Siegfried Kracauer
Theory of Film (Excerpt)
POPERTIES OF THE NEDIUM
The properties of film can be divided into basic and technical properties.
The basic properties are identical with the properties of photography. Film，in other words, is uniquely equipped to record and revea1 physical reality and，hence，gravitates toward it.
Now there are different visible worlds. Take a stage performance or a painting: they too are real and can be perceived. But the only reality we are concerned with is actually existing physical reality - the transitory world we live in. （Physical reality will also be called “material reality,” or “physical existence,” or “actuality,” or loosely just “nature.” Another fitting term might be “camera-reality.”）The other visible worlds reach into this world without, however, really forming a part of it. A theatrica1 play，for instance suggests a universe of its own which would immediately crumble were it related to its real-life environment.
As are productive medium，film is of course justified in reproducing memorable ballets, operas, and the like. Yet even assuming that such reproductions try to do justice to the specific requirements of the screen, they basically amount to little more than “canning,” and are of no interest to us here. Preservation of performances which lie outside physical reality proper is at best a sideline of a medium so particularly suited to explore that reality. This is not to deny that reproductions，say, of stage production numbers may be put to good cinematic use in certain feature films and film genres.
0f all the technical properties of film the most general and indispensable is editing. It serves to establish a meaningful continuity of shots and is therefore unthinkable in photography. （Photomontage is a graphic art rather than a specifically photographic genre.）Among the more special cinematic techniques are some which have been taken over from photography - e.g. the close-up，soft-focus pictures, the use of negatives， double or multiple exposure，etc. 0thers，such as the lap-dissolve，slow and quick motion，the reversal of time，certain “special effects,” and so forth，are for obvious
reasons exclusively peculiar to film.
These scanty hints will suffice. It is not necessary to elaborate on technical matters which have been dealt with in most previous theoretical writings on film. Unlike these， which invariably devote a
great deal of space to editing devices，modes of lighting，various effects of the close-up， etc., the present book concerns itself with cinematic techniques only to the extent to which they bear on the nature of film，as defined by its basic properties and their various
implications. The interest lies not with editing in itself，regardless of the purposes it serves，but with editing as a means of implementing - or defying， which amounts to the same - such potentialities of the medium as are in accordance with its substantive characteristics. In other words，the task is not to survey all possible methods of editing for their own sake; rather it is to determine the contributions which editing may make to cinematically significant achievements. Problems of film technique will not be neglected; however，they will be discussed only if issues going beyond technical considerations call for their investigation.
This remark on procedures implies what is fairly obvious anyway: that the basic and technical properties differ substantially from each other. As a rule the former take precedence over the latter in the sense that they are responsible for the cinematic quality
of a film. Imagine a film which in keeping with the basic properties，records interesting aspects of physical reality but does so in a technically imperfect manner; perhaps the lighting is awkward or the editing uninspired. Nevertheless such a film is more specifically a film than one which utilizes brilliantly all the cinematic devices and tricks to produce a statement disregarding camera-reality. Yet this should not lead one to underestimate the influence of the technical properties. It will be seen that in certain cases the knowing use of a variety of techniques may endow otherwise nonrealistic films with a cinematic flavor.
PROPERTIES OF THE MEDIUM
The properties of film can be divided into basic and technical properties.
The basic properties are identical with the properties of photog-
raPhy.Film，in other words， is uniquely equiPped to record and
revea1 Physical reality and， hence，gravitates toward it.
Now there are different visible worlds. Take a stage Perforlnance
or a painting: they too are real and can be Perceived. But the only
reality we are concemed with is actually existing Physical reality －
the transitory world we live in. （Physical reality will also be called
“material reality,”or “physical existence,”or “actuality,”orloosely
just “nature.” Another fitting term might be “ca蚕era-reality.”）‥.
The other visible worlds reach into this world without， however，
really forming a part of it. A theatrica1 Play， for instance， suggests
a universeof its own which would immediately crumble were it
related to its real-life environment.
AsareProductive medium， film is of course justified in reProduc-
ing memorable ballets， oPeras， and the like. Yet even assuming that
such reproductions try to do justice tp the sPecific requirements
of the screen， they basically amount to little more than “canningｿﾞ’
andareof no interest to us here. Preservation of perfor汀lances
which lie outside Physical reality ProPer is at best a sideline of a
medium so Particularly suited to exPlore that reality. This is not to
deny that reproductions， say，of stage production numbers may be
put to good cinematicusein certain feature films and film genres.
0f all the technical proPerties of film the most general and indis-
Pensable is editing. lt serves to establish a meaningful continuity
of shots and is therefore unthinkable in photograPhy. （Photomon-
tage is a graPhic art rather than a specifically Photographic genre.）
Amongthernorespecial cinematic techniques are some which have
been takenoverfrom PhotograPhy－e.9.the close-up， soft-focus
pictures，theuseof negatives， double or multiple exPosure， etc.
0thers，such as the lap-dissolve， slow and quick motion， there-
versal of time， certain “sPedal effeds,”and so forth， are for obvious
reasonsexdusively Peculiar to film.
These scanty hints will suffice. lt is not necessary to elaborate on
technical matters which have been dealt with in most Previous theo-
retical writings on film. Unlike these， which invariably devote a
great deal of sPace to editing devices， modes of lighting， various
゛effects of the close-up， etc.ﾊﾞhe Present bookconcernsitself with
dnematic techniques only to the extent to which they bear onthe
nature of film， as defined by its basic ProPerties and their various
imPlications.The interest lies not with editing in itself， regardless
of the PurPoses it serves， but with editingas a n!eanso臼mplement-
ing － or defying， which amounts to the same － such potentialities
of the medium as are in accordance with its substantive characteris-
tics.ln other words， the task is not to survey all possible methods
of editi哺fortheirolvn sake; ratherjt is to determine the contribu-
tions which editing may make to cinematically significant achieve-
ments. Problems of film technique will not be neglected; ho1へyever，
they will be discussed only if issues going beyond technical consid-
erations call for their investigation.
THE TWO MAIN TENDENCIES
lf film grows out of photography, the realistic and formative tendencies must be operative in it also. Is it by sheer accident that the two tendencies manifested themselves side by side immediately after the rise of the medium? As if to encompass the whole range of cinematic endeavors at the outset，each went the limit in exhausting its own possibilities. Their prototypes were Lumiere，a strict realist，and Melies，who gave free rein to his artistic imagination. The films they made embody，so to speak，thesis and antithesis in a Hegelian sense.
Lumiere and Melies
Lumiere's films contained a true innovation, as compared with the repertoire of the zootropes or Edison’s peep boxes: they pictured everyday life after the manner of photographs. Some of his early pictures，such as Baby’s Breakfast or The Card Players testify to the amateur photographers' delight in family idyls and genre scenes. And there was Teasing the Gardener, which enjoyed immense popularity because it elicited from the flow of everyday life a proper story with a funny climax to boot. A gardener is watering flowers and，as he unsuspectingly proceeds，an impish boy steps on the hose， releasing it at the very moment when his perplexed victim examines the dried-up nozzle. Water squirts out and hits the gardener smack in the face. The denouement is true to style, with the gardener chasing and spanking the boy. This film，the germ cell and archetype of all film comedies to come, represented an imaginative attempt on the part of Lumiere to develop photography into a means of story telling. Yet the story was just a real-lifeincident. And it was precisely its photographic veracity which made Maxim Gorki undergo a shock-like experience. “You think,” he wrote about Teasing the Gardener, “the spray is going to hit you too，and instinctively shrink back.”
On the whole， Lumiere seems to have realized that story telling was none of his business; it involved problems with which he apparently did not care to cope. Whatever story-telling films he，or his company，made - some more comedies in the vein of his first one，tiny historical scenes，etc. - are not characteristic of his production. The bulk of his films recorded the world about us for no other purpose than to present it. This is in any case what Mesguich，one of Lumiere’s “ace” cameramen，felt to be their message. At a time when the talkie were already in full swing he epitomized the work of the master as follows: “As I see it，the Lumiere Brothers had established the true domain of the cinema in the right manner. The novel, the theater，suffice for the study of the human heart. The cinema is the dynamism of life，of nature and its manifestations, of the crowd and its eddies. All that asserts itself through movement depends on it. Its lens opens on the world.”
Lumiere’s lens did open on the world in this sense. Take his immortal first reels Lunch Hour at Lumiere Factory，La Place des Cordeliers a Lyon, Arrival of a Train; their themes were public places, with throngs of people moving in diverse directions. The crowded streets captured by the stereographic photographs of the late ’fifties thus
reappeared on the primitive screen. It was life at its least controllable and most unconscious moments. a jumble of transient, forever dissolving patterns accessible only to the camera. The much-imitated shot of the railway station, with its emphasis on the confusion of arrival and departure，effectively illustrated the fortuity of these patterns; and their fragmentary character was exemplified by the clouds of smoke which leisurely drifted upward. Significantly Lumiere used the motif of smoke on several occasions. And he seemed anxious to avoid any personal interference with the given data. Detached records, his shots resembled the imaginary shot of the grandmother which Proust contrasts with the memory image of her.
Contemporaries praised these films for the very qualities which the prophets and forerunners had singled out in their visions of the medium. It is inevitable that, in the comments on Lumiere, “the ripple of leaves stirred by the wind" should be referred to enthusiastically. The Paris journalist Henri de Parville，who used the image of the trembling leaves，also identified Lumiere's over-all theme as “nature caught in the act." Others pointed to the benefits which science would derive from Lumiere's invention. In America his camera-realism defeated Edison's kinetoscope with its staged subjects.
Lumiere's hold on the masses was ephemeral. In 1897，not more than two years after he had begun to make films，his popularity subsided. The sensation had 'worn off; the hey day was over. Lack of interest caused Lumiere to reduce his production.
Georges Melies took over where Lumiere left off，renewing and intensifying the medium's waning appeal. This is not to say that he did not occasionally follow the latter's exapPle. In his beginnings he too treated the audience to sightseeing tours; or he dramatized，in the fashion of the period， realistically staged topical events. But
his main contribution to the cinema lay in substituting staged illusion for unstaged reality，and contrived plots for everyday incidents.
The two pioneers were aware of the radical differences in their approach. Lumiere told Melies that he considered film nothing more than a “scientific curiosity,” thereby implying that his cinematograph could not possibly serve artistic Purposes. In 1897，
Melies on his part published a prospectus which took issue with Lumiere: “Messrs.Melies and Reulos specialize mainly in fantastic or artistic scenes，reproductions of theatrical scenes， etc. … thus creating a special genre which differs entirely from the customary views supplied by the cinematograph – street scenes or scenes of everyday life.”
Melies' tremendous success would seem to indicate that he catered to demads left unsatisfied by Lumiere’ photographic realism. Lumiere appealed to the sense of observation, the curiosity about “nature caught in the act”, Melies ignored the workings of nature out of the artist’s delight in sheer fantasy. The train in Arrival of a Train is the real thing, whereas its counterpart in Melies’ An Impossible Voyage is a toy train
as unreal as the scenery through which it is moving. Instead of picturing the random movements of phenomena， Melies freely interlinked imagined events according to the requirements of his charming fairy-tale plots. Had not media very dose to film offered similar gratifications? The artist-photographers preferred what they considered aesthetically attractive compositions to searching explorations of nature. And immediately before the arrival of the motion picture camera，magic lantern performances indulged in the projection of religious themes，Walter Scott novels，and Shakespearean dramas.
Yet even though Melies did not take advantage of the camera's ability to record and reveal the physical world，he increasingly created his illusions with the aid of techniques peculiar to the medium. Some he found by accident. When taking shots of the Paris Place de l’Opera，he had to discontinue the shooting because the celluloid strip did not move as it should; the surprising result was a film in which, for no reason at al1， a bus abruptly transformed itself into a hearse. True，Lumiere also was not disinclined to have a sequence of events unfold in reverse，but Melies was the first to exploit cinematic devices systematically. Drawing on both photography and the stage，he innovated many techniques which were to play an enormous role in the future – among them the use of masks，multiple exposure，superimposition as a means of summoning