Week 2

"Art for Art's sake is just as heretical in cinema as elsewhere" (46) This seems quite a change from last week's readings where art was the most important thing- making sure the shot was perfect etc. And, this quote seems to describe realism for me well- trying to depict the real while including artistic elements. Differently, Kracauer discusses the fact that "the concept of art does not, and cannot, cover truly "cinematic" films- films that is, which incorporate aspects of physical reality with a view to making us experience them. If a film is an art at all, it certainly should not be confused with established arts" (153). While I agree with this, it seems to take a negative tone where I would leave them just as different. Obviously watching a film provides a different experience that viewing the Mona Lisa in person, but both can be art. Bazin's second article seems to be the most useful for me. Through his writing, I was able to receive a nice history of how film progressed, the various influences on film with key historical context. "The film is an idealistic phenomenon" (171). This quote, coming from someone discussing realism is interesting to me, can you be idealist and real at the same time?

I found Bazin's point interesting about the evolution from silent to sound films. I would have believed that the reason silent films were silent was because they did not have the technology to do so. Bazin makes the point however that "the silent film was an art on its own. Sound could only play at best a subordinate and supplementary role: a counterpoint to the visual image" (44). I find this a bit confusing, considering most silent films were paired with some sort of music. And is it true that a silent film could not have been enhanced at all with dialogue? Seems like quite an overstatement to me. And, the surprise he uses to describe the change over to film also seems a bit ironic.

I really enjoyed watching Umberto Di. A few years ago, I was lucky enough to take an Italian film course while studying in Florence. One of the first movies we watched in this course was the Bicycle Thief, another great DeSica film I would encourage the class to watch if they enjoyed Umberto Di. I was quite intrigued with the Bicycle Thief's use of non- "real" actors and the backdrop of a quite desolate Rome. The use of "real" people to play in "characters" in a film seems to be a juxtaposition in itself. Also, the evoluntion from this type of acting to contracted Hollywood movie stars seems to have happened rather quickly. I would like to discuss this further in class-how the role of actors changed seemingly so quickly. In both films, the contrast between absolute sadness and pure joy were really incredible to me and deSica seemed to capture true human spirit in his films. On your worst day-when you are broke and your landlady is kicking you out of your home, the friendship of a dog can make all of the difference. The struggle of "what to do to survive" - do you leave your dog with strangers, kill him in order to save yourself.

I may be getting ahead of myself, but I thought there were some really interesting female character roles in Umberto Di. While I didn't care for her, the landlady was quite a powerful role. To have a single woman living on her own seems unusual for the time period. I wonder if her transition from a friendly young girl to a greedy cold woman is somehow supposed to show the transition as Italy was gearing up for war. In reviews of the film it was noted that the Italian government didn't appreciate how it was portrayed in the film- maybe the landlady role was supposed to mirror this? Also, the maid- such a young girl, sleeping with two men, keeping her baby out of wedlock, providing for herself, while at the same time seeming so innocent is also a strong female character for the period. I liked Sonora's comments about the idea between real and realism- and the idea that is resembles the real. In Umberto Di, deSica pulls from the real-but its not actually a true story. While its not impossible the same events occurred in real life, they were created and blended together to tell a story. Cameras and angles and special effects were used in order to make the story look real and yet it isn't.
Finally, I noticed quite a bit of difference between Rashomon and Umberto Di. The new technologies which allowed for the film maker to now be on par with the novelist made the final product that much more enjoyable and real. I was able to immerse myself more in the story because the film was much easier to both see, believe, and take away from.