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. 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.
|Published (Last):||5 January 2013|
|PDF File Size:||7.87 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||8.69 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Let us now have a look at the way people make concessions to the supposed but fallacious requirements of the cinema. But, in at least one important matter, I have ashruc the historical specificity of the text in order to address a common misunderstanding. To ignore the conjunction of human and technology is thus not only cxmera leave unremarked an essential component in man’s evolution, but also to leave technology in the hands of technocrats and industrialists.
Cinematic Time and the Question of Malaise. Because of his vamera articles on the future of cinema, expectations were high when he attempted to make two short 16mm films, in andbut they were amateurish efforts. Astruc, foresaw the capability of film to be a medium which everyone get become their own author of.
In fact, from the mids, he retreated into television, emerging rarely into feature film territory. Instead it pushed the voiceover experiments of Robert Bresson in his Diary of a Country Priest, of the year before, cqmera an extreme. Stanford University Press,pp.
THE BIRTH OF A NEW AVANT-GRADE: LA CAMERA-STYLO
Through services like YouTube and Vimeo there is an audience for all genres and directors for film like never before. He believed that cinema is just like literature; not just a particular art but a language which can express any thought. Unfortunately, with his own films, Astruc struggled to practise what he preached. The existence of the Nouvelle Vague to cite just one exampleand its continued ability to inspire future generations of filmmakers, belies the claim camerx cinema develops along a single course, with everything assimilated into a single, hegemonic form.
But the history of cinema is not as singular as Stiegler suggests.
Caméra-stylo | film technique |
The cinema of today is getting a new face. Daniel Ross, Screening the Pastissue 36 June. We highly recommend it!! When Astruc discusses thinking and language, he does not mean that filmmakers should transport linguistic ideas or linguistic signs into cinema. The fundamental problem of the cinema is how to express thought.
Language is a mode of abstraction since it converts our everyday perceptions into concepts or signs. A Place at the Table? At the same time, the temporal images produced for films and television become the foundation, the memory bank or archive, for future generations of mankind — thus allowing for the replication of the same ideas and beliefs, and the same debased notions of community and individuality. This metaphor has a very precise sense. Minor edits to the text were made on August 31, and November 25, 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.
Secker and Warburg,p. He was incarcerated for five years for armed robbery. This is directly related to the fact that most filmgoers and television viewers have no access to equipment, and no ability to participate in these media except as spectators. But the cinema cannot but develop. Astruc summed up his own life and career trajectory in the title he gave to a collection of his critical essays in In an art in which a length of film and sound-track is put in motion and proceeds, by means of a certain form and 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?
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. In other astrux, in order to suggest the passing of time, there is no need to show falling leaves and then apple trees in blossom; and in order to suggest that a hero wants to make love there are surely other ways of going about it than showing a saucepan of milk boiling over on to the stove, as Henri-Georges Clouzot does in Quai des Orfevres Jenny Lamour.
But it takes on fresh importance when placed in dialogue with recent developments in film and media theory, from the film-philosophy movement of the past decade to the work on technics by Bernard Stiegler and styo. The films of Hawks go much further in the knowledge of man than so-called Underground analyses and studies do.
The invention of YouTube which allows users to upload videos for free gave the everyday person the ability to produce content for a mass audience.
On another level, it was part of his particular, post-war culture and sensibility: For better or worse, we are rapidly moving into an age of visuality, as anyone who has spent time on YouTube or Vimeo will confirm.
This idea of the cinema expressing ideas is not perhaps a new one. This aligns with his train of thought however I think that cinema does need to examine past successes in order to create a new Aant-Garde.
Cinema will eventually become a flexible means of writing –
There is always going to be an Avant-Garde as cinema has the ability to always evolve. The evolution of technology has allowed amateur filmmakers to purchase and use high-quality equipment and distribute their content to wide audiences.
This of course implies that the scriptwriter directs his own scripts; or rather, that the scriptwriter ceases to exist, for in this kind of film-making the distinction between author and director loses all meaning. Order by newest oldest recommendations. To state it plainly—and to correct the many manglings of this appearing in the obituaries—Astruc was not the inventor of the auteur theory.
The most philosophical meditations on human production, psychology, metaphysics, ideas, and passions lie well within its province.
With all due respect to Nadeau, a Descartes of today would already have shut himself up in his bedroom with a 16mm camera and some film, and would write his philosophy on film: The cinema cannot but develop. Now anybody in their bedroom with a webcam, or a phone can create films that they can share with the world. It is exactly this contact, according to Astruc, that allows us to discuss cinema not simply in terms of art but also philosophy: This art, although blessed with an enormous potential, is an easy prey to prejudice; it cannot go on for ever ploughing the same field of realism and social fantasy which has been bequeathed to it by the popular novel.
Stiegler attempts to rectify this error. Cinema has become a means of expression, just like all other art forms stylp it but it has an accessibility like none other. Such a consideration, Stiegler suggests, would have challenged Husserl to refine his ideas on temporal objects and the challenges faced by the phenomenological subject in the twentieth century. An essay is always attributed to an author but film is a collaborative piece that see many different people come together to create.
But as soon as we acknowledge this fact, we also have to acknowledge the tendentious nature of these cultural memories.