In Eisenstein’s A Dialectic Approach to Film Form, a large portion of this essay’s argument relates to conflict and surrealist portrayal. The essence of the tension and action, according to Eisenstein, is through stark contrast: “The incongruence in contour of the first picture-already impressed on the mind – with the
subsequently perceived second picture engenders, in conflict, the feeling of motion.”
Bazin’s argument, however, follows a much different path than Eisenstein. To Bazin, film is a manner of recreating our own reality itself. Bazin’s argument largely stems from his notion that the “cinematic illusion” had always existed in humans – even before the technology to produce film had been created. “In any case, there was not a single inventor who did not try to combine sound and relief with animation of the image – whether it be Edison
with his kinetoscope made to be attached to a phonograph, or Demenay and his talking portraits…”
In essence, these two point of views contrast against each other. Eisenstein is arguing for the complete intellectual intervention in film space to create tension and meaning, whereas Bazin attempts to create an environment that mimics reality to achieve tension and meaning.
These two different point of views made me think of current-day biopics, or dramatizations of real-world people in the form of cinema. In concept, one might associate biopics with Bazin’s form of film creation, attempting to mimic a real-life counterpart to a historical figure in the form of film. However, modern biopics such as Oppenheimer and The Wolf of Wall Street integrate very specific and dramatic changes that portray the type of contrast that Eisenstein refers to. In Oppenheimer, monochrome scenes are placed all throughout the movie to express the harsh historical experiences that Oppenheimer went through, whereas the colorful imaging represented his goals and aspirations. Had the monochrome filter not been added, the viewer wouldn’t be able to understand the same feeling that Oppenheimer had been when encountering the dark aspects of his story.
The same can be said for The Wolf of Wall Street. In the iconic scene where Jordan Belfort proclaims that he will not be leaving the company, he is portrayed as a “savior-like figure” with his arms in the shape of a cross, standing on a higher level than all of his subordinates. This artistic decision was specifically implemented by director Martin Scorsese to portray an overall narrative and meaning to the story that wouldn’t be present if the scene was simply based on accurate recounts.
Overall, do you find more meaning in reality, or when an artistic decision is implemented to convey a narrative? Can a biopic be completely true if it decides to drastically dramatize its subject for a larger meaning?
Leave a Reply