Pure Cinema film theory discussion...or something.

J

JustinBrown

Well-known member
I just watched "Man with a Movie Camera" for the first time the other day. I never said wow so many times while watching a film...

Any way. I went and read up on Vertov and early Soviet cinema which lead me to the concept of Pure Cinema.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_cinema

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_with_the_Movie_Camera

What I was immediately reminded of were all of the little shorts people have made now that the technology is reachable and cost effective.

What do you all make of this idea of a film for films sake?
 
If a film doesn't utilize story or characters, then IMHO it should be short, sweet, to the point, and very visually engaging. Needs to really catch me.

For me filmmaking is an extension of storytelling.
 
I like a good time lapse video as much as the next guy and while you can bang rocks together and call it music, at the end of the day film is storytelling.
No drama, no conclusion, no point.
 
It depends on how it's presented. I've seen some great video installation pieces in museums, most recently a multi-screen walk-through piece at the MOCA in Downtown Los Angeles--it was easily the best thing they had there and was totally immersive in the filmmaker's headspace. I wouldn't have wanted to watch it in a theatre for 2 hours, though.

And it did have a point, though not strictly dramatic. Gotta open your mind to alternative forms of presentation.
 
Jawa Ex Machina said:
I like a good time lapse video as much as the next guy and while you can bang rocks together and call it music, at the end of the day film is storytelling.
No drama, no conclusion, no point.
Click to expand...

First of all, I don't think we are talking about timelapses and banging rocks. No one said you couldn't tell a story either. My interpretation of the idea of "pure cinema" is based on people like Vertov who sought to expand cinema from the constrictions placed on it by traditional narrative story telling. He argued that because it was it's own medium it should develop it's own language. One that trancends our storytelling expectations? Maybe? I don't know...

Why does something have to have a point?
 
vcassel said:
It depends on how it's presented. I've seen some great video installation pieces in museums, most recently a multi-screen walk-through piece at the MOCA in Downtown Los Angeles--it was easily the best thing they had there and was totally immersive in the filmmaker's headspace. I wouldn't have wanted to watch it in a theatre for 2 hours, though.

And it did have a point, though not strictly dramatic. Gotta open your mind to alternative forms of presentation.
Click to expand...

I would tend to agree. I recently saw Godspeed You! Black Emperor live and had heard that they always had a fantastic film accompaniment. I had no idea what to expect, but was pretty much blown away. There was a guy using 4 16mm projectors with racks full of film loops projecting on the screen in the back all kinds of different things.

This clip is a little long, but represents the high point of the audio visual experience, for me anyway...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajFKk2seC84

It was this presentation that kind of sparked my interest in this topic...
 
JustinBrown said:
I would tend to agree. I recently saw Godspeed You! Black Emperor live and had heard that they always had a fantastic film accompaniment. I had no idea what to expect, but was pretty much blown away. There was a guy using 4 16mm projectors with racks full of film loops projecting on the screen in the back all kinds of different things.

This clip is a little long, but represents the high point of the audio visual experience, for me anyway...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajFKk2seC84

It was this presentation that kind of sparked my interest in this topic...
Click to expand...

I really, really wanted to see them when they hit L.A. It sold out quick.
 
film did not originally have a point, other than it was a spectacle. Even today, film doesnt have to have a story or point, but the direction we took it, lead it to a narrative structure. The majority of people will want something to follow, something to relate to. But there are some avant-garde filmmakers that offer a visceral/aural experience with no structure at all and is still appealing to a certain few.
 
nantnee said:
film did not originally have a point, other than it was a spectacle. Even today, film doesnt have to have a story or point, but the direction we took it, lead it to a narrative structure. The majority of people will want something to follow, something to relate to. But there are some avant-garde filmmakers that offer a visceral/aural experience with no structure at all and is still appealing to a certain few.
Click to expand...

Who are some of these people, and where can I watch their films?
 
What do you all make of this idea of a film for films sake?
Click to expand...

To quote Vertov:
"Everybody who cares for his art seeks the essence of his own technique.”

I am not sure if Vertov would like the idea of being categorised into the so-called Pure Cinema theory; after all the movement has been coined by a contemporary film-maker who links the term with 1920's French Avant-garde movement. Other people listed in the group can be easily associated with other camps (like experimental, cinema verite etc) and their cinematic technique varies immensely.
What they share is creativity, and freedom from the conventional school of thought.


My interpretation of the idea of "pure cinema" is based on people like Vertov who sought to expand cinema from the constrictions placed on it by traditional narrative story telling.
Click to expand...

What matters is that Vertov's pionering on the idea of creating a cinematic experience through the medium only, rather than relying on stiff literature and theatrical dogma.
Some filmmakers -who I think adapted this very idea superbly- succeeded without sacrificing the storytelling part; Bresson's "Cinematograpy", Tarkovsky's "Sculpting in Time" , Chris Marker's "Cinematic Essay" and Peter Watkins' "docudrama" techniques are some examples.

Story is there, just not the way %95 population conditioned to believe.
 
vcassel said:
One of my favorite sites, UbuWeb, has an avant garde and experimental film section - http://www.ubu.com/film/

I don't know what kind of arts go on in Chicago, but if you ever see a small theater do a showing of Koyaanisqatsi, GO!
Click to expand...

I am familiar with Ubu. I found it looking for George Kuchar movies. I haven't really dug through it though.

An old roommate of mine rented Koyaanisqatsi a few years ago, but I never got the chance to watch. It certainly sounded pretty cool, if I remember right.
 
VGurcu said:
To quote Vertov:
"Everybody who cares for his art seeks the essence of his own technique.”

I am not sure if Vertov would like the idea of being categorised into the so-called Pure Cinema theory; after all the movement has been coined by a contemporary film-maker who links the term with 1920's French Avant-garde movement. Other people listed in the group can be easily associated with other camps (like experimental, cinema verite etc) and their cinematic technique varies immensely.
What they share is creativity, and freedom from the conventional school of thought.




What matters is that Vertov's pionering on the idea of creating a cinematic experience through the medium only, rather than relying on stiff literature and theatrical dogma.
Some filmmakers -who I think adapted this very idea superbly- succeeded without sacrificing the storytelling part; Bresson's "Cinematograpy", Tarkovsky's "Sculpting in Time" , Chris Marker's "Cinematic Essay" and Peter Watkins' "docudrama" techniques are some examples.

Story is there, just not the way %95 population conditioned to believe.
Click to expand...

I could't agree more.
 
Jawa Ex Machina said:
Because anything that lacks a point is by definition pointless.
Click to expand...

Or, y'know, unless the point is to be pointless. Absurdism often presents a great emotional purge comparable to structured work, though it's usually of a different sort of release; they both present an escapism not in accordance with reality.
 
vcassel said:
Or, y'know, unless the point is to be pointless. Absurdism often presents a great emotional purge comparable to structured work, though it's usually of a different sort of release; they both present an escapism not in accordance with reality.
Click to expand...
But then it has a point though, doesn't it?

That wasn't the question.
 
Okay I don't think you're debating if it has a point or no point. The initial question should be "when is it pointless?" Jawa Argues if there's no narrative, then there's no point. Justin is arguing that films always have a point just by creation (even though he originally argued they don't... or something like that).

Personally I believe films can have a point, and be interesting and gripping, without a story. It's rare that I'll like a non-narrative film, but on occasion there's a bite.

For example this I enjoy because it's short and to the point:

http://www.vimeo.com/19302305
http://www.vimeo.com/5469963

Even some music videos have no clear narrative (maybe an underlying one without a clear conclusion), but they can be visually stunning and hold your attention.

http://www.vimeo.com/21604065

No I don't think no story= no point. It just has to be damn good and short.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top