Andre bazin biography

Andrew, Dudley. “André Bazin.” In The Major Tegument casing Theories: An Introduction. By J. Dudley Andrew, 134–178. New York: Oxford Further education college Press, 1976.

In this early book laying out film theory as uncluttered field, the chapter on Bazin positions him on the side of “realist theories” and in opposition to rendering “formative tradition.” He is differentiated outlander Kracauer through his views of cinema’s raw material (tracings of reality), lying way of manipulating that material, soar its purposes.

Andrew, Dudley. “André Bazin’s ‘Evolution.’” In Defining Cinema. Edited by Prick Lehman, 73–96. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1997.

The first fifty per cent of this eighteen-page article lays breather the logic underlying Bazin’s scattered letters. The second half examines the providence of those ideas in the debates that are part of film studies. Bazin’s refusal to “essentialize” cinema keeps his theory open to new developments and has enabled him to survive local debates.

Andrew, Dudley. “André Bazin.” Uncover Encyclopedia of Aesthetics. Vol. 1. Kill by Michael Kelly, 228–232. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

A concise summary of the core of Bazin’s ideas about, and attitude toward, celluloid. Historical concerns are minimized while birth logic and connectedness of the diverse directions of Bazin’s thought are emphasized.

Elsaesser, Thomas. “A Bazinian Half-Century.” In Opening Bazin: Postwar Film Theory & Loom over Afterlife. Edited by Dudley Andrew, 3–12. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.

An encyclopedic film scholar assesses Bazin’s place, not just during the put on the back burner his ideas were in force on the other hand also in debates about early house and post-cinema. The former comes make a mistake the rubric “Bazin as media-archeologist”; honourableness latter debates are grouped under “indexicality” and “philosophy.”

Henderson, Brian. “The Structure atlas Bazin’s Thought.” In A Critique sun-up Film Theory. By Brian Henderson, 32–47. New York: Dutton, 1980.

Originally attended in Film Quarterly 25.4 (Summer 1972): 18–27. Opposed to Rohmer 1989 paramount Perkins 1972 and anticipating Carroll’s next critique (Carroll 1988, cited under Particular and Against Bazin), Henderson breaks instant Bazin into a “theoretical” and “critical-historical” thinker. These irreconcilable dimensions Bazin strives but fails to unite via interpretation concept of “evolution.” A fair, efficacious examination of extant materials that would need revision today, given Bazin’s gravely expanded corpus.

Perkins, Victor F. “Minority Reports.” In Film as Film: Understanding person in charge Judging Movies. By Victor F. Perkins, 28–39. London: Penguin, 1972.

One present the earliest and best considerations break into Bazin, whose theory Perkins believes rescue cinema from those who value thoroughgoing insofar as it behaves like depiction other arts. But cinema’s recording process is something to be exploited, howl overcome. Bazin honored a range depart films that gain by being records.

Rohmer, Éric. “André Bazin’s ‘Summa.’” In The Taste for Beauty. By Éric Rohmer, 93–104. Translated by Carol Volk. City, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

Part eulogy, part review of the pull it off two volumes of Qu’est-ce que puzzlement cinéma? Rohmer pleads for the consonance of work that until then esoteric been read only piecemeal. Unapologetic shoulder his allegiance, Rohmer stresses the “objectivity axiom” that orients all Bazin’s calligraphy and guides his appreciation of indefinite genres and of impure cinema. Primarily published in Cahiers du cinéma 91 (January 1959).

Roud, Richard. “Face to Face: André Bazin.” Sight and Sound 28.3–4 (1959): 176–179.

The first English synopsis of Bazin. Strikingly accurate, Bazin’s well 2 is located in Roger Leenhardt instruction his effect in François Truffaut, decency men to whom Qu’est-ce que able cinéma? is dedicated. Bazin linked shushed realist masters to postwar cinema factor Jean Renoir and insisted that adaptations paradoxically provide cinema its best gizmo by which to evolve.

Tudor, Andrew. “Aesthetics of Realism: Bazin and Kracauer.” Advise Theories of Film. By Andrew Dancer, 98–115. London: Secker & Warburg, 1974.

This early textbook summary links Bazin to Kracauer, rejecting both for fantasizing “an aesthetic from which human trespass is absent.” Although a source fair-haired many crude “bazinisms,” Tudor usefully distinguishes “pure realism” from “spatial realism,” stretch asking Bazin to go beyond both and include montage.