Vsevolod Pudovkin was one of the forefathers of cinematic language. Essentially every film and tv show or visual you see is based on his theoretical writings which he, along with other Soviet theorists have developed. If you want to better grasp how to tell a story visually, editorially, and just plain organize the filming process – his writing is crucial to understanding cinematic language. Below are the notes I took while reading the book, while I jotted down everything I thought was important, there were big passages and explanations as well as examples in the book that I did not include here – they further explained a lot of the theories, which is why if you truly want to “get it” – I’d recommend reading the actual book. – filmschoolthrucommentaries

"The most influential book I read at that time was Pudovkin's Film Technique. It is a very simple unpretentious book that illuminates rather than embroiders. It certainly makes it clear that film cutting 

is the one and only aspect of films that is unique and unrelated to any other art form. I found this book much more important than the complex 

writings of Eisenstein." – Stanley Kubrick

Pudovkin's Film Technique notes

(the pages (ex. P.21, P.22) are from an epub version of the book. If you’re reading the book as a PDF or any other source, these

pages in the notes below won’t match)p. 21 - Essentially, Pudovkin's says here that you have to pick a theme that isn't BROAD, not to generalize it - but keep it CLEAR so you can concentrate on its details and have a better impact.

"most good films are characterized by very simple themes and relatively uncomplicated action"

p.22 - it is necessary for a theme to be clear.

Theme, clear information of which inevitably organizes the entire work and results in a clearly effective creation. As a rule: formulate the theme clearly and exactly - otherwise the work will not acquire that essential meaning and unity that conditions every work of art.

p. 23 - thinking of a theme involve simultaneously thinking of the action and its treatment.

A writer establishes key-stones, significant to the theme; nature of events that bring the people in the film together, details conditioning the significance and strength of elements of "crescendo and diminuendo" (high peaks, and lows...I guess)

You can't consider action to be abstract - example; in the beginning a hero is an anarchist, and then over some series of mishaps in the revolutionary work of his he becomes a conscious communist. The action must be sensible. Just 'imagining' that he turned communist, doesn't create a climax...

So just the abstract idea of a reform has no creative value and cannot serve as a keystone in the constitution of an action. You must have a sensible action for the reform to happen, and removes vagueness.

"Clarity and vividness of the action-treatment directly depends on clear formulation of the theme"

p.26 - excitement doesn't depend on dramatic situation at all, but it can be constructed via, winding up of dynamic elements of the action, introduction of scenes and how they're build up, rapid, energetic work of the characters - crowds... I'm thinking here also editing rhythm here as well no doubt! And that the end goal must be for the spectator to receive an effective impulse.

Vast majority of screenplays/stories - suffer from clumsy tension build up. Ex, when something exciting and gripping ends and the continuing action becomes stale and boring, the spectator feels unsatisfied. Example: Adventures of Mr. West

Opposite is: Intolerance by Griffith

p.28 If the script describes the action well it lets the director do a better job. But also the importance of well constructed action - meaning, it's constructed in such a way that its gradual intensification rises to a climactic end.

p.29 - never "interpolate" shot lengths into a script, it's not constructive editing. You first write necessary details, explanations of a given scene, the shooting/editing 

In order to better communicate your ideas and concepts, one must watch and study other people's work who have successfully communicated, to gain experience.

p.31 - pudovkin stresses, mastering the form, and knowledge of specific methods so as to use it all as a weapon for the winning effect. Otherwise it will all fall flat.

’Plastic material' = 'molding material' (essentially what plastic means is ANYTHING a filmmaker uses in the frame to “mold” what he’s trying to say on screen…whether it’s a prop, a location, actors, lighting…etc

It’s not the words a writer writes on page, but "the externally expressed 'plastic' images that he describes in these words" - by plastic, Pudovkin is really talking about 'descriptions' in script form. Like "fade in, POV, ext/int" etc and short summaries. And all of this must be clear and expressive

One must know how to find, and select visually expressive material in order to vividly express in images the whole content of his idea. The material is limitless; use life and experience as well.

p.32 cont'd. Describing the importance of finding and selecting the correct material to represent an idea, concept. ex. weapon of revenge; old flint-lock (gun?) and every time the boy reaches for it we know what it represents, as an idea... also hanging up the gun, in order to do an errand for a mother; is a representation of selflessness - as well as naiveté of the man still a kid... two birds with one stone. Interesting concepts here.

Another example; an ashtray with a 100 cigarette buds...shows passage of time and excitement - this is just one of a plethora of expressive plastic material. For instance not one of these objects or people are introduced by chance, but carefully selected in order to

express an idea, they carry clear and definitive meaning. (McTiernan talks about it in my edit)

9:43 - NOTE: what I'm confused is whether Pudovkin means that this material can be many, not just one in entire film... like maybe you can have 'mini themes' that I can select for each character - clothes, props, etc.

I think Pudovkin also means, "image system" by 'plastic expression' - it can be that, definitely... it makes sense.

p.33 - TITLES

Continuity titles are only good if they remove superfluous action. For instance, if the action is not that important, you don't show it, you replace it with the titles. Like escape of convicts, if it's not important to the story you don’t show it, you just cut to convicts, and show the title they've escaped, bla bla

What it does it explain the essentials and cuts to show a clearer comprehension of the subsequent action.

Also that title can't be stronger than the subsequent action

p.34 = 

Also titles should "correlate" with the rhythm of the action; slow, or fast, how effective the titles are during the scene. LARGE lettering, etc. This is pretty good, because you can use this concept with motion graphics.

Simplest, Specific Methods of Shooting

p.36 - use of an Iris (the one Scorsese likes to use a lot) - limits the attention of the audience to a specific thing you want the audience to see - even if it's outdated now, it's still effective. So there's an example of a shot of a hero up on a mountain gazing into something in the distance...the second shot is that which is what he's looking at - and it's in an "iris" - so he's looking at it, also the size of it is preserved too...cos it's far away. It's a nice technique, even if outdated.

Panning - movement of camera, sideways, upwards, or downwards...Tracking or Dollying - is a nice technique because you can go from long shot to close up - also, something I realized just now; you can also go from a nice big vista, wide shot to a close-up by PANNING. You can have a pan go from left to right...showing the geography and immediately you can connect without cutting to a character looking at the scenery - introducing him for the first time (perfect through close up) or simply using it to emphasize a point that he's looking at the surroundings or whatever he's feeling during a given moment.

Perfect example: Flight @ 1 hour 38 mark - amazing

p.37 - shots out of focus, add tenderness, but must not be applied generally to everything.Particular methods of shooting something is up to 'taste' and inner feelings (and this feeling is definitely something that has to consider story first and foremost)

Editing Of the Scene

 - this whole section now begins to be very awesome - I must study this carefully.

"In order to know how to properly use a close-up, any of the shots, one must understand its significance in the story"

This is applied to not only people, but also objects, locations...

"The lens of the camera replaces the eye of the observer (observer meaning, YOU - for instance just place yourself in the role of someone observing an activity in everyday life - whatever it is, in an office, classroom, mall - just an observation - and how close you are to it...all that, how much detail you see - well then replace this observation with the LENS of a camera: how would you SHOOT what you SAW?), and the changes of angle of the camera—directed now on one person, now on another, now on one detail, now on another —must be subject to the same conditions as those of the eyes of the observe" (same conditions, meaning - let's say what you observe is the guy look up? well you'd most likely shoot THAT action by using a pan from him UP ABOVE, etc, etc - essentially what you're doing is replacing what you're seeing with a camera shot, movement, technique, angle..Etc)

ON RHYTHM of editing a scene

He gives an example that, imagine if you're observing something exciting- to imitate this with a camera, we'd get a series of pictures, rapidly alternating pieces (images), creating a stirring editing construction. And the opposite of that would be slow, calm construction, connected with transitions, fades, whatnot (kind of like what I've always naturally understood when I listen to music, the music itself lets me know everything I need to know in order to construct a music video / visual around it. Because the rhythm is already there.

* You build scenes from separate pieces (images) of which each concentrates the attention of the viewer. ONLY on that element which is IMPORTANT to the action. (GOLDEN RULE)

Also the order must correspond to natural order of transference of attention. Meaning - If a man turns his head and looks - you got to SHOW what he's looking at. (A great scene to study is HITCHCOCK's North by Northwest.)

Editing of the Sequence

p.40

- The sequence is constructed (EDITED) from scenes- in constructing a sequence, the same principle analogy applies as to editing scenes,  only - if you "turned" the scene from side to side (even if OTS, let's say, but not limited to) you now have to MOVE from place to place. You go from one scene to another.- The sequence will be successful though only if the attention of the spectator is transferred correctly from scene to scene. -  Editing is 'compulsory and deliberate guidance of the thoughts and associations of the spectator' - if you can edit in such a way that the viewer will want to KNOW what happens NEXT...and you EXACTLY cut to that during that thought - then you've got the audience by the balls, because they're excited now. If the editing is uncontrolled combination of various pieces, the audience will get nothing from it.- so you have to carefully select the pieces and form a scene / sequence from it, so it is in fact CLEAR and depending on the emotion of it - how you edit it, rhythm, calm or slow? If you succeed; audience will be EXCITED or SOOTHED.

p.41

Editing As an Instrument of IMPRESSION

Relational Editing

- Editing is not just a method of joining separate scenes (sequence) or pieces (to create a scene) - but is a method that controls the PSYCHOLOGICAL GUIDANCE of the spectator (need to re-read, what that means)

-now let’s acquaint ourselves with the main special editing methods having as their aim the impression of the spectator.

p.42 - Contrast - if for instance you want to show a miserable, starving man - it'll be more impressive if it's associated (intercut even?) with senseless gluttony of a well to do man.

- the contrast of such a scene is increased when you not only intercut the two scenes, but for instance you intercut separate SCENES and SHOTS of a scene between the miserable and the rich - meaning you can have not just ONE starving person, but multiple, and intercut it with multiple rich / gluttony - as for shots, it means you can concentrate on, say ... close up of someone eating, and close-up of a starving man's dry mouth, or whatever... in the process you intensify the emotion and CONTRAST.

- Parallelism - 

- Resembles contrast, but wider in scope - two thematically unconnected incidents develop in parallel by means of the watch that tells of the approaching execution (that’s just one example used, what are some others? The Dark Knight count? With the execution of judge and the boss? never mind that example is actually Simultaneity)

Symbolism - ex. shooting down of workmen is punctuated by shots of a slaughter of the bull in a stockyard. By means of editing this introduces abstract concept into consciousness of the spectator without a use of a title. Example: The execution of Kurtz in Apocalypse Now is the best example.

Simultaneity - simultaneous rapid development of two actions - in which the outcome of one depends on the outcome of the other. The aim is to create maximum tension of excitement by forcing of a question; will they be in time, etc? 

- This method is purely emotional one.

Leitmotif - reiteration of theme. Ex. Anti-religious; exposing cruelty and hypocrisy of the Church - the same shot repeated; a church-bell slowly ringing and superimposed on it the title: "the sound of bells sends into the world a message of patience and love" - This would show up whenever filmmaker wanted to emphasize stupidity of patience or the hypocrisy of the love thus preached.

The Methods of Film

- Imagine ourselves as an observer of a demonstration. To receive a clear and definite impression of the demonstration; we, as an observer must perform certain actions.

1. We must climb up to the roof to get the scope and dimensions of it2. We must then see what the demonstration is about - by getting to the first floor or ground level of it to observe the signs and such3. Finally, we must be mingling with the crowd to gain an idea of the outward appearance of the participants.

So three times WE as an OBSERVER have altered the viewpoint (and this is only ONE example, it can be altered a more or less, depending on what it is you're observing) gazing from nearer viewpoint, then farther out etc. 

At this point is when we finally got the concept of: close up, medium shot, wide shot, etc.

The purpose was that, by maneuvering the camera in such a way that its position in relation to the object shot varied several times. 

- This concept gave the camera a charge of life. Giving it a transformation from a spectator to an ACTIVE observer. So that the camera could not merely enable the spectator to see the object shot, but could INDUCE him to COMPREHEND IT. (So instantly what my own understanding tells me is also that simply by how you're using the camera in relation to the scene and what it's about - you can transcend the feelings of the scene, characters through visuals - for instance, the "subjective shot" McTiernan talks about is only used based on the emotion. It's really what's it all about, that's what the comprehension is about - the viewer on a subconscious level can feel the emotions intended when a director uses it synchronously with the emotion of the scene. So if for instance there's a lot of emotion in the air, the camera may be utilized for MOVEMENT. If it was all shot still, it wouldn't have that emotion.

p.45

FILM AND REALITY

The difference between theater and film is that in theater, everything that happens on stage is subject to real space & time - in film, however - that is determined by how it's edited. The director may, in composition of the filmic form of any given appearance, eliminate all points of interval and concentrate the action in time to the *highest degree he may require*

- This is a method of temporal concentration - where the director eliminates all UNNECESSARY points of interval (could mean the moments that don't add much to the story)

- This method is also present in THEATER; mostly between various acts - when for instance several years pass - between first and second acts. 

- temporal concentration in FILM, however, is pursued to the maximum - it forms the actual basis of filmic representation - (I believe I know what he means here, it's the basis because every single shot tells a story, and anything that does not, is eliminated, or not shot)

-example; a man falling out of a window; from a real fall - only the beginning and end are selected and joined - it's not a trick is the elimination that’s akin to the elimination of 5 years that divide first act from second in theatre. 

-another example; in the demonstration that we have observed and the three viewpoints. It's not just simple act of capturing the demonstration, it's also the form of the representation of this event. There's a clear difference between the natural event and its appearance on screen. And this difference is what makes the FILM an ARTFORM. 

-the camera assumes the task of removing every superfluity and directing attention of the spectator in such a way that he shall see ONLY that which is significant and characteristic.

IMPORTANT example: When the demonstration was shot, the camera, after having viewed the crowd from above in the long-shot, forced its way into the press and picked out the most characteristic details. These details were not the result of chance, they were selected, and, moreover, selected in such a way that from their sum, as from a sum of separate elements, the image of the whole action could be assembled (my notes; what he means here is that the details were selected in such a way that they ADDED to the STORY of what you wanted to express. So the details that were chosen when they got close to the crowd actually MEANT something to the PREVIOUS shot... you saw a CROWD...now the next shot is you get a CLOSER LOOK and MEANING out of what that crowd was all about - and you saw the signs of the demonstrators and such...)

p. 48 -

- If you want to show for instance what the parade is about, and you want to concentrate attention - well...if you just set the camera down and let the parade pass you by you're forcing the viewer to just watch it as it happened. IF you use a filmic method; you can break it down into the shots you intend to concentrate on. So if you have 3 different groups of people passing by; you show them in succession - compressing the time, letting the audience appreciate its COMPOSITION and DIMENSION (how vast the demonstration is) the only thing that's altered is TIME.

FILMIC SPACE AND TIME

Creative geography - Kuleshov's experiment of space & time. The director builds a filmic space entirely his own by the junction of separate shots filmed in different locations. This junction creates an entirely new filmic space without existence in reality.

THE MATERIAL OF FILMS

- The distinction between theatres vs. film is the distinction of material- The director's material is the finished, recorded celluloid - the image which can be shortened, altered, and assembled according to how he wishes. Through these images the director builds up his own filmic space and time. - He does not adapt reality. He uses it to create a new reality - proper only to itself and the laws of space and time that are entirely altered (don't get it yet, come back to this, p.48

p.49.

-filmic space and time are entirely subject to the director.-when we wish to comprehend something we always begin with the general outlines and when we want intensify examination we enrich the comprehension!- The particular, the detail - will always be a synonym of intensification- Strength of film depends on this characteristic specialty... to be clear, especially vivid representation of detail.

-The power of film - lies in the means of the camera which strives to penetrate as deeply as possible to the mid-point of every image. It forces itself into profoundest deeps of life, to penetrate because the average spectator never reaches this by himself as he casually glances .   So the camera essentially underlines everything and makes the viewer notice (lots of psychology here, truth)

-when we approach a given real image, we must spend a definite effort and time upon it, in advancing from general to particular, in intensifying our attention to that point at which we begin to remark and comprehend details.- By process of editing, this effort is eliminated...because we select only the vital moments of an image...

-to show something as everyone sees it is to have accomplished nothing.

-The greatest filmmakers feel the film most acutely - deepen their work with details. They discard the general aspect of image and points of interval that are part of everyday life - which do not need to be shown in film at great length.

-film technician w/ a camera is more powerful because the attention of spectator is entirely in his hands. Lens of the camera is the eye of the spectator. And he sees only what director decided to show him. Or to be precise what the director feels is important to the action of a scene...

ANALYSIS

Disappearance of the general from the frame and appearance on screen of some deeply hidden detail - the filmic representation attains highest point of its power of external expression

-just eliminating the distraction spares the spectators' energy, and reaches thereby the clearest and most marked effect.

Ex, Trial scene in Intolerance. - Face and hands... all that’s shown...

-clear selection, the possibility of elimination of INSIGNIFICANCES that fulfill only a transition function and are always inseparable from reality. = essence of the significance of editing.

-Confusion by linkage and wastage by intervals are inevitable attributes of reality.

To overcome this, in actuality, you can overcome it if you focus. 

ex. you glance on a face, then glide down to the body until you rest your eyes attentively on hands - in film you can get rid of this interval of moving down to hands with your eyes.... the expression becomes stronger when you just cut to hands... (McTiernan rarely does this it seems, he likes to connect shots on pan - though they are more geography based, this example is more expressive)

- In filmic reality do not record reality as it presents itself to the actual average onlooker. You must select those elements from which this form will be assembled. But you must first find these elements...

p.52 - So to find these elements, you must use a special process of analysis of every real event the director wishes to use in a shot. This process is like in mathematics "differentiation" you dissect the event into parts or elements.

Example; in the Griffith film Intolerance; probably Griffith imagined a ton of women in despair, but he only selected the 'smile through tears' and convulsive hands - as a final image.example 2: Battleship Potemkin - the falling carriage, the boy with a broken skull... there was a mass of people which offered a wide field for creative work of the director and details such as those were discovered... (What I don't understand is he says "discovered in editing" well... I guess Eisenstein had to shoot these details first and didn't know whether he'd use them till he began editing? It’s only logical...)

Another example that I need to refer to and find visuals for - car crash. THIS PAGE is pretty IMPORTANT refer to it OFTEN; how to build scenes, pretty much.

- basically the essence of analysis is that whenever you're putting together scenes - do not forget that you must analyze real life events from a standpoint of filmic representation - that is, you must remove the 'clutter' and only select the most VITAL of moments of the real life event to represent your scene in BREVITY. This selection of how you'll represent it is only the preparation, you must shoot it now.

EDITING; THE LOGIC OF FILMIC ANALYSIS

-Work of a director is characterized by thinking in filmic pictures - imagine how it will look on screen- You use real incidents only as material from which to select separate characteristic elements and building a NEW filmic reality out of them- even when you deal with real objects and real surroundings you only think of their appearances upon the screen; never considering these things as its actual proper nature but the properties that can be carried over to film. -Looking at all this material the director is extraordinarily specific this arises from a whole series of properties peculiar only to the film. - Even when you shoot you already MUST think of it as an editable sequence of separate shots (true, very true)- Filmic form is NEVER identical with the real experience but only similar to it (this is true, who wants to see something they've already seen and felt, people want to see a FILM about it, that's expressive, no filler, no bullshit; get to the bottom of the story, feeling, etc)

p.54  - Pudovkin argues that when editing an event; the rational order of the pieces/images (the sequence of images strung together to form a scene/event) will only arise (the rational order, editing pattern) when the images being edited are at least conditioned by the sequence with which a chance observer would have been able to let his GLANCE and ATTENTION wander from object to object; Only then, will this relation appear between pieces and their combination, having organic unity, be effective on screen.

In my own words: basically you edit something like this, let alone (possibly, everything else) keeping in mind how you would observe the actual event when you saw it. This goes back to the whole "camera lens are your eyes) you gotta remember that a camera is essentially your eyes and with that in mind; if you observe some event with your eyes, you first move your eyes there, and then there...etc so shoot it that way.

- also it's not sufficient to just edit as you see - it's also about how fast to edit a scene or a sequence   -  it's the rhythm that matters depending on the actual event.

-he brings up an example of a car crash - if you are to edit it slow; you'll bore the audience - an actual car crash does NOT happen slowly. I should know; I've been in one. Essentially the length of every shot is what matters too. McTiernan spoke about this in his commentary for Die Hard, when he first started out he graphed out the length of every cut and such, but he stopped doing that because he also began to intuitively feel how to cut a certain scene or sequence

-Pudovkin states that when the right length for every image has been found ANALOGOUS to the event you're illustrating and the rhythm of it - only THEN the screen will breathe life of its own.

-Editing is the language of the film director -- In film -- the word is the image. A phrase is the combination of the images.-Only by his editing methods - can one judge a director's individuality. (Sort of like a writer and his individual writing style, so does a director has his own method of representation (of a film, scene, sequence; Nolan comes to mind, he has a distinct method)

--re-read the last sentence to fully grasp

THE NECESSITY TO INTERFERE WITH MOVEMENT

- The organizing work of the director is not limited to editing. Selection of images, etc.

Important passage...

"The organizing work of the director is not limited to editing. Quite a number of film technicians maintain that editing should be the only organizing medium of the film. They hold that the pieces can be shot anyhow and anywhere, the images must only be interesting; afterwards, by simply joining them according to their form and kind, a way will be found to assemble them to a film. If any unifying idea be taken as basis of the editing, the material will no doubt be organized to a certain degree. A whole series of shots taken at hazard in Moscow can be joined to a whole, and all the separate shots will be united by their place of taking—the town of Moscow"

This is really good that it's verbalized to me. I've always struggled with this. The "at hazard / aimless" shooting of material. What's important here is to find a unifying idea a theme and then go out and shoot it. Because then the editing process becomes that much easier when you've got a series of images and an idea behind every image - what you were trying to achieve.

- The process of creating a FILM isn't just about fast cutting or whichever editing scheme of representation. The pieces must be brought into organic relation with each other. -So the actual shooting/filming of the content should be an advancement and deepening of the editing construction.

p.56

-In order to represent some piece of reality in edited form - the director must in one way or another subordinate this action to his will; for instance - a demonstration; selecting just the certain people to walk past the lens, is messing with natural order of the

event - however - it serves a filmic representation. You don't just have random people walking by - you select that which you want the viewer to see so that you represent this event in the most vivid as possible scenic way.

- in order to shoot and filmically represent any given action we MUST subject it to our control - meaning, we have to be able to control the set - repeat, halt, get coverage, etc.. Basically he's talking about a controlled shooting environment like a set or just any place where you have control over what you're shooting so that to the BEST of your abilities you represent whatever it is filmically.

-also the control is if you wish to EDITABLY SHOOT something. So for instance he writes here an airplane take-off. You must interrupt the natural action/event. Because once you've shot the plan from the front...you'll want to shoot from the tail-end, etc... So you move camera, angle... 

Basically you must repeat an action many times till you get it right - many takes - details, etc.

ORGANIZATION OF THE MATERIAL SHOT

- SO. If for instance you want to shoot an industrial film - well, it's a subject which only contains a number of processes that is all... so as a director all you can do is compose what you will shoot from different angles. However, one must have a clear goal of how those shots will be edited (what’s the story) - so as a director you introduce into this a special organization of every action shot - the goal is to be clear with every shot - just as with any shot, treating everything as a story.

- Basically the rhythm and feeling of what you're going for can't simply be always edited - the material shot has to correspond with the mood you're trying to create. So... exciting scene, fast movement shot and cut fast... sad moment, slower movements, thinking - slower cutting, or not cutting at all - transitions...etc.

ARRANGING SET UPS

p.58

basically he mentions here how the spectator won't notice the change in set ups, like, from wide shot to close up, long shot /etc is if when these shots are connected on movement - as in someone's hand moves etc, and you 

p.60

ORGANIZATION OF CHANGE MATERIAL

Not everything can be "directed" in life - because not everything abides by the laws of a director... however - the material itself must still be organized.

- If a natural phenomenon is encountered - the director must not and cannot give into it - otherwise it will change the work to a simple and unregulated record (meaning, recorded event...chaos)

- you must employ the phenomenon to your advantage...  what you do is you pick out the material of the event you'll be needing so that later you can use them for editing and uniting separate shots (this section is a bit confusing, maybe translation isn't the best... / I’m not

clear what he means here. If he means simply just using the natural phenomenon to your advantage when you don't expect it? And selecting what kind of things OF the phenomenon you need...then that part makes sense...but still...)

- Once again the concept of eyes as camera also brings an example of an animal - and how you should employ the filming of it; first as an observer how would you see sea-lion swim? What would you see?

he gives example of 3 different viewpoints - one slightly above so you can see the sea-lion wide, and shape of movement - then also a close up -(obviously you'd see the sea lion close, so shoot a close up) - and as it swims back to the den...

All of this would be shot in many takes and selected the best takes; you'd then organize this material into something a spectator can comprehend!

- Organization and exact arrangement - this is the basic slogan of film work, and it is chiefly accomplished by editing.

- the editing plan can exist before the filming and thus the director essentially transforms what he sees in the real world, real locations, real people in order to assemble the work out of it.

- editing plan can also appear during the process of shooting - if for instance the director came upon an unforeseen material and wants to use it simultaneously to make his film better.

- For example; in battleship Potemkin - the shots of the mist had been shot by a camera operator and were edited into the film which worked beautifully and organically welded themselves to its whole. Nobody foreseen nor expected a mist, since they expected it as a hindrance to shooting - yet while on location, it was shot and worked out (Terrence Malice’s method comes to mind, INSTANTLY)

- such spontaneous events though must be edited/related to the given scene, sequence organically - to the editing plan and must work within the requirement of the spacial and temporal calculation. Meaning... it has to be in sync with the SPACE of the scene and TIME of the scene...

FILMIC FORM

P.62

- To impress the spectator is to correctly discover the ORDER and RHYTHM of the combination of shots.- How to do this??? - (Pudovkin says, 'generally speaking, it must be left to the artist's intuition)- However, at least the paths that approximately determine the direction of this work should be INDICATED.- lens and the eye of the observer - director determines position of the camera and length of each separate shot - this can be compared to an observer who turns his glance from one element of the action to another - so long as the observer is not apathetic in respect to his emotional state.- For example what he means is - if observer is excited by the scene before him (in real life) - the more rapidly the attention springs from one point to another (like a car crash for instance)

- the more disinterested (phlegmatically) the observation, the calmer attention will be and slower changes of points of view - consequently the changes of camera setups will correlate with this.

- The emotion can unquestionably be communicated by specific rhythm of the editing. Ex. DW Griffith used this richly in his films.

- Very often after the face of the hero looking at something, the object is looked at is shown from his viewpoint. - Look at this concept as a way of YOU the VIEWER being in the actor's skin - so whatever the ACTOR/CHARACTER sees, you see it as well, with just as clear of a point of view. (Actor looks at something close to him - cut to close up. Actor looks at something or someone far away - cut to long shot of it; WHY not a close up? Because maybe the character sees it further away? That's why...)

- "the greater part of the methods of editing a film yet known to us can be linked to this regarding a camera as observer"

-consideration that determine change of glance coincide almost exactly with those that govern correct editing construction (in my own words...also change of glance is something that makes sense to me in terms of how McTiernan does it, when he shows geography by way of camera pan - for instance how he uses it in The Hunt for Red October, and Die Hard with a Vengeance... the camera pans whenever a new character speaks... and acts as a change of glance as well. But what Pudovkin means, I goes in general form, "change of glance" more like change of perspective)

- however, when all is said and done, in film art - there can be many methods of editing, which is what makes your film distinctive, and gives you place among the greats. I can think of for instance the editing in Letter Never Sent... Urusevsky, how he uses the glittering lights against different cuts... distinctive, new, Soviet stamp.

p.63 - the scene at 52:17 of Battleship Potemkin, is an example of what Pudovkin spoke about a few pages above as well, different shots taken at different locations but all fused into one filmic space. Also in breakdown, Pudovkin points out how the shots of the lions now turn from naturalism to symbolism because in relation to the soldiers massacring the civilians on the steps... great insight.

THE TECHNIQUE OF DIRECTORIAL WORK

- "We have already laid down, as the characteristic property of filmic representation, the striving of the camera to penetrate as deeply as possible into the details of the event being represented, to approach as nearly as possible to the object under observation, and to pick out only that which can be seen with a glance, intensified to eliminate the general and superficial."

- Film strives to force the viewer to transcend the limits of normal comprehension. It allows this comprehension (normal comprehension of the material, whatever it is, a face, object, landscape) to be sharpened by incredible attentiveness of observation, in concentrating entirely on smallest details. 

- Film allows nearly related events whether in Moscow, or New York, or Burma, etc - to be embraced in a nearly simultaneous comprehension - that's what the cinematic language truly allows. People, who speak it, can mold the material into something comprehend-able by people.

- Concentration on details and wide embrace of the whole include an extraordinary mass of material. The director is faced with the task of organizing and carefully working out great number of separate tasks, according to a definite plan previously devised by him (meaning, most likely planning phase before shoot)

- A FILM is only really significant when every one of its elements is firmly welded to a whole. And this will only be the case when every element of the task is carefully mastered. (Makes total sense, every element is mastered)

- when one considers the work of a film is limited by time, and the amount of tasks director is overloaded with, it's fairly obvious that a director can't do everything alone. Which is why notable directors seek to have their work carried out in a departmentalized manner. (Set design, script, cinematography...)

-the director must make his influence felt in EACH section

-a hiatus, mishap will make the film suffer... whether poor actor, or anyone involved isn't doing their job.

DIRECTOR AND SCENARIST

p.65

When a script is submitted - a director usually works over the entire material to fit HIS individuality, and expresses his own ideas on cinematic language - language of separate images, elements, shots that follow each other in a certain sequence.

- no art form in which there's a sharp division between two stages...; director either must be directly associated with the screenwriter from the beginning, or - go thru script removing anything foreign to him, down to altering separate parts and sequences

- "The director is ever faced with the task of creating the film from a series of plastically expressive images. In the ability to find such plastic images, in the faculty of creating from separate shots, by editing, clear, expressive " phrases," and connecting these phrases into vividly impressive periods, and from these periods constructing a film—in this consists the art of the director"

- screenwriter can't always provide the "images" / material required by the director; usually he gives the director an idea that's completely detached content of an image, not concrete form - and the two weld it into something concrete.

- "The theme conditions the action, colors it, and thus, of course, inevitably colors that plastic content the expression of which is the chief substance of the director's task. Only if the theme be organically comprehended by the director will he be able to subdue it to the unifying outline of the form he is creating."

- The action outlines a number of situations for the characters, their relations to one another, and, not least, their encounters... (Need example)

- In planning the action the basic incidents that are to determine its shape must infallibly be mapped out. Even such a thing as the characteristics of a person of the action will be meaningless if not shown in a series of plastically effective movements or situations

THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE FILM

p.68

- All action of any script is immersed in some environment that provides the general color of the film

- Environment, this color - cannot and must not be rendered by one explanatory scene or a title; it must pervade the whole film or its appropriate part - from beginning to end. The action must be immersed in this background.

- The effecting of the unity of the action and environment is based upon the scarcely communicable ability to saturate the film with numerous fine and correctly observed details. - A writer can think of some abstract formulations of these details and pass them on to a director to come up with something visual (the details) to include in the films.

- Example; writer can use descriptions like; "there was an insufferable smell in the room" or "many factory sirens vibrated and sand through the heavy, oil permeated atmosphere" - these kinds of descriptions are good because they can be used by a director to form the visual/plastic material on screen (just reading that myself, I can form visual ideas of what that looks in that environment)

- With that said most immediate task for a director is now to turn these descriptions into the visual material of some form.

Example: Tol'able David (picture of a village taken through a cherry tree in flower...)Foaming, tempestuous sea symbolized the leit-motif of the film Remnants of a WreckMisty dawn rising over corpse of the murdered sailor in Battleship Potemkin

- Even a simple landscape, a piece of nature so often encountered in films - must by some inner guiding line, be bound up with the developing action. (In other words, can't just show something and it not have any meaning at all, but be an abstraction... unless the abstraction is actually something that makes sense)

- Pudovkin stresses that in film there MUST NOT BE superfluous elements (which is what I just said myself above)

- "There is no such thing as a neutral background, and every factor must be collected and directed upon the single aim of solving the given problems"

"The film is interesting, as said before, not only in that it is able to concentrate on details, but also in its ability to weld to a unity numerous materials, deriving from widely embraced sources" - this is in reference to the mass amount of material in the real world that we can use to mold the film into a plethora of visuals, ideas, emotions.

Example; using morning light - you can use ALL the different elements/characteristics, the material of it - such as;

1. Growing light of sunrise2. Lamp posts growing paler against the lightening sky3. Silhouettes of scarcely visible buildings4. Tops of trees tenderly touched with light of the not yet ascended sun5. Awakening birds6. Mist7. Dew... and on and on and on (actually Dziga uses this in Man with a Movie Camera)

Another interesting method;

showing of a dawn; when it was still dark the camera only showed close ups of DETAILS - then as the light broadened, the camera became ever more distant...all the way until a WIDE FIELD VIEW - this method almost replicated a human eye / observer in the scene.

- Pudovkin argues, to solve problems like that, to translate ideas and feelings into images is closely bound up with the knowledge of film technique; directing, analysis, selection of images and unification through editing.

THE CHARACTERS IN THE ENVIRONMENT

P.70

"The director not only transfers the separate scenes suggested by the scenarist each into movement and form, he has also to absorb the scenario in its entirety, from the theme to the final form of the action, and perceive and feel each scene as an irremovable, component part of the unified structure. And this can only be the case if he be organically involved in the work on the scenario from beginning to end."

- Constructing a scene as to strengthen for the spectator the conflict and struggle of the heroes to an unimagined degree - the director introduces into the action; gale, storm, breaking ice, rivers in spate, gigantic roaring waterfall. This fusion of the storm of the human heart amidst the actual, physical, natural storm - strengthens emotions and themes.

- NOW, the director becomes the guide using his knowledge and talent that enables him to find vivid images to express an element of each idea. Organizing each incident, analyzing it, disintegrating it... and thinking of the connection of these elements in editing. 

- -Collectivism is indispensible in the film / collaborators must be blended with one another to an exceptionally close degree

THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RHYTHM OF THE FILM

- The rhythm with which the pieces are to be joined must be considered. This rhythm is the means of emotionally influencing the spectator. By this rhythm the director is equally in the position to excite or to calm the spectator

- treating the editing, as mentioned before, one must not only consider the length of every shot, but the "material" (plastic, imagery, whatever visual it is) - the order by which shots are arranged...

- Error in rhythm reduces impression

- Rhythm must be considered in every moment when there is a division, or an element of succession of pieces, be they separate pieces of celluloid of separate parts of the action - rhythm must be considered 

- Because... guided by the will of the filmmaker, can and must be a powerful and secure instrument of effect

TWO KINDS OF PRODUCTION

p. 72

1. Films with stars2. Films underlain by some definite idea or thought (indie) / actors must be found for these, unlike films w/ stars.

- Films w/ thought are not merely a display of clever technique or pretty face.

THE FILM ACTOR AND THE FILM TYPE

Film changes only time and space, not actors - for this reason one must discover an actor for a role not build him (like stage actor with makeup, etc) - this seems like a bit dated advice since makeup now is soooo good...and realistic.

- Still finding an actor fit for the role is still important.

- gives example of using a young actor with makeup playing an old man and how light plays on a face - if makeup is unrealistic it will show - hence that’s why he stresses to find an actor instead of makeup..Etc.

- "to what degree the actor we seek must resemble his prescribed appearance in the scenario. It may be said, in fine, that in most cases the film actor plays himself, and the work of the director consists not in compelling him to create something that is not in him, but in showing, as expressively and vividly as possible, what is in him, by using his real characteristics"

PLANNING THE ACTING OF THE FILM TYPE

- p.74

- Because each piece being shot must be exactly organized in space and time - the work of an actor must be subject to series of conditions dictate by the film. The actor performing in front of a lens is only raw material and it is necessary to be endowed with special, specific, filmic powers in order to imagine the whole edited image. Meticulously composed of separate pieces picked sometimes from the beginning, sometimes from middle.

- The director imagines what each part and each image will looks and be like in the editing... If an actor is inspired by something a director doesn't want the actor to be inspired by - the actor won't be able to give the best to the director - meaning he'll be confined only within the framework of the thing that inspired him.

-some people think that a director must be too controlling, down to the details of movements and such - but this will only lead to mechanization which is not good - (This is what Fincher was talking about in the commentary I cut "on Control") 

- Griffith also created his actors - in various of his films various women expressed the same emotional states by the same external means; sobbing, same tears, same helplessness, etc

- shows how "far-reaching" the directorial construction of the actor's work is.

THE ENSEMBLE

-ensemble exists in theater but also in film.- very often the actor from beginning to end of his part in front of the camera, does not once see the performance of the actor opposite him in the film, and is shot separately. 

- only a director sees in his head how this will play out, things like that...-"The question of the bounds of the influence the director should exert on the work of the actors is a question that is still open. Exact mechanical obedience to a plan provided by the director has undoubtedly no future. But also a wavering free improvisation by the actor according to general suggestions from the director—a method hitherto a characteristic of most Soviet directors—is definitely inadmissible"

- The work of the actor in each separate shot is linked organically to the clear understanding of the future whole. If the actor understands what he's doing, his motive, his character then he can work freely. If not that's where you have to really guide the actor.

- It’s inevitable to collect casual material from performances; yet this material could be of exceptional interest (b-roll)

-the casual material is usually just secondary players, yet they are vital - even if shown for a few seconds, if the right few seconds are selected they will impress the viewer vividly and clearly. example; in a few seconds you must be able to tell the audience what they should get out of this character; he's a nice man, he's sad, she's sad, he's bad, she's bad...etc. the director is the one selecting it (yeah I know)

EXPRESSIVE OBJECTS

-an object is already expressive thing in itself insofar as the viewer always associates with it a number of images. Ex; a revolver is a silent threat; a fast car is a pledge of rescue or help arriving in time. Etc- performances of actor linked with objects will always be one of the most powerful methods of filmic construction, a filmic monologue without words)

-object linked to actor can bring shades of his state of emotion to external expression so subtly and deeply as no gesture or mimicry could ever express them conditionally

- THE DIRECTOR AS CREATOR OF THE "ENSEMBLE"

-the director must gauge the actors since only he has the clearest idea of the overall film... hence the performance of the actor must be welded into a series of other pieces in the final edit - the actor can't see these pieces and knows them only indirectly.

- Actor is only material used by director.

-" In editing, the director builds sometimes not only scenes, but also a separate human being" (a performance is built in the editing room, as we've all heard)

example: Kuleshov shot an experiment of a woman recorded in movement by photographing each separate body part of different women... point being: "it emphasizes especially vividly the statement that, even in the limits of his short individual work unconnected with other actors, the image of the actor derives not from a separate stage of work, the shooting of a separate piece, but only from that editing construction that welds such pieces to a filmic whole."

- take that as more confirmation for absolute necessity for exactness in working, and one more confirmation of the "axiomatic supremacy" of its imagined edited image over each separate element of actual work in front of the lens.

- The "axiomatic supremacy" of the director, bearer of the image of the general construction of film, over the actor who provides material for this construction.

ACTOR AND THE FILMIC IMAGE

p.79

-movement of the actor within the frame is only material for the selection of the elements required for construction of the future appearance, flat and inserted exactly into the space of the frame. 

-before a director, he has always only a series of component parts of the future filmic construction

THE ACTOR AND LIGHT

- "An actor unlit is -- nothing"

- "The composition of the light can eliminate much, emphasize much, and bring out with such strength the expressive work of the actor, that it becomes apparent that light is not simply a condition for the fixation of expressive work by the actor, but in itself represents a part of this expressive work."

THE CAMERA AND ITS VIEWPOINTS

P.81

"Looking through the view-finder (a special appliance attached to the camera), the director sees on smaller scale the future picture that will later be projected on the screen."

-"The camera when prepared for shooting embodies the viewpoint from which the future spectator will comprehend the appearance on the screen. This viewpoint may be various. Each object can be seen, and therefore shot, from a thousand different points, and the selection of any given point cannot, and must not, be by chance. This selection is always related to the entire content of the task that the director keeps in mind in aiming, in one way or another, to affect the spectator"

-"It follows that in order to enable the spectator to see the cigarette, it is necessary for the lens of the camera also to be able to " see " it. It is necessary, in shooting, to find such a position for the lens in relation to the object as will enable the whole shape of the latter to be seen with maximum clarity and sharpness

- It is substantially important to select a definite set-up of the camera in relation to the object being shot.

- "If we take into consideration the fact that the material employed by the film director may be exceptionally complex in its form, it becomes clear how enormous a part is played by the selection of the camera-set-up"

- "A correctly discovered set-up determines the expressiveness of the future image"

THE SHOOTING OF MOVEMENT

- "An object not only has shape, this shape in the image alters itself functionally with its movement, and, moreover, its movement itself has a shape and serves as object of shooting"

p. 83 - "The selection of the camera set-up can intensify the expression of the image shot in many directions."

- "Because it is in the perspective increase of the approaching machine that the speed of the movement is most distinctly represented"

- The quality of the future film depends not only on what is to be shot, but also on how it is to be shot. This how must be planned by the director and carried out by the cameraman

- the choice of angle, perspective, affect the viewer psychologically - and also add or intensify expressiveness of the given image - every angle and decision of a set up has a big affect on everything, and must be chosen to the best, absolute best position, etc to express what you're trying to express. It seizes to become just about recording an incident, it now becomes "How do I express the given emotion, concept, content to the BEST of my abilities. This also doesn't pertain to just sound anymore - in the commentary for Tony Scott's Unstoppable, he mentioned how he tries to express ideas to the viewer - and he does it through movement of camera, rhythm, speed, and sound.

THE CAMERA COMPELS THE SPECTATOR TO SEE AS THE DIRECTOR WISHES

- By selecting a camera set-up - the DP and director lead the spectator after them (showing you what to concentrate on)

- the viewpoint of the camera is 'scarcely' ever exact viewpoint of the spectator (meaning that the viewpoint of an ordinary spectator only can see what the eyes can see in relation to the distance of the object - a CAMERA goes much deeper, and closer than the eyes at any given point in time - because; you can go from a general, wide view, to a medium, then to a close up in a matter of a few seconds... while if you were a spectator, you must walk to the object and it may take you a minute, or an hour - etc.)

"The power of the film director lies in the fact that he can force the spectator to see an object not as it is easiest to see it. The camera, changing its position, as it were, “behaves” in a given mode and manner. It is, as it were, charged with a conditioned relation to the object shot: now, urged by heightened interest, it delves into details; now it contemplates the general whole of the picture. Often it places itself in the position of the hero and records what he sees; sometimes it even “feels “with the hero"

"The camera can feel with the spectator. It can be said with complete safety that man comprehends the world around him in varying ways, depending on his emotional condition. A number of attempts on the part of the film director have been directed towards the creation, by means of special methods of shooting, of a given emotional condition in the spectator, and thus the strengthening of the impression of the scene"

-What is meant by "feel" - example. Griffith used tragic scene through a mist - as if forcing the viewer to 'cry' with them - symbolically shooting. It's not just one example, there are many (I'll be back to this and list more examples)

THE SHAPING OF THE COMPOSITION (very important, dense filled section - note to self; re-read often)

"The selection of the camera set-up is but a special case of the work of selecting location. In working on location (and, on the average, fifty per cent of every production is made on location) 49   the first task of the cameraman and director is to select that part of space in which the scene is to develop. Such selection—like everything in film work—must not be by chance"

-The nature must never serve as background to the scene being taken, it must organically fit into its whole and become part of its CONTENT (content can be whatever your STORY is; what the theme is, etc)

- this kind of thinking is important because unnecessary details in the film will get in the way of your story if you leave them to chance - this is why it's VITAL to compose your shots without bullshit material, include only and ONLY what's vital to the scene.

-if you're bringing something into the story, the detail, whatever it is, it must be linked to a general purpose of the scene

-However it's not always the case, sometimes there are things in nature you can't control - but you can use them to strengthen an image.

p. 85 - "The work on the formation of the “essence" of the picture, the necessity for an organic dependence between the developing action and the surrounding, is so indispensable and important, that the finding and determination of the locations desired for exterior shots is one of the most complex stages in the preparatory work of the cameraman and director."

- One of the first requirements set in the production work of the film director is exactitude

-"he must inevitably think of each piece he is taking as an element of the future editing construction ; and the more exact is his work on the components of each element being taken, the more perfectly and clearly he will reach the possibility of realizing his thought"

-every given piece, an image - you must determine the correct "length" from one piece to the other to the final endpoint - Good editing will be achieved when for it is found the correct rhythm

- "the director must enclose every shot he takes into a harsh, severely limited, temporal frame"

It's not only sufficient to "time every shot" - it's also vital - for the actor to carry out the given movements expressively and according to the rhythm you're establishing with your content. If there was room for 'chance' in the actor's movements - it would defeat the rhythm!!! That’s why everything must be taken into consideration

"not only must temporal boundaries be exactly established, but also the movement form they enclose; the plastic content of the acting work in each separate scene must be performed exactly, if the director wish to attain a definite result in the creation of that filmic image of the scene that is to effect an impression on the spectator from the screen, not now in its real, but in its filmic form"

-"The exactitude of work in space and in time is an indispensable condition, by fulfillment of which the film technician can attain a clearly and vividly impressive filmic representation"

p.87 - same exactness must be approached with selecting locations.

- The director does not look for pretty pictures he seeks the required pictures which correspond exactly to the "problems" of each scene, and which may be "strung together" over dozens of 'required pictures' (locations) to form a whole scene/film.

-The director never shoots nature - he uses it for future composition in editing.

-the composition of a scene may go to such extremes that "part" of nature is reconstructed on a set.

- Light is an incredibly vital component, its influence is powerful. Only when the object is lit in the required manner and to the required intensity is it ready for shooting.

THE LABORATORY

The work of the lab is very often a continuation of the ideas originated by the writer and pursued by the director and his DP (it’s very very true)

COLLECTIVISM: THE BASIS OF FILM-WORK

p.89 - "In every art there must be firstly a material, and secondly a method of composing this material specially adapted to this art" - Kuleshov 

-example: musician has sounds as material and composes them in time. Painter's materials are color and he combines them in space on the surface of the canvas. 

In film - Kuleshov maintained, that the material are the pieces of film and the composition method is their joining together in particular, creatively discovered order. 

- Film art does not begin when artists act out the scenes - it's only the preparation of the material. Film begins from the moment when the director begins to combine and join together various pieces of film. By different combinations, orders, he obtains a different meaning.

- "It is necessary to be able to control and manipulate the length of these pieces, because the combination of pieces of varying length is effective in the same way as the combination of sounds of various length in music, by creating the rhythm of the film and by means of their varying effect on the audience. Quick, short pieces rouse excitement, while long pieces have a soothing effect"

- "I want to work only with real material—this is my principle"

- Finding the right order of shots, and rhythm is necessary for their combination - it's the chief task of the director.

-I succeeded, with the help of montage, in achieving some result. It is true that in this method one must be very cunning; it is necessary to invent thousands of tricks to create the mood required in the person and to catch the right moment to photograph him

-"it is the art of the director, with the help of montage, to make out of the short bits a whole, a living figure"

-p.93 

CLOSE-UPS IN TIME

Example: I tried to construct the blow of a fist on a table as follows: The fist rushes swiftly down on to the table, and the moment it touches it the subsequent shots show a glass, stood nearby, slowly jumping, rocking, and falling. By this conjunction of rapid and slow shots was produced an almost audible, exceptionally sharply sensed impression of a violent blow.

- this is a great example, I can imagine it, and I've seen it done many times in action films mostly too, Bay... but it's just the combo of shots - rapid shot of a fist and the aftermath in ultra slow mo. Effective.

-another example: I am convinced that this method can be extended to work in shooting a man—his expression, his gestures. I already know by experience what precious material is afforded by a man's smile shot in “slow-motion." I have extracted from such shots some remarkable pauses, wherein the eyes alone are engaged in a smile that the lips have not yet begun to share. A tremendous future stretches before the “close-up of time 

-Perfect, a combination of slow-mo and normal while shooting an expression - arises a new emotion, a new feeling altogether.

ASYNCHRONISM AS A PRINCIPLE OF SOUND FILM

-"It would be entirely false to consider sound merely as a mechanical device enabling us to enhance the naturalness of the image" --- AGREED with this. Sound plays an enormous part in affecting emotions

-" the first function of sound is to augment the potential expressiveness of the film's content"

- Simply adding a naturalistic sound to a scene isn't enough - we must do MORE than that... = the image and sound - must not be tied to simply naturalistic means ...  

- The connection must be through interplay of action.

"It is not generally recognized that the principal elements in sound film are the asynchronous and not the synchronous; moreover, that the synchronous use is, in actual fact, only exceptionally correspondent to natural perception. This is not, as may first appear, a theoretical figment, but a conclusion from observation"

-you can create drama through sound and speech ; For instance, if the first speaker in a dialogue grips the attention of the audience, the second speaker will have to utter a number of words before they will so affect the consciousness of the audience that it will adjust its full attention to him. And, contrariwise, if the intervention of the second speaker is more vital to the scene at the moment than the impression made by the first speaker, then the audience's full attention will at once be riveted on him. I am sure, even, that it is possible to build up a dramatic incident with the recorded sound of a speech and the image of the unspeaking listener where the latter's reaction is the most urgent emotion in the scene.

(read on page 101, some stuff I didn't paste here that discuss music and how it plays a part - now it's become sort of common sense...but still much info to glean from the text)

-" Cinema is based on the possibility of presenting a variety of visual impressions in a time and space differing from that obtaining in the natural material recorded"