Barzin 's point of view towards Film Style +Depth Of Field + Mise en Scene ~(Edited By Miharu Yong)

米哈鹿在做影评功课时，
发现到巴金关于电影风格，摄影等很有用和有趣的文章，
就贴在这里和大家分享~

DEPTH OF FIELD

Having pointed toward Bazin's preference for the mise-en-scéne style I will now discuss his reasons for that choice. The depth of field/long take style, known as mise-en-scéne, attracted itself to Bazin for two essential reasons:
a) it maintained the unity of space and the relationship between the objects within that space

b) it gave the spectator, according to Bazin, the freedom to direct his/her own control over the viewing process, including what to look at, in what order, for how long, and to make their own synthesis of that viewing process. Together they maintain the ambiguity - the existential ambiguity present all around us in life- of that space.

Mise-en-scéne can incorporate two styles, one being a documentary­like process where the camera “allows us to see” the event (Neo- Realism) and a second more aesthetic rendition of reality where the realism derives almost exclusively from the respect for spatial unity (Welles, Andrei Tarkovsky, and Theo Angelopoulos).

An integral part of the mise-en-scéne style is the presence of depth of field. Bazin wrote entirely on this aspect in the article “Pour en finir avec la profondeur de champ” (“My Final Words on Depth of Field”) (Cahiers du Cinéma. 17-23). This article begins by stating that depth of field belongs only incidentally to the technical domain (my translation):

If depth of field interests us it is only incidentally as a technical progress of a shooting style and, essentially, as a revolution of mise-en-scéne or, more precisely, 'decoupage' (19).
Here he sets down the kernel for the balance of the article. Bazin examines a frame from the 1910 film Onésime (Louis Feuillade) and sees in its composition in depth and soft focus the seeds for the later more refined depth of field style. The shot in questions has the title character framed in left, extreme close-up, with a secondary character visible in the right background of the frame (my translation):

Something outside of Feuillade's genius allowed him to spontaneously discover a prophetic frame, a rough outline of a Renoir or Wellesian shot. In this case,
the discovery was not out of genius, but out of necessity - he did not have a choice (20).
Given the technical state of 1910 the shot succeeds partly; both planes are visible but the background is soft. Again, giving the state of cinematography (to render a clear, legible image) and the state of audience awareness the softness of the background appears as a default. With the ameliorization of the depth of field shooting style and the parallel advancement of audience awareness, soft focus becomes a technique (rack focus and softening of a part of the image for an effect) and takes on a different meaning, that of decoupage. The soft focus effect is (my translation)
... an indirect means in which to place value in the shot which is being focused; it transcribes in the frame the dramatic hierarchy which montage expresses in time.
Consequently:
In this new complex perception the clarity of the background is no longer indispensable; soft focus is no longer experienced like an im­probability: it becomes contrast and not contradiction (Cahiers du Cinéma 22).
In a pre-montage context Feuillade foreshadows the true sense of depth of field - the ability to preclude montage through decoupage in depth.

According to Bazin decoupage in depth approaches a realism in an ontological sense, restoring to objects their existential density. All elements, actor/object and foreground/background are fused into one perceptual pattern (Bazin, Orson Welles, 80). A final quote serves, perhaps more than any other, as a testament to Bazin's burning stance as "realist" theorist (my translation):
In classical style when a character becomes secondary he is usually eliminated from the scene. Welles maintains that his play not be so precise, but to keep the character “alive” so as to allow the spectators to continually dispense their attention. We must constantly be on the lookout for principal actions which can produce itself “behind our backs” so to speak. Here a part is taken from reality; a way of posing reality homogenous, of considering it indivisible and accruing equal weight to all coordinates of the screen. All the decor and all the actors in the total image are equally offered to the action and at the same time to our attention. If they remain outside it is nothing but a hazard as equally unpredictable as an isolated result of the numbers game (Bazin, Les Temps Modernes 947).


Reference List:

http://www.horschamp.qc.ca/new_offscreen/bazin_intro.html