فصل الفلم التسجيلي ، التلفزيون وسينما الحقيقة ٢-a .. كتاب فهم السينما

These more flexible devices enabled the filmmakers at the Drew Institute to redefine the notion of documentary documentation. As a result, this definition of aesthetics was tantamount to rejecting the Cresson tradition, with its emphasis on preplanning and carefully detailed scripts. In essence, according to the Creerson tradition, truth is not supervised, but regulated in order to conform to what the text says. However, after this time, reconfiguration of the structure is no longer necessary, as long as the members of the work team are present when the event occurs, they can obtain it directly with all its complexities and complexities (6-26).

The principle of minimum intervention in fact became the preoccupation of the Canadian and American schools of fact cinema at least through the early 1960s. Most of the traditional techniques of documentary film have been discarded in favor of a completely spontaneous method. The great emphasis on open forms. Attempts to alter or comment on reality are dismissed as fiction. The film-maker should not control the events by any means, but rather be led by them. Reconstruction, even with the real people and places required, is no longer acceptable. The editing is kept to a minimum as it might otherwise lead to a deceptive impression of the sequence of events. The real space and time are preserved where possible with long camera cycles. If the need arises for a large shot, the photographer tends to enter with a zoom lens instead of cropping, so that time and space are preserved. The expected filming locations were also avoided, as the expectation of the content of the shot was a form of the events before they actually occurred. If people and events move, the photographer is required to follow them either by turning horizontally, by zooming in, by turning vertically, or by simply walking with the camera placed on a shoulder rest.
Needless to say, the aesthetics of cinema truth place an enormous weight on the photographer, as he has to be able to judge quickly, often in the midst of events. This is why many directors shoot their films. waste Huge amounts of feet mostly because the photographer often has no idea what time the action will take place and he can't go back to the beginning of the shot if he messes up first. He must be patient and unashamed, waiting and watching until he smells that something important is about to happen.
Because many of the feet in these films are filmed fleetingly, as we say, many of the shots are necessarily shaky and unclear, and their frame is confused. There are some zoom movements that are included sometimes, indicating that the photographer expects a moment of unfolding, but the unfolding does not happen sometimes, so the frightened photographer is forced to go back. Zoom in for a wider shot. Sometimes the brightness of these films is not sufficient despite the highly sensitive film being used. The sound is sometimes muffled, as the distorted street noise often drowns out the voices, but these defects were considered a part. The aesthetics of truth cinema, a kind of testimony to its true authenticity. In fact, most filmmakers believed that the beautifully photographed visuals and crystal-clear soundtrack were so suspicious that they seemed intrusive in reality. Direct cinema directors believed that when they sacrifice the craftsmanship that is associated with traditional documentaries, they can embody the event with greater directness and intimacy, which is that it has priority over formal beauty.
Direct cinema, in its attempt to remove the barriers between subject and audience, makes careful use of sound. For the most part, direct cinema has avoided asynchronous music and dismissed it as a fanciful style. These artists were particularly hostile to the voice of God commentary that accompanied many traditional documentaries. The commentary interprets the image for the audience, thus relieving the audience of the need to analyze it themselves, as these artists believed. Some filmmakers dispensed with commentary completely in the works of Frederick Wiseman, for example, using direct voice only (6-27) and allowing people in films to speak as they are.
they like. Perhaps Weisman insisted more than any American filmmaker on preserving the inconsistencies and ambiguities of real life in documentaries, and that the elegantly defined films were perhaps a deceptive reflection of the truth.

Direct cinematographers may wish above all for the “privileged moment,” the brief glimpses of truth, the intimate, the authentic, during which the screen seems to disappear and we feel ourselves in the presence of the action itself (6-28). A good example of this kind of intimate moment can be seen in the movie (The Chair) made by Leacock, Bennebaker and Gregory Shocker. The film deals with a convicted murderer, Paul Crumb, and his lawyer's attempt to change his death sentence to life imprisonment, as long as he On the pardon - and it's evidently repaired, we watch attorney Donald Moore try everything he can to get his pending death sentence suspended at one point in the film when he receives a phone call informing him that a senior church official is going to issue a pronouncement urging an important stopping point that Moore has been praying for. Overwhelmed with relief, Moore puts out his cigarette silently and meditatively, then, unable to control his emotions, bursts into tears. It's a powerful scene with emotional depth that makes many viewers cry, too.

Real cinema, like most recording schools, is better in some subjects than others. Certainly few documentaries can offer the same His concern about the degree of closeness, emotional directness, and spontaneity (6-29) On the other hand, these techniques would have seemed more tedious had they been used on a subject such as the express mail train. Indeed, even Pennebaker later expressed that direct cinema tends to rely too much on its "moments." Brilliant to justify its existence. A number of critics have complained that audiences are forced to endure a large amount of foul feet in order to get to these great moments.

Direct cinema is also effective in material of a dramatic nature, such as tense situations in which the conflict reaches its climax, but here, too, critics have complained about the need for an aesthetic dimension in films such as Leacoq's The Kids Were Watching, which deals with the explosive clashes for civil rights in 1960 in New Orleans. The handheld camera captures the fear, hatred and tension of the angry white supremacists on one side and the terrified black children and their parents on the other. However, critics complained that in such emotionally charged situations, calm, reason, and cold objectivity are needed in cinematic treatment, not a fast camera that dives directly into the midst of the most inflamed clashes. Such films, these critics argue, only encourage hysteria rather than rational alternatives.

In the late sixties rock stars and music festivals were subjects Also popular for live cinema, in fact, feature-length documentaries such as Don't Look Back and Monterey Pop, both directed by Pennebaker, were hugely successful in theaters, as well as the Rolling Stones (Give Me Shelter), produced by the Stills Brothers and Charlotte Zwerin. Some of the first techniques were beginning to be left to direct cinema, although even in the 1960s there was a large gap between the ideals and practices of filmmakers at the Dur Institution.) Montage styles have become more complex, as we can see in the complex film construction that depends on going back to the past in the movie (Give Me Shelter). By the time The Wood was produced by Michael Wadley (1970), artistic compositions, multiple images, and sound juxtapositions of all shapes had replaced long photo sessions, direct sound recording, and blurry zoom shots. A movement that began as a realist later transformed into a pragmatic, eclectic stance towards filmmaking that blended realistic and expressive techniques with a bit of a fleeting irreverence.