Archive for January, 2012
Much like Relativity and Quantum Mechanics working in empirical models of evidence, and while they do not directly contradict one another theoretically, they are in fact resistant to cohesive models; such could be said the same for Cinematic Realism and Formalism.
Let’s think of it this way:
Relativity/Realism: Relativity deals with the bigger models of the universe where things stabilize, think of this as Cinematic Realism whereby the mise-en-scene provides stability to the image. Use of long takes and deep focus provide this stability. In theory, this modus operandi of film making works in many cinematic models of evidence. Yet we have another form of film style to explore.
Quantum Mechanics/Formalism: Quantum Mechanics deals with the smaller levels of the universe, and in these lower levels of the universe, things begin to destabilize. Time for example, can not only go forward, but backward, all at the same time. Think of it’s allegory equivalent in film to be that of Cinematic Formalism. In Formalism, the mise-en-scene becomes irrelevant, where meaning derives is solely the edit. This theory, too, provides a working modus operandi and can be seen in many cinematic models.
Much like the conflict between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, Cinematic Realism and Cinematic Formalism are on two ends of the spectrum in which both have merit, but are resistant to cohesive models of construction. What then is the answer to this problem. As I write this, I regret to say I have none, but I do have some idea. I feel it is important to understand mathematics to create a new language for cinema. One which will hopefully bridge these ends together and form a synthesis which will hopefully expand a new type of cinema.