Illusions

Perhaps my greatest objection to Bazin’s writing about the function of realism in film is the way in which he seems to highlight the artistic potentialities of film at the expense of the older plastic arts (like painting). His scornful aside, “[p]ainting was forced…to offer us illusion and this illusion was reckoned sufficient unto art,” reflects what seems to be a glaringly casual dismissal of “illusion” as a term that cannot possibly be construed as artistic but must instead be always understood as deceptive, insufficient, and inferior (161). Yet to my mind, it seems that the very technologies and properties of film of which he (and all other theorists thus far) has spoken can all be loosely categorized as processes of making illusions. As “real” as we might perceive an image to be (footage of Flike running through the park), we intellectually understand that it is an illusion on many levels. First, that dog was only running through the park at the moment in which it was filmed; because the dog is no longer running in that park, the image of him running is an illusion or a pretension that this activity is occurring as we are watching it. Second, it is well known that not only do acting dogs have to redo shots multiple times (as do all actors), but the dogs in a film are often represented by more than one animal actor. Thus, “Flike” is probably acted by multiple dogs (even this early in the history of film). Third, this footage of Flike is likely a compilation of multiple different shots, spliced together with the very technology that Bazin so loves. How is the final product, then, not illusion?

I think the mistake Bazin makes is to assume that because photography (and by extension, film) is a very close capture of an image in a particular set of circumstances and objects, it does not still essentially begin with a technological reproduction of that set of circumstances and objects. The interposition of technology renders the reproduction inevitably and irrevocably distant from the original. That is not to say that something may not be “realistic,” but rather, it is necessary to understand that this “realism” is still an illusion. If nothing else, it is illusion by stark virtue of the fact that film is not real. As a whole, his argument indicates that he certainly understands the technological elements of film production, as well as the artistic benefits or detriments it may offer to the final product. However, that is not to say that these technological elements create a product that is any more or less illusory than a product created by the technology of painting. Yes, a photograph is technically (forgive me if I misunderstand this, but I took one photography class a very long time ago) the most accurate reproduction you could make: the image is created through a process by which light from around/behind the object projects some kind of image through the lens, etc., which is then imprinted through a process of focused lights, lens, and chemicals. Film is essentially a series of photographs (very basically), so we can apply the same properties to an analysis of film. Photography/film requires the manipulation of the artist, or the technician to transfer that image; it very clearly requires the artistic input of the photographer to make it a valuable image (here I truly appreciate his argument about the reversal of apparent causality – the inspiration for art arose long before the technology with which to produce it was developed-166). Thus, his comment that “cinema (or photography – my note) is objectivity in time,” seems to neglect to take into account that inescapable medium between the subject and the art: the artist (162).

Moreover, while there is an undeniable, tangible difference between painting and photography, to label painting as an illusion where photography is not is to malign the value of illusion in art. The goal of art is to make people see the subject anew, either physically or conceptually. This task can only be conceived by changing something about the subject in such a way as to make its appearance in a work of art different than its appearance in daily life. Whether this involves changing the shape or color or composition (either in film or painting), there involves an illusion in as much as we have made the subject to appear in such a way that it is “really” not.