Aesthetics of Film has ratings and 9 reviews. Ettore said: This book made me understand a lot more of what goes on inside a film and presented me the. , English, Book, Illustrated edition: Aesthetics of film / Jacques Aumont. ” Beyond its obvious appeal to cinema students, Aesthetics of Film also raises. Aesthetics of Film. by Jacques Aumont, Alain Bergala, Michel Marie. Book condition: New. Book Description. University of Texas Press , Austin, TX.
|Published (Last):||15 July 2005|
|PDF File Size:||9.34 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||14.69 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
After leaving Cahiershe moved into academia, with his dissertation published as Montage Eisenstein in In La Querelle des dispositifsRaymond Bellour defends aestheyics idea that the cinema is only what is projected in a movie-theatre. Your own position seems to be rather different. Is it cinema or not? This is why, in my book on fiction, Limites de la fictionI aumoht to express myself a little better: This means that the viewer is concentrated on something, they accept watching it, being in it for a certain period of time.
None of them do this anymore, ever. Not a single aesfhetics regularly goes to the cinema to watch films. They might go out to the movies with friends as a social occasion which is also important — but not to see a film.
Interview with Jacques Aumont • Senses of Cinema
Playing video games, strolling around a gallery, surfing the internet, these are also experiences, of course, but there is no constituted easthetics.
Everyone constitutes their own time, in an aleatory manner. The regime that I would call cinemato-novelistic if you willin which we fjlm to be constrained by a work, to submit to its rhythm, is undergoing a process of social disappearance.
It still exists, but it is no longer the majority experience — at least not among the young people I come into contact with.
Once we have made this observation, should we still hang onto the branches of the old tree of the cinema? What we have to find out is: Or is this outdated, and now we have a different experiential mode, which is essentially fragmentary, and whereby the filmic regime becomes a constraint that we try to shake off? This is the real question.
Two or three years ago, when I wrote this little book in a state of rage, I was still trying to defend a definition of the cinema. But deep down, what counts is the experience. The question then is: This is what Bellour contests.
I partly agree with Raymond fo this point: However, I am less of a purist than he is, and more pragmatic or perhaps cynical. It then becomes a question of the boundary between the cinematic and the non-cinematic. The boundary is difficult to trace, like any boundary. This is why I think that we should stop with these quarrels over the dispositifs. It was good that we wrote these books, but I think that the question has been provisionally answered: You said that it was a commissioned work.
But montage is surely something that has been important in your work since the s. It was a commissioned work for Timothy Barnard, whom I should thank for his efforts as an independent publisherbut it allowed me xesthetics reflect anew on the topic, and discover a couple of little things that I knew but had never formulated.
Aesthetics of Film
For instance, montage no longer really exists on the theoretical level. There are no more theories of montage today. Montage no longer exists as an aesthetic principle, but only as a practice.
By this, I mean that a filmmaker today can do anything he wants on the level of editing. We have acquired an extraordinary freedom, which evidently did not previously exist in commercial cinema. At the sesthetics time, I have the impression nowadays that everyone thinks: The filmmaker is presently faced within an infinite, almost totally open, palette of possibilities. We can do what we want, extend the shots, shorten them, mix them up, modify them on certain points — and beyond that, we can experiment as much as we aeathetics.
A aesthettics filmmaker who can concretely reflect on this will still find good solutions. Writing this little book led me to discover this: I noticed that I was obliged to explain things which have now become purely historical, whether it is Bazin, Fiml, Eisenstein or even Godard.
Would you say that this reflects a more general phenomenon: I am not sure I agree. In any case this formulation is too simple. I am convinced that evolution never ceases, even in the arts. The widespread definition of art, today, has little in common with what it was a century ago or a half-century ago. Moreover, there are always possible formal inventions, even if they are minor. For example, in the cinema, take slow films, and more specifically, the very long, minimal shot where nothing happens.
In Aestheticz Lessonsduring the drive through a Roman neighbourhood filmed from inside a car, the intention is that jacqes see a lot. The ideal Straubian spectator is someone who does a lot of work. This idea of time is not new, of course, it partly comes from video art, which practised these durational forms before the cinema did, but to transpose them to the universe of narrative cinema is a new sensation.
We can also find, even more clearly because it has entered the mainstream, visual and narrative forms taken from video games. A film as bad aesthrtics Edge of Tomorrow Doug Liman, is symptomatic. You start the game over again, in a sense, and you figure out how to go further. Is this a new narrative form? And yet, what is certain is that the cinema as an art and as a medium is changing, due, at least partly, to these contagions between different mediums.
This is why I refuse to play the game of disputes about names. Even if the cinema is different to what it used to be, as long as it remains a form of condensed time, offered in a specific experiential mode, I recognise the cinema…. In your book you say that there is an opposition between montage and the interactivity of video games.
Is the difference that montage is made by the gesture of an auteur, a filmmaker, an artist, while in video games the assemblage of images is made by the players? Aestherics course, if I was logical with myself, I would defend the idea that the time that a film aestheticcs to me is entirely determined by the person or people who made the film: But we aestyetics have to complicate things a little.
Firstly, the video game is not that monolithic. It is something hybrid. When a new mission is launched, there is a little storyline for about ten minutes. But it seems evident to me that the video game in the s is like the cinema in the s. There now exist very complex games, which require complex, contemplative decisions.
The cinema will remain the cinema as long we say it as an experience of a set time. There is something else that you very trenchantly claim in your book: I was struck by this, because in a way it is true, but to hear it formulated like this is pretty astonishing.
What I meant by this is that there is a tremendous wariness towards theory, in the sense that we understood it in the s and s. In principle, yes, in the definition Lyotard gave it: That depends on what you mean by theory.
There have been very few film theorists. For me the paradigmatic theorist is Christian Metz, who worked on a deliberately scientific basis, using linguistics and semiology. There have been a few others, but not many. He had ideas, of course, and he even had essentially theoretical ideas, but he never constructed a theory.
Even Eisenstein, who passes for an accomplished theorist, also had many fecund intuitions, but he never constructed a theory.
The problem with the idea of theory is that, beyond its possible coherence or consistency, you have to have a scientific intention, aestheticd this is very rare among thinkers who are usually either filmmakers or critics.
But his work on the cinema is only of interest with respect to his own philosophy, and I am distant from his vitalism.
Aesthetics of Film – Jacques Aumont – Google Books
I had a fondness for phenomenology even before knowing it. I was a phenomenologist without being aware of it — and more Merleau-Ponty than Husserl, incidentally. Does this serve to distance you from semiotics and structuralism, since they are often opposed to phenomenology? Structuralism is truly outdated today, and the two or three articles I wrote in this optic now strike me as rather weak for example, an analysis of La Chinoise [Jean-Luc Godard, ], which is not wrong, but a little hollow.
I am, like everyone, remote from s semiology, and even more remote from its s semio-psychoanalytic variant, but also like everyoneI am increasingly interested in Peirce. But let me repeat: Yes, many of them. But in such an enterprise, you can call someone who has a couple of ideas a theorist.
By speaking a little provocatively of filmmaker-theorists, I wanted to underline that many had an abstract, conceptual reflection about their craft. Pasolini came closest, I believe, because he leant on an existing doctrine which was Peircean semiotics, but even he did not quite reach the end of his intuitions to construct a true theory in form. They have had abstract, conceptual intuitions, and this is very precious!
He has written on the cinema, bordering on philosophy, theory and poetics, and defending a rather precise and very compact conception of the cinema, close to that of Bresson. On the contrary, filmmakers have become aphasic, of the kind: We can find this in interviews, but there is no synthetic text of his thought. This is the case with the majority of filmmaker-theorists, they theorise their cinema, rather than the cinema in general. By contrast, it quite often happens that they have passionate ideas, and that they know how to express these ideas in a rational, communicable manner.
I think this is the case with Pedro Costa, who is such a unique filmmaker. Everything about him is remarkable, both in formal terms, and in the subjects he treats, with his choice of filming marginalised individuals and neglected places. Whereas in English the word has a double meaning: