Skip to main content

1         Cinema is valuable not for its ability to make visible the hidden outlines of our reality, but for its ability to reveal what reality itself veils ― the dimension offantasy.      2        This is why, to a person, the first great theorists of film decried the introduction of sound and other technical innovations (such as color) that pushed film in the direction of realism.      3        Since cinema was an entirely fantasmatic art, these innovations were completely unnecessary.      4        And what’s worse, they could do nothing but turn filmmakers and audiences away from the fantasmatic dimension of cinema, potentially transforming film into a mere delivery device for representations of reality.      5         As long as the irrealism of the silent black and white film predominated, one could not take filmic fantasies for representations of reality.      6        But sound and color threatened to create just such an illusion, thereby destroying the very essence of film art.      7        As Rudolf Arnheim puts it, “The creative power of the artist can only come into play where reality and the medium of representation do not coincide.”

In this,  it appears 'the first great therists of film' in #2.  
Can it be said or not, that the writer is in opponent position to 'the first great terists of film'.

The reason of asking this,  with phrase #5, <could not take filmic fantasies for representations of realy>
I can't catch the meanig of.  especially " take A for B" or "not take A for B"

As for #5 and #6 , whose perspectives are they?

Depending on a result of that question, and with context,

1. Can it be said that the writer is opponent  to 'the first great therists'  or not?

2. Can it be said the writer decry the therists' oppinion of sound and color, and therists' way of representation of reality.

In my clumsy opinion, the writer seems to be ,at least, cinical to the therists.

Last edited by sly
Original Post

Add Reply

Link copied to your clipboard.