فصل الحركة ، کنیستيزيا [ التحريكية ] ٣-a.. كتاب فهم السينما

in its entirety. Most directors film the event from several filming locations, thus compressing the time and place of the movement from its source to its destination. Michelangelo Antonioni often depicts such events with uninterrupted running periods for symbolic purposes. His characters are usually engaged in a humiliating spiritual quest of some kind, a pursuit usually symbolized by a journey or material quest and by intentionally tiring the audience by the long running times of the characters who enter. and graduated from Depth». In his scenes, Antonioni forces us to experience some of the same stress his characters have to endure. Needless to say, Antonioni's films move slowly (9.3).

What determines much of the meaning of movement is the distance from which it is photographed and the angle from which it is photographed. The distance and angle particularly affect the speed and intensity of movement. In general, the longer the shot and the higher the angle, the movement tends to appear slower. If the movement is filmed from closer ranges and lower angles, then it is more intense and faster. A film director can use the same subject material, such as a running man, for example, from two different filming locations, to give us two different meanings. If the man is photographed in a very long shot from a high angle, he will appear completely ineffectual and helpless. If he was photographed from a low angle with a medium shot, he would appear strong and determined. Despite the fact that the theme of the two sites is completely identical, the different forms radically change the meaning.

Because many spectators forget these relations of perception, they tend to regard motion in its general kinetic physical sense. The result of this was a lot of naive theorizing about what the cinema itself is. Such spectators are inclined to believe that the more extravagant the movement as we perceive it in real life, the more filmic it will be. Slippery condescending that such films are cheap and shallow and merely modern films such viewers prefer the "rich" and "European" film in particular that throws the action aside for the sake of "delicate" and "quiet" subjects.

Both types of viewers tend to misunderstand the nature of action in film, although we are sure one could use the terms 'epic' and 'psychological' to describe the film's general emphasis, but even at this level of generalization discussions of what is cinematic in and of itself are usually in vain. . Few would claim that Tolstoy's War and Peace is more It is characterized by the art of the novel itself from Dostoevsky's novel Crime and Punishment, although we refer to one of them as an epic and the other as a psychological novel. In the same vein, the naive follower is the only one who claims that the painting by the Italian painter Michael Angelo on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican is more plastic in itself than a painting with a home scene by the painter Vermeer. They are different, yes. But one is not necessarily better than the other. In short, there are some good and bad epic artworks and some good and bad psychological ones. What matters is the treatment, not the material as it is.

However, the movement in the film is more accurate than that, as it necessarily depends on the type of shot used. A big cinematic shot can express movement equal to or greater than the most rapid stretches in very distant shots. In fact, if we proceed from the absolute movement on the screen, there is usually a greater action in a large shot that shows tears flowing down the face of a person than in a very distant shot of a car moving fifty feet in the dance. Movement is always measured by the parts of the human body, but the cinematic movement is always in relation to the shot. An epic movie like The Seven Samaritans by Kurosawa may seem like it has more movement than a psychologically-laden movie like Carl Dreyer's Saint John's Mother, but Dreyer's movie is actually mostly filmed with close-up shots and the movement of features may actually cover yards of space on the surface of the screen. They constantly commit cinematic delusions for themselves when they drop, for example, excellent films like The Heir by William Wyler and The Bridegroom by Fred Zeeman on the grounds that these films are limited in scope in terms of film treatment.

The issue is usually that epic and psychological films use movement in different ways with an emphasis on different shots. Epic films generally depend on distant shots in their desired effect, while psychological films tend to use larger shots Psychology is concerned with depth and detail. Epic films emphasize events, while psychological films focus on the meanings and significance of events. In good films, as in good plays, these features are a matter of endless confirmation. Shakespeare's play Henry V seen with a long shot is not devoid of psychological details, just as Chekhov's play The Cherry Orchard seen with a big shot is not lacking in action (3-10). There are cases in which two directors approached the same material and gave us completely contradictory results. Hamlet is a good example of this case, Laurence Olivier's version of