Beauty And Cinema

8/11/2019 Beauty And Cinema

1/33

On Beauty and the Cinema:

Or

What The Anceints Would Say About Our Art

By Fidel Namisi

November 201

1 of 33


2/33

We have almost totally lost sight of the beautiful as a criterion of art

Andrey Tarkovsky

The twentieth century was marked by incredible scientific and technological

advancements, ranging from the invention of the airplane and the discovery of

nuclear energy to the widespread use of computing devices. This onward march of

science has also been accompanied by progress in the field of economics, resulting in

the rise of vastly different economic systems such as communism and capitalism. In a

world in which materialism and consumerism have become the order of the day,

where the human being is reduced to either a producer or a consumer, the artist and

his art find themselves in a precarious situation. Art has been described by some as a

spiritual longing for the ideal Tarkovsky, 1!"#$ 3#%. &aced with a very materialistic

world in which the spiritual is largely pushed aside as being some kind of opium for

the masses or an inconvenient set of beliefs, the artist faces a very real and present

danger of losing the ideal' in his art, and peddling it to the materialistic demands

that he finds surrounding him.

This applies to a far greater e(tent to cinema. )f all the other art forms, only cinema

was born out of scientific e(periments and the invention of machinery. In addition it

is the only art form that was commodified from the moment of inception. This

occurrence was inevitable, since cinema was invented in the wake of the industrial

revolution, which placed technological advancement at the service of commerce. It

therefore comes as no surprise that Thomas *dison, the American scientist who

invented the film pro+ector in 1"!1, subseuently e(hibited films commercially +ust

two years later. -irks, //0%. It is vital to realise that cinema was born of the union

of the two forces of commerce and technology . Artistic necessities were not the

of 33


3/33

mother of its invention. This has left a very marked effect on cinema, which has aptly

been described as cinemas original sin' Tarkovsky, 1!"#$ 3#%.

&irstly, cinema has become the most commodified art form, with its high production

costs making it an even more business2like venture than pop2music, which can still be

professionally e(ecuted at little or no cost. The commodification of cinema can be

clearly seen in the lingo that is associated with its practice$ marketing', sales',

distribution', producer', commercial'. o other art form has had to develop in

such non2artistic circumstances as cinema has, and this situation has most certainly

made an impact on the creation and appreciation of cinema. The value of cinema is

largely centred around its appeal or demand', how well it sells or how much

merchandising and spin2offs' it can generate.

The second effect of cinemas original sin', that is, the circumstances surrounding

the birth of cinema, is its thirst for technological progress. 4aving been born out a

technological leap, cinema seems to be ever seeking new way of doing things. This is

characteristic of science and technology, whose principal ob+ective is progress. 4ence

the technology and techniues of cinema are always evolving rapidly. It is interesting

to note that one of worlds leading film authorities is called the Academy for 5otion

6icture Arts and 7ciences, which in addition to giving awards for artistic achievement

in motion picture, also gives awards for technological advancements.

Technology and commerce have obscured the nature of cinema2as2art Tarkovsky,

1!"#$ 11%. All the other art forms, from music and poetry to dance, having been

conceived at the dawn of mankind, were for a long time concerned with the

3 of 33


4/33

production of beauty, with the edification and perhaps even the education of the

people who would e(perience them. Although they too have suffered from the results

of rampant materialism and consumerism, they at least en+oyed a grace period of

centuries perhaps, when they could develop along lines more in keeping with their

nature. This was not the case with cinema. 4ence the lament of the 8ussian

filmmaker Tarkovsky uoted at the beginning of this essay$ 9e have almost totally

lost sight of the beautiful as a criterion in art'. I posit that this statement applies

uintessentially to the art of cinema, for the reasons outlined above which can again

be summarised in Tarkovskys uip$ cinema was conceived by science and commerce.

It was not conceived by any idealistic desire to e(press that which is deepest in

human beings, nor by a desire to e(press beauty. It was the result of a series of

successful scientific e(periments that were uickly capitalised on for economic gain.

4ence the little concern there is for beauty in cinema, as can be seen in most of the

films that are churned out by the various film factories across the globe. 4ollywood,

:ollywood and ollywood are renowned for their commercial impetus in making

film, giving art and beauty little or no room to develop.

This has also affected the academic discipline of film analysis. :eing dependent on

film production for its matter, film analysis has largely followed the materialistic bent

of the matter with which it has been fed. It has largely centred on the analysis of te(ts

in relation to their producer' and consumer', paying little or no attention to the

intrinsic value of the te(ts themselves. This is seen in the various movements in film

analysis, the most influential one being deconstruction, which posits that all

discourses are ploys to e(ercise power over the receivers of that discourse ⁢gerald,

//0%. 4ence films are analy;ed in terms of the power structure creating them and the

< of 33


5/33

result that they have on the sub+ect receiving them. :eauty takes a back seat, if any at

all.

This status quo in filmmaking and film analysis is problematic. The direct

conseuence of obscuring the necessity of the beautiful in cinema is the obscuring of

the nature of cinema as an art form. If one can uestion the necessity of beauty in

cinema, in the same vein one can also uestion the validity of referring to cinema as

art. This is the crisis that cinema is facing in our age. It has been peddled as a

commodity for the satisfaction of desire or used as a tool for the dissemination of

ideas. =inema is facing the very real possibility of losing its place among the arts and

being relegated to the province of mere mass communication along with newspapers,

maga;ines and internet websites.

It is the aim of this paper to e(plore possible avenues for the repositioning of cinema

amongst the arts, central to which is the uestion of beauty. &or the most part, the fine

arts have been concerned with the production of beauty for a significant period of

time. 6erhaps it is time that this became the primary concern of cinema as well,

particularly because it is still in its early stages of development in relation to the fine

arts. &or this to occur, however, the field of &ilm Analysis would also have to

undergo a paradigm shift and turn its attention away from discourses of power and

towards the understanding of beauty. Traditional film analysis, however, having been

founded on semiotics and deconstruction, is ill2euipped for this task Allen, //#$

1!"%. It would have to seek new tools outside its present arsenal. It is the aim of this

paper to identify these tools and demonstrate that they can indeed be used effectively.

> of 33


6/33

9hile theoretically inclined film scholars continue to recycle the theories of ?acan

and -eleu;e, analytical philosophers have uietly assumed the leading edge of film

theory Allen, //#$ 1!"%.' 8ichard Allen, a scholar at ew @ork niversity, calls our

attention to the emergence of an interesting trend in the area of film analysis. 9hereas

traditional film theory has limited itself to an investigation of themes and messages

via the use of semiotics, structuralism and psychology, Allen suggests that the time

may be ripe for film theory and theorists to cast their eyes further afield. 4e suggests

that the theories of ?acan, ?evi27trauss, -errida and :a;an have become musty due

to uninventive and repetitious re2interpretations, and that analytical philosophy is a

possible tool that could furnish e(citing new insights.

This is a very interesting claim for our study. 4aving established that traditional film

theory is not very helpful to us as it pays little or no attention to the concept of beauty,

analytical philosophy, being a relatively new tool of film analysis, might prove to be

worth investigating. Analy;ing beauty in a film throws up uite a number of

conundrums$ what is beautyB =an it be established ob+ectively and thus be worthy of

studyB And most importantly, the uestion whose answer cannot be assumed

especially after observing cinemas scientific and commercial parentage$ is film an

artB These uestions cannot be answered by traditional film theories centring on

deconstruction and discourses of power. Analytical philosophy, however, having a

wider range of tools and a longer period of development, might prove to be better

suited to the task.

?et us turn our attention to the first problem that would present itself$ is it possible to

arrive at an ob+ective appraisal of beautyB 9e shall treat this uestion first, not

# of 33


7/33

because it is the most important but because its treatment reuires the addressing of

all the other uestions we have already raised. It furnishes us with a backbone from

which to build up the rest of our investigation into the nature and the place of the

beautiful in cinema.

Three Colours: Red, the last film that the famed 6olish director Cr;ys;tof Cieslowski

made before he died, provides us with an interesting case in point. If film students, or

anyone else for that matter, were asked whether or not Three Colours: Red is a

beautiful film, undoubtedly there would be a mi(ed reaction. 7ome would claim that

it is indeed sublime while others would disagree with this evaluation, perhaps because

it is too long, or the plot doesnt develop uickly enough, or no one is murdered.

9hat would be a more interesting, particularly for the study at hand, would be to ask

the former category of students why or how they arrived at their conclusion.

-oubtlessly, there would be plethora of answers, ranging from the cinematic

techniues of the film and its narrative structure to its thematic content. -espite their

different reasons, all the students would be united in their assessment that Three

Colours: Red is a beautiful film. This consensus by a number of sub+ects who watch

the film points towards the e(istence of some sort of ob+ective characteristics or

properties in the film. Therefore the first task would be to establish whether or not

these characteristics constitute what is referred to as beauty. The task at hand does not

suit itself to the traditional theories of film analysis, simply because these theories

have sub+ectivity and relativism at their very core =arroll, //#$ 1%. Another system

of film analysis must be sought, and analytical philosophy presents itself as an

alternative worth investigating. :efore carrying on, however, it would be worthwhile

to gain a deeper understanding of the merits of the analytic philosophical approach.

0 of 33


8/33

6hilosophy is the study of the first principles of all things, from natural phenomena to

abstract academic disciplines -e Torre, 1!"/$%. ?iterally, the term philosophy

means the love of wisdom -e Torre, 1!"/$ %. And if wisdom is the ability to order

things to their goal, then it presupposes a deep and far reaching understanding of the

nature of things, without which it would be impossible to ascertain their goal. 4ence

the very earliest philosophers such as 6ythagoras, Ana(imenes, 7ocrates and 6lato

concerned themselves with studying the nature of things. They asked themselves the

most fundamental uestions such as 9hat is beingB', 9hat is the purpose of lifeB',

9ho am IB' and 9hy am I hereB' Artigas, 1!"%.

6hilosophy thus became the only discipline that could provide answers to the most

basic uestions about all other disciplines, uestions which the very practitioners of

these disciplines could not answer within the limits of their specialties. As Dane =arrol

states in her book, The Philosohy of !otion Pictures and "ilm# The philosophy of

any practice strives to clarify the concepts indispensable to carrying out that practice.

The philosophy of mathematics, for instance, attempts to define what a number is,

asking whether it is something real or only a logical fiction. ?ikewise, the philosophy

of law analyses what a law is, along with clarifying other concepts crucial to the

practice, like intention and voluntariness. 7o, in like manner, the philosophy of film,

among other things, aspires to an account of that which we call film.' =arroll, //#$

>1%. In order to arrive at an ob+ective system of evaluating art in general and films in

particular, one would need to define the term artas a prereuisite. 7uch an endeavour

rightly falls within the province of the philosophy of art, which is also referred to as

aesthetics -e Torre, 1!"/$


9/33

According to classical aesthetics, art is right reason in making. In other words, art as a

process is the application of the intellect on the process of ordering material things

into a definite form 5aritain, 1!$ 13%. )nce art is becomes wholly

sub+ective and is no longer based on a concept of beauty that admits some level of

ob+ectivity, then one can ualify anything as art insofar as one sees it, in ones

opinion, to be art. Thus even what would be deemed by many to be ugly could be

defended as being art because art and beauty are considered sub+ective.

)nce an understanding of the nature of art has been reached, it becomes clear that its

evaluation would depend on an understanding of the goal or purpose of art. )nce

again, classical philosophy provides us with an answer to this uestion$ art serves no

utilitarian function. Its sole purpose is to be and to be beautiful. Any other aim such as

to move the emotions, or to please, or to instruct, result in a sullying of the artwork

5aritain, 1!an end in itself. It does not serve any other purpose e(trinsic to itself. In other words,

art aims at beauty, which is an end in itself and not a means to something else. It is

important to understand that this is an a riorior deductive concept. In other words, it

is a causal principle whose effect is the artistic creation of beauty. It cannot be

! of 33


10/33

demonstrated by scientific e(periments that move from effects to causes. If one

substitutes the goal of beauty in art with any other, one ends up with the debasement

of art. This can be found in propaganda, which uses art to disseminate ideas, or

pornography, which uses art to arouse se(ual desire. 4owever, insofar as we are

looking at the nature of art from the point of view of classical aesthetics, we will for

now accept the tenet that the goal of art is beauty.

It would therefore follow that if film is indeed an art, then its goal is beauty. :ut can

film indeed be classified as an art from the philosophical point of viewB :efore we

can answer this uestion, it is necessary to e(plain some philosophical terms that are

going to be key to our investigation.

The classical method of philosophy was to e(amine reality under an analytical ga;e

that would separate all things into two basic principles$ the being and the way of

being Artigas, 1!"


11/33


12/33

continuum to which they are all variously bound. &ilm can therefore be said to be an

art because it shares the same matter or substance as all the arts. )nce a form is

applied to the matter of film, then art is born. The form of film would therefore be

whatever conception the filmmaker formulates in his mind as an arrangement or

ordering of all these various elements in the space G time continuum. The form

produces and order and design in things, and according to the Ancients, the aim of art

as a process was to make this form shine forth in the matter, another description they

tendered for the term beauty 5aritain, 1!


13/33

to the creation and appraisal of art, it is necessary to evaluate this opposing point of

view before we continue.

The dogma of the absolute sub+ectivity of art and beauty is problematic on three

counts. &irstly, if there are no ob+ective criteria for +udging art it is a misnomer to

refer to the arts as disciplines. The very idea of a discipline implies certain yard sticks

and standards against which to gauge oneself. The notion of it being impossible to

ob+ectively +udge the value of art reduces art to a mere accident. If there are no rules

followed in the creation of art, then there is no process followed, because a process

implies rules, procedures or a set way of doing things. Therefore all art would be

unintended and accidental. This would negate all the rigours e(perienced by artists for

the sake of perfection, because there would be no standard against which this

perfection would be +udged. They would simply be lucky or unlucky. 7econdly, if

there are no ob+ective criteria for +udging art, there is no logical basis for its

instruction. The very idea of the instruction of any discipline presupposes certain

established criteria whose knowledge is being passed on. If :rands thesis is correct,

then the very discipline of art would not e(ist because it would be impossible to teach

it. Artists would +ust sporadically appear, create masterpieces as if by magic, and +ust

as mysteriously disappear. This is obviously not the case, thereby implying that it is

possible and necessary for there to be ob+ective criteria in +udging the art. The ne(t

uestion to address would be what these criteria are. 9hatever the case and whatever

these criteria may be, their aim would be to establish how well the art work achieves

its goal, which we have hitherto established to be beauty.

13 of 33


14/33

?et us return to the problem stated earlier, concerning the 6olish filmmaker Cr;ys;tof

Cieslowski. In a career spanning twenty two years, he proved to be one of the most

prolific and intelligent directors in *urope www.sensesofcinema.com%. &ilms such as

The $ecalogue1!""%# The $ouble %ife of &eronique 1!!1%and The Three Colours

Trilogy 1!!32 . 4e spent most of his

1< of 33
http://www.sensesofcinema.com/http://www.sensesofcinema.com/


15/33

life writing essays on 6hilosophy and Theology, and is still considered one of the

most prominent =atholic theologians. Freatly influenced by Aristotle, Thomas

Auinas has in turn been eminently influential to many great thinkers that came after

him, from philosophers like -escartes and Immanuel Cant to literary figures like

-ante, T.7. *liott and Dames Doyce. To know 7t. Thomas is to know the medieval

mind at its finest, its most powerful, and, indeed, its most modern. &or he is timeless

and timely, a man for all agesH And if, as Dohn 4. 8andall says in (tudies in

Civili.ation, the first modern philosopher is not -escartes but Auinas, we may +ustly

say that at least some of our roots are within the fertile ground of Thomistic thought.

And for that reason we owe it to ourselves to know something of this remarkable man

=lark, 1!0 of 33


16/33

analysis and application to our case study, Three Colours: Red#a task to which we

now turn our attention.

:efore we continue, however, it is important to bear in mind that the three criteria are

posited as analytical tools and nothing more. They are the product of philosophy, a

discipline which is not synthetic but analytic. These criteria are not ingredients that go

into the creation of something beautiful, but tools that are used to analy;e the product

after the creation process has occurred. They reflect an effect2to2cause reasoning

process. Therefore the very e(istence of anything beautiful implies the possibility of

perfection, proportion and clarity. A denial of the possibility of any one of these

criteria would imply a denial of the possibility of beauty.

&irst is integrity or perfectionH Auinas, 1!#


17/33

Applying this criterion of wholeness or integrity to film, we reali;e that narrative

films reuire the presence of certain elements in order to tell a story. These elements

are mainly dramatic, and can be found in most stories that are considered complete.

4owever, there are no fi(ed rules of how these elements should be applied. *ach

individual case presents its own needs for the story to be told effectively, integrally

and a result, beautifully.

InRed, we find that Cieslowski utili;es some time tested storytelling techniues that

improve the dramaturgy of the story and bring it to life. )ne of these is the dramatic

techniue of starting the story with conflict. Also known as the point of attack, the

early employment of conflict makes the story engaging from the very beginning

*gri, 1!


18/33

@et another constituent of the story that makes it feel entire is the presence of a

protagonist, or someone who makes things happen. This is another reuirement for

the filmRed, which is a human drama and therefore reuires that human beings drive

the action *gri, 1!


19/33

therefore tries different means to win back her love to no avail. These different

antagonists who force the protagonist into action also give the story a feeling of

wholeness. If one of these two sets of values that are clashing were left out, the story

would be lacking in integrity or wholeness, since an integrated story is one which has

all elements present, central to which are the antagonistic forces.

&rom the beginning of the filmRed, as one watches Jalentine go through her daily

routine and e(perience her little conflicts with her boyfriend and the photographer,

one feels that the story needs to be set in motion, that something needs to happen.

This event, called the inciting incident by some theorists, is not lacking either and

contributes towards the integrity of the story 5ckee, 1!!!$ 1"%. It occurs about ten

minutes into the story when Jalentine runs over a dog on the street. 7he is not sure

whether to leave it or not, but eventually decides to take the dog to its owner. )nce

she meets the Dudge, the story is set in motion.

)ne of the most integral aspects ofRed#as indeed of any other story, is the presence

of a beginning, middle and end. In the beginning, we are introduced to the main

characters of the story, who are Jalentine, August, the Dudge and Carin, as well as

Jalentines boyfriend. 7ince the story is about people, we witness how these people

grow and develop as the film progresses. At the end of the story, we witness the

permanent changes that have taken place in the characters of these people, and

achieve a deeper knowledge and understanding of who they are, which happens at the

same time and in the same way in which the characters also get to know about

themselves. 7ince the story is about people, it is necessary for it to e(plore their

1! of 33


20/33

personalities and lives very deeply, which Reddoes effectively. It can therefore be

said to be an integral or complete story.

According to the screenwriting theorist 7yd &ield, every story needs a turning point in

which the protagonist undergoes a change that happens at the end of the second act

&ield, 1!"$ 1%. InRed, there is no conceivable point at which Jalentines character

undergoes this transformation. 7he starts of by being a loving caring person, and at

the end of the story she is still a loving and caring person. If anything, it is her

warmth and affection that brings out the human side of the Dudge, who is not a

protagonist but a main character in the story. The story still feels complete in spite of

this seeming absence, because in its own particular case, it does not need this second

act turning point that leads to the clima(. The specific form therefore determines its

own rules and reuirements for beauty, and not the other way round *co, 1!""$ 11%.

9e therefore see that Auinass conception of beauty being formally integral is still

achieved.

:y the interplay of the various parts of the story,Redbecomes a whole, self2contained

unit of narration, or a story. It can therefore be apprehended as being beautiful

because of this. In his book, A Portrait of the Artist as a 0oung !an, Dames Doyce

offers an interesting summary of what we have been discussing. The first phase of

apprehension is a bounding line drawn about the ob+ect to be apprehended. An

aesthetic image is presented to us either in space or in time. 9hat is audible is

presented in time, what is visible is presented in space. :ut, temporal or spatial, the

aesthetic image is first luminously apprehended as self2bounded and self2contained

upon the immeasurable background of space or time which is not it. @ou apprehend it

/ of 33


21/33

as one thing. @ou see it as one whole. @ou apprehend its wholeness. That is

integritas' Doyce, 1!#1$ 3%.Redis apprehended as a complete and entire whole by

its conclusion. It therefore manifests integrity, and as such is apprehended as being

beautiful.

Doyces analysis of the act of the perception of beauty leads us directly into the second

criterion of beauty delineated by Auinas. Hthe synthesis of immediate perception

is followed by the analysis of apprehension. 4aving first felt that it is one thing you

feel now that it is a thing. @ou apprehend it as comple(, multiple, divisible, separable,

made up of its parts, the result of its parts and their sum, harmonious. That is

consonantia.' Doyce, 1!""$ 3%

9hat Doyce refers to as harmony Doyce, 1!""$ 33%, Auinas refers to as proportion.

In the first volume of (umma Theologiae, uestion 1, article 1, Auinas states$

9hen we say one thing is in proportion to another we can either mean that they are

uantitatively related G in this sense double, thrice, and eual are kinds of proportion

G or else we can mean +ust any kind of relation which one thing may have to another

Auinas, 1!#


22/33

word proportion, he draws our attention to the more ualitative sense that imbues the

second meaning Auinas posits *co, 1!""$ "1%.

The first, more ualitative sense in which the concept of proportion may be

understood, according to *co, is the relationship between matter and form. In this

sense, proportion would be the suitability of matter for receiving a form *co, 1!""$

"3%. It is form that produces order and design in things. :ut formenters into several

relationships of such a kind that it is subsumed into a larger whole. )ne of these is,

precisely, the relation of suitability which binds matter to it *co, 1!""$ "


23/33

ferry at the end. Indeed, one would be hard pressed to capture the sheer immensity of

the billboard with Jalentines face within the confines of the stage. Admittedly, one

may argue that literature would be able to achieve the same effect through picturesue

descriptions of the interior and e(terior spaces and the ob+ects such as the billboard.

?iterature, however, would be hard pressed indeed to create the effect or illusion of

the phone signals that travel underwater and across the channel to signify an

international phone call, as we see in the opening seuence of the film. )ne of the

recurrent events in the film is that of Jalentine and August occupying the same space

but never meeting, despite their living in the same neighbourhood. Through cinema,

their continual physical pro(imity that never culminates in a meeting gives a sense of

the serendipity that rules their lives. The sheer tangibility of this would have been

difficult to communicate via the written word. There is suitability between the matter,

or the events of the story, and the form, or the way they are communicated. This is a

reflection of proportion, one of the components of beauty.

In addition, the cinematic form of the film is largely constructed on two devices that

are purely cinematic$ the moving camera and the point of view shot. As mentioned

previously, the opening seuence of the film relies on the movement of the camera to

recreate phone signals moving. The moving camera also connects e(terior spaces

with interior spaces. 9henever the action is locked in a small space such as the

Dudges apartment, the moving camera reduces the need for editorial cuts which gives

a better perception of the space and enhances the feeling of intimacy.

It has been argued by some that the moving camera is the real artistic innovation of

film, and therefore what singles it out as an art in its own right ?anger, 1!>#$


24/33

Alfred 4itchcock, on the other hand, claimed that the innovativeness of cinema, and

what could be termed asure cinema, is the point of view shot. The seuence of close

up, what is seen, and reaction shot roots the audience in the sub+ectivity of the

character, which is something that no other art does 4itchcock, 1!>>$ 3%. 9e see

this in several seuences especially when characters look at other characters through

windows. *(amples include when Jalentine looks at the alleged drug dealer who

lives across from the +udge, or when she looks out her apartment window, or when

August sees Carin betray him with another man.

6erhaps it would be useful to reconcile these two seemingly contrary views that

?anger and 4itchcock have, with the end of showing thatRedis a pre2eminently and

integrally cinematic film. ?anger claims that cinemas sole innovation is the moving

camera, whereas 4itchcock claims that is the point of view shot. I would argue that

?anger and 4itchcock offer us different perspectives of the same idea. The real

artistic innovation of film has been the ability to create the sub+ectivity of perception.

9hereas in literature it is uite possible to create the sub+ectivity of thought through

stream of consciousness narration, it is impossible to make the reader erceivewhat

the character perceives, perception being a process aligned to the senses as opposed to

the intellect. ?iterature can create the abstractionsof the sensations of sight and

sound. It cannot create the actual sensation. The work of the reader is to read the

abstraction and create the perception for themselves in their imagination. &ilm, on the

other hand, could be seen as doing the reverse process. It creates sensations but

cannot create abstract thoughts or ideas, leaving this work up to the viewer. This is

because an image is a perception, not an abstraction. The point of view shot and the

moving camera create the sensation of seeing what a character is seeing, and hearing

< of 33


25/33

what a character is hearing, even if that character be the camera itself. 5ore than re2

creating, they actually create a tangible, corporeal e(perience. 4ence these two

devices can be said to create a sub+ectivity of perception.

In this regard, therefore,Redis a highly cinematic film because it combines the point

of view shot and the moving camera to create this sub+ectivity of perception. It can

therefore be termed beautiful because of this adeuacy it shows between its substance

and its form.

Another type of proportion is sensible and basically uantitative. It is a relationship

among a multitude of fi(ed items. 5usical proportion is typical of this, and also, by

e(tension, proportion in shape and color. It produces an immediate feeling of pleasure

*co, 1!""$ ">%. 4ere *co uotes Auinas again and refers to another sense in which

he uses the term proportion, which is in a more uantitative sense, with reference to

the parts that constitute the whole. This understanding of proportion is closer to the

interpretation that Doyce gives when he refers to proportion as harmony. )ne

apprehends an artwork as comple(, multiple, divisible, separable, made up of its

parts, the result of its parts and their sum, harmonious Doyce, 1!""$ 3%.' In other

words, an artwork is constructed out of various parts, and is beautiful if those parts fit

together with a certain degree of balance between them.

Dust as a piece of music is perceived as being harmonious because it is composed of

different parts that fit together perfectly to create a whole, a film may be perceived to

be harmonious or proportioned because all of its parts fit together to create a balanced

whole. &or the parts to fit together harmoniously, it is necessary for no one part to

> of 33


26/33

eclipse the whole, because a part cannot be greater than the whole. )ne part may

eclipse another part if the specific rules of the particular form in uestion necessitate

it, but this always done with the final goal in mind G the reali;ation of filmic form.

4ence even that eclipsing will be a manifestation of proportion.

If we consider that the filmRed is composed of drama, cinematography, music and

editing, we reali;e that all these elements engage in a harmonious interplay without

one aspect overshadowing the others. &or instance, the very title of the film as well as

the poster images gives import to the colour red. pon watching the film, however,

one is surprised by how the colour red is not used obtrusively. Apart from the huge

red billboard of Jalentine and the red dog2leash, the actual instances of the colour red

being given any attention are scant. This is because for Cieslowski the film is not

about the actual huered 7tok, 1!!3$ 1"%. The colour itself certainly plays a stylistic

role, but cannot eclipse all the other elements of the film. The colour red is therefore

used harmoniously in the film, and as such is perceived as being beautiful.

The same can be said for the music in the film. There is harmony in the music itself,

as well as harmony between the music and film. The delicacy of the music fits the

delicacy of the story, and as a result never gets overbearing nor does it draw attention

to itself. The music therefore fits into the whole film integrally. It is this harmonious

unity that results in beauty.

The events of the story also fit together and make rational sense. o single event of

the story detracts from the others, but they all work together to create a unity.

6roportion does not refer only to sensible relations. It can also mean a purely

# of 33


27/33

rational fit between things$ logical relations, or the harmony of a seuence of thought,

or the proportion of thought to the laws of thought logic% *co, 1!""$ ">%.' This is

why it is difficult for people ruled by common sense to claim that e(perimental films

are beautiful. -oing away with e(cessive intellectuali;ation and rationali;ation, and

by the use of common sense one can see that most e(perimental films do not make

sense and therefore cannot be termed as beautiful because the parts do not fit together

into a logical, rational whole. In the words of Auinas, In human matters beauty

goes with what is well ordered according to intelligence *co, 1!""$ "0%.'

)ne notices a very close connection between the concepts of integrity and proportion.

9here there is proportion, there is integrity, and integrity cannot be found if there is

no proportion. In fact, according to some commentators of Auinas, integrity is a kind

of proportion *co, 1!""$ "0%. Applying it to film, for a film to feel whole, complete

and entire, the parts of the film must interplay harmoniously. uoting Auinas,

9hen the parts are arranged in this way, they all combine into the wholeE so that out

of all the parts KHL there emerges one single wholeness of things *co, 1!""$ !%.'

This is seen even in the arrangement of the basic parts of the film G beginning, middle

and end. 5any films have a tedious and boring middle section simply because the

story is biased towards activity in the beginning and the end 5ckee, 1!!!$ 3"%. This

is not the case withRed, where there is a balance in the action of the story, which is

evenly spread out across all three acts. It even becomes difficult to mark where the

story shifts from the beginning to the middle to the end because they are all

harmoniously balanced.

0 of 33


28/33

The ability of this single wholeness to manifest itself to a viewer is what Auinas

refers to as clarity. In a sense it is the most difficult criterion to analyse because it is

the most intuitive, occurring without the mediation of reason. *co describes clarity as

the fundamental communicability of form, which is made actual in relation to

someones looking at or seeing of the ob+ect *co, 1!""$ 11!%. It is the criterion that is

hardest to analy;e because it is the most intuitive of them all. In other words, clarity is

not perceived through the process of reasoning, through a series of concepts that are

formed one after the other and each dependent and the result of the previous one

Alvira, 1!"$ 30%. =larity is a moment of immediate perception, when the brilliance

of the form is beheld, comprehended and assimilated all in one instant 5aritain,

1!


29/33

one of the markers of beauty in the film. The clarity in the film is immediate, and

does not need the mediation of a co2viewer for an e(planation of what the film was

about.

The result of clarity in film, and in any artwork in general, is a sense of delight mi(ed

with wonder. )ne feels that one is in the facing mystery, and all the senses and the

mind are completely drawn into contemplation. This sense of mystery does not mean

that the film or artwork is not clear. It means, rather, that the film is so clear that the

viewer feels there is more on offer to be known than what their minds have grasped.

This is what happens inRed. At the end of the film, the viewer feels overwhelmed by

the sense of mystery when looking at how serendipity and providence seem to rule

the lives and loves of the characters. The viewer is left asking themselves uestions.

Is August the same person as the DudgeB 4ave they led the same lifeB 7ince the

Dudges actions indirectly led to Carins betrayal, could we say that he betrayed

himself in the past as he has done in the presentB Is history repeating itselfB -oes the

Dudge actually fall in love with Jalentine through August, since the Dudge and August

seem to be the same personB These and other uestions continue to resonate in the

mind of the viewer after watching the film, creating a sense of wonder. There can in

fact be mo mystery where there is nothing to know$ mystery e(ists where there is

more to be known than is offered to our apprehension. To define beauty by brilliance

or clarity% of form is to define it by brilliance of mystery 5aritain, 1!


30/33

mind for the sake of analytical study, so are integrity, proportion and clarity always

found together in the ob+ect of beauty. These three criteria are therefore an analytical

tool and nothing more. They are by no means ingredients that go into the creation of a

beautiful film or any beautiful artwork. &rom the point of view of the filmmaker or

artist, these three principles are inherent in the process by which he creates the film or

artwork and cannot be considered separately. A film whose parts do not link together

harmoniously will not make sense as a whole, and therefore will be unintelligible.

9ith respect to the viewer, he is first apprehended by beauty before he can move to

comprehend why he was enraptured. These three criteria offer him a means by which

we can arrive at a reasoned understanding of why a certain work of art captivated him

so and caused delight. It is very much a secondary operation, the first one having

taken place at that moment of intuitive comprehension. =onfronted with the work of

beautyHthe mind re+oices without discoursing 5aritain, 1!


31/33

its creation. A more philosophical approach to film theory results in the liberation

from the lifeless turgidity of rules.

In our e(perience of the worlds, artworks and sub+ects, there is no denying that there

is a certain sub+ectivity with respect to the viewer of the art. 9hereas some people

perceive some films as beautiful, there are others who would vehemently deny this.

The reason for this does not lie in the artwork itself but in the education of the

sub+ect. In the words of Auinas, Hhowever beautiful a created thing may be, it may

appear beautiful to some and not to others, because it is beautiful only under certain

aspects which some discover and others do not seeH 5aritain, 1!


32/33

A! Biblio"ra#hy

&enner, -. 9hy 9as There 7o 5uch gly Art in the Twentieth =enturyB' Dournal ofAesthetic *ducation. 3!. //>%$ 1321

Documents

Beauty And Cinema