The mise-en-scène of cinema



Considerations on the role of the spacing of bodies and things in scene

Jean Renoir after Jacques Rivette after Jacques Aumont

The concept of “mise-en-scène” defines, among other elements, the spacing of bodies and things on the scene. It comes from the theater, at the end of the 1950th century/beginning of the XNUMXth century, and arises with the progressive appreciation of the figure of the director, who starts to plan globally the placement of the drama in the scenic space. He penetrates film criticism in the XNUMXs, when cinematographic art asserts its stylistic uniqueness, leaving behind the closest influence of the plastic vanguards.

Mise-en-scène in cinema means framing, gesture, voice intonation, light, movement in space. It is defined in the figure of the subject who offers himself to the camera in the shooting situation, interacting with someone else who, behind the camera, glances at him and directs his action. In the documentary scene, the concept of mise-en-scène shifts a little and lands, more loosely, on the spark of the action of the circumstance of the shot.

The generation of new wave French, before ascending to the direction, still in the exercise of criticism, found in the idea of mise-en-scène a very useful concept for building your new authorial pantheon. The term acquires its contemporary meaning through the generation of Hitchcocko-Hawksian “Young Turks” and cinephiles called Macmahonians. The appreciation of mise-en-scène has, as a compositional foundation, stylistic elements that found modernity in cinema, placing it in the 1950s. see the cinema that speaks.

Moving away from a more simplistic approach, it is important to remember that great directors from the golden age of theater in the early XNUMXth century (such as Vsevolod Meyerhold, Max Reinhardt, Constantin Stanislavski, Edward Gordon Craig, Adolphe Appia) make up, very closely, the tradition of mise-en-scène, later praised by directors such as Murnau, Lang, Losey and Preminger. All expressionist cinema owes a clear debt to the great stagings of Max Reinhardt, in the same way that it is difficult to think of Russian constructivism, Eisenstein in particular, without the scenic work inspired by the experiences of Vsevolod Meyerhold.

Staging in cinema, the great “mise-en-scène”, has always had a profound dialogue with the horizon of the art of staging, as it developed in the theatrical scene. The strong influence that some metteurs-en-scène Europeans had on the nascent Hollywood cinema. The eyes of French critics in the 1950s, seeking the affirmation of cinematographic art, turned to film directors who were more susceptible to European theatrical mise-en-scène, as is the case of Otto Preminger, Max Ophuls or Fritz Lang .

But adapting to a mise-en-scène model is complex. The elegy of the mise-en-scène in cinema is realized through different sides, and also on the side of realism, as, for example, André Bazin's look when praising Jean Renoir's mise-en-scène. The term “mise-en-scène”, in the 1950s, describes the moment when cinema discovers itself as such and manages to see in itself the layer of its own style. It is a specificity that is no longer that of “pure cinema”, or that of the silent aesthetics of the beginning of the century, and that is no longer constructivist, futuristic or surrealist. It is the form of the first cinematic avant-garde.

In a text included in the annals of conferences at the Colégio de História da Arte Cinematográfica, Le Theater dans le Cinéma (AUMONT, 1992/93), Jacques Aumont, develops an interesting analysis of the mise-en-scène with a realistic approach, in an article entitled “Renoir le Patron, Rivette le Passeur”. Aumont starts from a phrase by Jacques Rivette, an author who maintains strong ties with the theater, that “every great film is a film about theater”. For Jacques Aumont, there are two arts that are “tutors” of cinema: theater and painting. Introducing theater into cinema means “making sensitive a certain structure of space, based on closure and opening”. Within this perspective, Jacques Aumont will try to locate a kind of evolutionary line, from Jean Renoir to Jacques Rivette, establishing a strong relationship between the two fields. By bringing Renoir and Rivette together, Jacques Aumont traverses the field of paradox, uniting Renoir, an author with a markedly realistic style, and Rivette, who always sought to make his debt to the theater scene clear.

Jacques Aumont develops an interesting analysis of mise-en-scène in cinema, defining the tradition of mise-en-scène that comes from Preminger/Reinhardt, as the “Central European dramaturgical heritage” in Hollywood, whose typical representation he finds in Otto Preminger , “whose films in the 1940s and 1950s are remarkable for the manic precision of gestures, the movement of bodies, the rhythm” (AUMONT, 1992/93, p. 229). The mise-en-scène tradition, which expanded in the great Hollywood cinema of the 1930s and 1940s, heir to the Central European theatrical dramaturgy of the beginning of the century, “is a conception of mise-en-scène as calculation, as 'mise-en-scène'. -en-place', as a construction of rhythm through montage, as marking of significant elements through framing” (AUMONT, 1992/93, p. 229). Jacques Aumont concludes by saying that this is a passionate conception of mise-en-scène in cinema, but he will point to another practice of mise-en-scène, marked by realism, which he sees developed in Europe, around the Renoir / Rivette axis .

He outlines, then, an evolutionary line that places Renoir as boss and Rivette as ferryman (continuer, epigone). It is about approaching the realist tradition in cinema, finding space to over-determine the presence of theatrical staging at the heart of cinematographic realism, in which Renoir always occupied a prominent position. Jacques Aumont situates the differences between the Hollywood and European traditions of mise-en-scène in two elements: the exploration of cinematographic space and the exploration of the actor's interpretation, where he highlights the cinema that comes from Renoir/Rivette.

The dramatic space in the tradition of Central European theatrical mise-en-scène, which arrives in Hollywood, took care to create a significant cinematographic frame to accommodate it. According to the terms of Jacques Aumont "lui faire income raison et presque lui faire income gorge” (Aumont, 1992/93: 229). In other words, using the cinematic scenic space explicitly, to the point of exhausting it, exhausting its potential in a kind of structural grammar of the new mise-en-scène, which ties the neck of the cinematographic space to extract the necessary resources in the composition.

The posture of the realistic axis of cinematographic staging (Renoir/Rivette) is distinct and focuses on the space that is given in the world of the shot. A space, which itself, in an original way to the mise-en-scène, “imposes its structure and almost its meaning”. The structure of the world, its constitution in style, is there and it is up to the mise-en-scène to allow itself to be carried away by the force of the slope, by the gravitational attraction of its nuclei of movement, action and expression, as they appear to the camera.

The definition of the difference between the two fields (the mise-en-scène of the Central European Hollywood tradition that comes from the theater and the theatrical-realist European mise-en-scène that comes from the history of cinema) is specified as follows: “the mise-en-scène -en-scène (for the European realist stylistics Renoir/Rivette) no longer consists so much of mastering the penetration of the actor's body in space, but of following lines of attraction suggested by the dramatic space as it is” (Aumont, 1992/93, p. 229).

The exploration of dramatic space in the realist tradition is, then, defined by Jacques Aumont as the appropriation of a stylistics with a minimalist cut, opened in the spatial constellation of the world that comes to hit the socket, taking advantage of the disposition of things and beings in movement, which they are already there. But there is another axis that we must follow in order to approach, in its definition, the European realist mise-en-scène: that of the actor's staging. And it is from the analysis of the actor's work that Jacques Aumont works not only on Renoir's style, but on the incorporation that the heir Rivette makes of it. It stems from the fact that, despite being known for “his art of depth of field, mise-en-scène virtuosity, penetrating and engaging camera movement”, it is in relation to the direction of actors that he constitutes himself, in the 'boss ' Renoir, the inspirational reference.

In Renoir's realistic aesthetics, in his position aimed at obtaining a 'truth' of the world by gluing the mise-en-scène in its way of happening, it is the actor and the construction of the performance (his interpretation) that occupy a privileged moment. The 'Renoir system', in career progression, becomes “increasingly less rigidly scenic to focus on the actor” (Aumont, 1992/93, p. 231): “Jean Renoir's legacy in Jacques Rivette consists then, very clearly, in shifting this problematic (that of staging) even more frankly from the actor's side, making the actor the very source of truth and emotion” (Aumont, 1992/93, p. 231). In other words, making the actor the source of realism (truth and emotion), within which Renoir moves at will and swims in large strokes. A system that, in Renoir, is less and less rigidly scenic in order to focus on the actor's work.

Like Renoir, Rivette follows a method in the actor's direction that outlines a general plan of conduct. This is not an opening for improvisation per se (both directors are known for forcing actors to repeat the same scene infinite times), but one that, starting from a plane of attitudes, a draft of intentions and procedures, allows the actors to bring contributions diverse for the scene, in a kind of “collective invention”. Jacques Aumont explains the method: “Rivette's filming mechanism is well known: it is a game on a plane of dramatic instructions (often extremely reduced: some 'scripts' by Rivette, especially before his collaboration with screenwriters and renowned dialoguists, are notable for their extreme brevity, such as that of Out 1 (1971) which has one page)” (Aumont, 1992/93, p. 231).

The risk of working with this 'system' is to reach the end and get nothing. Having a loose film in hand, with scenes loaded with obvious lines passing by the dramatic tension. If the risk is great, the gain of realistic staging is on the other side of the mise-en-scène coin. It is lost in the manic precision of the gesture, in the composition, which Jacques Aumont finds in Preminger, it gains in dealing with the intensity of the actor's body in his attitude, free in the world.

What is at stake, for boss Renoir and his disciple Rivette, is to be able to establish a realistic mise-en-scène, sustaining the sole leg of the staging in the direction of actors, with increasingly minimalist procedures in the composition of the space of the world. The final tying of the narrative interacts with the original space through the multiplication of editing options. Rivette, in long periods of seclusion, usually faces as director/editor, the polishing of movement, the montage of shots and the articulation of rhythm in narrative. Would the actor released in the shot by the 'instruction plan' be polished in the montage/editing?

The danger of directors shooting themselves out of the water, in this type of realistic mise-en-scène, is concrete: “the risk that exists is that the collective invention fails and proves to be insufficient, either to feed the film or to make it how it supports itself. But movies like Celine and Julie, The North Bridge, Out 1 are amply nourished by this substance that the actor brings to the character and to the narrative, making Rivette fully play, in this plane, his role of disciple” (Aumont, 1992/93, 231).

The link between Renoir and Rivette can be seen as the passing of the baton from the realist mise-en-scène, asserting itself in a universe different from the one in which the critique of art was formed. new wave in the 1950s. Jacques Aumont is clear when defining the field of passage: “Jean Renoir's heritage in Jacques Rivette therefore consists, very clearly, in shifting this problematic even more incisively onto the actor in order to make him the very source of truth and emotion” (Aumont, 1992/93, 231). The difference between the disciple's practice and that of the master is also found in the other axis of the mise-en-scène, that of exploring space. Jacques Aumont distinguishes in Renoir a kind of classical feature of the scene, based on the centrality of the theatrical space. It has in Renoir a strong connection with the more classical tradition, located “in the dramatic, in the narrative, in perspective, in the centralized space, while (modern) cinema is increasingly linked to values ​​opposed to these, such as the ludic , the game of artificial images, the flattening, the dispersive” (Aumont, 1992/93, p. 233).

Rivette, a man of his time, breaks with the still classical scenic tradition that we breathe in Renoir, to introduce a sensitivity aimed at the fragmentation of modernity. The last part of Jacques Aumont's text will be dedicated to defining modern theatricality in Rivette as it is constituted, based on the axes 'scenic space' and 'actors' interpretation, within a mise-en-scène loaded with theatricality, steeped in the cinematic realism. Renoir, the boss, serves as a picture on the wall and the analysis advances in the subtle mediations that overlapping inheritance and rupture require. The disciple's debt to his boss is well defined in another passage: “Renoir is the quintessential illustration of the idea of ​​'cinema as dramatic art'. But, in his work, the relationship with the theater is natural, almost innocent, never perceived as contradictory with the search for the natural, the true, the documentary itself”. (AUMONT, 1992/93, p 233)

In Rivette, theatricality is no longer innocent, but distant from classical theater and the Italian scene: “it is apprehended theoretically, in a gesture that begins with wanting to prolong the critical tradition from which Rivette emerges” (Aumont refers here to the aesthetics of mise -en-scène central-European Hollywood) “which, more and more, goes against the current, at a time when the bulk of world cinema, after the implosion of Hollywood, is less concerned with pure and simple drama, and more with creating images” (Aumont, 1992/93, p. 233).


Michel Mourlet and the staging of the fascist body

In another direction of this mise-en-scène that Jacques Aumont describes us, but attracted, like Renoir, by the blind spot of intensity and immersed in the Hollywood scenographic tradition of Central European theater, are the writings of the critic Michel Mourlet. In particular, his summary of thought, entitled Sur un art ignored, originally published in Cahiers du Cinema in August 1959 (No. 98) and which would later give the title to a collection with the same name originally published in 1965, followed by other editions (Mourlet, 1987). Michel Mourlet is a leading figure in the so-called MacMahonian group which, in the 50s and 60s, gathered around the MacMahon cinema, located on the avenue of the same name in Paris. The group – also composed of Pierre Risient, George Richard, Michel Fabre, Marc Bernard, Jacques Serguine, Jacques Lourcelles – promotes the release of several films in France, essential for the formation of the modern pantheon of cinephilia. They also edited a short-lived magazine, Presence du Cinema.

In the works of the Nouvelle Vague, it is in the first Godard that we can find stronger repercussions of the aesthetic taste of the MacMahonians, either by the physical presence of the MacMahon cinema in the filming of harassed, either in the participation of Pierre Rissient as an assistant in the film, or in the appearance of Michel Mourlet himself. Another Godard tribute is the well-known quote that opens in voice over. the contempt"Le cinema substitue à notre regard un monde qui s'accorde à nos désirs” (“Cinema transforms our gaze into a world that adapts to our desires”). The passage is a corruption of a passage from Sur un art ignored. It appears in the film debited to André Bazin, in an intertextual joke very much to the filmmaker's liking. Michel Mourlet's article, Sur un Art Ignoré, is published in Notebooks (in the same year as the beleaguered is filmed) surrounded by reservations, perhaps marking the distance with Eric Rohmer who at the time ran the magazine. In addition to being printed in italics, the article is preceded by a paragraph that emphasizes its uniqueness in the editorial line of the Notebooks.

The 'mise-en-scène' is the heart of a film for Michel Mourlet. He defines it as the “effervescence of the world” that appears in the form of colors and lights on the screen. For Michel Mourlet, the recipe for a good mise-en-scène is as follows: “the 'mise-en-place' of actors and objects, their movements within the frame, must express everything, as we see in the supreme perfection of the last two fritz lang movies, The Bengal Tiger (1959) and indian tomb(1959)” (Mourlet, 1987, p. 42/43). And advancing in the definition of the cinematographic mise-en-scène: “The acute proximity of the actor's body conveys fears and the desire for seduction, which must be promoted by the direction of rare gestures, art of the epidermis and voice intonations, a carnal universe – nocturnal or sunny” (Mourlet, 1987, p. 46).

Carnal universe, therefore, pregnant with the life of the body in the circumstances of the taking, a life that the putteur-en-scène must know how to apprehend through the stylistic garrote of the mise-en-scène, through the direction of gestures and voice – basic expressions of the actor. Cinema can emerge, then, as an art of the epidermis, as the art of that thin film that covers the world in brightness when it pulses and that the great mise-en-scène manages to capture. And Michel Mourlet will find this great mise-en-scène in the Central European school, as we have already described. The MacMahnonian aces court, the four leading filmmakers who guide the group's aesthetic taste are due to it: Preminger, the American Lang, Joseph Losey and Raoul Walsh. Mourlet still touches one more on the court of aces: the Italian Vittorio Cottafavi.

Bodies, gestures, interpretation, glances, discreet movement movement in the frame, compose the strategy defined by Michel Mourlet to dry up the elaborate artillery of the theatrical mise-en-scène and make it fit in the cinema. Michel Mourlet, in his radicalism, inaugurates a look focused exclusively on the apprehension of the new mise-en-scène, dressed to the measure of cinematographic narrative. Michel Mourlet's criticism of stylistic mannerism is clear, as he explores the potential of far-fetched framing: “the unusual angles, the bizarre framing, the gratuitous movements of the apparatus, the entire arsenal revealing impotence must be discarded as bad literature.

We will then be able to access this frankness, this loyalty to the actor's body, which is the only secret of mise-en-scène”. (Mourlet, 1987, p.49). In this vein, the mise-en-scène of Eisenstein and Welles is defined as “a great machine of cardboard and canvas”, with “its aggressive modernism and gratuitous originality, covering an old expressionism of a quarter of a century” (Mourlet, 1987 , p.50).

The mise-en-scène style defined by Michel Mourlet is cold and thin, centered on the actor's body. The term he uses to designate the actor's precedence over other scenic elements is well known: “the actor's prominence” ('la preeminence de l'acteur'). The staging, however, evolves in a different direction from what we noticed in the exhibition of Renoir/Rivette's work. Interpretation, according to the critic, must be restrained, combat the expressive intensity and gestural amplitude of the theatrical space. A quote by Hitchcock about actors (“the best film actor is the one who best knows how to do nothing”) is quoted with admiration. An actress with heavy acting work, with a luscious cut, like Giulietta Masina, is ridiculed and characterized as “grotesque”. Michel Mourlet also does not walk in the direction of Bresson and his idea of ​​cold actors, exhausted by repetition, until the 'model' conforms. Bresson, for Michel Mourlet, does not make the actor breathe. His parameters seem to be those of Edward Gordon Craig and the idea of ​​the actor as a puppet, but a puppet that is made of flesh and knows how to look without expanding the vision.

What Michel Mourlet calls “loyalty to the actor's body” completes, as the core of the mise-en-scène, the transfer of the concept to the cinematographic field. Indeed, we are a long way from the great spectacular devices assembled by the first metteurs-en-scène from the cinema. That is why Michel Mourlet can say that “the fundamental themes of the mise-en-scène are ordered around the bodily presence of the actors in a scenario” (Mourlet, 1987, p. 56). Michel Mourlet's vision applies to the field of fiction cinema, where the openness to stylistic procedures is much broader.

Emphasizing the dimension of the actor's body presence in the shot, exploring his openness to the camera's formatting, Michel Mourlet defines a style for the cinematic mise-en-scène. From this nucleus, he names the main elements of the mise-en-scène for himself, all of which are part of the scene of the world transfigured by the shot. They are: “light, space, time, the insistent presence of objects, the sheen of sweat, the thickness of a mane of hair, the elegance of a gesture, the abyss of a gaze” (Mourlet, 1987, p. 55 /56).

By showing sensitivity to the intensity of the presence of the world on screen, Michel Mourlet disfavors the critics who center their analysis on scripts and on the content of films. Script is almost nothing to evaluate a film and its articulation goes beyond the vision of putteur-en-scène of Michel Mourlet: “to believe that it is enough for a filmmaker to write his script and his dialogues, orient himself according to defined themes and repeat actions of his characters, to become a 'film author', is a basic error that makes the false authority of critics mired in literature and blind to the screen's potential” (Mourlet, 1987, p.54).

If 'mise-en-scène' is not writing, the field of montage is also seen with a certain contempt. The montage style, for the kind of mise-en-scène advocated by Michel Mourlet, needs to avoid expressive relief. The assembly must be transparent. It cannot “confront the laws of attention”, but must lead the spectator “in front of the spectacle, in front of the world, the closest thing to the world, thanks to the docility, the malleability of a look to which the spectator adheres until he forgets it”. (Mourlet, 1987, p. 49). The classic profile of decoupage is evident, as well as its distance from the constructivist cut montage. The look that the montage carries must, therefore, be “classic to the extreme, in other words, exact, motivated, balanced, of a perfect transparency, through which the naked expression finds its greatest intensity”. (Mourlet, 1987, p. 49)

It is the search for this “naked expression” that, contradictorily, ends up leading Michel Mourlet to an aesthetic sensibility in which we can find the elegy of a will to power, with clear Nietzschean contours, in what this sensibility was most dangerous (and we can remember here is Susan Sontag from fascinating fascism) (SONTAG, 1986). The arc of the path follows what we defined above as the “actor's prominence”. The prominence of the actor's direction is seen as a kind of hymn to the glory of bodies, as it is the actor's body that Michel Mourlet refers to. Cinema is defined as a “hymn to the glory of bodies that must recognize eroticism as its supreme destiny” (Mourlet, 1987, p. 52).

The definition is interesting: “due to its dual status as art and looking at the flesh, (cinema) is destined for eroticism as the reconciliation of man with his flesh” (Mourlet, 1987, p.52). Flesh and the world, or the flesh of the world, are essentially phenomenological concepts, showing Michel Mourlet's harmony with traces of André Bazin's thought and his belonging crossed in the ideological context of the French post-war period. They are key concepts for Michel Mourlet to build his notion of mise-en-scène, opening up the flesh of the world on cinematographic stylistics. A cold, classic stylistic, garroted by the scene's tying, but asking the world to come hit it, with the power of its intensity and, above all, with the haughtiness and precise violence of what he calls an 'effective gesture'. It is the 'effective gesture' that serves as the key to valuing the finest elements at the heart of Macmahonian stylistics in terms of settings, movement on the scene, look, voice, bodies and objects.

The vision of a camera-world conformed to the raw power of the actor's body points to Michel Mourlet's sensitivity to power and domination, defined by the word “glory”, or, “hymn to the glory of bodies”. The mise-en-scène as a 'hymn to the glory of bodies' is composed of elegy of extreme moments of the actor's body, when open to the world in the shot. It appears in a vision of the intense image that, clearly in reverse, meets Bazin's displaced sensibility in his ethical demands that surround the establishment of cinematographic realism. In Michel Mourlet, the tone is clearly anti-humanist, reaching Nietzschean overtones in that they exalt the beauty of strength over weakness, the will to power that dominates through the affirmation of the will, and the contempt for the Christian logic of the lord's compassion and guilt. in the humility of the slave.

In Michel Mourlet, therefore, the sensitivity to the actor's precise gesticulation finds the fascination of the precise form in the expression of the will to dominate that same body. It also means looking at and enjoying a type of action and reaction of the body on the verge of death. It results in an opening for the aestheticization of war and leaves no doubt about the possibility of spectatorial enjoyment within this limit. In the article "Apology for violence” (Mourlet, 1987), Michel Mourlet analyzes the violence in the cinematographic image having a model in the manifestation of a specific body in the frame of the shot, that of Charlton Heston, directed by Cecil B. De Mille. Violence is seen as a “decompression” resulting from the tension between man and the world. Michel Mourlet centers his analysis of the 'mise-en-scène' emphasizing the possibility of cinema apprehending tension through the dimension of the shot.

Cinema is unique in its way of showing intensity, the moment where the “abscess” of “decompression” explodes. For this reason (as André Bazin had already noticed, when he called cinema obscene), cinema is so close to eroticism: sexual eroticism or violence. Violence is the extreme point of man's experience in the world, and cinema is in a privileged position to represent it. What the other arts can only suggest or simulate, cinema, through the camera, “incarnates in the universe of bodies and objects”.

The 'mise-en-scène', at that moment, is defined by Mourlet, “in its purest essence”, as “an exercise of violence, conquest and pride” (Mourlet, 1987, p. 61). Or even “being an actor's exaltation, the mise-en-scène will find in violence a constant occasion of beauty” (Mourlet, 1987, p. 61). Or, even more explicitly, he makes the elegy of the staging of the intensity that death has on the horizon, fearlessly approaching a fascist aesthetic (although it does not exhaust the mise-en-scène that it proposes). The core of the cinematographic specificity, the contained representation of the vibrant expression of bodily life, evolves in Michel Mourlet in an arrogant way towards pleasure as dominion over the body of others.

Pleasure captured in its raw transcendence in the shot, then made more flexible as in a mise-en-scène: “An exercise in violence, conquest and pride, the mise-en-scène in its purest essence tends towards what some call ' fascism', insofar as this word, in an undoubtedly significant confusion, covers a Nietzschean conception of sincere morality, opposed to the conscience of the idealists, the Pharisees and the slaves. Refusing this search for a natural order, this pleasure in the precise and effective gesture, this glow in the eyes after victory, is to be condemned and understand nothing of an art (cinema) that boils down to the search for happiness through the drama of the body” ( Mourlet, 1987, p. 61).

It would be interesting to analyze how the initially cold experience of the intensity of the shot, synthesized in the aesthetics of the mise-en-scène defended by Michel Mourlet, could walk towards exaltation with fascist colors, acquiring tones that remind us of Nietzschean enthusiasms, even if not in the way that post-structural thinking recovers the philosopher. The definition of mise-en-scène as 'body drama', as 'the art of the exact gesture', makes room for placing his conception of mise-en-scène within the scope of criticism that thought of cinema breathing in the space of the shot, or in the space of the world in retreat cut by the phenomenological bias.

It would be equally useful to compare her to other authors (such as Vivien Sobchack or André Bazin, not to mention, in a different perspective, Stanley Cavell) who are also sensitive to the potentialities of the intensity of life in the cinematographic camera-image, but who knew how to explore them in very different trails.

*Fernão Pessoa Ramos, sociologist, is a professor at the Institute of Arts at UNICAMP. Author, among other books, of The camera image (Papyrus).


Aumont, Jacques. Renoir le Patron, Rivette le Passeur. In: Le Théâtre dans le Cinema – Conferences Du Collége d'Histoire de l'Art Cinématographique nº. 3. Winter 1992/93. Paris. Cinemathèque Française/Musee du Cinema.

Mourlet, Michel. Sur um art ignoré – la mise-en-scène comme langage. Paris, Ramsay, 1987.

SONTAG, Susan. "Fascinating Fascism". In: Under the sign of Saturn. Porto Alegre, LP&M, 1986.


⇒The website the earth is round exists thanks to our readers and supporters. Help us to maintain this idea.⇐
Click here and find how.

See this link for all articles