The challenge is able to think through the imm agin.
How do framing a beautiful sunset, a duel or a face in the foreground?
I have the feeling that many do not consider the film in a position to fulfill this task. Food for thought. Suggest. Better: producing a philosophical discourse.
Yet he succeeds well.
I have always said that cinema is art that teaches better than any other to see. It is the one that best embodies the other man's ability to observe.
(Only a small aside: in this speech does not include other visual arts as in this post I refer to the peculiar mechanics of cinema, namely the camera and its movement).
Affacciamoci a moment at the window. We observe what is there. Carefully. Passing car. The color of the case before us is fading and the plaster is cracked. The wall looks dirty. A man walks with the dog on a leash and lingers to look straight ahead.
tie details. We live what we are seeing from the window.
This is a quite elementary example. The window easily becomes synonymous with the screen or frame.
It is difficult to sit next to the m and are able to capture the smallest details (almost) everything that surrounds us. The sun is fast disappearing behind the sea (this is the vision that you have if you live on the western coast Italian) and the horizon radiates a burst of red light.
Between cinema and a man who observes and men looking film and there is a vicious circle which common denominator is the ability to look at the bottom. The man knows how to look - it is logical, it has the sense of sight. There are those who observe more and some less, who is more conscious of what surrounds him, who does not even notice what's around him. The film took the sense of sight and took him to the extreme. At the same time, what the film teaches us - that we look and we must be aware of this - it affects the reality that we live in (or at least should). For example, murders and robberies are on the agenda, as always, men tend to live more or less of the intense love stories, relationships and complex situations of conflict. If we do not often that happens. And the film intervenes at this point. The moment depicts the story of a murder - a murder mystery - when they staged a love story - a romantic comedy or a tragedy - exposes and highlights what normally happens around us.
We realize the world outside the screen when the display is ushering in its four sides. It seems paradoxical, but there it is. The sunrise and sunset, chasing each other every day. If a camera is placed facing the sun in these two moments, we have a chance to notice them and to catch every nuance.
Then you can safely go further. The film not only resumed, but works on photography and editing. To which we find ourselves in the midst of alchemy film more interesting. Perhaps the most intelligent of all. A director can take a simple object or a simple face, but through photography and editing can distort it, can make it different from what normally perceive. In short: it can make us see that object in another form, from another perspective. The film succeeds in capturing different views on what we are observing.
has the ability to be more than one unique look, let us see what they usually do not want to see or not see. One thing and its opposite, a thing and its hidden side.
I like to call this: metasguardo. The film is the vision on the vision, is the look that speaks of the gaze, is pure ability to see, is all-knowing gaze. It is a third eye: it can be both physically and mentally.
At this point it becomes easy to think through a picture. Just as capable of reaching philosophizing peaks. Moreover, the philosophy has always tried to explain what we have around through images and examples very real and sharp. I can think thoughts like this, varied from imaginative representations of the human soul and of Plato, the atoms of Democritus, to the paradoxes of Zeno, through the doubts of Descartes, for beauty and the sublime of the eighteenth century until to get us to the philosophy that has tracked more visually, that of the existentialists.
And as for the cinema, I'm not talking about mere documentary. The whole film, in the most multifaceted, current and inclinations of the author, offers his metasgaurdo.
The metasguardo can be everywhere: in the crazy angles of cineocchi (Vertov), \u200b\u200bin bright color in a black and white film (Eisenstein), the details of a yellow (Hitchcock), a deep incision face (Leone), the image surreal, disturbing and encompassing produced by the mind (Lynch) or in the look simple and everything that goes beyond the metaphysical image (Kim Ki-duk), to arrive at the cinema watching the film, quotes , references to (Tarantino).
I have always maintained that the work of camera takes a little 'movement of the body of man in the world: exploration more observation. Who can do this is first able to create: it can, that is, to see reality directly in a form, is able to give meaning to what he sees, to formulate a thought that never transcends the reality but always arises as immanent. Who can move the world as a camera is able to see and observe. Sa . It is located in a well that not all residents. He can see and understand to see. In a nutshell: it has the image, is able to support it and seize his plots.
0 comments:
Post a Comment