is an opinion shared by some currently being expressed and that cinema needs, More than ever, classicism. I think that opinion a bit inaccurate: the film has no need for classical, well understood, it is just that - classic. Maybe we could spend our remaining minutes to examine some elements of this classic on which it happens that way-cons are committed.
No cinema, no film that is worth, not realism. What is realism? Two definitions, or rather two points of Wilde and Ruskin on painting, say pretty well what to say. The word realism probably would have made them scream, the thing they were familiar. Ruskin first: "The only good painting is to paint a rosy cheeked children. And Wilde ("Origins of historical criticism"): "We should be able to say a picture is not that well painted but it is not painted. These sentences may be surprised by their authors, often taken for decadent artists for artists, whatever else? They show this in any case, that Wilde, Ruskin and others with them, who were constantly questions the nature and purposes of art, it posed little about its means. In fact, they were simple minds - and well done. What was complicated was the struggles, controversies they had to wage against the meanness and the conformism of the times they and complicated, they were not.
Lourcelles Jacques, Allan Dwan , Presence Film No. 22-23, outono 1966, p. 9-10
0 comments:
Post a Comment