I enjoyed the way the article described Bazin. Although I do not agree with all of Bazin's ideas and theories specifically regarding cinema, I still believe them to be very relevant. The article points out Bazin's undeniable influence and credibility in the introduction and conclusion of the article. Bazin may have shunned or misjudged other methods of filming, and, in turn, 'the budding generation of film pedants' and others did the same to him. Instead of bashing Bazin for the fallacies in his precise, specific strategies and theories in cinema, the article more or less dismisses them and focuses on his ideas and methods as an optional approach to filming.
I agree that Bazin was wrong in connecting the idea of realism (and/ or his idea of true realism) to cinema as one and the same. I find it even harder to agree with Bazin that specific things should occur or not occur to portray reality such as dramatic lighting and montages. Filming of reality is always bias, reflecting some what of an individual's influence and perception, whether it's through montages or long extended time frames. To relate cinema or photography, for that matter, to absolute reality was a very common misconception, however, and is still debated today!
Finally, I agree with the article and Bazin's assumed beliefs that while I am happy to have film now taught as a serious discipline, it is unfortunate that film is sometimes made into only a formal study of a discourse.
No comments:
Post a Comment