Hasskamp on Bazin's "Evolution"

The Evolutions of the Language of Film and Classroom Discussion:
Carol Donelan = Orson Welles
By Luke Hasskamp

Class began with a brief discussion of James’s perpetual tardiness – which was amusing to all, and which most likely would have been amusing to James, too, had he arrived on time.  I apologize for not providing a more complete account of this humorous conversation.  I was too busy chuckling to take complete notes.  Harry made a comment about his tardiness early in the term, and I believe we all psychologically patted him on the proverbial ‘back’ for his excellent attendance since week one. 

Following this, Carol informed us that she wanted to try something “a little different” with our class period.  We would break up into two groups and have 30 minutes to prepare a 15-minute presentation on the assigned reading, André Bazin’s “The Evolution of the Language of Cinema.”  Carol would critique each group on the quality and completeness of their presentations.  The class counted off and split into groups.  It was at this point that James arrived.  Both groups took significantly different approaches to presenting the material.  The first group (my group) provided a very abstract, and some would say ambiguous, presentation, similar to the cinema of F.W. Murnau.  Had he been there, I am sure Mr. Bazin would have been amused with the humorous sentences constructed during our discussion of the “LANGUAGE of Cinema”.  Surely he would have declared, “Luke, I cannot understand a word you’re saying.”  Perhaps this could be attributed to his inability to speak English, but then again, perhaps it was my inability to speak English?  One thing is for sure, no member of my group will become successful teachers/professors.  As Carol put it, “Don’t even think about tenure, guys.”  I guess the Teach for America presentation the class period before was for naught.  Apologies to the youth of America.

If nothing else, it was interesting to see the evolution of our presentations and class discussion.  It mirrored, at least in part, the evolution of the language of cinema in Bazin’s eyes.  My group’s discussion could be compared to the first period of cinema discussed: the era of the Silent Film.  This was a period when film was still developing as an art.  Just like our presentation, there were some good ideas present, but it had not been completely pulled together into a coherent whole yet.  Filmmakers were not yet able to produce the films they sought to produce.  Two trends emerged during the silent era: faith in the image (expressionism), and faith in reality (realism/neo-realism).  Those who had faith in the image were the formalists.  Two sub-trends emerged from this, those directors relating to the plastics of the image, and those relating to the resources of montage.  German Expressionism is most closely linked with this practice.  The notable directors include Fritz Lang (Metropolis 1927) and Robert Wiene (The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari 1920).  Those directors who embraced the resources of montage were clearly the Soviets, with Sergei Eisenstein leading that revolution.   Notable films from this wing include Battleship Potemkin and Strike.   

The other trend, as mentioned, belongs to those directors and film theorists who put their faith in reality.    Among the directors of this trend were Erich von Stroheim, Robert Flaherty and F.W. Murnau.  These directors focused on differing aspects of realism.  Von Stroheim’s film Greed is associated with naturalism, Robert Flaherty’s Nanook of the North focused on the realism of the duration of time, and F.W. Murnau is associated with the realism of dramatic space.  Flaherty’s Nanook is considered by many to be the first documentary film ever made.

The second era of cinema discussed was the era of the sound film prior to World War II.  The advent of sound brought about an evolution in film, just like the switch to the second group presenting brought about an evolution in the quality of the discussion.  (Group 2 provided a clear and comprehensive presentation, and they should be applauded for their efforts.)  At this point in history, filmmakers have a fairly complete set of tools with which to produce films.  During this period, we see the classical Hollywood style of filmmaking (classical form, content, editing, etc) emerge as the dominant approach through much of the filmmaking world.  These were the types of films studios that studios liked producing and which audiences had grown accustomed to viewing. 

At this point in the reading, Bazin provides the reader with an analogy of a river that has reached its “equilibrium profile”.  Bazin argues “by 1939 the cinema had arrived at what geographers call the equilibrium profile of a river … the river flows effortlessly from its source to its mouth without further deepening of its bed” (Bazin 47).  He goes on to add that only a geological movement of some magnitude can cause a shift in the river.  Film had achieved this equilibrium (classical Hollywood cinema), but something was at work that would shift its trajectory.  Carol argued that the Flaherty tradition of realism of time had dropped below the surface during this time, and although initially unperceived, it was eroding the lay of the cinematic river, which would lead to a fundamental shift in film.  Although some of us first argued that Orson Welles was the impetus for this shift, Carol convinced us that it was actually French filmmaker Jean Renoir, who for years had used many of the techniques Welles employed in Citizen Kane.  Renoir had been ‘below the surface’, acting as a crosscurrent to the classical Hollywood style.  He was the first filmmaker who successfully utilized depth-of-focus, a linchpin of realist filmmakers. 

Welles was not the impetus for the shift, but a director whose force completed the ‘geological’ shift and ultimately brought film to a new equilibrium.  This shift takes us into the third era of cinema which we discussed, the period between approximately 1940 and 1950.  If we can compare the second group to present to Renoir, we can most certainly compare Carol to Mr. Orson Welles.  Just like Carol stepped in to the class conversation to elevate the level of the discussion and drive the relevant points home, Welles elevates the quality of cinema in Bazin’s eyes. 

During this period, we essentially see a rebirth of realism, mirrored by a recession of expressionism and montage.  A greater appreciation and utilization of the duration of real time emerges, as does a greater respect for the ambiguity of space. Bazin believed that the ontology of film was to represent reality – “Film should not add to reality.  If should reveal it.”  Bazin was very skeptical of the formalists who tried to ‘add’ to reality.  Film, Bazin felt, was not the appropriate medium for expressionism and the like.  In his opinion, filmmakers who were not realists were not respecting the ontology of film.  Bazin felt that the advent of sound brought with it an opportunity for cinematic continuity rather than discontinuity.

Our class learned a lot this day.  1) Sound is good; the advent of sound allowed for a more complete cinema to emerge, courtesy of Renoir, Welles, et al.  2) Class conversations can and oftentimes do mirror the evolution of film history.  3) I am a weak presenter of ideas.  4) Group 1 = Era of Silent Films, Group 2 = Pre-WWII Era of Sound Films, Carol Donelan = Orson Welles.  5) No matter what you do early on, if you wow them in the end, you’ll have a hit regardless of previous flaws, but don’t you dare throw in a deus ex machina.

Comments

[Ming-mei Hung]

I thoroughly enjoyed reading about Luke’s in-class experience with Bazin’s “The Evolution of the Language of Cinema” because it resonates with my own experience. Although I agree in large part with Luke’s points, I would like to expound upon the introduction of sound in cinema.

Even though I initially made the mistake of separating the development of cinema into silent and sound eras, I know now that the more important split in film history concerns the differing theories. Bazin divides cinema history into two opposing trends. Directors are distinguished according to their "faith in the image" or their "faith in reality" (41). As Luke discusses, those that put their faith in the image – the German Expressionists or Soviet filmmakers such as Kuleshov and Eisenstein – relied on either the plastics of the image or montage; directors such as Flaherty and Stroheim who held a faith in reality, on the other hand, concerned themselves with the sense of landscape, space, real time, and naturalism. With the introduction of sound in the late 1920’s, the latter trend became less prevalent but did not completely disappear. As Carol points out, with the advent of sound, the "faith in reality" trend merely went "underground."

During the 1930’s, classicism prevailed in the cinemas of Hollywood and France, and cinema saw a move towards realism of montage with continuity and invisible editing. Previously used techniques of superimposition, montage, and the close-up became too “violent” and apparent to the audience (48). However, the dominance of classicism did not mean that the "faith in reality" trend disappeared, as I've already noted. Jean Renoir kept this tradition alive. Renoir paid attention to in-depth composition and continuity in space and time (49). His work and theory slowly "eroded" classicism and led up to the "reborn realism" in the 40’s, as exemplified in the films of Orson Welles and William Wyler.

The great divide in cinema history is thus not between the silent and sound eras, but rather between the two opposing trends, those directors who put their faith in the image, and those who put their faith in reality. These two trends and the interactions between them are what created the evolution in cinematic language.