Apropos of the original message, I think that a film being "poetic" is a much different concept than
what is termed the "cinema of poetry." As many have already said, the "cinema of poetry," as a
cinematic technique, was formulated and critiqued by Pasolini. Yet, the "cinema of poetry" was
not a cinematic ideal, nor was it intended as some sort of manifesto.
The "cinema of poetry," according to Pasolini, was exemplified by the use of "free indirect
subjective," which are camera techniques that blur the distinction between objectivity (the camera)
and subjectivity (the director). In blurring that divide, "free indirect subjective" is able to render a
film, and cinema as a medium, as a relation between subjectivity and objectivity—a blurring
between fiction and reality. Deleuze would take this Pasolinian concern up in his books, but shift
the title to "free indirect vision."
The "cinema of poetry," however, was not, like I said, an ideal. It was a scathing critique on that
cinema, as witnessed by Antonioni, Bertolucci, and Godard, because it propogates, in Pasolini's
assessment, bourgeois, high capitalism. Pasolini's notion of the "cinema of poetry" met many
reproaches from cinema theorists, but, in retrospect, his formulation of such a concept have
allowed philosophers (Deleuze) and theorists (most notably Hamid Naficy) to extrapolate on the
nature of the cinema as a medium that dislodges the distinction between "real" and "fiction" and
one which blurs those boundaries—for better or worse.
*
*
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.
**
|