The Avant-Garde

The standard interpretation of “Avant-Garde” cinema is that it was more radical and extreme than “Surrealist” cinema. “Avant-Garde” is seen to be a representation of a need for radical social change. A reflection of industrialisation of the socio-economic climate, a search for a pure form that displayed the mechanics of the machine age. I wish to consider this in relation to Leger’s Ballet Mecanique. There are of course elements in the film that recall Metropolis, the mechanisation of objects that anthropomorphically suggest the repetition of the machine. In addition, Leger’s own painting “The City” conveys an influence on the film which through close ups and rapid editing produces a visual experience of dynamism. A visual notion of simultaneity that is also reflected in the fine art movements of the time, Futurism, with the work of Balla and the Bragalia brothers. However, in relating the film to art movements of the time, I wish to suggest that it possibly owes more to synthetic  cubism, that the sum of the parts is actually less than the whole. So what is the whole that Leger is suggesting? In reviewing “The Avant-Garde and the “New-Sprit”: The Case of the Ballet mecanique” by Malcom Turvey, a revised approach to Leger’s Ballet Mechanique, I do tend to agree that Leger’s work  is more complex than the traditional interpreation. That by his own writings, Leger critises the machine age and that through Ballet Mechanique, Leger is calling for a social reform that negates the machine age, and is representing though the film notions of classical unity,  a call for calm and unity in the name of social reform.

CINEMATIC EXPRESSION-Surrealist and Weimar Cinema

In Surrealist cinema, arbitrary, disparate elements are conveyed as such, and are intended to reflect the Surrealist removal from reality to a dream like internal “playful” reality. In the world of Weimar cinema, with reference to “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari”, this film appears Surrealist at first glance in its distorted set, abandonment of perspective, exaggerated reality. However, it probably leans more to German Gothic literature in that it conveys a nightmare of madness, not a surreal dream. But the film is more than this. What is interesting in “Caligari” is the aesthetic of the film. “Caligari” conveys a sense of claustropobia, static shots, close ups, imposing border encloses the viewer in a world of darkness. The contrived set, over the top performances create a sense of being immersed in a world that is crazy, and the narrative reflects this. In comparison to say Griffiths, “Birth of a Nation”, where the narrative finalises to a logical conclusion, with the editing used to result in this, in Cagliari, the narrative is all over the shop! Introducing an element that could be considered new in terms of filmic expression. The lines of movement reflect a zig zag, creating a sense of disorder and confusion that is possibly more reflective of German Expressionist art movement, taking its cue from the Futurist movement.

American vs. Soviet cinema and the concept of space

The” Kulshov Experiment”, 1920, offers a starting point for a review of American vs. Soviet Cinema: “what matters most in terms of the screen impression is not what each piece represents, but how the pieces are arranged....the essence of cinema, its own vehicle of impression, is montage.” Montage, the division between distinct spaces in the same film is the concept that appears most striking in the difference between the development of American and Soviet cinema. Griffiths, in “Birth of a Nation”, used editing techniques that produce montage that has been described as “streaky bacon”. Parallel cuts to scenes that progressively become smaller, a cross cutting of different spaces that result in a final “coming together”, the birth of the modern day “blockbuster”. In contrast, Soviet cinema, represented by Eisenstien, used editing techniques that intercut, that provide no sense of defined co-ordianated space. The images edited are separate and collide as seen in “Strike”. Where the emphasis is not on movement between space, but a representation of social/political ideas that interject the moment. As in the final scenes where in quick 2-3 sec intervals, the bulls head cut in, providing shock value. A representation of Soviet call to ideology and revolutionary consciousness. American montage contributes to the narrative, Soviet montage considers intellectual ideas not overtly represented, but require the viewer to synthesise the intellectual information presented.

A question of reality-making movement believable

Early cinemas relationship to reality initially provided images that reflected reality. The Lumiere brothers and Edison used moving images that reflected the world in front of them. However, these were still a presentation of an illusion – a celluloid moving person, isn’t a real moving person in front of you. Although this does raise the question, how do we know that? What is reality, how do we perceive reality? Without going into a phenomenological argument, the idea of perceived reality and illusion intrigues me and one that is played out as a central concept in the work of Melies.


In the “Black Imp” and “A trip to the Moon”, Melies presents a recognition of cinematic illusion, through the notion of “trickery”. He achieves this not only through his knowledge as a magician, but through camera use, and editing. That to make movement believable, you have to stop the movement – through both two shots in the same frame and stop motion. Through his “tirkcery”, Melies frees the moving image from the idea of filming the real world, into the world of imagination. Not a representation, but the creation of a world in and of itself- the cinematic world, allowing him to create tricks that can only be achieved on film. (I find these ideas interesting as it relates to painting. To make a painting believable, we have to stop motion to present an illusion that may or may not relate to the world in front of us)