Ideological and Technological Determinism in Deep-Space Cinema Images: Issues in Ideology, Technological History, and Aesthetics

Abstract

Serious discussion of cinema phenomenon called deep focus (or great depth of field) began with a discursive series of essays by Andre Bazin. Prior to about 1940, there appears to be no mention of deep-space composition although clear pictures were often remarked upon. Since Bazin, however, considerable attention has been paid issue of depth in cinema image. This issue is viewed as one of cornerstones of Bazin's theories and is mentioned prominently in most film history books. The discussion has been carried on partly by Henderson in distinguishing Bazin from Eisenstein,' in Charles Barr's seminal essay on CinemaScope,2 in articles by Patrick Oagle and Jean-Louis Comolli,3 and elsewhere.4 The literature on deep focus is extensive enough to consider its discussion as a model for discovering assumptions and directions of cinema theory making (and, by extension, making of cinema history). In fact, it is fruitful to confront aesthetic, technological, and ideological assumptions in existing deep focus cinema theory with rest of history. With this strategy, it may be possible to suggest by extension some more specificity and substance to more general issues vexing current cinema theory and history.5 Barry Salt's efforts seem to have a similar motivation in that, even given limitations on his work, he is trying to test theory with observation of actual films.6 The history of comment on deep focus by name began when Bazin opposed his realist espousal of it (and of long take) to very rapid cutting technique or montage. For Bazin, cinema is best when it most closely imitates his vision of what real is like. This realist/idealist stand thus affirms quality of long take since it presents the world in all of its visible continuity, and of deep focus which allows all of things to be clearly seen through this window on that is cinema screen. For this reason, Bazin admires Welles, Wyler, and central Italian neorealist films. The Bazinian tradition acknowledges, but seldom if ever explores, implications of what mediation of film creation processes does to reality of when rendering a film. This flaw, this frequent ignoring of fact that film is a mediated semblance of reality, lies at heart of this realist/idealist stand. Patrick Ogle continues Bazin's approach to film history, sharing basic assumption that cinema history is a history of technological improvements. This stand implicitly posits early films as primitive because they seem flat, grainy, shaky, monochrome, and silent. Later films become better as realistic quality of image seems to take on look of life itself, with full color, sound, dense visuals, and like. Also this position which stresses technology tends to ignore aesthetic and ideological or, at least, to place technology above aesthetic and beyond ideology. It implies that technology is in control of artist, and affirmation of film history as a story of an always-enlarging paintbox of film tools denies possible full artistic status to earlier films. That is, this position posits progress in art-in itself a contradiction in terms. The technological domination of cinema comment has held sway long enough. The cinema began, apparently, with inventors who desired a machine that could record reality. It continued mainly in hands of those who took realism as their mechanical and even aesthetic guide. But