From Theory of Film In his article, From Theory of Film, German journalist, engineer, and sociologist, Siegfried Kracauer, argues that instantaneous photography was the “decisive factor in establishing film content,” and explores the films of the Lumiêre brothers and George Mêliês, for the way they utilized photography in creating their films (147). Similar to photography, the responsibility of a film camera is to reproduce the essence of real life. A film camera reproduces this essence through basic and technologically properties. The basic properties of film are similar to photography because both mediums “record and reveal physical reality and gravitate toward it,” by exploring many different dimensions (Kracauer 148). On the other hand, film has a unique aspect to it that very few mediums, if any, share. The technological properties of film, allow a filmmaker to create meaning through editing. Therefore, a filmmaker has the ability to place two shots next to each other to contrive a certain mood or meaning they want to convey to their audience. Editing has certainly contributed to the cinematic world, but Kracauer refers to the distinct differences between the means, in which editing is used. He argues that a film keeping with the basic properties, but not up to par technologically is more specifically a film then one with all the cinematic devices because the film is more camera-conscious (Kracauer 149). This argument is explored further in Lumiêre, who developed “photography into a means of storytelling,” by recording every day images and presenting them as is, with no other intentions (Kracauer 150). Therefore, when watching Lumiêre films, the focus is on every day occurrences. In the film, Arrival of a Train, Lumiêre focuses on a public place (train station) with emphasis on crowds of people in haste with the arrival and departure of a train. He presented a film using basic photography to create a sense of realism, with very little technological properties, which did not take away value from the film.
Lumiêre’s realistic approach to the world differed from George Mêliês and his fantasy approach to film, which utilized more technological properties then Lumiêre. Mêliês substituted “staged illusion for unstaged reality” which used photography and theatrical stage to create films using special effects that strayed from the ordinary day to day life (Kracauer 151). Mêliês was known for using, “masks, multiple exposure, superimposition...[and] the lap-dissolve” to enhance his pictures by imagining shots to correlate with his plots (Kracauer 152). Although Mêliês utilized the technological properties of film, his pre-photographic ideas were more theatrical. In his film, A Trip to the Moon, his camera, unlike Lumiêre, is stationary throughout, like a play. Moreover, to convey further the idea of theatrics, Mêliês’s actors bowed to the camera, like performers would on a stage. Kracauer mentions this is the realistic tendency of film beyond photography.
Kracauer states, when cameras were stationary (like Mêliês), “it was natural for filmmakers to concentrate on movement,” whether it was subjective or objective movement (153). Uniquely, film is the only medium that is able to play with the idea of movement and even more so with time. Furthermore in his argument, Kracauer discusses the “realistic tendency,” the concentration on the physical reality for the “sake of realism” (153). For example, he points out it is important for a filmmaker to make a studio-built setting that conveys the “impression of actuality,” so that a film camera can depict no distinct difference between the stage and the real thing (Kracauer 153). In contrast, he discusses the “formative tendency,” which explores deeper dimensions, which photography could never explore (154). For example, the idea of dreams or visions within a realistic film is one dimension within another dimension, which once again, cannot be utilized by any other medium.
Interestingly, Kracauer mentions “aesthetic validity,” puts film in a “strait jacket,” meaning, just because a film does not focus on the realistic tendency does not mean it does not hold any cinematic value, which is the case in many avant garde, newsreels, or theatrical films (155-6). However, this all draws back to an old familiar argument; what constitutes art to be art? More specific, what establishes one film as art over another? Kracauer states, “Art…lends support to the belief that artistic qualities must be attributed precisely to films,” meaning it should compile artistic composition (157). However, Kracauer suggests due to the fixed meaning of art that it, “does not, and cannot, cover truly ‘cinematic’ films,” but he does not remove the idea of the filmmaker letting nature into his creativity (157).
Works Cited
Kracauer, Siegfried. From Theory of Film (1960): 147-58. Rpt. in Film Theory & Criticism. Ed. Leo Braudy and Marshall Cohen. 7th ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2009. Print.