CRITICAL DEBATE realist v expressionist cinema

REALIST CINEMA  : 

 The relationship of film to reality has always been one of the main discussion points in cinema since the  189os and early 1900s.  Consider the Lumiere Brothers ultrarealist short films vs  Melies' fantasy narratives such as Trip to the Moon 

There is no single  formal definition of what a "realist " film is : it can refer to the narrative   showing   realistic or everyday events or  the use of film form being simple,unadorned and stylistically straightforward ( as we would see it in life). Bazin's definition below is the starting point and basis for how you should be exploring realism in your answer.


"Film should be rooted in reality and shot and edited to match reality as closely as possible for the audience. The director should be as invisible as possible." 

( Andre Bazin ) 

 

Film form was described by Bazin as realistic when it focused on the image itself and did not manipulate the audience through cuts or changes of camera angle. This is an extreme definition of realism in film but it can easily be applied to silent cinema and Keaton.

The concentration on objective reality, deep focus, and lack of montage are linked to Bazin's belief that the interpretation of a film or scene should be left to the spectator.

 This placed him in opposition to film theory of the 1920s and 1930s and expressionist ideas of film, which emphasized how the cinema could manipulate reality.



"Realism"  is also linked to genres that focuses on  the drama of ordinary life such as drama  and  it can also refer to the depiction of real events and is often used to describe documentary.


LINK to further theories and discussions




EXPRESSIVE CINEMA:  

Essentially this is mainstream narrative  and auteur-led cinema cinema , where the director is more concerned with expressing subjective experience  than objective reality. This leads to filmmakers developing their own individual aesthetic and creative signature and the extensive manipulation of audience response through creative and  stylised "anti-realist"  use of film form such as extensive or intrusive editing, extreme and symbolic use  of lighting and colour and creative use of diegetic/non-diegetic sound.


Expressive cinema can also refer to genres and narrative that are less concerned with everyday life and ordinary reality such as science fiction, fantasy and surrealistic dramas.





KEY QUESTION : Does Keaton show realistic and everyday events in a simple unadorned "realistic" way ? Or is he simply an expressionist filmmaker ?

Consider his creative signature , his  use of framing and editing  , his use of silent comedy conventions such as stunts and slapstick, his use of documentary and real footage, his exaggerated setpiece scenes such as chases, the "reality" of his stunt work, his use of impossible "cartoon" gags, the themes and narratives of the short films, the emotional content and uses of persona, the settings and the chains of cause and effect in his work.



EXAMINERS REPORT  Summer  2019 Q 3.2

 Identifying expressionist feature was not difficult for nearly all candidates, even in the case of the Keaton Shorts about which more will be said in a moment. The challenge came in the identification of realism and it is here that more work could focus for future years. Some candidates identified realism in relation to ‘true to life’ so unlikely occurrence fell outside this working definition. This was not very productive. Some identified realism in terms of photographic realism, including the lack of distortion or special effects. This led to some interesting exploration.

 Very few related an understanding of realism to Bazin’s argument which is the stated theoretical underpinning for this topic.

 Keaton’s Shorts proved to be both a popular choice and surprisingly well suited to the question. Candidates were able to think through the extent to which Keaton’s unadorned photographic representation of what was in front of the camera was ‘realism’ even if some of the things caught on camera were completely crazy. Many candidates introduced a third term to the discussion – surrealism while the house in One Week was described as cubist. 

 Overall, what was so good about work in response to this question was that candidates were thinking, actively working out an argument. Examiners rewarded this engagement even if some of the arguments and or examples were somewhat contentious. 

It is expected that when close study of a sequence is asked for, then one sequence from one film is sufficient. This means that candidates did not have to offer a sequence from Man With a Movie Camera and from A Propos de Nice, either would have sufficed. The same applies to the Keaton Shorts although here candidates were actually advantaged by referring to more than one of the shorts in answering 3.2 as the balance of realist / expressionist features varies across the four.