For some filmmakers, the approach to cinema is not very different from the approach to poetry. The
approach is to look for a 'poetic' in cinema, which is advocated
by many film theorists. The
word has a history as far as the dramatic theory from Aristotle, and
this approach of art has been embraced by various thinkers throughout
history.
The
word 'poetics' was derived from the Greek word 'poiesis', which meant
active making. David Bordwell believes that film should be studied as a
process of construction. To him and those who support the approach,
an appreciation of cinema should in no way be limited to a mere
analysis of plot or narrative itself. That means ‘story’ is not
the only metric to assess a film, as for those who thinks ‘If you
have a great story, you have a great film’ may insist. Even if one
has a dull story it may still be metamorphosed to a brilliant film,
and the greatest plot can appear like a high school video project if
that falls onto the wrong hands. What is the magic behind that? If is
the other side of the coin – form (or style).
A
poetic of cinema is a delicate entanglement of three elements of
films: image, sound and word. It is the combination of the aural
dialogue, music, sound and also the visual composition, lighting,
editing, and narrative aspect that leads to an organic unity. Often,
if it is done satisfactorily, the effect is not merely additive, and
the sum can be greater than the parts. While Poetics concerns film
form or the formal aspects of cinema, it is not necessarily the same
as the movement of Formalism, popularized by the Russians in the
early 20th century - though there may be certain common aspects
between them.
Filmmakers
like Kubrick, Ozu, Welles, Antonioni and Tarkovsky, and many other
great ones, have put together the various aspect of cinematic
techniques, leading to an active construction of cinematic experience
for the audience. The great thing about poiesis is that it demands an
active participation from the members of the audience, not just
passively receiving filmic images under the power of the so called
‘plot’ or ‘narrative’.
Bordwell
contributed intensely to this field by studying in depth the style of
Yasujiro Ozu, who I will talk about in later articles. What is quite
ironic about the analysis of Ozu is that he has been labelled as
traditional and the most Japanese by some critics, who seems to have
only observed the surface of the issue. It turns out that Ozu has put
up more Western and American references that one can expect, even in
his earliest films. As Bordwell has pointed out and elaborated in
detail, Ozu's style was among the most original and innovative
towards the Western audience, because he defied many rules and
techniques what most American filmmakers would see as the norm and
were comfortable with.
Bordwell
presented his ideas in 'Ozu and the Poetics of Cinema', and then he
also published ‘Poetics of Cinema’, in which he developed his
central thesis and provided more examples throughout the history of
cinema. I recommend these books to anyone who is interested in cinema
and want to understand more how cinematic style can lead to an impact
on its audience. You will see cinema in a completely new light!
by Ed Law
Film Analysis
