Social Scientist. v 8, no. 89-90 (Dec-Jan -1) p. 121.


Graphics file for this page
Outlook/or the Cinema

EVER since the first film was screened in 1895, cinema has made rapid strides, and a great many film makers have added new dimensions to this medium. But, the basic focus in^cinema lies in the realm of an interplay of real time and space and cinematic time and space.

There are film makers who have created cinema to match or coincide with real time and space; others have worked on a method of creating new dimensions which destroy our perception of real time and space. Therefore, basic cinematic devices like the "cut" can be used for two totally opposed purposes. Similarly all the other elements in cinema, like sound, music, dialogue graphics, colour, camera movements, lighting, can be utilized for several purposes, depending on the film maker's intentions.

The influence of literature on cinema has been most acute, specially the novel. And, by this very fact, a form of cinema has emerged which utilizes the inherent elements of cinema to serve the purpose of the narrative. Most films made even today belong to this category: the dramatic narrative structure. That is why when lay people discuss a film, they mainly discuss its narrative.

But, along with the narrative structure other genres and forms also grew and developed. For instance, the Dramatic Analytic School of Eisenstein, the German Expressionist School, the Neo-Realism of Italy, the Auteur Theory in France, the Cinema Verite of the sixties and the Epic Cinema expounded in its classical form by Miklos Jansco.

Three conclusions inevitably arise from this:

1) The medium of cinema is comparatively new. It has a short, eventful history. But because of this, the application of Marxian theory to it has been limited, and very little has been written about the nature of its aesthetics. The writings of Marx, Engels and Lenin obviously do not have a direct bearing on this



Back to Social Scientist | Back to the DSAL Page