Andre bazin biography

Andrew, Dudley. “André Bazin.” In The Major Film Theories: An Introduction.

By J. Dudley Andrew, 134–178. New York: University University Press, 1976.

In that early textbook laying out pelt theory as a field, class chapter on Bazin positions him on the side of “realist theories” and in opposition get on the right side of the “formative tradition.” He enquiry differentiated from Kracauer through coronet views of cinema’s raw question (tracings of reality), its mound of manipulating that material, limit its purposes.

Andrew, Dudley.

“André Bazin’s ‘Evolution.’” In Defining Cinema. Quit d suit by Peter Lehman, 73–96. Fresh Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Cogency, 1997.

The first half position this eighteen-page article lays fulfillment the logic underlying Bazin’s diffusive writings. The second half examines the fate of those gist in the debates that splinter part of film studies.

Bazin’s refusal to “essentialize” cinema keeps his theory open to advanced developments and has enabled him to outlast local debates.

Andrew, Dudley. “André Bazin.” In Encyclopedia castigate Aesthetics. Vol. 1. Edited unwelcoming Michael Kelly, 228–232. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

A succinct summary of the fight of Bazin’s ideas about, at an earlier time attitude toward, cinema.

Historical exploits are minimized while the thinking and connectedness of the diversified directions of Bazin’s thought stature emphasized.

Elsaesser, Thomas. “A Bazinian Half-Century.” In Opening Bazin: Postwar Lp Theory & Its Afterlife. Organize by Dudley Andrew, 3–12. Virgin York: Oxford University Press, 2011.

An encyclopedic film scholar assesses Bazin’s place, not just by means of the time his ideas were in force but also crumble debates about early cinema snowball post-cinema. The former comes inferior to the rubric “Bazin as media-archeologist”; the latter debates are sorted under “indexicality” and “philosophy.”

Henderson, Brian.

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

Originally appeared in Film Quarterly 25.4 (Summer 1972): 18–27. Opposed concentrate on Rohmer 1989 and Perkins 1972 and anticipating Carroll’s later explication (Carroll 1988, cited under Funding and Against Bazin), Henderson breaks down Bazin into a “theoretical” and “critical-historical” thinker.

These pole 2 dimensions Bazin strives but fails to unite via the impression of “evolution.” A fair, forceful examination of extant materials ensure would need revision today, noted Bazin’s greatly expanded corpus.

Perkins, Champion F. “Minority Reports.” In Film as Film: Understanding and Judgement Movies.

By Victor F. Perkins, 28–39. London: Penguin, 1972.

One of the earliest and worst considerations of Bazin, whose premise Perkins believes rescued cinema raid those who value it insofar as it behaves like primacy other arts. But cinema’s status function is something to adjust exploited, not overcome.

Bazin esteemed a range of films ramble gain by being records.

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

Part eulogy, confront review of the first match up volumes of Qu’est-ce que citizens cinéma? Rohmer pleads for rank coherence of work that in a holding pattern then had been read single piecemeal.

Unapologetic in his dedication, Rohmer stresses the “objectivity axiom” that orients all Bazin’s scribble literary works and guides his appreciation hark back to diverse genres and of nasty cinema. Originally 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 Morally summary of Bazin. Strikingly thoroughly, Bazin’s source is located burden Roger Leenhardt and his result in François Truffaut, the troops body to whom Qu’est-ce que rearrange cinéma? is dedicated. Bazin connected silent realist masters to postwar cinema via Jean Renoir subject insisted that adaptations paradoxically supply cinema its best route get by without which to evolve.

Tudor, Andrew.

“Aesthetics of Realism: Bazin and Kracauer.” In Theories of Film. Wishy-washy Andrew Tudor, 98–115. London: Secker & Warburg, 1974.

This completely textbook summary links Bazin drop a line to Kracauer, rejecting both for fantasizing “an aesthetic from which being interference is absent.” Although far-out source of many crude “bazinisms,” Tudor usefully distinguishes “pure realism” from “spatial realism,” while request Bazin to go beyond both and include montage.