bothWesternandRussian).Attemptsat'reversemotion'justifiedby'memory'or'dream'alsoremaintheexceptionindrama,nottomentionthefactthatattemptsofthiskindalwayssharplydiminishthedramaticeffectofthewhole.Thetheatre's self-restraint in thisrespect isquitereasonable: it isconditionedby thepresenceof the livingactor, 'liveonstage'whoseactionscanonlygooneway—'forward',itisconditionedalsobythelivingsensationoftemporalrealitythatthetheatreinevitablyevokes.

Itisthuseasytobelievethatalltheseconventionallimitationsinthetreatmentof 'time'arealsopresentin 'filmdrama',wheretheyhavebeenintroducedindirectandblindimitationofthetheatre.

But it is also easy to believe that the laws specific to cinema, the laws of montage, permit of other possibilities anddemandaquitedifferentapproachto'time'.

Page 49: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

Any identification, even an illusoryone, between 'time' on the screen andthe real passage of time in the auditorium isquite unattainable andunnecessary.The complete andmanifest artificiality of themovements on the screen, even if effectedthrough slow motion, would render absurd the very attempt at such an identification. The dramatic quality of the constantdevelopmentofthepsychologyoftheactorisalsounrealisableincinemaduetothepeculiaritiesoftheperceptionofthe'manonthescreen', of whichmore later. That is why cinema can use 'dream', story', 'memory',momentary association asjustificationsfortimetranspositionsandtimejumpsthatareinnowayexternallyjustifiedandarejustproperlyedited.

Time'asafunctionofmontageistheformulaofcinema.Byrestrictingitselfinthissenseinfavourofthetheatre,the'filmdrama'genrebythatveryfactcharacterisesitselfasanon-cinematicgenre.(Incidentally,attemptstomakea filmshowinga '24-hourperiod'oronewherescreentimecorrespondswithrealtime'areequallyinorganicand,fortheverysamereasons,'theatrical'.)

Thetheatricalnatureoffilmdrama'isrevealedevenmoreclearlyinthetreatmentof'space'andthegeneralcompositionoftheactionthat isintimatelyconnectedwithit.Inthetheatrespace'isinevitablyregardedastheconstantrealityofthestagewhichcanonlybealteredbythescene-painterwithdifficultyandwithincertainlimits.Thecharactersinthetheatrearetherefore'broughtbytheauthorontothestageandtheactionitselfisconcentratedinseveralbasicnodes,infive,ten,fifteenacts,scenesorepisodes.Thisexplainsthecanonicalauthorityaccordedtodramaticactionwiththeexpositionanddevelopmentinthefirstoneortwoacts,abreak in the third, and peripeteia and denouement to conclude. In thetheatrespace' isamajor,almostabasiccompositional factor.But it does not play, even in the smallestmeasure, a similar role in cinemabecause of itsmaterial and itstechnical laws. Incinemaspace' isnot something that isconstantorgivenby reality. It isdynamised,blasted, set inmotion.Theviewer too is dynamised, torn from his seat by montage, given theopportunity to seeany sphereofaction frommanyvariedvantagepoints.Forthefilmviewerspace'nolongerservesasthemoreusualassociationforonepartoftheplotoranother.Itceasestobethefulcrumofdramaticcomposition.Itistransformedintogeographicalvisibility,afragmentofnature, itenters, insomecaseswith 'objects'andinsomecaseswith'people',asrawmaterialintothecompositionofthefilm.Itissubordinatedto the alternation of close-up and long-shot, it is still, to greater extent than 'time', a function ofmontage'. For this reason theconcentrationofactionincinemaintospatial(notemotional—ofwhichmorelater)nodesisunnecessary.Atthesametimethe'filmdrama'genre,besidesbeingdirectlyinfluencedbytheatre,subordinatesthecompositionofthefilmtothiskindofspatialskeleton.This gives rise to anunavoidable sensationofviolation,to fragmentationof filmaction (curiously, the same fragmentation in thetheatreisregardedasanormalcompositionalconcept),andhencetotheirreversibledestructionofthatvisualcontinuity,thatsatiatedfilm 'atmosphere' which, as everyday experience demonstrates, serves as the primary condition for the fascination ofphotographyandthesuggestivityofmontage.Thechargeddramaticqualityoftheatreisevenlesseasilytranslatedtocinemathanisspatialcomposition.Thisdramaticquality

essentially presupposes a view of the stage as a field for conflicting human emotions and desires, artificially isolated frommaterialandnaturalassociations.Thisdoesnotapplytosomespecialkindsoflow-browtheatre,tofarceorcircusshows,butitistrueonthewholeformainstreamtheatricalgenres.Manisthebasicandtheprincipalrawmaterialfordramaandthebasicprincipleofthedramatic.Incinemahoweverthispriorityfor'man'isbynomeanssoobviousorindisputable.Photographyplaces'man'onthesame level of perception as 'object' or 'nature'. The isolated 'human drama' or 'drama of human desires' is not characteristic ofcinema,itdoesnotderivefromthenatureofcinema,it impoverishesitsexpressivepossibilities.Butadramaof'objects'or 'man-objects' isnotpossiblewithout substantialmodifications to the very concept of the dramatic.Let us recognise that thenatureofcinemamakesitnon-'dramatic'inthetraditionalunderstandingoftheword.Ifthe'dramaticquality'fallsaway,thensotoodoesthespecificdramaturgicalconstructionofthewholeandtheparts.Theneedfora'break'thatservesindramaastheturning-point in theemotional line isgone,theemotionalperipeteialosetheirrationale, therelationshiprequiredbydramabetweentheplotandthedenouement,likecauseandeffect,changes.Anotherseriesoftechnicalreasons,inpartthepresenceofIntertitles',castsdoubtontheconceptof'exposition'thatistraditionaltodrama.Allthesereasonscompelustoseekthebasesofcinemacompositionfarbeyondthefrontiersofdrama.Allthesereasonscondemnthe'filmdrama'genreforblindimitationoftheatreinstrivingtopresenttheunfoldingofhumanpassions,inplotandtheconflictofhuman,andonlyofhuman,desires.AllthesereasonsrenderuselesseverypossibletheoryoffilmscenariothatderivesfromLessing'sorAristotle'sdefinitionofdrama.Letmeconcludewithafewremarksaboutdenouementindramaandcinema.Thebasisofthetheatricaltheoryofdenouementis,

asweknow,stilltheconceptof'catharsis',theAristotelianconceptof'purification'.Thetragicending is still typicalofdrama— and this is quite justified. Atheatrical production is perceived by the spectator, completely independently of hispredispositionandhistastes,ontwolevels,onecorrespondingtothereal,livingperson—theactor—andtheothertothecharacterthisactor is depicting. The tragic fall of the theatrical character acts as'catharsis', asaunique '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' isnegatedbythissensationandsublimatedintoauniquejoy.Butthetwolevelsofperception—thebasisof'tragicdenouement'—areseriouslyobstructedincinema.Thefilmviewerhasnoreasontoseparatethepersonoftheperformerfromthemaskofthe character. They are made equal by the flatness of the screen. Hence an 'unhappy ending' leaves the film viewer without aloopholeforartistic'consolation',thedepressionisinnowayresolvedandcontinuestoweighheavily.Thisisthetheoreticalreasonforthehappyendingsincinemathatsoirritateliteraryandtheatrecritics.Thegenreunderexamination,'filmdrama',thatsoassiduouslytries to imitate the most elevated theatrical genres, does, unlikeother cinema genres, frequently and readily employ 'unhappyendings'.But there isapossibledilemmahere:either thesedenouementshaveanegativeeffect,or theyarejustified in theatrical

Page 50: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

termsbythewholeoftheprecedingperformance,whichis,inactor'sterms,ontwolevels,i.e.onceagaindeeplyuncinematic.ThereareplentyofinstancesinFrenchandItaliancinemabutourownTheBear'sWedding119willalsoserveasanexamplethatgenerallyprovidesamodelforthe'filmdrama'genre.

3

'Filmnovel'or 'filmtale',oreven'filmnovella' inthelanguageofparticularlycultureddistributors—arethusquitearbitrarytermsforafairlydiscretegenre.Letusagreetousethemtomeanscreenversionsofliteraryworksthatpreservenotjustthethemeoftheoriginalbutalsotheplotandstory,andalsoworksthatarepurelyscreenproductionsbut thatborrowtheirstylefromnarrativeliteratureand,inparticular,fromthecontemporarypsychologicalnovelandshortstory.Anexaminationofthisgenreleadsinevitablytothequestionoftherelationshipsbetweencinemaandliterature.Whatarethey?Thereisnodisputethataseriesofbasicmethods,bothinthedevelopmentofthenarrativeintime,andintheconstructionofplotandstoryrenderstheliterarygenresof cinema, at least at first glance, more natural and more firmly grounded than its theatricalised varieties. However the livingexperienceofcinemacompelsus tocastdoubtbothon theverymethodof cineficationof fiction andon the imitationof fictionwithin cinema. The prime andmost essential reason for the constantfailures in this sphere is apparently rooted in theprofoundlydiffering process of perception in literature and film. A literary work, at least since the development of written language and, inparticular,ofbookprinting,isaimedattheindividualreader,whointerpretswhathereadsthroughaseriesofsubjectiveassociations,selectingofhisownfreewillthepaceatwhichhereadsandalwayshavingtheopportunitytostopoveranythingthatinterestsorper‐plexeshim,leafingthroughabookfrombeginningtoend,orviceversa.Itwouldbedifficulttodisputetheassertionthatthiswholeseriesofcharacteristics,whichbecamestrikingaftertechnicalimprovementsinbookprinting,hasplayeditspartintheprocessofextremesubjectivisationofliterarygenresthatcharacterisesthemoderneraandintheprocessofthecomplicationofplotandofitspsychologicalaggravation,whichledtothenineteenthandtwentiethcenturynovel.Filmisperceivedinacompletelydifferentway.Here we find a public atmosphere, a precisely pre-determined length of performance and an inevitable appeal to thecollective,themassaudience.Herewefindtheconditionsofperceptionthatcharacteriseatheatricalperformance,onlyinamoreexaggeratedform,takentoextremes.

Toanevengreaterdegree thana theatricalperformance, therefore, a filmmustemployobjectively real,universally significantmethodsofattractionandexpression.Thisfacilitatesacomparativelyrapidformationofstablefilmgenresand,inaddition,makesdemandsonthe'filmnovel'genreunderexaminationthatitcannotsatisfy.Film,becauseofthewayinwhichitisshown, requiressimpleplotconstructionandcannot toleratewidelydispersedparallelactions.Itrequirestransparentmotivationandaneasilyunravelled,andfrequentlyapredictable,plot.Itrequirespreciselyandclearlydesignatedturning-pointsintheplot:theviewermustrecalltheminstantly andnever lose sightof themafterwards.On theotherhand, apurelypsychologicalmotivationforwhatishappening,a'sub-plot',psychologicalenigmasanddigressionsareverydifficulttoachieveincinema.Allthisleavesfilmaverylongwayfromthenewestgenresofliterature.Ratherthecontrary—thecommoncharacteroftheirconditionsofperceptionbringscinemaclosetopre-writtenfolkloricgenresofliteraturewhich,beingtransmittedbywordofmouthandfrompersontoperson,hadtoelaborateconceptsofplotconstructionthatwereneartothosethataresometimesobservedincinema.But,ofcourse,wemustnot talk about the direct influence of these ancient low-brow genres; the 'film novel' genre is distinguished by the imitation ofmodern,complexformsofnarrative literature, i.e.preciselythosethatprofoundlycontradict theprinciplesofcinema. There istherefore no reason to suppose that the technicaldevelopmentofcinemainthenearfuturewillstrengthenthepositionofthe'film novel' and smooth out the contradictions between cinema andliterature. On the contrary! The increasingcomplexityofthetechnicalopportunities available to the cameramanand thedirector,whichenrichandconstantlyrenewthevisual aspect of film, attracting the viewerby theplay of details, by unexpected focussing and lighting, compels filmmakerstoconcentrateinevergreaterdetailonafewbasicmotifsandsituations,carefully'workingthemup'.Thisveryfactcastsdoubtontheveryprincipleofnarrativeincinema.Itisasifcinemaisbecomingincreasinglylyrical.Buteventhisdefinitionisfarfromexact.Weshouldthereforetestifyallthemorecarefullytothefactthatnarrative,intheacceptedsenseoftheword,likethedramaticmoment,isalientothebasicnatureofcinema.

There are also other essential internal contradictions in the 'film novel' genre. One of them concerns the attributes of thecharacter.Theexpositionofcharactersincinemaisacomplicatedmatterrequiringtheemploymentofalargenumberofframesthatareusuallyoflittleinterest.Deprivedofthepossibilityofverbaldescription,theauthorofafilmhasrecourseeithertotitles,ortoacharacterisingsubjector—andthisiswhatusuallyhappens—toacharacterisingexterior,totypage'.Byconvenientlyandlaconicallycharacterisingepisodicfigures,theprincipleoftypage,whenappliedtotheleadingcentralheroesofafilm,leadstotheemergenceofconsistentperformers''masks',tothefusionofcinematicwithreal-lifeusage,to'name-types','name-images'.Theexpositionofafilm is greatly facilitated by this concept. The appearance on screen of Valentino120, Pat andPatashon121, or PearlWhite122isenoughtoexplaintotheaudienceboththegenreofthefilmandthecharacteroftheheroes.'Name-images'areenteringmore andmore forcefully into the practice of cinema inAmerica and, though somewhat belatedly, inEurope: they arebecoming themost serious compositional factor in film.Buthow far this concept,which sharplyreduces the opportunities forpsychological description, is from thenarrativesystemofthemodernnoveland,whatismore,hownearit is tothefolkloric

Page 51: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

low-browgenresofliterature(heroicfairytales,adventurestories)andoftheatre(thecomedyofmasks).Thetransfertothescreenoftheparticularfairy-talestyleofindividualprose-writers,beitHoffmannorLeskovorGogol,isamore

complexmatter,albeit far frombeing to the filmnovel' genre's advantage. If such atranspositionwerefeasible,itwouldobviouslysignificantlywidentheopportunitiesforliterarygenres'incinema.Butcananauthor'scharacter,hissubjectiveattitudetoevents,betransferredtothescreen?Cinemaknowsanumberofwaysofovercomingthemuch-vaunted'objectivity'ofthecamerabuteverytimetherealworldisrefractedonthescreen,notindependentlyandinisolation,butthroughtheattitudeofthecharacters,theheroesofthefilm,towardsit.Herewecanfindthepossibilityofbothaconsistentdepictionofnatureandtheobjectsinthefilminthecoloursof theleadingcharacter (justas theeccentricworldof theAmericancomedy is revealed throughthefigureofChaplinorHaroldLloyd,andnatureisrefractedidyllicallythroughtheimageofLillianGishorMaryPickford)andthetemporaldisplacementofrealrelationships,motivatedby'dream'or'intoxication',buttheimpartingtofilmofstylisedfeaturesthatareintendedtoconveythenarrative styleof the author (who remainsoutside theconfinesof the screen) is necessarily and in everycaseperceivedas adevicethatisartificial,notorganictocinemaandadevicethatrapidlybecomesirritating.Wemayuseasanexamplethatexcellentmodelofthe'filmtale',therecentfilmTheOvercoat123,inwhichthecombinedmasteryofthedirectorandthefactofthescreenplaywriterwereunabletoimparttocinematheGogoliannarrativedevicethatisalientoit.

Thus, if justice is to be done, both the historical society 'film drama' and the psychological narrative 'film-story' or 'filmnovel'mustberemovedfromthecatalogueoforganicfilmgenres.Thatisthefirst,albeitnegative,conclusiontobedrawnfromourshortinvestigation.Aspositiveconclusionswenote:(1)thenon-dramaticrealisationofthefilmstory,conditionedbytheequivalenceonscreenof'people'andobjects',(2)theobstructionofpsychologicalmotivation,whichisreplacedbyaseriesofsubsidiarydevices (names, images, etc.); (3) the diversion of cinema from the dramaticand narrative to specific expressive concepts, veryindistinctlydefined,likethe'lyric'ontheonehand,andthecomic'ontheother.

Thecircleofreally'cinematic'genresisthusdrawnquitenarrowly.Toasignificantextentwemustspeakhereofgenresthathavealreadybeencreated,andthatdailydemonstratetheirvitality,andpartlyofgenresthatareonlyjusttakingshape.Itiscuriousthat,instrengtheningitsnon-theatricalandnon-literarygenres,cinemanotonlyprogressesbutalsoapparentlyreturnstoitssources,tothetimeswhen the only genres of the newly discovered art ofmotion photographywere strips of filmofmovement in nature ( seabreakers,arunninghorse)andthelinkingtogetherofacrobatic,non-diegeticnon-psychologicalstunts.Relyingonlyonitsown,stillterriblylimitedbutallthemoreobvioustechnicalcapabilities,andnotyethavingembarkedonthepathofcompromisewithrelatedarts,cinema,inthoseheroicyears,quitecorrectlymarkedoutthelinesofitsfuturegrowth.Wemustnowlookmorecloselyatoneoftheseoriginalgenres,the'comic'.

4

Thestabilityofthisgenre,namedafterthecountrythatdevelopedandperfected it and justly called 'American comedy', isamazing.Inthegenerallyfurioustempoofcinema'sevolutionthisgenre,fromitsfirststepsrightuptoChaplinandLloyd,movedinanunchangingandnarrowlylimiteddirectionanditisonlyrecentlyinthefilmsofBusterKeatonthatithasencountered,ifnotareform,thenaparodisticdeformationofitsbasicprinciples.Thereappeartobethreesuchprinciples:(1)theacrobaticstunt,(2)theeccentric deployment of objects, (3) the fool'smask/imageof the film's comichero.Different variantsof thismask/imagebringvarietytothegenre,whilenotintheleastalteringitinessence.

Acrobaticstunts,jumpingintoabarrelofwater,throughawindow,offaroof,playfulfighting,fallingoffladders,somersaults,—thisideahasplayedanenormouspartinthefirststagesoftheevolutionoftheAmericancomedy.It ischaracteristicofcinema technique,which has not yetsucceededinrevealingtheinternalcomicnatureofobjectsthatcomestolightinclose-ups.Butthereissomethingelsethatwemustremembertheacrobatic stunt isnon-diegeticandnon-psychological. Itderivesfromneither theatrenor literature. Itstraightaway leads thegenrewearediscussingintotheelementofthepurelycomic,bringingitnearer,ifyoulike,tothecircus,i.e.tooneofthelow-brow,primaryentertainmentgenresoncemore.Itistruethattheessential difference between the acrobatic stunton screen and in the ring lies in the fact that the purely physical fascinationofdexterity and strength for the eyes of the audience for a jump turn is significantly reduced in the threefold artificiality of theatmosphereofthescreen.This,perhaps,isoneofthereasonsfortherapiddeclineofthisconcept.Ithasserveditspurpose,ithasbecome in part the raw material forcinematic parody (and nothing attests to the stability of the genre better thanthe incipientparodying it), and in part, with a changed purpose and achangedemotionalcolouring,ithascrossedintotheclosely-relatedgenreoftheadventurefilm.Weshallhoweverreturntothislater.

The invention of close-upswas the factor that above all helped tostrengthentheeccentricsignificanceoftheobjectinAmericancomedy.Theobject,deployednotforitsstraightforwardpurposebutunexpectedlyandoutofcontext—toothbrushesasatooltoopenajamjar,acigaretteasatramcar,thecontrastingjuxtapositionofdeliberatelylargeandintentionallysmallobjects,orofsmallmeninlargetophatsandgiantsingnomes'caps—thisentiremadworldofincongruitieshasbeenopenedupbycinema.ItisimpossibletoenumeratethecombinationsofthisbasicconceptthathavealreadybeenemployedinAmericanfilms.Hereobjectsofurbancivilisationcollidewith therenovatedmarkof the lowlysimpleton,and thus inChaplin'sfilmstheeccentricplayofobjectsgrowstophilosophicalproportions.Theverysameobjectsofeverydaycitylifeacquireauniquepathos,humblyservingthe

Page 52: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

cityfavourite,HaroldLloyd.InBusterKeaton'shandstheyevenbecometherawmaterialforparody.Itbecomespossibletospeakofcomic comparisons', of the paradoxical combinations of objects, of 'object-metaphors' and object-puns'. Colliding with oneanother,flashinginthehandsofthecomicactor,objectshustlethroughtheframesofanAmericancomedylikefireworksofwitandhumour.Ishouldliketocompileawholedictionary,awholestylisticofthesematerialsemanticsignalsofcomedy.Butevenwithoutthat it isobvioushowlittle there is incommonbetweenthisarsenalof laughterandtheexpressivesystemoftraditional theatricalcomedy.To find something analogous to film comedy',wemust look (ifwemust look for it at all) oncemore in folklore, in thelinguisticplayofanecdotes,witandpuns,ontheonehand,andinthegraphicjokesofpopularfarcethatarematerialisedthroughpropsandgestures.Acomparativeanalysisof the ideasofChaplinand,for instanceAristophanes,wouldprobablyproducesomecuriousresults.Intruth,iftheinventionofcinemahadledtothismarvellouspanopticumofobjectsandnothingmore,itwouldforthatreasonalonehavebeenagreatart.Asalreadynoted,plotinthetraditionalsenseofthewordcanonlyservetoconstrainandregulatethiswhirlwindofstunts.Theconceptofcompositionemployedbythe'Americancomedy'aredifferent,numerousandunique.Theyare:semanticcircles,reversepuns,returningeventuallytotheirstandingpoint,thepunch-linesofjokes(sometimesunderlinedbyatitle),aparticulargradationofjokes—thesearethearsenalofschemae,equallyalientohighbrowliteratureandtheatrebutakintothecompositionalschemaeoffolkloricembellishmentsandfarce.However,theveryuseoftermsborrowedfromaliterarypoeticmayperhapsonlyobscuretheprofounduniquenessofthisremarkablegenre.Itrequiresitsownterminology.

Theplayingprincipleofcomicactor-masks,asChaplinandLloydcreatedit,dependsverycloselyontheeccentricplayofobjects.Thesemanticidentityofobject'and'man'onthescreenisperhapsnowhereasobviousashere.Thecomicactorisautomated by this aspect of objects; andthe object-patent thatmonopolistically characterises the comicmask (Chaplin's bowler,Lloyd'sspectacles)onlyunderlinesthisidentity.It isevendifficult tooffer theactor inacomedyaprimarilydynamic leadingrole.Sincethediscoveryofthelawsofmontageandphotographybeganincreasinglytosupplanttheexternalimpetuosityofmovement,ofrushingaround,ofpursuitthroughtheinternaldynamicofmontagesegments,thedaringandunexpectedjuxtapositionofframes,sinceastarchcollar,hangingonaweight-liftingcraneand,throughclose-upmontagedwithit,displayedasmuchdynamismasacarflyingthroughtheframes—howcanwenowassertthatthecapacityformovementinherentinmanhasalreadybeenrealisedinthedynamicof cinema? The actor's comic mask increasingly begins to serveas a unique bridge to the sympathies of the audience, as anintermediarybetweentheaudienceandthewhimsicalworldofobjects.Comedyfilmsofpureobjectorfilmsinwhichtheactorplaystherolemerelyofapurelyindifferentandimpassiveguidethroughthepanopticumofunexpectedeventsarehoweverquitefeasible.Thetraitsofsuchacold-bloodedguide,whodoesnotsmileinthemidstoflaughter-provokingobjects,arealreadyfoundinthemanwhohasperfectedthe'comic'genre—BusterKeaton.

Thepureaspectof'Americancomedy'maysometimesenterintoacompromisefusionwiththeformsoftraditionalstagecomedythatareutterlyalientoit.Thusthereemergesanintermediategenre:awholeseriesofEuropeanso-calledfilmcomedies,like,forinstance, Lubitsch' s The Oyster Princess124 that is well-known here, may serve as an example. In thetreatment of its episodiccharacters,initsuseofdetails,thisisfilmcomedy,butinitsbasiclovestoryitisasocietycomedy,sufferingfromthesamedefectsasthe'filmdrama'genredescribedabove.Eventheconceptofmask-imagesderivedfromthe'Americancomedy'undergoesacuriousdeformationonaccountofthepsychologismthatismovingacrossEurope:then,forinstance,theDanesPatandPatashonwhoarehighlypopular indistributionhere.Becauseof theirconsistency, theirconsiderable independencefromplot situations—theyaremasks.Buttheyareaggravatedbytheircharacteristicnatureandpsychology,andtheyfallintopurelytheatricalsituations,intoplotcomplications,wheretheirmaskedcharacterbecomesadirectobstacle.ThatiswhythecompromisingDanesappearmorenaiveandprimitivethantheirAmericanprototypeswhoarecompletelydevoidofpsychologicalmotivation.

Thecuriousdevelopmentofthe'comedy'genremay,itseems,occurinSovietcinema.Thepathtoit liesintheattractionofasocialclasssignintotheeccentricplayofobjectsandtheestablishmentofconsistentsocialcomicmasks.Inthiswaywemightconstructabrilliantgenreofpoliticaleccentro-comedy,firmlybasedonthetechnicalachievementsofAmericancomedy.ItistruethatuntilnowSovietcomedyhasapparentlybeenmorewillingtoimitatethecompromisedformsofsocietyfilmcomedy(TheThreeMillionsTrial125etc).Thisisoneofthemostannoyingdelusionsofourcinema.

5

Havingshapedthesemanticwebofcomedy',filmstuntshavecontributedtothecreationofanothercinemagenrethatisalsooneofthe original ones,namely the adventure' film. This genre stands in roughly the samerelationship vis-a-vis thepsychological 'film novel' as the 'Americancomedy' does to the society 'film comedy'. The criticism levelled in its timeatcomedy' condemnedcinema for the fact that, in creating the adventure' genre, it gaveclearpreference to thedecadentboulevardmodelsof theadventurenovelover theperfected formof thecontemporarypsychologicalnovel.On thecontrary, thispreferencederived completely from the nature of cinema. Cinema, as has already been demonstrated, has nothing in common with thefragmentedpsychologicallymotivatedplotofanovel.Ontheotherhandthedevelopmentofplotonthebasisofthejuxtapositionofexternally dynamic segments, on the collision between several clearly outlined and consistent masks fully corresponded to thecapabilitiesofcinema,especiallyatthatoriginalstageofitsdevelopmentwhentheadventuregenrewasemerging.Thesocialmechanism of the largecapitalisticcityfurnishednewlabelsfor theancientmasksof theadventurenarrativewhichhadfora

Page 53: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

longtimebeenreinforcingincinemapracticetheadventurerandtheadventuress,thepolice-spy,thepoliceman,the'poetic'ofsafesand strongrooms. The uniqueness of the individual filmwithin thissharply delimited genrewas defined once and for all by theoriginalityofceaselesslyrenewedacrobaticstunts,themontagesegmentsofexternalmovementthatseemedtoprovidetheoriginalcompositionalfulcrumforthegenre.Thegradualexhaustionofthepossibilitiesforstunts,thedecipheringofthesecretsofcinema',littlebylittlediscreditingtheadventuresses,suspendedonthetipofaclockhand,andtheheroes,jumpingfromaeroplanetoairship,andinparticulartheabovementionedmovebycinematowards the internal dynamicofmontage, inevitably leadthis onceflourishing genre in the direction of automation. In this process the social change in the composition of the cinemaaudience probably also played a certain role: this change meant that the basic mass of filmgoers consisted ofthe urban, andparticularlytheprovincial,pettybourgeoisiewhopreferredthemorefamiliarandmoreemotionalmaterialtoadventurefantasy.Inoureyes therefore thedeclineof the adventure genrewas and remains complete;hence the star ofPearlWhite, the cinema's firstadventureheroine, isbeginning towanebefore theemotional imagesofLillianGishandMaryPickford, the risingstarsof thenewgenres.ItisnoaccidentthateveninSovietcinema,withitsapparentlyinexhaustiblewealthofmaterialforheroicadventuresandwithaconsciousemphasisontheadventurefilm, thisgenrehasproducednothingbut theutterly imitativeDeathRay126and the enormouscinematicsuccessTheLittleRedDevils127.Withallthissuccess,andinspiteofit,thisfilmhasnotsucceededincreatingagenreandthe 'sequel' Savour the Grave128, descended into self-parody. The enormous historical significance of the adventure film isnevertheless indisputable. It is enormous for the veryreason that it is precisely this genre that laid the foundation for the uniquecomposition 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);intheadventuregenrethiscompositionalprincipleis provided by a simple gradation, a simple intensification leading the hero fromone stunt to another and one reelto another, thetension of curiosity from one part to the next. It is quite clearhow far removed this jumpy composition is from both thepsychological-narrativeandthedramatictreatmentofaction.Theprincipleofsimplegradationnaturallyrequiredthegreatesttension,the use of themost inventiveandmost carefullyprepared stunt just before the very endof the film, in oneof its final reels. It ispreciselytheselastreelsthathavebecomeahomeforrushingtrains,forhecticchases.Themortaldangerthatinevitablyhangsoverthehero in the fifth, sixth, seventh, etc. reels appears tobe a necessary condition for thechase.But the train arrives in time, thechasefinishesonscheduleand,fulfillingthecinematicprincipleofhappyendings',theheroissaved.

That is how this semantic group (' catastrophe — chase — rescue')became a basic compositional factor of giganticimportance;itledtothecreationofthegenrethathasvictoriouslyreplacedtheadventurefilm—the'Americanmelodrama'genre.InitsfinestexamplesinBrokenBlossoms,OrphansoftheStorm,WayDownEast129thisgenreisassociatedwiththegloriousnameofGriffith.Theterm'melodrama'isclearlyveryvague.Thisgenreisquiteremotefrom'melodrama'andfromotheraspectsoftheatricaldrama.Itisalsoremotefortheveryreasonthatitisinnowaydominatedbythestraightforwardactionorthedriveofdrama.EveninGriffith'smostaccomplishedproductionstheactionisplayedoutlikethis:inthefirstreelsofthefilmtheschemaoftherelationshipsbetween thecharacters isoutlinedveryquicklyandinanycasewithoutanyattemptatoriginalityorartistic innovation.Then, inaseriesofcarelesslylinked,perhapsevensimplysketchedepisodes,thenecessarypreconditionsforcatastropheareestablishedandthe catastrophic situation is created. Finally, the catastropheitself follows, worked out in great detail, spread out overhundreds offrames, brilliant in the unusual rapidity andunexpectedness of themontage,stretchingmoments out over dozens ofmetres.Thisconceptofdevelopedcatastropheispossibleonlythankstothecompletelyexclusivefeaturesofthecinematictreatmentof 'time'andspace'.Time'isherebrokenupintorapidlyflashinglayersofeventshappeninginparallel.Space' isdynamisedto agreaterdegreeandbecomes,asitwere,acoordinateofrushingtime.Griffith'scatastrophe'isaconceptthatiscinematicinitsveryfleshandbones,averitable triumphofphotographyandmontageand, inaddition,a reallyconcentratednodeof the 'melodrama'genre,itsprincipalandfundamentalartisticjustification.Asamodelforpurelycinematicstylethegroup'catastrophe—chase—rescue'retainsitsfullsignificanceatthepresenttime.Inparticular,themotifofthedelayedchase,transferredfromtheadventurefilm to themelodrama,has, in a fatalway,played its great rolethereand, emotionallyenriched, achievedenormous force, even inOrphansoftheStorm,withitsremarkableendingwheretheslippingbladeoftheguillotineisinter-cutinatension-inducingfashionwith the hooves of the horses galloping to the rescue. But the chase' is far from being the only possible motif in the groupcatastrophe-rescue'and,whatismore,thismotifhasperhapsfallenintothegreatestdisuse.Attemptstorefreshitbyintroducing'elementalcatastrophe'arebeingmadewithincreasingpersistence.Thisisacuriousexampleoftheequivalenceofhumanwillsandnaturalforcesincinemawhichwehavementionedmorethanonce.Theice-floesthatcarrytheunfortunategirltowardsthewaterfallinthefilmWayDownEastfullyandtriumphantlyreplacetheevilwilloftheenemyintheendingofothersimilarGriffithfilms.Onthecontrary,weshouldratherrecognisethegreatergeneralsignificanceandexpressivepowerofthemotivationfor 'ice-floes'and'waterfall',asforthestorm'inLightinDarkness130,fortheavalanches'andlandslides'inotherfilms,thanforthehumandeedsthatarealwayssodifficulttoexplainincinema.TothesuccessesofSovietcinemawemustaddthefactthat,bytheeffortsofitsyoungdirectors, it hasnot just adopted lock, stockandbarrel the stylisticgroupcatastrophe—chase—rescue' and thecompositionalprincipleofmelodramabaseduponit—ithasalsodevelopeditwithconspicuoussuccess.Thecomplexpreparationforcatastrophe—catastrophe'(andthisistheschemaofAmericancomedy)isdoubledandtrebledbyourdirectorswithinasinglefilm.Thisisastep towards the 'montageofattractions'elaboratedbyEisenstein—foradifferentgenre,admittedly.Pudovkinappliedit infull,whileremainingwithintheboundariesofmelodrama,inhisremarkable filmMother.Despite the total dependenceof theme

Page 54: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

onnarrativeproduct(thethemeisanovelbyGorky),thisfilmisimmeasurablyfarremovedfromthecompositionoffiction,fromthe'filmshortstory'genre.Thematerialishereconcentratedintothreegreatemotionalnodes('treachery','judgement','flight'),eachofwhichisconstructedaccordingtotheschema'preparationforcatastrophe—catastrophe'.Theemotionaltensionofthewholeisenormousandit,asdistinctfromthe'melodramaofGriffith',isspreadinequalmeasure.Itisasifanew,deeplycinematicgenreisbeingcreated,onethatderivesdirectlyfromAmericanmelodramabutperfectsit.TheenormousnumberofemotionalmotifsatthedisposaloftheSovietcinemapromisesabrilliantfutureforthisgenreofemotionalfilm'.

6

Evenfurtherremovedfromthedramaticandnarrativecanon,evenmoreuniqueinitstreatmentof'time'and'space'therestandsagenre that hasnotyetquitebeendefinedand thatwemight subsumeconditionallyunder theconceptof 'lyric'.Likeall authenticcinematicgenres,itowesitsrisetotechnicaladvancesincinemaand,inparticular,totheapplicationof'close-ups'thathasalreadybeenmentionedseveraltimes.Close-upsshowthedetailsofobjectsfromnewandevermoreunexpectedanglesandthusfurnishthelyricalatmosphereofthefilm.Close-upsplayhavocacrossthewholescreenwiththeactor'sface,hiseyes,hissmilingmouth,thusbringingtheaudiencedirectlytothelimitsofhumanlyrics.Itisnaturalthat,withtheintroductionofclose-ups,lyricismbeganwithincreasing success todriveout of cinema the dramatic and narrative features that are so uncharacteristicof it. It isinteresting to trace this process in the example of the'American melodrama' already mentioned. Alongside the dryish films ofGriffithwehereencounteragroupofpictures thathavesacrificedeverythingforlyricalexpression.Sucharethe'idylls'ofAmericancinemawhereagainandagainindetailedandcloseshotstheminutiaeoffarmlifearedepicted,wistfulformscalveandfarrow,dozinginthehay,weseethecharmofchildren's legssplashingthroughthespringpuddles,patchesofsunlightspillinginthesepuddles.ThebasisofGriffith'sfilmwithMaryPickford,131whoisobviouslyinnowayadramaticheroinebutaremarkablytalentedgirlwhoorganicallyentersthislyricalworldoffilmidyllissimilar.Mary,playingPollyanna,Mary,thegirl,runningthroughthe rain, above allher very face smiling on the screen— all these aremoments andmethods ofpurely lyrical expression.MaryPickfordisevenlesspartoftheplotthanthemasksofAmericancinemathatarerelated tohershe isa livingnegationofplot onscreen.Thereisnodispute—thesocialatmosphereofthiswholegroupoflyricalfilmsandtheirprofoundlypettybourgeoissettingare quiteobvious. But this is no reason to repudiate their great formal significance asthe purveyors of the lyrical foundation ofcinema.The lyricalexperimentsof theyoungFrenchdirectorsappear togoevenfurther in thisdirectionandtobreakevenmoredaringlywiththetraditionofplot-orientatedmelodrama.IntheworksofLouisDelluc,MarcelL'HerbierandEpstein132theexpressivenessoffilmisdeliberatelyconcentratedinwidelydispersed'atmosphere'fragments,indetailedpicturesofaharbourfair,ofacity,withtheaim,incompletecontrasttoplot,ofconstructinglyricalimagesoflifeasitpassesby.InthisrespectReneClair'sfilmParisQuiDorf133isevenmoredaring,drivingfreedomfromplotalmosttothepointwhereitmightbecalledplotlessness'intherelativelycolourfullanguageofpolemicalcriticism.

Thus,inrealearnest,wecometothesphereoffilmgenresthatarestillfarfrombeingelaborated,stillcompletely—andalmostgroundlessly— being denied but that, without doubt, reveal gigantic new opportunities for cinemaart. The denial of a plot as aconsequentiallymotivateddevelopmentofindividualfate(andsuchadenialisonlypossibleintheeventofaconsistentidentificationofman-object-nature),therecognitionthatthestraightforwardprogressivemovementofreal'time',andtheveryprincipleof'realtime' in cinemaarenot essential in cinema, the creatorsof these 'plotless' genres rely in theirworkonexclusivelycinematicmeansofexpression,onanewandunexpectedpresentationofobjects,onnon-diegeticand,whereappropriate, on associativeandotherconceptsofmontagethatareinherentlycinematic.Itishoweverclearthatthesuccessofgenresofthistyperequirestheexclusivewealthofanewand,inaddition,emotionallysaturated,almost symbolically significant rawmaterialofobjectsandnature.Italsorequiresconsiderablefreedomfromanytraditionsofliteraryortheatricalisedcinema.HenceitisnoaccidentthatitispreciselyintheSovietcinemawherewefindthefirstreallyconsistentandsuccessfulexperimentsinthisdirection.Theypointintwodirections,alongthepathofthemonumentalheroicsofEisenstein(Strike,BattleshipPotemkin134)andalongtheroadofthefilmdemonstrationofVertovandtheCine-Eyes(Forward,Soviet,ASixthPartoftheWorld135).Thedifferencebetweenthemandothergenresisnotallthatsignificantanditis,inanycase,notadifferenceinprincipleandnottheonethatpeopleoftenwanttosee.Itisnotallthatimportantwhetherafilmincludesonlymaterialshotdirectlyfromnatureorwhetheritalsoincludes'directed"edited'fragments.As longas 'nature' and 'directed' fragmentsare subjected inequalmeasure to stylised treatmentduring theprocessofphotographyandmontage,theywillservetheendsofemotionalexpressivenesstoanidenticaldegreeandthatselectionwillremainaquestionofmethod,aquestionoftechniqueandwillexercisenoinfluenceonthecharacterofgenre.ButinEisenstein'sfilmstheconceptofthenon-diegeticexpositionofobjectsandpeople(thesailors inPotemkin,theworkers from the idle factory inStrike)ispresentedinconjunctionwiththemethodofthe'montageofattractions'takenfromGriffithianmelodrama.Emotionallysaturatedobjects (the 'horn' inStrike,the lion', thegunemplacement', the 'redflag' inPotemkin)employedbyhimnotjustfortheir ownsake but also in semantic relation to what has come before andwhat will come after chronologically. If you like,Potemkinis acompromisegenrebutitisoneofthosecompromisesthat,whilenotdazzlingintheirtheoreticalaudacity,doaboveallfacilitatetheexposure and consolidation of style.On the other hand, the genre ofASixthPart of theWorld is completely free from diegeticcohesion,completely free from the illusionoftheprogressivemovementof time.Peopleandobjects,peopleandnature,arehere

Page 55: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

shownasself-sufficientsemanticvalues.Theiralternationissubjugatedonlytotheself-sufficientlawsofmontageand,inparticular,tothelawsofrhythmiccomposition.Thismoment,themomentofrhythm,canscarcelybedisputedforanyofthefilmgenresbut,intheconstructionofnon-diegeticfilms,itssignificanceisquiteexceptional.RhythmicallyregulatedmontageiswhatdistinguishesthegenreofASixthPartoftheWorld,newlydiscoveredandrecognisedasart,fromthelongstandingcategoryofnewsreel,whichliesoutsidecinema'sartisticgenres.An indicationof rhythmisasmuchabasiccompositionalfactor in theCine-Eye'genreas is thegradationofstunts'intheadventurefilmorthealternationofclose-upsinthe'lyricalidyll'.Byemployingthisconceptthe'plotlessgenres'immediatelyseemtopassintoacategorythatiscompositionallydistinctfromtheonesdescribedabove,onethat,continuingtouseliteraryterms,wemightcalla 'poetic'categoryasdistinctfromprosegenres.But this isalreadyanewquestionofenormousimportance.HereweneedonlyunderlinetheexclusivesignificanceofthegenresthatarenowbeingopenedupinSovietcinema—genresthatarenotonlyperipheraltocinemabut,onthecontrary,stemfromitsveryfoundations,logicallycompletingtheprocessoffreeingcinemafrom thepowerof literatureand theatre thatwasbegunbyAmericandirectors.Butperhaps, evenmore thananyothergenre,theseremarkablefilmsrequirespecialisedanalysisandthatissomethingtowhichthisshort'catalogue'cannotofcourselayclaim.

Page 56: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

THECAMERAMAN'SPARTINMAKINGAFILM

EvgenyMikhailovandAndreiMoskvin

translatedbyAnnShukmanTheCameraGroupThemainartistic responsibilityformakingafilmfallsnotonanyonepersonbutontheteamthatmakesuptheproductiongroupand,ofthem,mostlyonthedirector,thecameraman,andtheartdirector.

Theentireworkoftheproductiongroupcaninessencebesummedupastheprocesswherebyanaction,whicheitherhappensinlifeorhasbeenspeciallyorganisedfortheshooting,andwhichinrealityexistsinthree-dimensionalspace,isimprinted,andaftermontageacquiresitsownpurelycinematographic,two-dimensionallifelikeness.

Knowledgeoftheconditions,factorsandworkingmethodsbywhichthiscinematographiclifelikenessproducesitsmostvividandimpressiveeffectonthevieweriscontinuallyprogressingandbeingperfected,andtheproductiongroupcanandmustorganiseandcreatethenecessaryactiontomeettheserequirements.Whenworkingonafictionfilmitisamatterofprimeimportancebothforthecameragroupandfortheproductiongrouptoobservealltheseconditionsinordertoachievethenecessarygeneraltoneandstyleofthepicture.

Weshouldliketomakeafewremarksabouttheconditionsofworkandthe role of the cameraman in the creationof apicture's style.Thecameraman'sworkiscloselytiedtothatofthedirectorandartdirector.Awellchosenteamofdirector,artdirectorandcameramanistoagreatextentanassurancethattheproductiongroup'sworkwillbeofhighquality.Whenthemembersoftheteamknowandsharethesametastesandinterests,areabletoworktogethertofindacommonlineandmethodsofwork,areunitedintheirinterestinthematerialandthethemeoftheproduction,andwhen,finally,theyareongoodpersonalterms,thenconditionsarerightforcreatingafilm,andthisisnottheresultofdifferentpeopleeachgoingtheirownwaybuttheorganicallyunifiedend-productoftheeffortsofwhatisessentiallyasinglecreator,theproductiongroup.Forthisreasonspecialattentionshouldbepaidtothesefactorswhenselectingmembersofaproductionteam.

Asfarasthecameraman'spartinthisworkisconcerned,itmightatfirstseemasifhissolefunctionwastomountthecameraonitstripod,tocheckitslevel,ensure'correct'exposureandfocus,andthenmechanicallytoturnthehandle.Whilethisstateofaffairsmayhaveexistedatthestartofcinematography,andsometimeseventoday,suchaprimitiveapproachtoshootingcannotnowadaysstanduptocriticism,giventhepresentstageofdevelopmentincinemaart,itsmanysuccesses,andgiventhefactthatthetaskswhichfaceitarebecomingevermoredemanding.

Itmustnotbeforgottenthattheprocessofshootingisnot,oratleastshouldnotbe,asimplepoint-by-pointfixingoftheactiontakingplace,butistheprismthroughwhichthisactionacquiresitscinematographicessenceandlifelikeness,avitalfactorin the whole process of production since the camerawork, being the material out of which the montageorganises thefinishedfilm,predeterminesthequalityofthefinishedproduction.

The task and function of the cameramanwho ismaster of a whole series of technical and artistic resources (which will bediscussed below) is not toturn them into an end in themselves (technique for technique's sake) but to use them and blend themorganicallywiththeotherelementsofthepicture,intempo,atmosphereandtone,inordermaximallytoengrosstheviewerintheaction.

The quality of a cameraman's work depends, apart from intellectual giftsand experience, on an enormous number of purelyobjectivecausesexternaltohim.Besidessuchgeneralorganisationalfactorsastheallocationoftimeandoftechnical,materialandother equipment, the cameraman's work is very largely dependent on the director and art director. The cameraman hasto giveartisticand technical formto theproductionmaterials;but thedirectorandartdirectorare themselves limited in theirselection andapproachtothesematerialsbytheactualrangeofmaterialandtheshootingcapabilitiesofthecameraman,sincehisworkingmethodsarecloselyboundupwiththeworkingmethodsofdirectorandartdirectorandalsowiththegeneralplanoftheproduction.

Broadlyspeakingtheentireprocessoffilmproductioncanbedividedintothreemainstages:1.Theworkingoutoftheworkingscenarioandoftheshootingplan,andalsotheorganisationalworktosetuptheshots.2.Theshootingandlaboratoryprocessingofthefilm.3.Montageofthematerialthathasbeenfilmedandprocessedinthelaboratory.Thesethreeaspectsaresocloselyandindissolublyboundtogetherthatthecompletionofeventhemostinsignificantwork

inoneofthemrequiresfullanddetailedinformationaboutitintheworkplansoftheotherparts.

Page 57: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

Thedirector'sworkingscenarioandthecameraman'sshootingplanThedirector'sworkingscenario,whichis thefoundationof thewholepicture,shouldbeadetailedplanofall thedirector'sworkfrom the very beginning to the very end, and a previously prepared dope sheet of the futurepicture. Theoretically speaking, themontage itself is in this way an almostmechanical process of pasting up the separate sections of shot filmedstrictly inaccordancewiththisdopesheet.

In view of the close dependence that exists between the director's work and that of the cameraman in giving it artistic andtechnicalform,wemayassume(atleasttheoretically)thepossibilityofdrawingup,alongsidetheworkingscenario,ascenarioforthe lighting and shooting,whichwould bestrictly thoughtout in accordancewith themethodsof lighting and shooting,andwhichwouldkeep in stepwith the rhythmand tempoof thepicture. Inthiswaywewouldendupwithafilmrealisedaccording to thedesiredplanandstyleandstrictlyintegratedbothonthegeneralleveloftheworkandinitsminutestdetails.

Inaworkingscenario,boththatofthedirectorandthatofthelightingengineer,eachmontagesectionshouldhaveitsownspecialsignificanceanditsownplacebothinrelationtothewholepictureandtothemontagesectionsnexttoit:theomissionortranspositionofsections,givenaperfectlyworkedoutscenario,wouldresultinevitablyinthedestructionoftheintegrity,ifnotofbothtogether,thenalmostinvariablyofoneofthem.

Intheactualpracticeoffilm-making,evengivenourbarelyperfectedskills,oneisconstantlycomingacrosscaseswhen,asaresultoffree montage (notin accord with the working scenario) sections of film get out of place in theseries and thereby destroy theperspectiveofplaceandtimeintheaction.

Itfollowsthatthereisaneedforthegreatestpossibleprecisionintheworkingscenariofromwhichthecameramanmightdrawup,ifnotalightingandshootingscenario,thenatleastanapproximateshootingplan;inthiscaseitwouldbeessentialthatthemontageofthepicturebythedirectorshouldfollowasnearlyaspossibletheworkingscenario,aconditionthatisessentialtomaintainthevisualintegrityofthepicture.

Ithastobesaidthatwegivetoolittletimeandattentiontothinkingouttheworkingscenario,andstilllesstotheworkingoutoftheshooting plan andthe technical aspects of the filming.Without mentioning instances where the scenario was remade or totallychangedafterthestartoftheshooting,whenthewholeshootingplananddirector'splanwerefundamentallydepartedfromandtheintegrityofthepicturethusdestroyed,thecameraman'sshootingplancanbedestroyedbyanydeviationfromthecorrectlyworkedoutworkingscenario.

Thecameraman,whenembarkingontheshootingofanysceneordetail,must,inordertocarryouthislightingandshootingplanofwork,bethoroughlyfamiliarwith itsmontageconstruction, its relationshipwithothermontagesections,itssignificanceinthegeneralcourseoftheaction,itstoneandatmosphereandalsowiththeplanwhichthedirectorhasforit.Hemustusemethodsneededforthatshotwhichhavealreadybeenlaboratorytested.

However,astrictlyworkedoutscenarioandshootingplanmakessenseonly if theorganisationalworkforpreparingtheactualshootinghasbeencarriedout strictlyaccording toplan. Ifat the timeof theactual shootingeverything is in itsplaceandall thematerialfortheshootingisproperlyorganised,ifeachtechnicianisfamiliarbythattimewiththematerialofhisworkandknowswhattodoandhowtodoit,thennormalworkispossiblethatproceedsmethodicallyandaccordingtoplan,asshouldbethecaseinallundertakings,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 theshooting,etc.)whichcouldeasilyhavebeenresolvedbeforehand;anyamountofconcentrationandenergyisdiverted•from themainoperation,itstempoandplanarelost,anelementofchancecomesintoplay,andfrequentlyasaresultofallthisworkacquiressymptomsofwhatweusuallycall'abotchedupjob'.

Thecameraman,whogivesartisticandtechnicalformtothematerialbeingshot,mustbeinonthepreparatoryworkofalltheothertechniciansandmustbefamiliarwiththematerialwithwhichhehastodeal.Inmanyquestionshisknowledgeandadvicearenot only essential but evenhave crucial significance ( for instance in the choiceoftimes for location shooting,questions of colour,furnishingthestudio,etc.).,..Itisessentialthatthecameramanbecloselyinvolvedintheorganisationalworkbecauseonthisdependsmostdirectlyandcloselythequalityofhiswork,andheshouldbetheconstantconsultantonthetechnicalandartisticsideoftheshootinginalmostallthepreparatoryworks.

It is only by actually subordinating and combining all the otherrequirementsofproduction to the requirementsoftechnicalandshootingrealisationthatthewayisopenandpossibilitiesareaffordedbothforthequalitativeimprovementofthewholeproduction,andforthecreationoftheartisticstyleofthepicture.DirectorandcameramanTheactualshootingdemandsmaximumconcentrationandattentionfromthedirectorandfromthecameraman.

Whilethedirector'sextremelyresponsibleanddifficulttaskduringtheshootingismostlytoworkonthespatialformsinalltheirpossiblecombinationsandrelationshipstoeachother,thenolessresponsibletaskofthecameramanistotransfertheminthemostadvantageousexpressiveformontotherectangularsurfaceofthescreen.

Page 58: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

Theworkofthedirectorandthatofthecameramanthroughouttheshootingareindissolublylinkedandthecollectiveprincipleoffilm-creationrequiresthemaximumaccordintheactionsandthestaminaofdirectorandcameraman.

Whenthedirectorreallyunderstandstheimportanceofthecameraman'sworkinactuallygivingformtothedirector'smaterialinconventionalcinematicforms,thisgoesalongwaytowardsharmonisingtheirworkandmakesitpossibleforthecameramantobringouthisowncreativetalents;thismakesthematerialthatisbeingshotmoreexpressiveand,cinematically,morelifelike.Andconverselywhenthedirectordisregardstheimportanceofthecameraman'sworkordoesnotwanttotakeaccountofhisartisticandtechnicaltasks,thenthereisdiscord,thecameramanmayloseinterestinthework(thatisifheismorethanjustatechnician)andtheresultmaybethathisworkchangesfrombeingartistic tobeingpurelytechnicalandconcernedwithmerelyfixingwhathastobefilmedusingmethodswhichfailtorevealthehiddenessenceofthematerial.

During the shooting of each separatemontage section the cameramanmust simultaneously pay attention to awhole series offactorsessentialifthesectionbeingfilmedistofitintotheplan.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,iswhatconstitutesthestyleofthefilmitself.

Thecameraman'sworkshouldnotcategorisethematerialbeingshotaccording to its seeming importance; it all dependson the role andsignificanceofthismaterialinthecourseanddevelopmentoftheaction.Athing,anactor,thedecor,costumes,landscape,etc.inturnacquireatparticularmomentstheirownmeaningandsignificance,anditcanhappenthatsomedetailwhichbyitself has nothing to saymaybymontage construction reduce the actor (materialwhich is usually themost vivid anddifficult toshoot)totheroleofaninvoluntaryobjectinitshands.

Hencetheneedforthecameramantopayequalattentiontoallthematerialbeingfilmed,andthesearchwiththedirectortorevealtheessenceoftheobjectbeingshotineachparticularsceneandpictureand,followingfromthis,theapplicationofthosetechnicaldeviceswhichhelphimmoreclearlytorevealandtoshowtheviewertheinnersignificanceofthings,whichispartlyhiddenineverydaylife,andtheirhiddenfeatures—theartof'seeing'athingandofreproducingtheshootingmaterialinauniqueform.Thecameraman'sartisticandtechnicaldevicesWhenchoosinghismethodofshootingthecameramanmakesuseofthetechnicalandartisticmeansathisdisposal,i.e.light,opticswith its differentqualities, the composition of the shot, laboratory facilities, etc. and he chooses the onesmost suitable for theproduction.

Theperceptionofa film, that is theperceptionof theblocksof lightand shadewhichareprojectedon to theflatscreenandwhichchangeinoutlineanddisposition,gives theviewerawholeworldof impressions inconventional,purelycinematicformswhicharisefromtheprojectionoflightandshade.

Lightandshade(ifwediscountcolourandsoundashardlydevelopedyet)arethemainandindeedthesoleexpressivematerialofcinematography.Intheseconventionallight-formsandonlyinthemtypesoflightinacertainorder,thegradualorabrupttransitionfromonetoanother,thedispositionandalterationoftheblocksoflightandshadeintheframe,theselection,whenshootingadjacentmontagesections,ofaparticularpartofthebackgroundwhichhassometypicalhighlight,andsoon.Light,beingtheindissolubleelementof thepicture,can, if it iscalculatedandelaboratedbeforehand, increase theeffecton theviewerandhelppreserve theplannedlightingstyleofthepicture.Buttheimpossibilityofdoingthisinpracticemakesitallthemorenecessarytohaveatleastanapproximatelightingplanfortheshooting,asdiscussedabove.

Giventhecapacityoflighttocreatethedesiredmoodofthesectionbeingshotsoastoconveytotheviewertheatmosphereandtoneofthesceneandtocreateareactionontheviewer'spsyche,itisnotimportantornecessarythatthelightingshouldbelogicalorrealistic.

Thecreativepoweroflighttoadaptthematerialbeingshottothedemandsofthefilm,itscapacitytoisolatethetypicalfrom thegeneral, toaccentuatewhereneeded, thebreadthof the rangeofchiaroscuro—all thismakes light in thehandsof thecameramanhisbasicandmostpowerfulweaponandtoolforhiswork

Thebestworkingconditionsforthecameramanwithregardtoorganisingthelightingofhismaterialaretobefoundinastudioequipped with variedlighting equipment in sufficient quantities andwith setswhich permit the best possible use of the lightingequipment.

Onlyinthestudiocanthelightbewhollycontrolledatthewillofthecameraman:therehehasathisdisposallightingequipment

Page 59: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

of all kinds of intensity and type, he can alter the general quantity of light and the positionof the equipment, and alter therelationship of concentrated and softlighting. The cameraman can make use of all possible combinations of lightthat thetechnicalqualitiesofthefilmandthelaboratoryprocessesallow,andbecompletemasterofallthosepossibilitiesofworkingwithlightdescribedabove.

Thedifficultyofworkingwithlightinthestudioliesinthemainnotinfindingthegeneralquantityoflightnecessaryforshootinginaparticularstudiobutinfindingthecorrectrelationshipofdiffusetoconcentratedlight.

Whereasanerrorofeven30%inthegeneralquantityoflightfortheparticularsetisnotcrucial,giventhequalityofthefilmandthechemicalprocessingwhichpermitacertainvariation,asfarastherelationshipofdiffuseandconcentratedlightisconcerned,anydeviationhasaperceptibleeffectonthecharacterofthelightingandhencealsoonthecharacterofthescene.

Thegeneralnormsandrelationshipsofthemaintypesoflightingdependonthecharacterofthescene,ontheconstruction,thecoloursanddetailsofthestudio,onthecostumesandonawholeseriesofotherfactors.

Becauseof theabsenceof standardisedconstructionmaterials, studiodimensions,etc.,evengiven thecameraman'sknowledgeand experience, itisdifficult tomakean immediatecorrect assessmentof thequantity and relationshipof the lighting.Toavoidpossiblemistakesandtoadheretotheplanitisessentialtomakeatestshotofthelightofeachsectionofthesetwhoselightingiscomplexorwhichisimportantinthepicture.ThesetAnindispensablepartofstudioworkistheset.Theset,besidesgivingtheimmediatesettingandatmospherefortheaction,isalsoinessence,as itwere, thedescriptivepartof thefilmwhichhelps toshowtheviewerthesocialposition,thetastesandhabitsofthepeoplelivingorworkinginit.Itspurposebesidesthisistoemphasisethecharacterofthescenestakingplace:wherenecessarytopointouttheircharacteristicfeatures,orattimestobemerelythebackgroundagainstwhichtheactiontakesplace.

Thedesignerhas to find the right forms, set, and things contained in it, to express the innermeaningandaswell has todo ittechnicallyinsuchawayastogivemaximumconveniencefortheworkofthedirectorandcameramaninit.

Since the demands of the purely artistic side and of the technical side arefrequently at cross purposes, almost every set is acompromise.

Theconvenientlayoutofthesetforthefreedispositioninitofthelightingisavitalfactorintheworkofthecameraman.Hence,asalready mentioned,it isabsolutelyessential forcameramananddesigner to reachpreliminaryagreementonallquestionstodowithconstruction,colour,shades,furnishingsandsoon,andforcameramananddirectortobeinfullcontactoverquestionsofmiseensceneandinagreementovertechnicalrequirements.

Afterthefinalsettlementofallthesequestionsitisessentialtocheckthesetwiththelightinginordertocorrectanyshortcomings.Oftheexistingsetconstructionsystemsthebestandmostconvenientfromthepointofviewofthecameramanisthesystemof

constructionfromstandardisedstagepanelsthatistheassemblageofthesetfromelementscomparativelysmallindimension.Suchasystemdoesawaywiththecrowdingofthestudio,whichoftenhindersthelighting,andwhichistheresultofbuildingthesetoutofreadymadeplywoodpanelsoftennotaccuratelycuttotherightsizefortheset.

Tocomebacktothequestionofstudiolighting,itshouldbeaddedthatbesidestheadvantagesenumeratedaboveofworkingwithartificial light thereareothersaswell: flexibility,constancy, thepossibilityofaccuratecalculationand independenceof timeandweathermakeitexceptionallyconvenient;andbesidesitisonlywithartificiallightingthatonecanachievemaximumplasticity,thatisrelief,convexity,andairiness,inotherwordscreateontheflatnessofthescreentheillusionofperspectivaldistancebetweenlevels.

Alltheseadvantagesofstudiowork,whichmakeitpossibletoincreasetheexpressivenessofthefilmandtocommunicatealltheintentionsandsituationsoftheproduction,explainthepresenttrendtomoveoutdoorshots,ifnotintotheactualstudio,thenatleast into the vicinity of the film factory in order to have artificial light to hand.Thismakes it possible, in accordancewith thestylisticdemandsoftheproductionandtheshooting,tocombineartificialandnaturallightinginordertoachievealightingresultonthefilmthatreallyaccordswiththeplanoftheproduction.

Theresultofthismethodofworkisamuchhigherdegreeofexpressivepowerandofartisticunitythaninotherordinaryoutdoorshotsandmakesforconsistencyofstyleinnature.

Simpleoutdoor shooting isessentiallydifficult and thanklessbecauseallitsorganisationcomesfrom theother side:everythingdependsonwhatcannot be calculated beforehand, on a purely chance and capriciouselement—thestateoftheweatherandthelight.

Ifthecameramanhasafixedintentionanddesiretogiveaparticularcharacterandtonetoanoutdoorshot,thespotchosenisgoodonlyduringcertainatmosphericconditions(clouds/noclouds/stormclouds/mist,etc.)whichmaylastonlyhalfanhourtotwohours,andincertainexceptionalinstancesonly5to15minutes.

Itisdifficulttoensurethatonthedayappointedfortheshootingtheweatherconditionswillaccordwiththeplanand,ifitisnotadheredto,theresultisthattheshootingwillloseallitssenseandartisticvalue.

Whileartphotographymaydemandwaitingfortherightconditionsforaparticularshotforalongperiod,theindustrialtypeoffilm-makingcanonlyoccasionallyallowitselfthis.

An entirely natural shot thus almost always bears a compromise and chance character in relation to the plan of the

Page 60: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

production and of theshooting. This does not exclude the possibility of achieving a montage section that is in all respectsexcellent,onewhichcouldnotbeachievedinanyotherconditions,buteventhisisamatterofchanceandlucksincetoachievethesectionaccordingtotheplannecessitatestoolongaperiodandveryextensiveorganisationalcapacities.

Thesolutioninmanycasesmaybe,ifnotthecompletetransferofthenatureshotintothefactoryterritory,thentheavailabilityinsufficientquantityofartificiallightingonmovablestandsonthesiteoftheoutdoorshootingor,asapalliative,theuseofmirrorsandscreens.

Whiletheconditionsandqualitiesofthecameraman'sworkwithlightaresocloselydependentontheplaceofshootingtheuseoftherestofhisshootingequipmentmakeshimindependentofthoseconditionsbyreworkingthesamelightandshadewithvariousartisticandtechnicalmethods.

Thecompositionoftheframe,thatisthedispositionofthematerialtobefilmedwithin theconfinesof the frame (a flatrectanglewithsidesdeterminedtheonebytheother),delimitsandorganisestheviewer'sattentiontowardsessentialpointsintheaction,andgivesacertainphotographicintegritybothtoeachmontagesectionandtotheirtotality.

Thecompositionofcinematographmaterialismademorecomplexincomparisonwithanormalplanebythemovingelementsthatenteritandthetimeofthatmovement;partofthetaskofthecameramanis,togetherwiththedirector,tocombinethegenerallawsofsurfacecompositionwiththelawsofmovementacrossthestillandwiththecalculationandlayoutofthemovementintime.

Teaminguphisworkwiththatofthedirector,thecameramanisabletoarriveatthebestcompositionoftheframe.Hecandothisbyaltering thepointofview,bydistancing,approaching,orraising thecamera inrelationtotheobjectoftheshooting,orbyalteringtheangleofvisionofthelensandthetiltofthecamera,andhencealsoalteringtheangleandcharacteroftheperspective.

Byusingdifferentfilters,hoodsanddiaphragmsandsoonwhichgivevarietytotheshotsthecompositionoftheframe,aswellasthewaythedesignisconveyed,maybeaffected.

Since every cinematographic depiction passes in the process of shootingthrough an optical instrument — the lens — thecharacterofthedesignofthisimagedependsonthechoiceoflens.

Theuseoflensesofdifferentsystem,typeandfocallengthandthedifferentrelativeaperturesandexposurespeeds,togetherwiththeuseofvariousgauzesandadditionallensesmakesitpossibletogetimagesofallkindsfromthemostsharpandprecisetothesoftestandmostblurred,passingthroughallpossiblegradationsinbetween.

Thelensesusuallyusedincinematography(ofananastigmatictype),donotbecauseoftheirperfectdefinition,alwayssatisfytheartisticdemandsoftheshotInordertoavoidtheexcessivesharpnessoftheimagespecialequipmentandopticalinstrumentshavebeencreated,eitherassupplementstothebasiclensorindependentofit,whichenabletheimagetobesoftenedtoanydegreeorevenerased(theHerzseriesofsoftlenses,theVeritolens,Kodakdiffusionlensesamongothersandfinallysimplelenseswiththeirvariousdegreesofcorrection).

The purely technical consolidation of the cameraman's photographic artistic intentions depends entirely on the quality of thelaboratoryprocessing of the exposedmaterial. The basic laboratory process, the developing of the negative, can, ifmishandled,renderthewholeofthecameraman'sworknullandvoid.Failuresinthepositiveprocess,ifthenegativehasbeenproperlyprocessed,arenotsocrucialsincetheycanbeeasilycorrectedinthenextreprinting.

Thecameramanshouldhavea thoroughgrounding inall the laboratoryprocesses,firstofall inorder toknowthe lightnormswhicharethebestforthenormalchemicalprocessingoftheparticularlaboratory.(althoughthelaboratoryhasalsothemeanstocorrectthecameraman'smistakes),andsecondlysothathecanimmediatelyrecognisewhichfaultsarehisandwhichthoseofthelaboratoryprocessing.

Theintroductionofanexperimentalcontrolorgantoobservethequalityandconsistencyofthechemicalsused,theexactitudeandpurityofthesolutions,andthedegreeoftheirsuitability,—allthisaswellasthedirectparticipationonthepartofthecameramanatleast ingivinghis instructionsto the laboratorypersonnelwhoknowhismethodsandrequirementswillensurethat the laboratoryworkhasthetechnicalconsistencywhichitneedstofulfiltheaimsoftheproduction.

Thesuggestionswehaveoutlinedaboveneedtobeworkedoutseriouslyandindetail.Astheystandtheyareallincompleteandsomewhatchaoticexperiment.

Inessencetheworkofanyfilmproduction,ofall its technicians, theeffortsofallthepersonnelfromtheadministrationtotheunskilled labourer,canbesummedupastheattempttoenableasmallgroupofcreativeartists(theproductiongroup)tocreateanendproduct—theseriesoflittleshotsonacelluloidribbon.

Thefilmfactorymustpaymaximumattentiontotheartisticandtechnicalrequirementsoftheproductiongroupandcoordinateallits work with theserequirements which have decisive significance for the quality of the production. The lack of establishedelementary standardmethods of organisational and technical work, which crucially diminishes thework capacity of the factory,createsawholeseriesofunnecessarydifficultiesandaccidentsintheworkoftheproductiongroup,includingthecameraman,whichhaveanegativeeffectontheproduction.

Bystandardisedmethodsofworkweenvisagetheestablishmentofatleastbasicorganisationalandtechnicalmethodsofwork,scientificallyproved, andwe believe that themethodology of cinematography is aburningquestiondemandingimmediateandserioussolution.

Page 61: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

In every art the technique ofworking on thematerial is enormously important, and for cinema as an art that Is whollyindustrialised,therichness,diversity,furtherdevelopmentandinventionoftechnicalmeansareofvitalimportance,forinthemliethebasicstrengthandcapacities,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,themainfactorsinvolvedinseekingsolutionstothequestionofhowtoraisethequalityofshootingingeneralandespeciallytothequestionofthephotographicstyleofafilmare(apart,ofcourse,from the individual gifts of the cameraman) the following: coordinationof thewholeworkof the factorywith the technical andartistic requirementsof thepicture; the carefulselectionofpersonnel;standardisationofwork;theintroduction,parallelwiththis,ofmethodologicalworkonthelaboratoryside;andtheparticipationofthecameramaninorganisationalworktocreatetechnicaland artisticconditionswhichwill trulymakeboth for an improvement in thequalityofhisproductionand for adevelopmentoftechniques.

Page 62: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

Notes

ThenotesarebytheEditor,unlessotherwisestated.SHUTKO:PREFACE1. AdolphZukor(1873-1976)foundedtheFamousPlayersproductioncompanyin1912tobringsuccessfulBroadwayplaystothescreenundertheslogan'Famous

PlayersinFamousPlays'.HisprincipalstarwasMaryPickfordandhemadeafortune.In1916,afteramerger,Zukorbecamepresidentof theFamousPlayers-LaskyCorporation,whichlaterbecameParamount,oneofHollywood'slargeststudios.Zukor'sautobiographywaspublishedin1953underthetitleThePublicisNeverWrong.

2.BattleshipPotemkin,madein1925andreleasedinJanuary1926,wasSergeiEisenstein's(1898-1948)secondfeature-lengthfilmafterStrike.ThefilmwasamuchgreatersuccesswithaudiencesabroadthanwithintheU.S.S.R.Itbecameacausecélèbrepartlybecauseofthatandpartlybecauseofthefundamentalartisticproblemsthatitraised.Intheoriginalversionoftheclosingsequencetheflagwashand-paintedinred.

3. ASixthPartoftheWorld,madeandreleasedin1926,wasDzigaVertov's(1896-1954)attemptata'lyricalcine-poem'andatarealisationoftheideasondocumentaryfilmandrealismexpoundedbyhisCine-EyeGroupintheirmanifestos 'We.VariantofaManifesto'(1922)and'TheCine-Eyes.ATurning-Point',publishedinLefin1923.

EIKHENBAUM:PROBLEMSOFCINE-STYLISTICS4. (Author'snote).G.-MichelCoissacHistoireducinematographe(Paris,1925).Thisbookdoesnot,regrettably,giveahistoryofcinematographyatall,

butisanadvertisementfortheFrenchfilmindustry.(Editor'snote).LouisLumiere(1864-1948)andhisbrotherAuguste(1862-1954)developedthecinematographcamera-projectorandprojectedtheirfirstfilmLaSortiedesUsinesLumiereon22March1895.Thefirstdemonstrationtoapayingpublic,generallyacceptedasthebirthdateofthecinemaasweknowit,tookplaceinParison28December1895.

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'sstatusasanartforminFrance.HefoundedtheFrenchfilmsocietymovementandtheschoolofindependentfilmcriticism.ThebookreferredtoherewaspublishedasPhotogenieinParisin1920.

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)isoneoftheprinciplesofOrthodoxchurchlife,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 ascreenplaybyCarlMayer,was theprincipal inspiration for theGermanExpressionistfilm.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.HisearlywritingswerecollectedinthevolumeLaNaissanceduCinema(Paris,1925),whichisthebookreferredtohere.HewasresponsibleforintroducingBattleshipPotemkintoFrenchaudiencesin1926andhelaterpublishedhisLeCinemaSovietique(Gallimard,Paris,1928).HisbookonSergeiEisensteinwaspublishedinFrenchin1964(Seghers,Paris)andtranslatedintoEnglishin1970(CrownPublishers,NewYork).

17.(Author'snote).B.Balazs,DersichtbareMenschoderdieKulturdesFilms(Vienna,1924),p.143.(ThereisaRussiantranslation.)(Editor's note).BelaBalks (1884-1949)was oneofEurope's leading film theorists and aestheticians.Exiled fromHungary after the overthrowof the revolutionaryregime,Balazs(noHerbertBauer)livedinAustria,GermanyandtheUSSR,returningtohisnativelandonlyaftertheSecondWorldWar.HecollaboratedonlibrettoswithBelaBartokandonthefilmadaptationbyG.W.PabstoftheBrecht/WeillThreepennyOpera(1931).Balazs'sothertheoreticalworksincludeTheSpiritofFilm,firstpublishedinGermanin1930,andTheoryofFilm,publishedinRussiain1945.

18.(Author'snote).TheArtofCinemaandtheMontageofFilm[Iskusstvokinoimontazhfirma],(Academia,Leningrad,1926).19. D.W.Griffith(1875-1948)wasprobablythesinglemost importantfigureinthehistoryofAmericancinema.Hedevelopedsuchessentiallycinematic techniquesas

cameraangle,closeup,longshotand,aboveall,rhythmicediting,thusfreeingthecinemafromtheconfinesofstageconventions.HeexertedaconsiderableinfluenceonSovietfilmdirectors,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 suggestE.A.Dupont'sVariete,made in1925andstarringEmil JanningsandLyadePutti.Kraussdidnotappear in this film,buthedidappear in thenext filmmentionedanditispossiblethatEikhenbaumishereconfused.

26.DiefreudloseGassewasmadein1925byG.W.Pabst.ItwasoneofAstaNielsen'slastfilmsandoneofGretaGarbo'sfirst.MarleneDietrichhadanunnamedpartandWernerKraussandOregoniClunara(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.

Page 63: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

TYNYANOV:THEFUNDAMENTALSOFCINEMA30.‘Velikiinemoi'('Thegreatdumb')wasapopularRussiantermforsilentcinema.31.AndreiBely(1880-1934)wasaRussianSymbolistwriterbestknownforhisnovelPetersburg,writtenin1913-14.32.Seenote29.33.Seenote7.34. AbelGance(1889-1981),FrenchfilmdirectorknownaboveallforhissilentmasterpieceNapoleon,releasedin1927.Partsofthisfilmwereshotbythreesynchronised

camerasandshownonawidetriplescreen.ThistriptycheffectwasknownasPolyvision.Thefilmhasbeendescribedas'virtuallyalexiconoftheentiretechnicalgrammarofthesilentscreen'.

35.Seenote17.36.MaryPickford(1893-1979),leadingactressofthesilentscreen,wasknownas'America'ssweetheart'.In1919shewentintopartnershipwithCharlieChaplin,

D.W.GriffithandDouglasFairbanks(herhusband1920-36)tofoundUnitedArtistsCorporation.SheandFairbanksvisitedtheUSSRaspartoftheirtourofEurope in 1926.Their recommendations ('the greatest motion picture I have ever seen') were used toboost attendances forBattleship Potemkin.AtLunacharsky'ssuggestiontheirvisitbecamethefocusforafilmentitledMary'sKiss,madebySergeiKomarovin1927.ThenamesofPickfordandFairbankswere,forSovietcritics,synonymouswiththeappealofHollywoodentertainmentfilmsandtheglamourofthestarsystem.

37.Seenote23.38. WilhelmWundt(1832-1920),Germanpsychologistandphilogist.In1875hebecameProfessorofPhilologyattheUniversityofLeipzigandlaterfoundedtherethefirst

InstituteforExperimentalPsychology.AlexeiShakhmatov(1864-1920),theRussianphilologist,wasDirectoroftheDepartmentofRussianLanguageandPhilologyoftheAcademyofSciencesfrom1906untilhisdeathPaulhasnotbeenidentified.

39.HeinrichHeine(1797-1856),Germanpoet,publicistandcritic.40.VladimirMayakovsky(1893-1930),theleadingfigureinRussianFuturism,knownasthe'poetoftheRevolution'.HeidentifiedclearlywiththeBolsheviksandwasactive

inproducingposter-poemsfor theRussianTelegraphAgencyROSTAduring theCivilWar.Heisknownforhispolemicalpoemssuchas150,000,000andVladimirIlyichLeninandforplayslikeTheBathhouseandTheBedbug.HewasoneofthefirstliteraryfigurestorecognisetheimportanceofcinemaandmadeTheLadyandtheHooligan,NotBornforMoneyandFetteredbyFilm,allin1918.Mayakovskyreturnedtoworkinthecinemain1926-7andwroteanumberofscreenplaysbutonlytwowerefilmed:TheThreeandDekabryukhovandOklyabiyukhov,bothin1928.

41.AlexanderPushkin(1799-1837),thegreatRussianpoetandplaywright.HeplayedaseminalroleinthedevelopmentofRussianliterature.AmonghisworkswerethenovelTheCaptain'sDaughter,theplayBorisGodunovandthe'novelinverse'EugeneOnegin.OfhisRomanticpoems,TheFountainofBakhchisaraiwaswrittenin1823,andAPrisonerintheCaucasusin1820.

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:THENATUREOFCINEMA52.KonstantinStanislavsky(1863-1938),Russiantheatricaldirector,actorandtheoretician.DirectedtheMoscowArtsTheatrewhenitwasstagingthepremieresofChekhov's

playsandwasaleadingproponentofthenaturalistschool.53.EdwardGordonCraig(1872-1966),Britishtheatredirectorandtheoreticianofdrama.54. Vsevolod, Meyerhold (1874-1940), leading Russian theatre director, actor and theoretician, instigator of revolutionary methods of drama production based on

biomechanics', the application ofmodern technology and a proscenium-less stage that would encourageaudience involvement along the lines of the circus andmusic-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

Page 64: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

triumvirateofactorsoftheAmericansilentfilm.78. ConradVeidt (1893-1943), star of theGerman silent screen in films such asTheCabinet ofDrCaligariandThe Student ofPrague.Laterappeared in

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-TurkishWarof1877-8andtheconquestofCentralAsia.TheSkobelevCommittee,namedafterhim,wasestablishedin1914tosupervisethefilmingofnewsreelsatthefrontforpatrioticpropagandapurposes.

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'sHadzhiMurat.

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:POETRYANDPROSEINCINEMA108.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:TOWARDATHEORYOFFILMGENRES114.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 byKonstantin Eggert in 1925. The filmwas based on a play byAnatoliLunacharsky,People'sCommissarforEnlightenment,whichwas itselfan

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.

Page 65: The Poetics of Cinema (Russian Poetics in Translation)

129.Seenote19.130. Ihavenotbeenabletotracethisfilm.PickfordhadmadesomeearlyfilmswithGriffithbuttheirartisticcollaborationhadbeenreplacedbythebusinesspartnershipin

UnitedArtists(withFairbanksandChaplin)bythe1920s.ThereferencemaybetoTessoftheStormCountry,whichPickfordmadein1922,butwhichwasnotdirectedbyGriffith.

131.ThereferencehereisobviouslytoMaryPickford'sPollyanna,madein1919,butthisfilmwasnotdirectedbyGriffith.InfactPiotrovskyseemstoattributemistakenlyanumberofAmericansilentfilmstoGriffith.

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,isconcernedwithamadscientistwhoimmobilisesthewholecityofPariswithamysteriousray;buttheplotissubmergedinthelyricalphotography.

134.Seenote2.135.Seenote3.