Glemaud: Maybe the definition could be adapted or changed?
The cinema is not limited to the representative mode. It can create, and has already created a sort of rhythm…Thanks to this rhythm the cinema can draw fresh strength from itself which, forgoing the logic of facts and the reality of objects, may beget a series of unknown visions, inconceivable outside the union of lens and film. Intrinsic cinema, or if you prefer, pure cinema – because it is separated from every other element, whether dramatic or documentary, is what certain works lead us to anticipate. Henri Chomette
Nevertheless, there are already signs of the pure cinema. It can be found in fragmentary fashion in a number of films; it seems in fact that a film fragment becomes pure cinema as soon as a sensation is aroused in the viewer by purely visual means. A broad definition, of course, but adequate for our era. That is why the primary duty of the present-day filmmaker is to introduce the greatest number of purely visual themes by a sort of ruse, into a screenplay made to satisfy everybody. Therefore, the literary value of as screenplay is completely unimportant. French Film Theory and Criticism: 1907-1929 By Richard Abel
So, there it is. It is Chomette to whom the term is credited. So you can quiet down now, RUS. Chomette’s definition describes an essentially self-referential process.
RUS, will you never tire of talking out of your ass?
“it seems in fact that a film fragment becomes pure cinema as soon as a sensation is aroused in the viewer by purely visual means.”
well, Abel is wrong if he thinks that sensations can exist that are aroused by purely visual means. It works in theory, but not in reality.
and if you even bothered to read my initial post, you’ll realize i was making fun of people who throw the term around and not blatanly dismissing the entire theory.
but I still don’t believe it can actually exist, nor can you prove it exists, because no sensation is aroused purely by one sense; that’s awfully simplistic.
RUS, it was Abel who expanded upon Chomette’s definition and mentioned that bit about visual arousal which you find objectionable, ok?
duly noted, Abel was incorrect.
Here (with Wiki’s assistance) is a list of titles identified as examples pure cinema. Some would be difficult to track down, but what the hell.
If you’ve ever seen anything by Stan Brakhage, well, you’ve seen pure cinema.
oh no KJ,you mentioned Wikipedia,the Devil of Websites,prepare for martyrdom…
how would that make him a martyr?
how can you list examples of “pure cinema”? whichever definition you use, it would by nature have to be subjective.
that’s wikipedia for you.
Interesting discussion here…but I’m leaning towards more of the “pure cinema” doesn’t exist and if it does pure is a very bad choice to describe it.
Although, when I think of this “pure cinema” I tend to think of films like The Mirror or perhaps the opening of La double vie de Véronique. Mainly because I’ve found they’ve affected me in ways I can’t quite expressed but I certain feel moved by them. I guess it’s that sensation of “feeling” a film Bresson spoke of, but I don’t think this equates at all with purity, nor do I think it’s always most effective.
Also alot of those pure cinema films listed above seem like they could be just as easily labeled as “films that lack any narrative structure.” Mothlight being labeled as pure cinema tells me I should only watch inpure cinema, as it is better.
“it seems in fact that a film fragment becomes pure cinema as soon as a sensation is aroused in the viewer by purely visual means.”
“well, Abel is wrong if he thinks that sensations can exist that are aroused by purely visual means. It works in theory, but not in reality.
and if you even bothered to read my initial post, you’ll realize i was making fun of people who throw the term around and not blatanly dismissing the entire theory.
but I still don’t believe it can actually exist, nor can you prove it exists, because no sensation is aroused purely by one sense; that’s awfully simplistic.”
If the sensation is aroused by purely “visual means” then it is created by one sense. The sensation may suggest non visual things to the viewer but the means will still be visual. Abel also used the word “seems” so that he could discuss the notion without making an absolute judgement on it, which was the whole point of the OP.
I do think this point is key:
[…]forgoing the logic of facts and the reality of objects, may beget a series of unknown visions, inconceivable outside the union of lens and film. Intrinsic cinema…separated from every other element, whether dramatic or documentary
If we really think about what Chomette suggests we’d have to go pretty far to witness pure cinema. Not being familiar with each of the Wiki examples, I’d guess that there are a few titles there which may not make team Chomette. He seems to be suggesting something which is more a poetic turn of mind. Practically speaking, if this exists separate from narrative and documentary practices, what’s left?
I’m having some difficulty with Abel’s extension of the definition. […]it seems in fact that a film fragment becomes pure cinema as soon as a sensation is aroused in the viewer by purely visual means. A broad definition, of course, but adequate for our era.
It is broad, maybe too broad, and because of that, while it doesn’t pass an absolute judgment, it does open the door allowing far too much to enter, e.g., a sensation is aroused in the viewer by purely visual means…Michael Bay, anyone? I don’t think that’s what Chomette was conjuring.
pure cinema shouldnt be about arousing a sensation, except one of admiration. and of course, it shouldnt be a value judgment. it should simply be a description for expressing movement through images, and juxtaposing those images through editing. pure cinema should almost be primitive cinema. the lumiere brothers were pure cinema practitioners in the same way brakhage was. hitchcock has brilliant passages of pure cinema in his work.
perhaps pure cinema is a lost art form, because i think maybe it should also imply silent cinema, which hitchcock described as the purest form of cinema.
Check out Noel Carroll’s chapter on film as art in his book The Philosophy Of Motion Pictures. Great stuff. It’ll be helpful.
" I’ve yet to see any director adopt Bresson’s style of non-acting"
There are so many, from Kiarostami, Kaurismaki, Jean Pierre Melville, Sokurov, Bela Tarr, Carlos Reygadas.
>>Technically, cinema in its purest form is just blank film, amirite?<<
It don’t get any purer than unexposed negative!
>>“Pure Cinema is the film theory that a movie maker can create a more emotionally intense experience using autonomous film techniques, as opposed to using stories, characters, or actors.” – Wiki<<
And let’s be honest here. Who the hell wants to watch that?
Harry, I do.
Uh, me too.
Three
edit: damn,i’m number 4 :P
5
OMG is this the making of a revolution?!
TODAY THE AUTEURS. TOMORROW THE WORLD!
“TODAY THE AUTEURS. TOMORROW THE WORLD!”
that is until we meet the League of Extraordinary,Boring,Old Critics…now that would be an epic clash!!!
I suspect that the number of people who are interested in an abstract and amorphous film experience is relatively small. Once upon a time I might have been one of them, but I stopped doing drugs about 20 years ago.
6
>.The cinema is not limited to the representative mode. It can create, and has already created a sort of rhythm…Thanks to this rhythm the cinema can draw fresh strength from itself which, forgoing the logic of facts and the reality of objects, may beget a series of unknown visions, inconceivable outside the union of lens and film. Intrinsic cinema, or if you prefer, pure cinema – because it is separated from every other element, whether dramatic or documentary, is what certain works lead us to anticipate. Henri Chomette<<
And I have to say that this quote has the benefit of sounding quite impressive, but like a lot of academic writing, it doesn’t mean anything once you try to parse it.
“I suspect that the number of people who are interested in an abstract and amorphous film experience is relatively small. Once upon a time I might have been one of them, but I stopped doing drugs about 20 years ago.”
How many of us 6 take drugs in order to be interested in that “abstract and amorphous film experience”? I certainly don’t.
Small? Thanks for stating the obvious.
No drugs here, just an open mind that refuses to confine itself to narrative storytelling.
Co-sign.
“Once upon a time I might have been one of them, but I stopped doing drugs about 20 years ago.”
besides the fact that there is the clear assumption that all of us are under the influence,i believe we have found a member of the League of Extraordinary,Boring,Old Critics indeed…
Rich Uncle Skeleton
the theory exists, but no film can actually be “pure cinema”; hence my comment that people who describe a specific film as “pure cinema” are full of shit.
that confused some poeple.