In A Dialectic Approach to Film Form, Sergei Eisenstein believes in the idea of marrying art and science. He utilizes suggestive editing and the conflict between what is real and what is not to demonstrate that the arguments, conflicts, and irregularity in film are what make it art. On the other hand, in The Myth of Total Cinema, Andre Bazin argues that cinema is meant to be a direct imitation of reality. These two filmmakers have contrasting opinions; Bazin uses phrases like “faithful copy” and thinks that “cinema owes nothing to the scientific spirit,” while Eisenstein seemed excited about film taking steps towards a synthesis of art and science. There is a great example of this difference between Bazin and Eisenstein on page 14 of A Dialectic Approach to Film Form, where Eisenstein states that it would be a more artistic characterization of a man to portray him “linguistically” or by focusing on individual details and editing them together, rather than just showing a dramatic long shot of the man, the way Bazin would most likely prefer.

When I first read Bazin’s argument, I disagreed with the notion that cinema has not yet been invented (I may have skipped to the last page and saw the underlines before I actually read the entire essay). After reading all of his arguments, I remained confused by his idea that real cinema was meant to just be an imitation of reality and that it hasn’t been invented yet, and I don’t particularly agree. I feel like cinema is meant to alter and broaden people’s perspectives, which can sometimes mean warping reality and considering the arguments brought forth by Eisenstein that films show different people’s realities. If true cinema is just meant to be a direct imitation of reality, then why did we advance from more rudimentary activities like watching plays or people-watching? Would true cinema be a more immersive experience for the viewer in Bazin’s argument? If so, how does Bazin expect that to work? In today’s world, I feel like most of the editing (and other elements of film form) we experience in films are intended to immerse the viewer in the intended environment, even if it may stray a bit from reality. 

Returning to the earlier example of portraying a man linguistically, when I look at a man, I may see the entire person, but I’m only focusing on a feature or two at a time. Bazin’s approach would let me choose where I’m focusing, which is more realistic for me. Alternatively, Eisenstein’s idea of shooting the film linguistically would guide me through the focused shots and give me the perspective of whoever is looking at the man. This method would be the best way to imitate the reality of the person looking at the man, and would allow for a more standardized viewing experience. When just looking at a person, this doesn’t make a huge difference, but in other situations it could make a larger difference. Ultimately, I am still confused by Bazin’s argument because reality is subjective and therefore I do not know what reality he wants to imitate. I think people have different realities and those are better shown by rejecting set form and producing cinema in the way that Eisenstein describes.