cinema2020

Image

In the etymology of the word, the ambiguities that animated the centuries-old debate on the status and function of images are already looming. The etymology is the Latin imago, inis: on the one hand 'imitation', on the other 'visible form'. The oscillations of meaning are complementary. There. it was conceived both as a reproduction of the reality that is offered to the view (the eikon of the Greeks), and as the result of a formalization: not simply a reproduction of the sensitive, therefore, but a product, a formal construction. In these latter meanings, the distinction between i is strengthened. and res: the i., in this case, is recognized as appearance (the Latin simulacrum), or even phantasm (from the Greek phantasma, that is "dream", "vision"). So, on the one hand it imitates the thing; dall ' other indicates the distance from the object it (re) produces. Representation / construction, res / form, absence / presence: the complex polarity between imitation and expression that informs the philosophical debate on the image is articulated on these tensions.

Theoretical reflection has problematized these dialectics, expressing, despite the multiformity of the positions, two main orientations: a line of thought has enhanced the mimetic, realistic aspects of the i., Reflecting on the possibility of bridging the distance between the representation and the represented; a second line, however, insisted on the i. not as a reproduction but as a production, as a closed formal system, endowed with its own laws. The essence of the i. from the latter perspective, cinema resides not in fidelity, but in the gap with respect to the referent: its aesthetic and intellectual productivity is encouraged precisely by its differentiating factors.THE IMAGE AND THE WORLD

The ontological image

André Bazintries to go beyond the reductive conception of i. as a reproduction of reality to make analogy the form of a real ontology. According to Bazin between the referent (the being) and the copy (the image) there would be an ontological similarity before a morphological one: the i. in fact "it benefits from a transference of reality from the thing to its reproduction" (Bazin 1958; trad. it. 1986², p. 8). He identifies the basis of cinematographic realism in reproductive objectivity and in the absence of man 'replaced' by the photographic eye. To these characteristics cinema adds the actual duration of things, movement. Bazin emphasizes the depth of field of the i. cinematic and the sequence plan, instead rejecting the logic of analytic editing, to recover the complex ambiguity of the "natural" vision. There. it must safeguard the continuity of the existing, highlighting the intrinsic mystery of the world itself. In Bazini's thought one also finds that reciprocal movement between subject and object highlighted by phenomenology: the world is revealed through the i. precisely because in it the objective structures of reality and the subjectivity of a spectatorial gaze that freely constructs its path of openness to truth are reached mutually. In light of this ontological perspective, Bazin re-reads the history of the i. cinema, distinguishing between the directors who believe in it and those who believe in reality. The first ( highlighting the intrinsic mystery of the world itself. In Bazini's thought one also finds that reciprocal movement between subject and object highlighted by phenomenology: the world is revealed through the i. precisely because in it the objective structures of reality and the subjectivity of a spectatorial gaze that freely constructs its path of openness to truth are reached mutually. In light of this ontological perspective, Bazin re-reads the history of the i. cinema, distinguishing between the directors who believe in it and those who believe in reality. The first ( highlighting the intrinsic mystery of the world itself. In Bazini's thought one also finds that reciprocal movement between subject and object highlighted by phenomenology: the world is revealed through the i. precisely because in it the objective structures of reality and the subjectivity of a spectatorial gaze that freely constructs its path of openness to truth are reached mutually. In light of this ontological perspective, Bazin re-reads the history of the i. cinema, distinguishing between the directors who believe in it and those who believe in reality. The first ( precisely because in it the objective structures of reality and the subjectivity of a spectatorial gaze that freely constructs its path of openness to truth are reached mutually. In light of this ontological perspective, Bazin re-reads the history of the i. cinema, distinguishing between directors who believe in it and those who believe in reality. The first ( precisely because in it the objective structures of reality and the subjectivity of a spectatorial gaze that freely constructs its path of openness to truth are reached mutually. In light of this ontological perspective, Bazin re-reads the history of the i. cinema, distinguishing between directors who believe in it and those who believe in reality. The first (David W. Griffith , Sergej M. Ejzenštejn , the directors of German silent cinema or those of the Hollywood of the classical period etc.) support the autonomy of the representation with respect to the represented and enhance the formal logics (the plastic components, the assembly etc.) . The latter, however, are convinced that the i. must reveal the deep structures of reality (just think of the use of depth of field in Orson Welles' cinema). The i. Self-referential Bazin contrasts the image-fact of Neorealism, capable of grasping reality in its immediate state, prior to meaning, and of restoring all its ontological ambiguity.

The image as an attestation of the world

Significativa è anche la riflessione sull'i. cinematografica condotta da Siegfried Kracauer. Per Kracauer essa eredita dalla fotografia una vocazione alla riproduzione e tende a restituire e attestare la realtà del fenomenico. Kracauer, tuttavia, si distingue dalla posizione ontologica di Bazin: l'i. non rivela l'essere, ma svolge piuttosto una funzione di documentazione dell'esistente, si presenta come una testimonianza del mondo eventualmente in grado di aprirsi agli aspetti meno valorizzati dalle consuete esperienze percettive (per es. il minuscolo, il transitorio, il casuale, l'inanimato). La quotidianità del mondo, materia grezza dell'i. cinematografica, si riscatta attraverso il cinema dalla banalità corrente, dalla stereotipia delle forme e ne esce sublimata, composta in una visione di-staccata dalla norma, in una particolare coniugazione tra la soggettività creativa dell'occhio umano e l'oggettività impersonale della riproduzione.

L'immagine-realtà

Nella riflessione di Pier Paolo Pasolini ‒ più vicina a una poetica personale che a una teoria ‒ la relazione ontologica tra l'i. cinematografica e la realtà arriva quasi all'identità, in quanto il suo significato, afferma, è tutto nella realtà, e il cinema coincide di fatto con essa. Di conseguenza l'i. del cinema è la lingua scritta della realtà, traduce il linguaggio dell'Essere. I segni del linguaggio dell'i., per Pasolini, non sono storicamente codificati: l'im-segno (così ne definisce l'unità espressiva) è illimitatamente offerto dal sordo caos delle cose, e il suo riconoscimento avviene non per convenzione quanto per una condivisione collettiva dell'esperienza dello sguardo in chiave archetipica e antropologica, sia pure variata dalle diversità psicologiche e sociali. Con tali premesse diventa decisivo interrogarsi non tanto sulla definizione pasoliniana dell'i., quanto sul suo concetto di realtà. La realtà, in Pasolini, è il mondo in divenire, dove soggetto e oggetto si appartengono e si relazionano. Il linguaggio opera dall'interno della realtà e consente alle cose non di essere rivelate da un punto di vista esterno, 'contemplativo', ma di autorivelarsi. L'i., dunque, è la cosa, coincide con essa perché costituisce l'unica possibilità per la cosa di definirsi, rispetto all'ambiguità originaria del mondo, diventando linguaggio. È quindi una visione che nasce nel soggetto per una sorta di pressione dall'interno della carne del mondo. Tra i. e mondo, quindi, vi sarà sempre una relazione non arbitraria o simbolica, ma di necessità ontologica. A differenza delle premesse ontologiche di Bazin (per il quale l'i. rivelava il reale ancora prima di essere linguaggio), Pasolini si concentra sulle strutture linguistiche dell'i. stessa per individuare una vera e propria "grammatica della cinelingua".

The image-movement and the image-time

The question on the structures of the I., starting from its condition of virtuality, was deepened in the early eighties by the philosopher Gilles Deleuze. In the state prior to perception, it constitutes a plane of immanence, it is the infinite of all i. and coincides with movement, it is image-movement: "it is the object, it is the very thing caught in movement as a continuous function" (Deleuze 1985; trad. it. 1989, p. 41). Among the i. of cinema and those of the world there is an absolute identity precisely in the ontological constituent of the movement. In its pure virtuality it is an actualizable and non-linguistic space: it is an 'enunciable'. In Deleuzian reflection the i. as enunciable it substantiates the cinematographic and founds as a possibility the actualized existence of the image-utterance, proper to the filmic. The relationships between virtual and current, between cinematographic and film, establish the complexity of the world and of cinema. The images-statement define the forms of classification of the images themselves. Deleuze proposes a first great tripartition of the image-movement: when it is related to a center of indeterminacy (in fact the subject) which subtracts movement from its indefiniteness, it becomes image-perception; the reaction to perception takes the form of an action, generating the image-action (an organic representation of the man-world relationship, situation-action that expresses the classic form of cinema); from perception to action there can be a perceptual restlessness, a hesitation in action, and it is in this intermediate state that the image-affection is determined, an expression of the quality and power of the possible (the close-up of a face in Griffith, the fragmented spaces of Robert Bresson etc.). The loosening of the links between perception and action, initiated by Italian Neorealism, marks the emergence of i. optical-sound as well. The organic man-world integration of classic cinema is put in crisis by modern cinema: situations are less and less defined, the gaze no longer generates action, but develops in pure vision of things, actions become floating, the prevailing l wandering, randomness. The construction of i. pure optical-sound, free from any sense-motor link with the body, deprived of a causal relationship, allows the cinema to access directly temporal and mental dimensions, a real image-time. If in the movement image the i. itself and the movement were inseparable but distinguishable, in the image-time become indiscernible: from the indirect representation of time we pass to its direct 'vision'. Perception, if it does not continue in action (the 'current' i), can return to the object and enter the circuits of the i. virtual. From this movement of return to virtuality, to i. as enunciable, the memory-images, the dream-images and the crystal-images emerge (the direct ones of time, in which the present that passes and the past that remains coexist)

L'immagine come configurazione formale

Nelle riflessioni sul realismo (v.) e l'ontologia dell'i. si afferma che lo scarto tra l'oggetto e la sua rappresentazione è prossimo alla coincidenza. I teorici che vedono in essa una struttura formale pongono invece l'accento sul fatto che ogni i. presuppone, accanto alla mimesis, anche una poiesis, ovvero una logica di produzione. E quindi teorici come Rudolf Arnheim e S.M. Ejzenštejn, pur sviluppando posizioni molto diverse, sono convinti che la costruzione dell'i. implichi l'attivazione di procedimenti compositivi e di una forte mediazione formale.

 

L'immagine differenziale

Arnheim moves in the theoretical orbit of Gestalt psychology. The i., In his opinion, is always a scheme, implies a mediation, a formal reorganization of the visible on the basis of the structures of perception. Its shape is defined by the mental patterns of perceptual subjects and the specific qualities of the medium. According to Arnheim the specificity of the i. cinematographic lies precisely in the reproductive deficits of cinema (the theoretical discourse that he develops refers primarily to silent cinema, obviously characterized by a strong hegemony of the visual). The 'differential' status of the i. filmica is the guarantee of cinema autonomy. Arnheim identifies the most important differentiating factors from reality: the projection on the flat surface of the framing of three-dimensional objects and spaces; a significant reduction in depth; the absence of color; the limits of the i., defined by the edges of the frame; the fragmentation of perceptual continuity, through assembly; the absence of non-visual perceptive stimuli (tactile, olfactory, sound, etc.). And cinema affirms its own artistic quality in articulating and enhancing the differentiating elements of the i. in a compositional framework characterized by the overcoming of the reproduction of the visible in favor of a new visual and dynamic form. absence of non-visual perceptive stimuli (tactile, olfactory, sound, etc.). And cinema affirms its own artistic quality in articulating and enhancing the differentiating elements of the i. in a compositional framework characterized by the overcoming of the reproduction of the visible in favor of a new visual and dynamic form. absence of non-visual perceptive stimuli (tactile, olfactory, sound, etc.). And cinema affirms its own artistic quality in articulating and enhancing the differentiating elements of the i. in a compositional framework characterized by the overcoming of the reproduction of the visible in favor of a new visual and dynamic form.

 

The constructive image

In the very rich theoretical thought of Ejzenštejn the specific quality of the i. filmica does not derive from the supposed mimetic vocation of the new medium. There. it must not be a reproduction of the data but a recombination of the visible elements and a generation of meaning. Through an articulated cinematographic formalization work of the sign, which finds the dominant operating principle in the assembly, it can shatter and expressly recompose the data, it can go beyond the representation of a particular referent to access a new dimension and produce a global eidetic meaning (i.e. linked to the intellectual function of the image-idea). Ejzenštejn distinguishes representation (izobraženie) from i. (obraz): the first concerns the object, its visible contours, it consists in the figuration of the features that immediately denote it and establish its limits, while the second mobilizes the sense of the object, knows how to grasp and exhibit its general structure (obobščenie). In the I., moreover, not only the nature of what is presented in it becomes visible, but also the attitude elaborated by the consciousness that realizes it. The representative size of the i. it constitutes a starting figurative material in the form of fragments: this material is the object of a structural redefinition that tends towards abstraction through the construction of an associative process. The concatenation between the fragments (assembly) is not reproductive, but productive: it does not return a predetermined totality, but builds a new structure of meaning, that was not present in the individual representative fragments: "with the combination of two representable we get the notation of something that is graphically unrepresentable [...]. But this is montage! Yes. It is the same thing we do in cinema when we put in relation to certain frames which appear to be unique from a representative point of view and neutral as regards meaning, in meaningful contexts and sequences "(1963-1970, 2nd vol .; trad. it. 1986, pp. 4-5). The construction work of the i. it is articulated on different levels of formal mediation: the first level is within the single frame, the cell of the film, and operates on the plastic composition, that is on the distribution / dislocation, on the 'cut' and the 'glimpse' of the different components of the scene at the inside the switchboard (switchboard), in order to highlight a "generalized compositional profile of the staging. The second level is the assembly of the fragments, their concatenation in a shape-rhythm, in a line of movement, in a dynamic image" (1963-1970, 2 ° vol .; trad. It. 1985, p. 319) motivated by a unity of meaning. The relationship of mutual penetration and unity between representation and i. it is also present in the first level, but becomes particularly productive in this phase of the assembly chain: "of the hooves that gallop, the head of a horse that runs, the rump of a horse that runs away. There are three representations. And only from their unification the sense of the image of the gallop of a horse arises in consciousness "(1963-1970, 2nd vol .; trad. it. 1985, p. 150). The last level is that of the audiovisual work: in this case it will be a matter of coordinating the visual and sound materials for the construction of a polyphonic structure. In every phase of construction of the i., The assembly is always responsible for producing the sense.

There. for Ejzenštejn it is essentially mental, an inner structure, therefore closer to metaphor (understood not in rhetorical key but as a dynamic of extension / conceptual generalization of figuration) than to the icon, or to the materiality of the visual. The dialectical structure of the production montage (formal projection of a wider dialectic, understood as the structural foundation of each phenomenon) is in fact proposed as a reproduction of the logical-elementary processes activated by the spectator: for this reason the process of constitution of the i. cinematographic mimes and together exhibits the process of formation of i. in the viewer. The i., Therefore, does not have an objective but mediated reality: in other words it exists not as a result that is given to the viewer,

The image-sign

Theories about i. filmic as a structure of transfiguration, as data and construction process, find in the semiotic reflection reasons for deepening and rearrangement. The known distinction, proposed by Charles S. Peirce, between the three types of sign (icon, index, symbol) also re-articulates the interpretation of i. cinematographic: the icon represents the object by way of similarity or analogy, the indexical sign implies a causal link between sign and referent, the symbolic sign is based on an entirely conventional relationship between the sign and the reference object. In i. cinematographic values ​​can be found of all three types: iconic (analogue statute), indexical (ontological statute) and symbolic (cultural statute).

In the early sixties the profound renewal of theoretical reflection placed the questions on the i. at the center of the question of the linguistics of cinema, already developed by Russian formalists in the 1920s. Jean Mitry , while placing himself in controversy with the nascent semiology(v.) of cinema, identifies in the i. the matter of expression proper to the cinematographic language, and definitively recognizes its sign structure. Every i. filmic, says Mitry, is a two-degree sign: on the one hand, it is the sign of what it reproduces; on the other, organized in series, it becomes a sign a second time, within a discursive continuity which actually implies the existence of a language. According to Mitry, observes F. Casetti, "the filmic image is of the order of language first of all because, like any language, it establishes a parallel and autonomous universe that is not confused with that in which we live" (1993, pp. 77-78 ).

But the elaboration of a semiological theory on the i. cinematographic is the work of Christian Metz. There. in movement, he says, he establishes an analogical relationship with reality, the functioning of which implies the activation of the codes that intervene in the decoding of the real object. By highlighting this plurality of "technical", "mixed", "anthropological" codes that determine the analogy, Metz insists on the need to go beyond the analogy itself, considering the linguistic value of the i. film. The entrance of the i. in language it is ensured by the reciprocal relationship of i. themselves in large syntagmatic units, larger than the linguistic units and structured by a series of specific codes (machine movements, the so-called cinematic punctuation etc.) and non-specific. She. are articulated to

Beyond the different interpretations that emerged in cinema theory, the i. filmica has some basic characters that define its structure. First of all, it has a double meaning. On the one hand, as it is recorded and imprinted on the film; on the other, as, above all, projected and destined to appear on a screen: on the contrary, its actual objectification is obtained only in the screen projection. There. filmic must therefore be activated thanks to the projection mechanism and presents characteristics of impalpability, absence of visible contents and virtuality. It is therefore marked by the presence of a visual configuration and by the absence of the objects and people displayed. Even if the i. projected is an image-movement, in fact, the movement perceived by the spectator is the result of a perceptual process carried out by mixing physiological and intellectual functions, since the film is made up of a series of i. static, recorded frame by frame. Each ensemble imprinted on the film is always immobile, yet the cinema has an i. in perennial movement. There. filmica is the result of a projection that provides in the cinema of sound scrolling at 24 frames per second (from 12 to 20 during the silent phase) alternating with 24 i. black. It therefore comes out of black, is almost incorporated into black, even if it appears to the spectator completely free from it and in its apparent mobile continuity. A French theorist like Guy Fihman has defined this process of objectification of a image-movement through the concatenation of a set of i. static as the realization of the principles of Zeno's thought. According to Fihman (1979, p. 181) the cinema dates back to when Zeno conceived his philosophy. But, on the contrary, Deleuze, while not addressing the physiological and intellectual problems of perception, affirms the structurally new character of the i. film, which would imply a reorganization of the perception of the world.

Unlike an i. printed or painted, the filmic one is constituted by the dynamism of light, a sort of mobile material that outlines the composition and draws the iridescent and multiple form of the visible. Cinema writes with light, writes on light, constitutes a particular adventure in the universe of light, which is dynamic, constantly changing, and has additional mobility. There. filmica is a configuration of light, and is therefore a mobility in continuous transformation. The objects, the people impressed on the film are recreated and permanently transformed by the light, they develop and change thanks to the continuous and variable flows of brightness. Its fundamental character is traditionally considered the illusion (or impression) of reality. There. filmica generally presents a visual analogy with the world of phenomena and is organized in such a way as to guarantee an impression of reality not only thanks to the work of recording the visible on the film carried out by the camera, but also thanks to the incorporation of the movement and duration in the same i . projected. Just its dynamism seems to guarantee the effects of depth of space and almost of relief of objects and bodies. The illusion of reality, on the other hand, is reinforced by the elements of representation and figuration present in the image. In fact, it is strongly marked by multiple aspects of similarity with the referents, of substitute presentation of the same objects, of evocation through the description or portrait of something. These effects, which the condom registration process ensures, they are defined by the specific quality of the staging work which contributes to further developing the mere representative date in a figurative and visual dimension. The coordination of all elements of the visible in an i. coherently organized outlines the visual structure as a determined form, a formal configuration. P IN. filmic, then, the figurative dimension intertwines and overlaps the representative dimension, of which it constitutes a more advanced and elaborate stadial level. Not only in the staging of the directors most engaged in formal and pictorial drawing, but also in the direction of some authors linked above all to the recording of the visible, the i. successful present a

There. filmic therefore incorporates anthropomorphic representation and / or figuration, related to the action of living subjects and integrates them with a visualization work which constitutes a particular qualifying element of cinema. As a horizon of intertwining representation, figuration and visualization it does not have a prevailing nature of mirroring (reflection) of the world, but on the contrary it extends into the horizon that links the visual to its formal and mental reworking and therefore to the imaginary. In fact, its references may be psychic phantoms no less than visible phenomena and the representative and figurative articulations of i. together they attest to the contiguity of the visible screen with the imaginary, its definition in the psychic horizon rather than in the worldly one. We must not forget that the i. it is the point of confluence between the imaginary and the world, as Edgar Morin recalls in Le cinéma, ou l'homme imaginaire. On the other hand, the same meaning plane of i. it is marked by an overlap of layers of meaning, which attest to a structural widening of its semantic (and formal) implications. Ejzenštejn already pointed out the co-presence in the i. of the visual form and of the idea and its ability to transmit and / or produce ideas in the viewer (1963-1970, 5th vol .; trad. it. In the interest of the form, 1971). IS which attest to a structural expansion of its semantic (and formal) implications. Ejzenštejn already pointed out the co-presence in the i. of the visual form and of the idea and its ability to transmit and / or produce ideas in the viewer (1963-1970, 5th vol .; trad. it. In the interest of the form, 1971). IS which attest to a structural expansion of its semantic (and formal) implications. Ejzenštejn already pointed out the co-presence in the i. of the visual form and of the idea and its ability to transmit and / or produce ideas in the viewer (1963-1970, 5th vol .; trad. it. In the interest of the form, 1971). ISRoland Barthesmore recently he pointed out that the i. filmica produces different layers of meaning: a first descriptive and informative level, related to communication, a second symbolic level, which is then that of signification, and a more complex third level, linked to the significance and together with the (immaterial) materiality of the . and to its possible suggestions, an "evident, erratic, obstinate", "oversized", "excessive ... excess" sense (1970; trad. it. 1997, p. 116-17). According to Barthes this third sense is expressed for example. in some particular visual aspects of Ivan Groznij of Ejzenštejn: "the compactness of the courtiers' face, often, trodden, or smooth, distinct; the stupid nose of one, the fine drawing of the eyebrows of another, his washed-out blond, his white and purple complexion, filmic with respect to verbal texts and suggests a consideration of cinema in its particular visual configuration, against the operations of tracing it back to other relevant horizons (narratology, for example, language, ways of enunciation, according to the various waves In this perspective, there is no doubt that in its history cinema has elaborated not only different editing techniques or narrative structures, but also and above all different types of I., different models of filmic configuration of the visible. And these models constituted in a certain sense the first level of objectification and significance of the filmic text. The adventure of cinema is also the story of different visual macroforms, which therefore attest that the history of cinema is also a system of formal differences. Among the fundamental models of i. elaborated in the history of cinema it is worth remembering at least the following: 1) The i. hyperformalized developed in particular, but not only, in the silent period, by great authors, such asFritz Lang , Ejzenštejn, Georg W. Pabst, Robert Wiene, Marcel L'Herbier and Abel Gance . In this horizon it is possible to identify further articulations: the i. intensive-deformed Wiene and Expressionism, the i. plastic-geometric of Lang, the i. dialectic-conflictual of Ejzenštejn, the i. organic-pictorial of Friedrich W. Murnau etc.

2) The i. likely and strongly codified of Hollywood cinema, exactly programmed and made according to extremely high visual standards, which also define the visible and the non-visible (Howard Hawks, John Ford, Frank Capra , William Wyler etc.).

3) The image-made of the so-called cinema of the reality proper to French realism, Neorealism and part of the Nouvelle vague (Jean Renoir, Roberto Rossellini , the first films of Luchino Visconti, Jean-Luc Godard , François Truffaut, Jacques Rivette etc. .).

4) The color image, which outlines the visible through the dynamics of chromatic-expressive intensities (the chromatic-expressive i of Ejzenštejn, Vincente Minnelli , Michelangelo Antonioni, Bernardo Bertolucci, Stanley Kubrick, David Lynch etc.).

5) The i. experimental and non-referential, which attests to the richness and variety of avant-garde research, from abstract cinema to Surrealism, from Dada to the extreme experiences of the American Underground and on the horizon of vision metaphors (from Viking Eggeling to Fernand Léger, from Man Ray to Kenneth Anger, from Stan Brakhage to Andy Warhol).

Within these macro categories it is possible to identify further visual models. The strong stylization of Lang's geometric syncretism is profoundly different from the distorting stylization of Wiene's caligarism, the pop-simulative recreation of Godard of the second sixties is different from Pasolini's pictorial historicist nature. All these staging options, of course , are essential not only in relation to the specific configuration of the i., but in the objectification of the poetics and ideas of cinema of the various directors. The representation of the world is therefore not a structural character of the i. filmic, but is the result of a choice of direction. The narrative cinema, on the other hand, is not the only one existing: the avant-garde and the Underground have created another type of i. film, characterized by a very particular inventiveness and a strong self-reflective component. There. filmic is therefore a visual-dynamic composition, a configuration defined by the staging work, which sometimes makes use of the visual structures of the phenomena and at other times recreates and infinitely widens the horizon of the visible. Cinema is at the same time the i. Lang form and the i. made of Rossellini, the i. unconscious of Luis Buñuel and the metaphor of the i. from Brakhage. It is in what is seen and in what is not seen: in the i. and beyond it. which sometimes makes use of the visual structures of phenomena and other times it infinitely recreates and widens the horizon of the visible. Cinema is at the same time the i. Lang form and the i. made of Rossellini, the i. unconscious of Luis Buñuel and the metaphor of the i. from Brakhage. It is in what is seen and in what is not seen: in the i. and beyond it. which sometimes makes use of the visual structures of phenomena and other times it infinitely recreates and widens the horizon of the visible. Cinema is at the same time the i. Lang form and the i. made of Rossellini, the i. unconscious of Luis Buñuel and the metaphor of the i. from Brakhage. It is in what is seen and in what is not seen: in the i. and beyond it.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

R. Arnheim, Film als Kunst, Berlin 1932 (trad. It. Milan 1989²).

L'univers filmique , éd. IS. Souriau, Paris 1953.

R. Arnheim , Art and visual perception , Los Angeles 1954 (trad. It. Milan 1962).

E. Morin , Le cinéma, ou l'homme imaginaire , Paris 1956, 1977² (trad. It. Milan 1982).

A. Bazin , Qu'est-ce que le cinéma? , 1-4, Paris 1958-1962 (trad. It. Parz. Milan 1973, 1986²).

S. Kracauer, Theory of film , New York 1960 (trad. It. Film. Return to physical reality , Milan 1962).

J. Mitry, Esthétique et psychologie du cinéma , 2 vols., Paris 1963-1965.

SM Ejzenštejn , Izbrannye proizvede-nija v šesti tomach (Works selected in six volumes), Moskva 1963-1970, 2nd vol. (trad. it. General theory of assembly , Venice 1985 and The assembly , Venice 1986) and 5th vol. (trad. it. In the interest of the form, in "Black and White", 1971, 7-8).

Ch. Metz, Essais sur la signification au cinéma , Paris 1968 (trad. It. Semiology of cinema , Milan 1972).

R. Barthes, Le troisième sens: notes de recherches sur quelques programmes de SM Eisenstein , in "Cahiers du cinéma", 1970, 222 (trad. It. On cinema , Genoa 1997, pp. 116-31).

Ch. Metz, Essaissur la signification au cinéma II, Paris 1972 (trad. It. Signification in cinema , Milan 1975).

PP Pasolini, Heretical Empiricism , Milan 1972.

J.-F. Lyotard , L'acinéma , in "Revue d'esthétique", 1973, 2-4.

G. Fihman, Le cinéma data du jour où, in Du cinéma selon Vincennes, Table ronde sur l'enseignement du cinéma à l'Université de Paris VIII , Paris 1979, pp.181-89.

G. Deleuze, The image-mouvement , Paris 1983 (trad. It. Milan 1984).

S. Zunzunegui, Mirar la imagen, Bilbao 1984.

G. Deleuze, The image-temps , Paris 1985 (trad. It. Milan 1989).

R. Debray, Vie et mort de l'image , Paris 1992 (trad. It. Milan 1999).

F. Casetti, Theories of cinema 1945-1990 , Milan 1993.

J. Aumont, The image, Paris 1994.

F. Jacques, J.-L. Leutrat, L'autre visible , Paris l998.