فصل الدراما ، المخرج .. كتاب فهم السينما

director

In the mid-1950s, the French periodical (Cinema Papers) published the “author’s” theory, a view that confirmed the director’s control in the art of film. According to this theory, whoever controls the mise-en-cine becomes the true "author" of the film. The other contributors (writers) (writers, photographers, actors, and editors) are mere assistants among technicians. There is no doubt that the author-critics exaggerated the primacy of the director, especially in America, where many film directors were at the mercy of the regime The studio, which tended to emphasize teamwork rather than individual expression, over “stars” and not directors, and the success of the payment fund before artistic distinction. If the director can control the financing of the film, that is to do the production in addition to directing, then he may be more free to control the final product. Some of the best John Huston and Alfred Hitchcock films were produced and directed by them.

For example, or a suggestive spectacle, despite so many low-key abominations who apparently did nothing but get traffic out of their studios, the auteur critics are intrinsically right when they give authorship priority to the director at least in the case of great films. Referring to a film as great is an exception. The text, seems to be the opposite of saying that a play is great except for the text. Indeed, we can enjoy a poorly directed film or a poorly written play, but what we enjoy in the most secondary aspects of the art—a fine performance or some important costume in films especially that the shooting and the acting can salvage Mostly not normal without it. Such pleasures generally represent the individual triumph of a talented interpreter (actor, set designer, costume designer, or photographer) over the weakness of the dominant artist—film director or author in the theatre.

In theatre, the director is essentially an interpreter. If we see a decadent production of King Lear, we do not reject Shakespeare's play, but rather the specific interpretation of the play. It is true that the director of the play creates certain models of movement, appropriate gestures for his actors, and spatial relationships, but all these visual elements come second to the language and text that the author creates. The theatrical director's relationship with the text is similar to the theatrical actor's relationship with the role. He can add much to what is written, but his contribution is usually secondary to the text itself - an improvisation, so to speak, bounded by the limits set by the author.

Theatrical director is a kind of mediator between the author, the actors and the staff that of production. That is, the director is responsible for the general interpretation of the text and usually determines the dimensions of the interpretation of other artists, including actors, designers and technicians. The director has to make sure. All elements of production are consistent and subject to comprehensive interpretation. Its effect tends to be stronger during workouts than during real performance. Once the curtain opens, the audience is powerless to control what is happening. On the other hand, the film director has a lot of control over the developmental production (87). He also controls the pre-production activities, but unlike the theatrical director, he still controls all aspects of the integrated work as well. The degree of precision that a film director achieves is impossible on stage Because the film director can re-film people and things until he gets exactly what he wants. Movies, as we have seen, come together primarily through moving pictures, and it is the director who decides most of the visual elements, choosing shots, angles, light effects, filters, visual effects, composition, camera movement, and montage.

The differences in control and precision between theatrical and cinematic directing can be visualized by looking at the mise en cena. Theatrical director is more restricted, as he has to deal with one view of each scene. All actors, assets, and movement models are placed within the known space. Because this is a three-dimensional space, it has the advantage of depth as well as width. The use of platforms enables him to exploit the height also. Theatrical director must use certain traditions in order to secure greater clarity. Thus, with an aperture theatre, the audience can pretend to be peeping into a room from which one wall has been removed. Of course, it is not placed next to this raised wall, and the actors do not turn their backs to it for long periods, because the dialogue will not be audible if a raised theater is used. necessary to ensure greater clarity. furniture

In cinema, the director transforms the three-dimensional space into a two-dimensional image. Even by using photography with clear depth, "depth" is not real, but the flat picture has certain advantages. As long as the camera can be placed in almost any place we want, the film director is not bound by a single scene with known (walls). The distant shot that is at the level of sight corresponds in more or less to what the aperture of the theater gives us, except that in the cinema the large shot constitutes a specific area, and this leads as a result to the presence of a “cinematic room with its own frame walls.” Each snapshot then represents a new space known with new (temporary) dimensions (7-9). Eisenstein referred to this coordination of volumes as mise-en-acne.
In addition, the motion camera enables the director to rearrange the walls several times to achieve the highest degree of expression without sacrificing clarity. Thus, the character in the film can enter the frame from below, above, or from the side, and from any angle. And by entering on a cart or a crane, the camera can take us inside the scene and let things pass through it. Because the audience diagnoses its vision with the lens of the camera, the viewer in the cinema moves according to this feeling. ahead.
It is necessary for the cinematographer to allow less compromises. This is because the theatrical director's mezzanine is limited to the unity of the scene, so a certain limit is inevitable. He combines maximum expression and clarity, and this is not always an easy feat, especially in realistic productions. The director has to type, as he has a greater number of small scenes (takes). Some movies have an average of 1,000 frames. He can give us six shots of the same subject - some stressing clarity, some stressing expression. Some shots could show the character with his back to the camera. The vocal tract ensures the clarity of his speech (7-10). A character can be depicted through an obstacle of some sort - a piece of glass or a pile of thick foliage. Eisenstein would sometimes place one actor in front of the other in order to obscure him with such impediments. These are mostly used as symbolic reasons, but since the cinematic shot does not need to be long, clarity can be temporarily postponed for the sake of expression. These generalizations are stipulated based on the hypothesis.
that theater is essentially realistic in its treatment of time and space, while cinema is essentially impressionistic. In fact, however, the differences are relative, of course. In fact, a good argument can be made that Strindrick's impressionistic plays (such as A Dream Play) are more fragmentary and subjective than Charlie Chaplin's realistic movie The Gold Rush, which emphasizes the continuity of time and space. (For example) they deal with time and place in a theatrical manner, while some impressionist writers (the absurdists, for example) deal with time and place cinematically. In any case, we use the terms “theatrical” and “cinematic” in every case as a metaphor. And when everything is said, The differences in time and place remain fundamental, it is true