art movie theater and nonsensicality essay
Excerpt from Composition:
Art Cinema and Theatre of Absurd
In “The Fine art of Movie theater as a Method of Film Practice, inches David Bordwell provides a definition of what he believes makes up art theatre in order to establish the style because an artistic movement. In “The Movie theater of the Ludicrous, ” Matn Esslin gives similar arguments about theatre as Bordwell does about film. Bordwell and Esslin both provide an analysis with the elements that distinguish artwork cinema and art theatre from their mainstream counterparts.
There are numerous factors that contributed to the rise of art theatre in the post-World War 2 era. Artwork cinema became to be named an acceptable and appropriate vehicle of manifestation given the gravity of historical advancements of post-WWII Europe.
In “The Fine art of Cinema as a Setting of Film Practice, ” Bordwell points out art movie theater “as a distinct mode shows up after Ww ii when the prominence of the Hollywood cinema was beginning to wane” (Bordwell 716). Bordwell explains, “art movie theater defines itself explicitly resistant to the classical story mode, and especially against the cause-effect linkage of events [wherein] linkages become looser, even more tenuous in the art film” (717). Therefore, cause-effect cordons shift to the psychological constructs of the characters.
Bordwell proceeds to describe art cinema uses realism and authorial expressivity to motivate narrative (718). A great way art theatre is practical is in its depiction of psychologically complex characters that “lack identified desires and goals” (718). These characteristics are a kampfstark contrast to characters in classical narrative cinema that have defined qualities and desired goals and whom follow a goal-oriented path. Bordwell also argues art cinema “is much less concerned with actions than reaction; it is a theatre of internal effects looking for their causes” (718). This forces the audience to analyze characters to determine so why they are the approach they are. Bordwell states, “Violations of traditional conceptions of your energy and space are justified as the intrusion of your unpredictable and contingent daily reality or perhaps as the subjective actuality of sophisticated characters” (719). In skill cinema, the author becomes “a structure inside the film’s system” and helps to define the film’s narrative and style, rather than classical movie theater in which a studio’s vision identifies the film.
While Bordwell argues realism and authorial expressivity in order to unify the person elements of art film, this individual also disagrees “a realistic aesthetic and an expressionist aesthetic are hard to merge, inches a dilemma which is resolved through halving.
