Magicarp

It is mise-en-scène week in my Intro to Film Studies class, and in one of our more interesting readings, André Bazin talks about the magic of montage. “[All films] share that trait in common which constitutes the very definition of montage, namely, the creation of a sense of meaning not proper to the images themselves but derived exclusively from their juxtaposition.” (What is Cinema?, p.25) Bazin is saying that behind mise-en-scène; behind the collection of still images that comprise any movie you watch, there’s an underlying psychological message being conveyed that is more meaningful than the images themselves. He’s saying that there’s a point at which cinema becomes something more than just a moving picture.

As you may well know, Canon, Nikon, and Panasonic have recently added HD video capabilities to their mid to high range DSLRs, effectively turning every photographer who has one into a potential videographer. This has flooded the video market with once-photographers who now want to try their hand at video.

But photographers didn’t just take their cameras into the video marketplace; they also took their techniques, values, and aspirations. Photographers’ approach to video - sharp, high resolution, shallow depth-of-field videos - are all the rage today. The bigger your sensor is, the higher quality your video, and thus the more popular you become. Filmmakers are turning into a bunch of resolution bodybuilders.

But amid the flurry of all of this resolution pumping, a question might pop into our heads: Are we losing sight of the other side of film? Is Bazin rolling over in his grave? So much effort is put into mise-en-scène these days that the art of editing - the magic that happens between the cut - seems to be fading away. Are films with no plot - just to show off the capabilities of a camera - really the best thing since sliced bread? Should we be treating film as if it were a race for the clearest picture?