Rivista Anarchica Online



The representation of the movement

Everything that can be played with the camera can be represented on the screen. The film will adapt to the deepest needs of film only when they follow the trend realistic, focusing true physical existence. An example? The beauty of the wind that moves through the trees, the waves of the sea, the snow falling ...
In other words, despite its ability to reproduce indiscriminately all visible facts, the film gravitates toward the immediate reality. And this fact led to two different assumptions related to each other. First, the staging is legitimate from the aesthetic point of view as long as it gives the illusion of reality. In the second place, and for the same reason, each staging is anticinematografica if neglects or goes beyond the basic properties of the medium. Until the advent of cinema trying to reproduce a movement in the entirety of its nature, the continuity of its evolution, remained unsolved and seemed unsolvable. By the time they spread the use of trains, bicycle, automobile, telegraph, telephone, airplane and any suitable means to break the record speed, the problem of representation of movement, seemed not to affect much. He took up painting in particular, but always in a static form. Cubism and its derivatives suggested a perspective illustration of the object in several ways. Such a complex perspective gave the impression of movement, inviting the viewer to move too fantastically.
Such expedients, however, had the same defect that did not seem to fix it. The inability to represent a movement with another movement. The cinema has solved this very impossibility, adding a series of tiny snapshots and discontinuous in their integral and continuous sequence that is precisely the "movement", allowing what we now recognize as "cinematic storytelling".
The representation of movement, allowed the film, was first perceived in a completely superficial (the language of cinema had not yet developed its full capacity), then used a little 'out of turn (playing until the advent of sound in 1929 a substantial theatrical staging filmed) until the great fathers of cinema, I think Chaplin, Griffith, Stoheim, Ejsenstein, Pudovkin, Vertov, Lang (just to name a few) restored the dignity and artistic form. The question is that dignity and artistry still belongs to the contemporary cinema?

Bruno Bigoni