 |
 |
My earlier note regarding Kubrick's observations on Eisenstein's cinema of montage and Chaplin's cinema of staging isn't at all to be confused with a debate over realism vs. non-realism. The realism issue comes up regarding my mention of Cesare Zavattini, the neo-realist screenwriter, theorist and, some would say, idealogue. The various other mentions of polar opposites, whether it's Chaplin vs. Eisenstein, Bazin vs. Deren, and others, all point to the fascinating territory of clashing cinematic ideals which have raged since the early days of the silents. Indeed, the most fundamental debate was visible right there at the beginning: The Lumiere Brothers' short documents of industrial life vs. Melies' fantastical visions. There's a fascinating pattern to this kind of conflict that has helped make film such a rich landscape of varying aesthetics. But I'm finding myself more and more interested in how a set of ideas, forming a movement, then evolves slowly over time, especially within a particular country. The most interesting example I think is in Italy, where the neo-realists created a major break with past, highly artificial styles, only to have it evolved almost imperceptibly over time, with Antonioni's ``Cronica di un Amore'' being the first significant turn away from strictly neo-realist views a la Zavattini. Fellini and Visconti then followed in their own ways, departing gradually, and then dramatically, from neo-realism, until we arrived at something radically different after a slow, decade-long development. This passage into radical modernism is one of the most fascinating stories in film history, and yet is not quite the case of clashing aesthetics, but views developing and changing. In this way, this Italian experience is much like the gradual changes that occurred in several other great art movements in history--American expressionism, the Renaissance, portraiture. It makes me wonder if there's a published history, theoretical or otherwise, which contrasts these two different tendencies in art: The conflict of opposite views on one hand, the gradual evolution of ideas and style on the other.... Robert Koehler ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sean Delgado" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2001 10:56 AM Subject: Re: Eisenstein, Bazin > The Kubrick quote had more to do with form vs content than montage vs > `realism'... Kubrick said Eisenstein was all form and no content and > Chaplin is all content and no form. You can find the interview at the > Kubrick site... > > > >Stanley Kubrick once observed another set of > >polar opposites: The movies of Eisenstein, which were all editing, and the > >movies of Chaplin, which were all motion inside the frame and no editing. > >(Kubrick added that were he forced to choose between one or the other, he > >would opt for Chaplin.) > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp