Alexandre Astruc’s canonical essay, ‘The Birth of a New Avant-Garde: La Caméra -Stylo’ (), is considered a key precursor in the study of cinematic. La caméra-stylo. Alexandre Astruc. “What interests ine in the cinema is abstraction.’ (Orson Welles). One casinot help noticing that something is happening in the. Influenced by the introduction of the revolutionary 16mm film technology; French Filmmaker and critic Alexandre Astruc predicted a.
|Published (Last):||18 March 2014|
|PDF File Size:||10.16 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||11.32 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Edinburgh University Press, To come to the point: In these terms, to say that language is an abstraction should not be understood exclusively in negative terms, for abstraction is srylo simply a subtraction, extraction or reduction of experience. The films will come, they will see the light of day – make no mistake about it.
One of the fundamental phenomena of the last few years has been the growing realisation of the dynamic, i. By it I mean that the cinema will gradually break free from the tyranny of what is visual, from the image for its own sake, from the immediate and concrete demands of the narrative, to become a means of writing just as flexible and subtle as written language.
Problems such as the translation into cinematic terms of verbal tenses and logical relationships interest us much more than the creation of the exclusively visual and static art dreamt of by the surrealists. Astruc begins with a quote from Orson Welles: After having been successively a fairground attraction, an amusement analogous to boulevard theatre, or a means of preserving the images of an era, it is gradually becoming a language.
It is an art that cannot live by looking back over the past and chewing over the nostalgic memories of an age gone by.
Alexandre Astruc – Wikipedia
The evolution of mankind over ayear period does not occur despite technology but because of it. In their hands, Balzac becomes a collection of engravings in which fashion has the most important place, and Dostoievsky suddenly begins to resemble the novels of Joseph Kessel, with Russian-style drinking-bouts in night-clubs and troika races in the snow.
What is different between the two processes is that, in traditional writing, the same instruments astrkc used at each stage of composition; whereas film involves different instruments or tools, each of which has its own range of potentials, and its own way of influencing the course of action to be taken. We have no desire to rehash those poetic documentaries and surrealist films of twenty-five years ago every time we manage to escape the demands of a astrc industry.
Kant acknowledges the subjective nature of human experience while also providing it with an objective basis, since this subjective experience is objectively true of all humans.
Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. Video production technology was only available to those in the industry as it was so expensive, bulky and also was made of a highly flammable nitrate base which limited production and distribution.
Could one imagine a Faulkner novel written by someone other than Faulkner? Cinematic Time and the Question of Malaise. This idea of the cinema expressing ideas is not perhaps a new one.
The creation of this language has preoccupied all the theoreticians and writers in the history of the cinema, from Eisenstein down to the scriptwriters and adaptors of the sound cinema.
Maurice Nadeau wrote in an article in the newspaper Combat: Objectivity is thus relocated in us rather than in the world. This emphasis is not a mistake. The cinema of today is capable of expressing any kind of reality. Our sensibilities have been in danger of getting blunted by those everyday films which, year in year out, show their tired and conventional faces to the world.
I would go further: Simply by using one’s eyes. In an art in which a length cameea film and sound-track is put in motion and proceeds, by means of vamera certain form syylo a certain story there can even be no story at all – it matters littleto evolve a philosophy of life, how can one possibly distinguish between the man who conceives the work and the man who writes it?
But the cinema cannot but develop. In a similar vein, we can easily extend his comments on 16mm film to the emergence of digital video cameras, which now make it easier than ever for individuals to write with the camera — literally so.
But the history of cinema is not as singular as Stiegler suggests. Instead, there is a bland uniformity, a complacencya atruc. This is how Stiegler initially trained for a life in philosophy. Bringing Astruc and Stiegler together can help foreground the importance of understanding the fundamental co-dependency of technology, artistry and industry in the evolution of the cinematic medium.
Stiegler attempts to rectify this error.