Articles

Pre-Production Funding - Screenplays - Writing - Filmmaking Links - Ideas - Storyboarding Production Cinematography - Acting - Lighting - Sound - Crew Post Production Distribution - Editing - Festivals - Online Screening Forum Articles - Projects - Profiles Background Books - Films - History of Film - History & Genres - News & Reviews - Glossary - Short Film Competitions Animation Photography Home

Open to submissions. screaming_reels@yahoo.co.uk Dr. Caliagri and the Language of Cinema Cinema in the 21st century is a very pervasive medium; integrated and intertwined with popular culture. The language of cinema has become familiar to millions. The Hollywood conventions of narrative have become ingrained, more than familiar. Hollywood, through its place at the forefront of commercial cinema, is the general publics benchmark of cinematic narrative. Their definition of what a film is, how it is put together, has become that of the Hollywood way. This language, with a grammar and a vocabulary of it’s own, is often not seen as such by the casual viewer. The Cabinet of Dr Caligari came at a time before Hollywood’s domination began. In 1919 cinema was in its infancy. Development over the previous 30 years since it’s inception had been rapid. Pioneers and innovators of the cinematic language such as George Melies, Edwin S. Porter, George Albert Smith and D. W. Griffith experimented with narrative, with composition and with editing. There were no rules and conventions to follow, the possibilities of film were being discovered, and new techniques were being utilised. Cinema was of course new to the audience too. Society was far from being cine-literate as it is today. Directors were experimenting as much with the audience as they were with celluloid. Modern viewers approach films with years of film watching having created an expectation of the film, and expectation of how it will work, how it will communicate with them. Modern viewers often have difficulty relating to early, and especially silent, films. They have none of the usual shared language to help communicate with the film. They approach the film expecting something different from what they usually see, but this is little help when the language of the film is so alien. The conventions familiar to modern audiences such as rapid pacing and editing, action over plot and the obvious over the subtle, cloud their approach to the film. Seeing an old film, the modern viewers quickly have to unlearn their cinematic language, and adjust to the more “primitive” language of the film. The whole social and cultural context of the film is also far removed from the situation in which modern viewers see the film. The cultural baggage with which British 21st century viewers approach the film is very different from that of Germans in 1919. Italian Neo-Realism The current trend for realism in cinema is not the first, with changes in technology and culture bring about a realist revival every few years. In terms of cinema history, Italian Neo-Realism is the best known and arguably the most influential. The list of directors that it produced rivals any other movement: Rossellini, Visconti, de Sica and Fellini. The aim of these filmmakers was to portray the reality of life in post-war Italy. They wanted to present a more realistic view of Italy than the “white telephone” films, which diverted attention away from the social reality with its studio sets, upper class environments and superficial plots. The neo-realists believed that, in the words of Cesare Zavattini, the influential neo-realist screenwriter and theorist; “every person is a hero”. Most neo-realist films concentrated on the everyday cares of people, rejecting the classical Hollywood formula, which superimposed an artificial pattern over the complexities of reality. They were also using their new found freedom after the fall of fascism to develop the realism which had begun to emerge in Italy during the late 1920’s but which had been restricted by the constraints of fascist propaganda. Bicycle Thieves (1948), one of the most prominent neo-realist films, written by Zavattini and directed by de Sica, illustrates many of the neo-realist concerns and techniques. It shows things objectively, as they are, without any political spin. Non-professional actors and location shooting are used, and none of the characters are fantasy role models, just normal people trying to deal with everyday concerns. However, it is not just a fictional documentary. Although there is not what could be termed a classical story, the sequence of events follow the problems of one particular everyman and his struggle to keep his much needed job after two years of unemployment. It is a touching, beautifully shot, beautifully acted film (especially by the factory worker who plays the main character), which, unlike many “social reality” films, does not just show us what is happening, but uses techniques from Hollywood cinema to draw us into the film. We become attached to the main character not just because he is having to push against the weight of the world to support his family, but because he is just like many of us; he is scared, unsure of himself and worried that he is letting his family down. The unemployment, desperation, and sense of community that characterised Italy during the late 1940’s are subtly woven into the film. This subtle, touching story avoids the usual sledgehammer approach to social problems and makes us care about the people and about what is happening. Eisenstein, Montage and the Battleship Potemkin Lenin called film the most important of all arts since it is the most efficient medium for propaganda. In a country of 160 million people, spread over the largest continuous landmass in the world and speaking over a hundred different languages, film was the perfect medium to communicate the Soviet message in a universal, word free form. To this end the All-Union State Institute of Cinematography was formed. One of the students at the school was Sergei Eisenstein, now considered by many scholars to be the most influential man in the history of cinema. The lack of film stock during the early years of the school forced Eisenstein and his fellow students to spend more time theorising and experimenting with existing footage, than producing their own films. Under the tutelage of theorist Lev Kuleshov, the students found that by altering the way in which the footage was edited together, the meaning could be altered. When the members of the workshop were able to get hold of raw film stock they began producing their own feature films, using their work on editing, or montage, to communicate the Bolshevik message. Eisensteins debut film Strike (1924) showed the struggle of the striking workers against the brutal and oppressive factory system through the juxtaposition of two or more images to create metaphors which were different from and greater than the separate message of the image. It was this belief in the cut, rather than the shot as the basic building block of film that underpinned Eisensteins thinking and the production of The Battleship Potemkin. Potemkin differs from Hollywood cinema in that an entertaining narrative is supplanted by a combination of message and a sophisticated method of relaying this message. Eisenstein saw shots and cuts combining to form ideograms, which could communicate the equivalent of sentences. The combination of two concrete images could also form an abstract concept. For example, in Japanese character writing, where the symbol for dog, followed by the symbol for mouth, creates an ideogram not for “dogs mouth”, but “bark”. The priest tapping his crucifix with the officer holding his sword and the stone lion(s) rising in response to the massacre on the steps, provide good examples of Eisenstein using images to create abstract ideas and reinforce emotions. Eisenstein used “types” rather than actors in the film, people who would represent cruel authority or the brave sailors, rather than individual characters. The representation of these people is blatant propaganda, with the evil officers, the faceless regimented cossacks, and the brave, repressed sailors. The film also ends on a positive note, rather than the reality of the failure of the 1905 revolution. European Film Movements Most discussion and teaching of “European Film” concentrates on works and directors that are revolutionary and “memorable”; either politically or artistically. The essence of European film is presented as non-Hollywood, experimental “art cinema”. The study and teaching of film usually ignores the more unashamedly entertainment orientated films, and those European films which fall into that category are given little or no attention. While American cinemas lowbrow productions are hard to ignore, given Hollywood’s saturation of the global market, the selective study of European film creates the general perception that European film as a whole is motivated by politics and art rather than business. In order to make the study of European film more digestible, it is divided into national categories, and then sub-divided into movements, schools or waves. New German Cinema, French New Wave, Italian Neo-Realism, British Documentary Tradition. Films are grouped together in a similar way to Hollywood product, where genre is used to categorise films. However, this division of European film ignores the work produced in between the movements. For example, what happened to German cinema between the Expressionists and The New German Cinema? Little mention is made of the in-between work, only when a background is needed for radical developments. Films similar to Hollywood films are all but ignored, and European cinema is given the reputation for innovation and experimentation. Most writing on European film concentrates solely on “memorable” works, and the small number of films that are available for viewing are almost entirely the same selection of work. The French New Wave is often considered to be, along with Italian Neo-Realism, the most influential of the European film movements. The nouvelle vague directors re-evaluated not just film form, but the whole ethos of filmmaking. They were the first generation of young, independent, film loving filmmakers. They emerged away from the staid French film industry and carved a new path that many were to follow. The production techniques used by Godard, Truffaut et al; light, hand held cameras, fast film stock, location shooting, jump cuts, improvisation, although shared with neo-realism, were at the time the exception, now they are everywhere from multi-million pound blockbuster to the growing number of low budget, independent films made by people who want to be just like Truffaut and Godard. The New Wave filmmakers influenced not just the form of films, but the way they were thought of, they way they were talked about, they way they were adored. Soviet cinema, even though the Soviet Union lasted for 70 years, is almost always used to refer to films and filmmakers during the early years of the USSR, between the October revolution and World War II. These Soviet filmmakers came a t a time when cinema was still in its early years, and the cinematic techniques that we now take for granted were only just emerging. Sergei Eisenstein, who is the most talked about and influential Soviet film maker, is one of the pioneers of cinema, and, along with D.W. Griffith, arguably the most influential. His, and other Soviets such as Lev Kuleshov, work on editing helped to transform film from the simple cutting of lengthy shots into an expressive, intellectual form capable of expressing complex ideas and involving the viewer as part of the film. Although there were only a small number of German Expressionist films produced, its revolutionary, expressive, artistic look is still unconsciously copied in films of today, although in a less literal way. With the flood of filmmakers out of Germany after the Nazi consolidation of power in 1933, directors who learnt their trade helping to produce these films exported this style to, and helped to create the distinctive chiaroscuro look of film noir. The dark expressive imagery is still influencing films such as Seven. Although the narrative style of such Expressionist classics as The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is very simplistic, its look was one of the first “radical re-evaluations of cinema” to come from Europe. Italian Neo-Realism, although very much based on realist cinema of the past, is the movement that helped bring realism to the masses. Using similar equipment and techniques as the New Wave, although over a decade earlier, the neo-realists aimed to show the world as it was, not in the carefully constructed, happy ending ways of the “white telephone” films being produced by the Italian film industry at the time. Realism is still very much a popular aim today, especially in television, and directors such as Ken Loach have built their careers on continuing the themes and techniques of the neo-realists and the British Documentary Tradition of John Grierson and Lindsey Anderson before them. Realism, or cinema-verite as it is now often referred to as continues to make appearances at the forefront while not bubbling away in the background. In a way, the definition of a film movement is that of something different, moving away from the norm, making it memorable, experimenting. While Hollywood does occasionally lead the way in the development of cinematic technique, it’s pre-occupation with making money usually stops it from stepping too far off the path. European cinema on the other hand, with a seemingly impossible hope of ever beating Hollywood at its own game and with the artistic tradition of the continent, is more often willing and able to try something new. Most artistic developments in cinema stem from Europe, and while the public often first becomes aware of it in Hollywood’s products, it has usually been adopted from small, challenging European works. Dogme 95 The history of film is full of “new waves” and movements rebelling against their predecessors. Dogme 95 is just the latest in a long line that includes the French Nouvelle Vague, New German Cinema and New Hollywood. Disillusioned with the ideology and working practices of the current generation, these newcomers were disappointed with the type of films that were being produced. Dogme 95 undoubtedly consists the strictest rules of any of these movements. The four Danish filmmakers who drew up these rules; “The Vow of Chastity”, had up until that point made mostly traditional types of film. However, they had become tired not just of other films but of the way their own work had developed. They believed that filmmaking had become too easy, that too many restrictions had been removed and that this had led to a lack of imagination, as restrictions often breed creative solutions to problems. These four Danes wanted to create a realistic, true life form of film (also not a new objective), to remove style and the trappings of style from filmmaking. In order to accomplish this, their rules included the banning of sets, props, non-diagetic sound, filters and dolly’s. The films were to look more like a home movie than a slick Hollywood blockbuster. The first Dogme film was Thomas Vinterberg’s “Festen” (The Celebration). Although one of the rules of Dogme is that the film is not to be in any genre, this is a very difficult rule to follow, as almost every film can be put in some sort of classification. Although Festen does not fall into one obvious genre such as Western or Science Fiction, it is part of the traditional Danish genre of a family get together in a country house. While the film does not move away from past films entirely, it is very different to most films. The grainy hand-held camera, although a successor to the semi-documentary cinema verite, gives the film the feel of a home-movie. This style, coupled with the documentary shooting technique of the camera following the actors rather than the actors performing in front of the camera, draws you into the film and does a very effective job of making you feel as though you are one of the guests. Even though Dogme was created as an anti-style, the restrictions placed on the camera and the action has created a distinctive “Dogme-style”, which has subsequently been used for adverts and other film purely as a visual template without any consideration for the ideology behind Dogme and its aims. Some of those who dislike Dogme have criticised it for its “realistic” aesthetic, stating that the slick, expensive, up to date film technology used by Hollywood is more realistic, as decades have been spent getting film to look as close to what the human eye sees as possible. However, film is not reality, and an attempt to make film appear as a direct facsimile of reality will never work simply for the fact that film is not reality. The reason why home-movie and news camera footage has become the accepted reality aesthetic is that fiction films, however lifelike they look, are constructed, whereas home-movies and news cameras capture a representation of reality. While the grainy, jerky images do not look like the world we see, it is the world that we see, not some computer generated explosion or Hollywood back lot scene. What those who criticise the look of Dogme and cinema verite do not realise is that it is not the look of the film that makes the image appear like reality, but what is being filmed. These camcorder images have become so associated with capturing reality that a constructed film imitating this style can at times trick us into believing what we see has really happened. All material © Neil Lenthall

Feedback and Submissions screaming_reels@yahoo.co.uk Remember to add the site to your favourites. A Short History of Film Pt. 1: Silent Cinema 1895-1927 Pt. 2: Studio System 1927-1945 Pt. 3: Post-War 1945-1959 Pt. 4: New Waves 1959-1975 Pt. 5: Blockbusters 1975-2002

screaming_reels@yahoo.co.uk    © Screaming Reels 2002