Dear Faozan,
Although I don't have a direct critical source or book to point you
towards (other than Pasolini's book, or perhaps to Tarkovsky's
"Sculpting in Time" -- and there was a recent book on Tarkovsky that
was titled something like "Tarkvosky: Poet of the Cinema") here is a
suggestion where to start in thinking about "cinematic poetry". I'm
only going to try and make sense of occasions where I remember to have
heard films described as poetic (whether in conversations, or in film
reviews or film criticism).
There may be nothing precise that is captured when someone describes a
film as "poetic" -- but I think it often has to do with how important
style and imagery is in the film, and suggests that these are at least
as if not more important to the overall meaning of the film than story.
Usually (it seems to me) what people have in mind when they speak of
visual or cinematic poetry is that the film conveys meaning in other
ways than through narrative (traditional storytelling schemes). Where
much of the meaning or feel of the film is conveyed through repetition
of images, through forms, through the cadence of the editing.
Experimental and avant-garde (or underground) cinema is usually thought
of as "poetic" in this sense. Even strongly narrative films can be
thought of as poetic when the distinctive feel of the film is conveyed
by means of the concrete images. When Ozu interjects a sequence of
clouds between two narrative sequences, that is clearly a poetic
gesture. Tarkovsky's long shots do more than give space for the story,
but convey something of mood and introduce details that are strictly
speaking not essential to the story (a Hollywood film would cut them
out) but give an added level of concreteness and establish a rhythm
that could be called "poetic." In his writings, Tarkovsky emphasizes
the importance of moments that do not "do" anything (no symbolism, and
no carrying of plot details) and yet convey some kind of poetic truth;
he uses a wonderful (or terrible) example of some wartime footage he
saw where for several moments a prisoner to be executed was struggling
to tie his shoes -- the inclusion of such details in film could be
thought of as poetic because they say a great deal without having a
significance that can be reduced to an idea or a plot. Filmmakers like
Jean Vigo were described as working in a "poetic realism" style -- I
think because his attention to realist detail played such an important
role and contextualizing and giving the right feel to the very simple
and direct storytelling. It could also be considered poetic when a
filmmaker regularly employs techniques in film that are suggestive of
techniques in literary poetry -- such as the recurrence of images as
motifs, the establishment of imagistic connections (or "alliteration")
through editing. Sometimes I have heard people describe a film as
"poetic" when they really mean "the shots were gorgeous" or the pace
was almost lyrical. (I think "poetic" gets overused in film reviews --
some people, including myself on occasions, use it to say basically
"there was something cool or interesting going on in that film but I'm
not sure how to say what that was, so let's call it poetic").
Part of the problem, though, is that "poetry" itself is difficult to
define. I think one of the most interesting philosophical approaches,
though, to the essence of poetry can be found in a quotation from
Kierkegaard's "Concluding Unscientific Postscript" (I am paraphrasing
since I don't have it in front of me): "only one who stirs the waters
of language and says what could not before have been said is truly a
poet." What is poetic, from this "philosophical" perspective, is the
"birth of significance," the "forging of meaning." You speak
poetically from this standpoint when you are able to communicate
something new. What this must mean is that what you communicate is not
a ready made or universal meaning, but has a particularity or
uniqueness about it. This ties to part of what, as I recall, Pasolini
said about poetic filmmaking: that film could be poetic because it is
concrete and not abstract. I do not say the word "tree" in film but
show a particular tree; if I can convey something by way not of words
but by means of singular images, and if what I convey says something
more than just the singular images without resorting to ready made or
familiar ideas, then I am operating at a poetic level.
Some examples of filmmakers I have heard described as "poetic" (and
where I think it fits) include Wong Kar-Wai (his latest film 2046 seems
a perfect example of a film where it is not really about a coherent
story, but about establishing a set of characters in relation to moods
of nostalghia and longing and loss -- some would criticize him for not
telling a more easily understandable story, but I think it is obvious
that is not what he is trying to do and what he is trying to do he
achieves brilliantly), Tarkovsky, Bresson, Jim Jarmusch (a kind of
poetry of the ordinary), Bae Yong Kyun's "Why has Bodhidharma gone to
the East," Gus Van Sant's Elefant has been described as poetic,
Kiarostami, Godfrey Reggio (his Koyaanisqatsi trilogy is clearly
operating at a poetic level), and much of the Avant-garde such as Maya
Deren (by the way, I thought the dancer in your Katia Engel
collaborations was suggestive of the mirror-faced woman in "Meshes of
the Afternoon" -- as powerful, as dangerous and beautiful, though not
in the same way threatening), and I would agree with the reviewers you
cited who describe your films as poetic.
Anyhow, I hope that this helps somewhat with your question (at least as
a start).
> When i screened my film in several festival they always thought that
> my f=
> ilm is cinema poetry...
> =20
> what is actually cinema of poetry ? can you help me with the
> definition a=
> nd philosophy behind ?
>
Sincerely,
Nathan Andersen
Asst. Prof. of Philosophy
Eckerd College
*
*
Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
**
|