Film Theory and Analysis regarding Siegfried Kracauer

Film Theory and Analysis regarding Siegfried Kracauer

Introduction

Film theory is a field of study that analyses the different tactics employed by film-makers to bring the film to life. Many times when people watch a movie, there will be one outstanding element of the film that will whether endear to them or make the movie repulsive to them. This unique characteristic of film is highly subjective to both the creators of the film and their audiences. What appeals to one person may very well put off another. This is the perfect embodiment of the adage “One man’s meat is another man’s poison.” The man in this context refers to anyone who has a stake in the film, whether a viewer, the production crew, scholars or a film critic. This study aims to find out how different film-makers piece their movies together to come up with either great or terrible movies. Film Theory has two key branches namely: realism and formalism.

Siegfried Kracauer has been a key contributor to the realism branch of Film theory and according to him; the film comes to life through its act of taking snapshots of reality. Basically, no matter how much an artist wants to convey his or her message through a film, all they really accomplish is to convey what has always been in existence. According to him, this is the greatest and most practical application of film since of all forms of Art; it is the only one that has this capability. Realism in film as the name suggests is all about practical elements that are authentic, tangible and at the same time shown in the film. For this realism to be actualized in a film, it requires the existence of three key elements. These are Ontology, Epistemology and Aesthetics. The level of realism in a film is highly dependent on how these three attributes of a picture come into play.

Ontology as applied in Siegfried’s work is the basic nature of the film itself and without this, cinema becomes obsolete. This is a collection of elements that make up the film without any form of manipulation on the part of the film-maker. Epistemology on the other hand is concerned with the way viewers piece together the film’s elements to make sense of the movie they are watching. The film’s ontology essentially makes up this collection. This hence means that epistemology is the manner in which an audience member perceives the film. Last but not least we have aesthetics and this is an analysis of how a film’s ontological aspect makes the transition into something artistic. Aesthetics hence delves into possible ways that the directors of the film can make use of the ontology not just as accidental additions to the film but rather as a form of art(Kracauer).

In his book, Kracauer takes the example of still photography and its application to filmography as a chance to present to the viewer the real world as it is. This is well in line with the definition that has been provided for ontology as a collective term of things that make up the film without necessarily being included in the script or story-line. Both photographs and film footage are mechanical means of capturing the world in verbatim. For this reason, it is necessary for anybody involved in the recording of a film to be aware of this so that he or she can apply creativity in the process of capturing this(Kracauer).

The capture of the real world elements in the exact manner that they are existing enhances the film’s capabilities in four key ways. Firstly, it adds the element of realism to the film by making the motion picture to appear as though it was not staged or scripted. This is an example of the application of ontology to film since the media portrayed is showed in its natural state. The term nature suggests something that is raw and in no way affected by any artificial means. The ambiance that needs to be captured is one that is natural in every way and it should be as if it exists in complete isolation of humanity. This may come off as ironical given the fact that a prerequisite for any motion picture is that it has a clear script that needs to be followed to the letter. Kracauer hence suggests that there should be a level of seamless fluidity between what is staged and what is unstaged(Kracauer).

Another capability that is lent to motion pictures by the act of mechanically capturing the moments and their environment is the element of continuity. Continuity of a film is all about the flow of life that is exhibited by the film itself as a whole. The different scenes can only be meaningful to the viewer if there is a ‘fabric’ that is used to piece it up together. Without this fabric, a movie is nothing more than a collection of video clips that are neither here, nor there. Without continuity, even the most important conversations are rendered useless for a lack of context. Elements in the movie’s world which may not have been scripted are very important in showing things such as the lapse of time. The order of events captured by the camera recording the film is also very important as it assigns the film some direction. The diurnal patterns as experienced in life should also be captured for visual presentation. The manner in which a viewer pieces the film together is an example of how epistemology comes into play. Some people will experience progression through changes to the scene while others will depend on stage directions or the context of the conversation. It is upon the film maker to take this into account while considering different ways in which continuity can be perceived(Kracauer).

With photography and videography, a motion picture gets to easily employ the street and the road dynamic as locations for the dynamic story. In a film, no matter how dramatic the scripted events are scheduled, the surrounding captured should be that that aids the film’s flow by allowing the object of the recording to interact in an almost accidental manner with his or her surroundings. For a motion picture to deliver to its audience a somewhat realistic outlook of affairs, it needs to show how the subject’s affairs are dependent on chance and accidental interactions with the surrounding and those found in it. Normal life depends a lot on things we take for granted and it is these very things that determine the exact location or position that we are in in life. Therefore it is essential for photography to do the same for film since this will have the effect of making it more life-like. This is where the artistic element of the film is concentrated and it is a combination of ontology and epistemology. The way people perceive ambiguous elements of a given film are the ultimate measure of the film maker’s artistry(Kracauer).

Finally, another objective that photography achieves for motion picture is the presentation of the content of the film in a rather undramatic or casual manner so that the person viewing will simply find it. This is to say that the portrayal of the world and unscripted elements in a motion picture are supposed to be captured in a somewhat sub-conscious manner. This way, a person watching the film gets to simply discover these elements as the motion picture progresses, much like people do in real life.The capture of the film should have an element of subtleness rather than out rightly drawing the audience’s attention towards something. This makes on experience the film in the most natural way possible, without artificial stimulation of one’s attention as this may serve as a distraction. The element of realism is bet maintained by keeping the watching experience as realistic as possible. This is another example of how ontology plays a part in bringing the film to life, that is through the dependence on the basic nature of objects that are presented(Kracauer).

Siegfried Kracauer believed that the mechanical capture of the real world through photography had been tapped only scarcely and still had so much potential in regard to the ways it could enhance the realism of a film. The power of film and photography lies in the fact that it records existing phenomena exactly as it is. This means that interpretation of the film is beyond the control of the people who were involved in creating it. The actors, film crew and director are all mere accessories to the story that is being told. No matter how hard these persons try to portray a particular message, meaning is dependent on the viewer’s devices. There is nothing that is more appealing than Art that has an immensely wide scope of interpretations. The presentation of indeterminate objects in film opens up the floodgates of varied perceptions that literally vary from person to person(Kracauer).

Each indeterminate object that is presented supplies its own set of perceptions that are affected by the audience member’s world view. A shot of the moonlit sky or a tree’s silhouette may not have been scripted and despite this, their impact on the whole experience on a given motion picture is bound to be profound. One person may see this as signifying a peaceful night while another may look at this as a sign of danger or vulnerability. For this reason, it is important that film-makers to appreciate the importance of appropriately capturing and including such elements to their motion pictures(Kracauer).

A prerequisite for the viewer’s active participation in this art form of cinema is that the said person has to be free. This is the freedom of mind during the entire screening process. It is unnecessary to express all of the story’s elements in a straightforward manner as this dulls the mind of a person watching it. If selected elements of the film being created remain ambiguous, an opportunity is created for the audience to fill up these parts with their own imagery thus guaranteeing everyone viewing a unique and personalized experience.

One technique that Kracauer proposes is the extensive use of open spaces for screening the films. This enables the motion picture being created to realize its power to properly present a story that is set on the street or on the road. The openness of the area creates an aura of unpredictability and this sets the perfect stage for the typical drama that is bound to crop up in the course of a journey. To some extent, such shots also give the story an element of mythic.

Application of Kracauer’s Film theory to Umberto, D (1952).

Ontology features a lot in this film through the presence of the old man’s personal effects such as books, the watch and the small room that he lives in. The idea of a maid for the land-lady and a pet for the old man are also examples of ontology. Epistemology comes into play when the audience associates the land-lady’s employing a maid as a sign of opulence or at least financial superiority relative to the old man who can only afford to keep a dog. Aesthetics come out clearly in the scene where the demonstration is taking place, at the hospital and also at the railway where the old man wanted to commit suicide. All of these scenes are highly unpredictable and the audience is kept at the edge of their seats waiting for any eventuality. The demonstration could have turned into a riot and the old man faces death at the hospital as well as at the train station. These did not happen but their possibility remained very real(Kracauer).

 

Bazin’s realist film theory

Whereas Siegfried Kracauer believed ontology in film to be the primary attributes of a medium when it is not playing an active role in film, Bazin laid emphasis on the process of the mechanical capture and not just the featured object. According to him, the technique employed during the recording will be crucial in maintaining a hint of reality that will be carried into the film. The key difference that arises in this regard is that for Bazin, the film-maker’s effort through recording is necessary for ontology to be realized.

When it comes to epistemology, Kracauer saw this element being realized largely in the mind of the person who is viewing the film by synthesizing the ontological aspect of the film and making sense of it. Bazin’s perspective agrees with this but at the same time goes an extra mile. He argues that epistemology also requires the viewer to have the belief of the existence of both the camera and the reality as separate entities. This viewer then believes in the fact that the camera has the ability to capture this reality as it is. The camera is hence very crucial in the realization of epistemology in film. A lack of understanding and appreciation for how the camera functions hence becomes a great hindrance to this. Doubts on the same can also hinder epistemology.

As far as aesthetics are concerned, Kracauer mainly focused on how the selection of the scene can be used to achieve cinematic artistry. An example is how he brings up the idea of using open spaces such as streets to bring out the dramatic effects. Bazin on the other hand lays emphasis on the use of specific techniques to enhance the viewer’s experience. For the retention of temporal integrity in the film, he proposes the use of long take. If the aim is to emulate perception, the motion picture can employ wide screen.

Bazin’s theory is different mainly because he channelled a lot of energy into discussing how specific techniques of shooting a movie can be used to bring out the elements of ontology, epistemology and aesthetics. While Kracauer had a rather abstract approach, Bazin seems to be keen on the practical(Kracauer).

 

 

 

 

Last Completed Projects

Are you looking for a similar paper or any other quality academic essay? Then look no further. Our research paper writing service is what you require. Our team of experienced writers is on standby to deliver to you an original paper as per your specified instructions with zero plagiarism guaranteed. This is the perfect way you can prepare your own unique academic paper and score the grades you deserve.

Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.

[order_calculator]