Jean Epstein theories follow along with the assumption that film and cinema extend reality within this new format by creating a magnification of sorts of the real, or truth of life. Epstein theorizes that film magnifies reality through what he calls as "cadenced movement"(243). He also describes film as a primitive language and proceeds to describe the art of cinema and how cinema gives "mobile aspects of life"(315) a voice. By giving these objects a voice, we can further inspect them more closely; thus cinema extends reality.
Rhythm is innately in language, but structuring sentences in particularly rhythmic ways can still further the jargon's rhythmic quality. By adding specific punctuation, essays become punctual, in a temporal atmosphere. Epstein's use of rhythm in his essays prove to further his points and keep his reader's engaged. Short, concise, to the point statements draw in the reader and emphasize Epstein's points.
One instance of this is how he describes his own experience with American close-ups. Epstein describes essentially, what a close-up is and how it affects him, through short concise, precise descriptions of aspects he notices. A few include: " I am hypnotized. Now the tragedy s anatomical"(235).,"Shadows shift, tremble, hesitate. Something is being decided. A face vacillates"(235).,"Crescendo, A muscle bridles.""Crack, The mouth gives way...."(235). All of these describe just one interaction, just his silent dialogue with the film's close-up; that intense experience has laid this firm a mark on him. His use of staccato-type language helps to cause what Kracauer would call "nascient motion", or that play/pause effect. This ingenious method causes tension and apprehension in the viewer/reader in effect creating a wonderful situation. A situation where the reader is engaged, excited, and aptly waiting for the next thing. This technique provides Epstein with the attention he wants.
Another rhythmic, but combined with textual, technique is that of a specific instance on page 242 where Epstein prints "NO FILMS" in all caps. This informs us that no films end unhappily....but the use of the capitalization gives it more emphasis, not only in the sentence, but on the page as a whole as well. Obviously, by making these specific two words stand out so specifically on the page, let alone the whole essay (no other words are capitalized mid-sentence), makes this message more meaningful. By saying "no films" in particular, Epstein works to emphasize his point that all films end with happy endings and this is important we expect it, and film delivers.
Epstein's concise sentences poses the question: "why aren't all essays formatted this way?" This is due to the fact that not everyone chooses to invoke their cause in the format they communicate in; where Epstein does. By emphasizing the way he communicates, and by bringing attention to his rhythmic sentences, Epstein makes magnification in general more important. Magnification rises to the surface, and also brings out the truth; which Epstein explains is cinema's main role.
Without directly stating it, Epstein explains the importance of rhythm in cinema by importing it into his essays. Rhythm helps us understand cinema, but cinema needs language in order to communicate those specific concepts that can't be specified through images and visual cues.
Epstein's unique candor helps his reader have find what he means him/her to understand. By utilizing this skill, he creates a most productive silent dialogue while the reader reads his work. Communicating through temporally sensitive means helps Epstein create a format that also uses the instinctive unconscious understanding that staccato brings importance. His theory of film is brought out through the form he chooses to take in writing, furthering our understanding of what he means. Epstein's message is thorough in this way, proving most effective.
No comments:
Post a Comment