On Beauty and the Cinema:

Or
What The Anceints Would Say About Our Art
By Fidel Namisi
November 201

1 of 33
We have almost totally lost sight of the beautiful as a criterion of art
Andrey Tarkovsky
The twentieth century was marked by incredible scientific and technological
advancements, ranging from the invention of the airplane and the discovery of
nuclear energy to the widespread use of computing devices. This onward march of
science has also been accompanied by progress in the field of economics, resulting in
the rise of vastly different economic systems such as communism and capitalism. In a
world in which materialism and consumerism have become the order of the day,
where the human being is reduced to either a producer or a consumer, the artist and
his art find themselves in a precarious situation. Art has been described by some as a
spiritual longing for the ideal Tarkovsky, 1!"#$ 3#%. &aced with a very materialistic
world in which the spiritual is largely pushed aside as being some kind of opium for
the masses or an inconvenient set of beliefs, the artist faces a very real and present
danger of losing the ideal' in his art, and peddling it to the materialistic demands
that he finds surrounding him.
This applies to a far greater e(tent to cinema. )f all the other art forms, only cinema
was born out of scientific e(periments and the invention of machinery. In addition it
is the only art form that was commodified from the moment of inception. This
occurrence was inevitable, since cinema was invented in the wake of the industrial
revolution, which placed technological advancement at the service of commerce. It
therefore comes as no surprise that Thomas *dison, the American scientist who
invented the film pro+ector in 1"!1, subse,uently e(hibited films commercially +ust
two years later. -irks, .//0%. It is vital to realise that cinema was born of the union
of the two forces of commerce and technology . Artistic necessities were not the
. of 33
mother of its invention. This has left a very marked effect on cinema, which has aptly
been described as cinema1s original sin' Tarkovsky, 1!"#$ 3#%.
&irstly, cinema has become the most commodified art form, with it1s high production
costs making it an even more business2like venture than pop2music, which can still be
professionally e(ecuted at little or no cost. The commodification of cinema can be
clearly seen in the lingo that is associated with its practice$ marketing', sales',
distribution', producer', commercial'. 3o other art form has had to develop in
such non2artistic circumstances as cinema has, and this situation has most certainly
made an impact on the creation and appreciation of cinema. The value of cinema is
largely centred around its appeal or demand', how well it sells or how much
merchandising and spin2offs' it can generate.
The second effect of cinema1s original sin', that is, the circumstances surrounding
the birth of cinema, is its thirst for technological progress. 4aving been born out a
technological leap, cinema seems to be ever seeking new way of doing things. This is
characteristic of science and technology, whose principal ob+ective is progress. 4ence
the technology and techni,ues of cinema are always evolving rapidly. It is interesting
to note that one of world1s leading film authorities is called the Academy for 5otion
6icture Arts and 7ciences, which in addition to giving awards for artistic achievement
in motion picture, also gives awards for technological advancements.
Technology and commerce have obscured the nature of cinema2as2art Tarkovsky,
1!"#$ 11.%. All the other art forms, from music and poetry to dance, having been
conceived at the dawn of mankind, were for a long time concerned with the
3 of 33
production of beauty, with the edification and perhaps even the education of the
people who would e(perience them. Although they too have suffered from the results
of rampant materialism and consumerism, they at least en+oyed a grace period of
centuries perhaps, when they could develop along lines more in keeping with their
nature. This was not the case with cinema. 4ence the lament of the 8ussian
filmmaker Tarkovsky ,uoted at the beginning of this essay$ 9e have almost totally
lost sight of the beautiful as a criterion in art'. I posit that this statement applies
,uintessentially to the art of cinema, for the reasons outlined above which can again
be summarised in Tarkovsky1s ,uip$ cinema was conceived by science and commerce.
It was not conceived by any idealistic desire to e(press that which is deepest in
human beings, nor by a desire to e(press beauty. It was the result of a series of
successful scientific e(periments that were ,uickly capitalised on for economic gain.
4ence the little concern there is for beauty in cinema, as can be seen in most of the
films that are churned out by the various film factories across the globe. 4ollywood,
:ollywood and 3ollywood are renowned for their commercial impetus in making
film, giving art and beauty little or no room to develop.
This has also affected the academic discipline of film analysis. :eing dependent on
film production for its matter, film analysis has largely followed the materialistic bent
of the matter with which it has been fed. It has largely centred on the analysis of te(ts
in relation to their producer' and consumer', paying little or no attention to the
intrinsic value of the te(ts themselves. This is seen in the various movements in film
analysis, the most influential one being deconstruction, which posits that all
discourses are ploys to e(ercise power over the receivers of that discourse ⁢gerald,
.//0%. 4ence films are analy;ed in terms of the power structure creating them and the
< of 33
result that they have on the sub+ect receiving them. :eauty takes a back seat, if any at
all.
This status quo in filmmaking and film analysis is problematic. The direct
conse,uence of obscuring the necessity of the beautiful in cinema is the obscuring of
the nature of cinema as an art form. If one can ,uestion the necessity of beauty in
cinema, in the same vein one can also ,uestion the validity of referring to cinema as
art. This is the crisis that cinema is facing in our age. It has been peddled as a
commodity for the satisfaction of desire or used as a tool for the dissemination of
ideas. =inema is facing the very real possibility of losing its place among the arts and
being relegated to the province of mere mass communication along with newspapers,
maga;ines and internet websites.
It is the aim of this paper to e(plore possible avenues for the repositioning of cinema
amongst the arts, central to which is the ,uestion of beauty. &or the most part, the fine
arts have been concerned with the production of beauty for a significant period of
time. 6erhaps it is time that this became the primary concern of cinema as well,
particularly because it is still in its early stages of development in relation to the fine
arts. &or this to occur, however, the field of &ilm Analysis would also have to
undergo a paradigm shift and turn its attention away from discourses of power and
towards the understanding of beauty. Traditional film analysis, however, having been
founded on semiotics and deconstruction, is ill2e,uipped for this task Allen, .//#$
1!"%. It would have to seek new tools outside its present arsenal. It is the aim of this
paper to identify these tools and demonstrate that they can indeed be used effectively.
> of 33
9hile theoretically inclined film scholars continue to recycle the theories of ?acan
and -eleu;e, analytical philosophers have ,uietly assumed the leading edge of film
theory Allen, .//#$ 1!"%.' 8ichard Allen, a scholar at 3ew @ork Aniversity, calls our
attention to the emergence of an interesting trend in the area of film analysis. 9hereas
traditional film theory has limited itself to an investigation of themes and messages
via the use of semiotics, structuralism and psychology, Allen suggests that the time
may be ripe for film theory and theorists to cast their eyes further afield. 4e suggests
that the theories of ?acan, ?evi27trauss, -errida and :a;an have become musty due
to uninventive and repetitious re2interpretations, and that analytical philosophy is a
possible tool that could furnish e(citing new insights.
This is a very interesting claim for our study. 4aving established that traditional film
theory is not very helpful to us as it pays little or no attention to the concept of beauty,
analytical philosophy, being a relatively new tool of film analysis, might prove to be
worth investigating. Analy;ing beauty in a film throws up ,uite a number of
conundrums$ what is beautyB =an it be established ob+ectively and thus be worthy of
studyB And most importantly, the ,uestion whose answer cannot be assumed
especially after observing cinema1s scientific and commercial parentage$ is film an
artB These ,uestions cannot be answered by traditional film theories centring on
deconstruction and discourses of power. Analytical philosophy, however, having a
wider range of tools and a longer period of development, might prove to be better
suited to the task.
?et us turn our attention to the first problem that would present itself$ is it possible to
arrive at an ob+ective appraisal of beautyB 9e shall treat this ,uestion first, not
# of 33
because it is the most important but because its treatment re,uires the addressing of
all the other ,uestions we have already raised. It furnishes us with a backbone from
which to build up the rest of our investigation into the nature and the place of the
beautiful in cinema.
Three Colours: Red, the last film that the famed 6olish director Cr;ys;tof Cieslowski
made before he died, provides us with an interesting case in point. If film students, or
anyone else for that matter, were asked whether or not Three Colours: Red is a
beautiful film, undoubtedly there would be a mi(ed reaction. 7ome would claim that
it is indeed sublime while others would disagree with this evaluation, perhaps because
it is too long, or the plot doesn1t develop ,uickly enough, or no one is murdered.
9hat would be a more interesting, particularly for the study at hand, would be to ask
the former category of students why or how they arrived at their conclusion.
-oubtlessly, there would be plethora of answers, ranging from the cinematic
techni,ues of the film and its narrative structure to its thematic content. -espite their
different reasons, all the students would be united in their assessment that Three
Colours: Red is a beautiful film. This consensus by a number of sub+ects who watch
the film points towards the e(istence of some sort of ob+ective characteristics or
properties in the film. Therefore the first task would be to establish whether or not
these characteristics constitute what is referred to as beauty. The task at hand does not
suit itself to the traditional theories of film analysis, simply because these theories
have sub+ectivity and relativism at their very core =arroll, .//#$ .1%. Another system
of film analysis must be sought, and analytical philosophy presents itself as an
alternative worth investigating. :efore carrying on, however, it would be worthwhile
to gain a deeper understanding of the merits of the analytic philosophical approach.
0 of 33
6hilosophy is the study of the first principles of all things, from natural phenomena to
abstract academic disciplines -e Torre, 1!"/$.%. ?iterally, the term philosophy
means the love of wisdom -e Torre, 1!"/$ .%. And if wisdom is the ability to order
things to their goal, then it presupposes a deep and far reaching understanding of the
nature of things, without which it would be impossible to ascertain their goal. 4ence
the very earliest philosophers such as 6ythagoras, Ana(imenes, 7ocrates and 6lato
concerned themselves with studying the nature of things. They asked themselves the
most fundamental ,uestions such as 9hat is beingB', 9hat is the purpose of lifeB',
9ho am IB' and 9hy am I hereB' Artigas, 1!"<$ >%.
6hilosophy thus became the only discipline that could provide answers to the most
basic ,uestions about all other disciplines, ,uestions which the very practitioners of
these disciplines could not answer within the limits of their specialties. As Dane =arrol
states in her book, The Philosohy of !otion Pictures and "ilm# The philosophy of
any practice strives to clarify the concepts indispensable to carrying out that practice.
The philosophy of mathematics, for instance, attempts to define what a number is,
asking whether it is something real or only a logical fiction. ?ikewise, the philosophy
of law analyses what a law is, along with clarifying other concepts crucial to the
practice, like intention and voluntariness. 7o, in like manner, the philosophy of film,
among other things, aspires to an account of that which we call film.' =arroll, .//#$
>1%. In order to arrive at an ob+ective system of evaluating art in general and films in
particular, one would need to define the term art as a prere,uisite. 7uch an endeavour
rightly falls within the province of the philosophy of art, which is also referred to as
aesthetics -e Torre, 1!"/$ <%.
" of 33
According to classical aesthetics, art is right reason in making. In other words, art as a
process is the application of the intellect on the process of ordering material things
into a definite form 5aritain, 1!<#$ 1#%. Art, as an ob+ect, is the result of this
process. According to the classical definition therefore, the random splashing of paint
on canvas in the name of abstract art would not ,ualify as art. The principle merit of
this classical definition of art is that it puts to rest the endless debates about what art
is, therefore providing an ob+ective foundation upon which art2as2discipline can be
established. 9ithout this foundation, it could be possible to ,ualify anything and
everything as art, a state which characterised the twentieth century and gave rise to
the copious production of ugly art &enner, .//>$ 13%. )nce art is becomes wholly
sub+ective and is no longer based on a concept of beauty that admits some level of
ob+ectivity, then one can ,ualify anything as art insofar as one sees it, in one1s
opinion, to be art. Thus even what would be deemed by many to be ugly could be
defended as being art because art and beauty are considered sub+ective.
)nce an understanding of the nature of art has been reached, it becomes clear that its
evaluation would depend on an understanding of the goal or purpose of art. )nce
again, classical philosophy provides us with an answer to this ,uestion$ art serves no
utilitarian function. Its sole purpose is to be and to be beautiful. Any other aim such as
to move the emotions, or to please, or to instruct, result in a sullying of the artwork
5aritain, 1!<#$ <!%. This is because the aim of art is to create beauty. The artwork is
an end in itself. It does not serve any other purpose e(trinsic to itself. In other words,
art aims at beauty, which is an end in itself and not a means to something else. It is
important to understand that this is an a riori or deductive concept. In other words, it
is a causal principle whose effect is the artistic creation of beauty. It cannot be
! of 33
demonstrated by scientific e(periments that move from effects to causes. If one
substitutes the goal of beauty in art with any other, one ends up with the debasement
of art. This can be found in propaganda, which uses art to disseminate ideas, or
pornography, which uses art to arouse se(ual desire. 4owever, insofar as we are
looking at the nature of art from the point of view of classical aesthetics, we will for
now accept the tenet that the goal of art is beauty.
It would therefore follow that if film is indeed an art, then its goal is beauty. :ut can
film indeed be classified as an art from the philosophical point of viewB :efore we
can answer this ,uestion, it is necessary to e(plain some philosophical terms that are
going to be key to our investigation.
The classical method of philosophy was to e(amine reality under an analytical ga;e
that would separate all things into two basic principles$ the being and the way of
being Artigas, 1!"<E 0%. In reality these two aspects can never be separated, but for
philosophers this abstract analysis was crucial. They concerned themselves mainly
with the classification of nature, and they realised ,uite early on that this
classification re,uired the abstraction of the common elements amongst different
natural realities. In fact, the earliest botanists and ;oologists were philosophers chief
among who was Aristotle%, and they referred to this particular area of study as the
philosophy of nature. At the most basic level of abstraction, they arrived at the idea
that every being can be thought of as being and being in a certain, specific way. There
is no being that is simply a being, without being in a specific way. They referred to
being as the substance or matter, and to the way of being as the form. It is this
specific way of being, or form, that produces order and design in things Alvira$
1!".$ 10%. This analysis was the basis for the branch of philosophy called
1/ of 33
5etaphysics, which was considered to be the foundation of all the other branches of
philosophical investigation Artigas, 1!"<$#%. These would all investigate being from
a certain point of view, or a certain formal perspective. 4ence the study of being in so
far as it is true is called Fnoseology. The study of being in so far as it is good is called
*thics. And the study of being in so far as it is beautiful is called Aesthetics -e
Torre, 1!"/$ <%. 9e therefore see that classical philosophy has concerned itself with
the study of beauty, and by e(tension, of art, since the earliest times. Therefore it is
not unwise to use it as a foundation for an ob+ective analysis of beauty in modern day
film.
)nce again we pose the ,uestion$ is film an artB &or if indeed it is, it follows that it is
sub+ect to the principles of the philosophy of art, principal among which is the
determination of its goal G beauty. The tools of analytical philosophy, particularly the
concepts of matter and form, will help ascertain whether or not film is an art.
If we look at all the &ine Arts in general, what we could generally categori;e their
matter or substance as either belonging to the spatial or the temporal dimension.
6ainting and sculpture apply a form, or way of being, to ob+ects in space. 5usic on
the other hand, applies a form to ob+ects in time. -ance and drama, or the performing
arts, apply a way of being to space and time, these art forms being actuali;ed in the
human body, whose nature encompasses both space and time. &ilm, seems to be a
hybrid that assumes drama conflict between persons%, dance the musical genre%,
music films scores and soundtracks%, painting with light through the art of
cinematography% and sculpture picture composition and mise2en2scene% and
encompasses the matter of all these arts. )ne can therefore say that the matter of film
is colour, the human body, materials and sound contained in the space2time
11 of 33
continuum to which they are all variously bound. &ilm can therefore be said to be an
art because it shares the same matter or substance as all the arts. )nce a form is
applied to the matter of film, then art is born. The form of film would therefore be
whatever conception the filmmaker formulates in his mind as an arrangement or
ordering of all these various elements in the space G time continuum. The form
produces and order and design in things, and according to the Ancients, the aim of art
as a process was to make this form shine forth in the matter, another description they
tendered for the term beauty 5aritain, 1!<#$ .<%. )nce again we see the value of
analytical philosophy. It enables us ascertain the nature and the purpose of film with
clarity and precision.
4aving established the nature of film as art and its conse,uent purpose, we now turn
our attention to our key concern$ the possibility of ob+ectivity in evaluating a film1s
worth. At this point, however, an ob+ection must be raised. In our post2modern era,
how can it be possible to assume that there can be ob+ective criteria for +udging artB
-ue to the fragmentation of our worlds, perceptions and cultures, it becomes
impossible to hold up any one thing as an ob+ective e(ample of beauty in art :rand,
1!!!$ 1/%. 7ub+ectivity in art is a reality that we all familiar with from personal
e(perience. Dust as what one person holds as true may not necessarily be so for
another, what one person holds as beautiful may also differ from the what is beautiful
for another :rand, 1!!!$ 1/%. This is the argument behind the concept of art and
beauty being sub+ective realities, an argument that is assumed to be dogmatic by
many and as such impossible to ,uestion or challenge. Insofar as it is the business of
this essay to challenge the notion of absolute sub+ectivity pun intended% with regards
1. of 33
to the creation and appraisal of art, it is necessary to evaluate this opposing point of
view before we continue.
The dogma of the absolute sub+ectivity of art and beauty is problematic on three
counts. &irstly, if there are no ob+ective criteria for +udging art it is a misnomer to
refer to the arts as disciplines. The very idea of a discipline implies certain yard sticks
and standards against which to gauge oneself. The notion of it being impossible to
ob+ectively +udge the value of art reduces art to a mere accident. If there are no rules
followed in the creation of art, then there is no process followed, because a process
implies rules, procedures or a set way of doing things. Therefore all art would be
unintended and accidental. This would negate all the rigours e(perienced by artists for
the sake of perfection, because there would be no standard against which this
perfection would be +udged. They would simply be lucky or unlucky. 7econdly, if
there are no ob+ective criteria for +udging art, there is no logical basis for its
instruction. The very idea of the instruction of any discipline presupposes certain
established criteria whose knowledge is being passed on. If :rand1s thesis is correct,
then the very discipline of art would not e(ist because it would be impossible to teach
it. Artists would +ust sporadically appear, create masterpieces as if by magic, and +ust
as mysteriously disappear. This is obviously not the case, thereby implying that it is
possible and necessary for there to be ob+ective criteria in +udging the art. The ne(t
,uestion to address would be what these criteria are. 9hatever the case and whatever
these criteria may be, their aim would be to establish how well the art work achieves
its goal, which we have hitherto established to be beauty.
13 of 33
?et us return to the problem stated earlier, concerning the 6olish filmmaker Cr;ys;tof
Cieslowski. In a career spanning twenty two years, he proved to be one of the most
prolific and intelligent directors in *urope www.sensesofcinema.com%. &ilms such as
The $ecalogue 1!""%# The $ouble %ife of &eronique 1!!1% and The Three Colours
Trilogy 1!!32 <% are illustrative of his ability to recreate worlds both psychological
and material with a great sense of emotional and social realism. In particular, the third
and final part of the cinematic feat with which he ended his career, Three Colours:
Red, has been hailed as ...transcendent and beautifulH' by The 'ndeendent on
(unday, The best of *uropean cinemaH5iraculous.' by The )uardian and A
beautifully spun and splendidly acted tale' by ?isa 3esselson of &ariety
www.sensesofcinema.com%. In addition to all the critical acclaim, Red also scooped
,uite a number of prestigious awards in *urope such as the Palm d*+r and the
)olden ,ear in 1!!<.
The problem that presents itself is one of ob+ective verification. Is it possible to put
Three Colours: Red hereafter referred to as Red- to task in an effort to verify if it is
indeed worthy of all the praise it has received and the accolades it has wonB 4ow
would we go about doing thisB 9hat criteria would we use to +udge the beauty of
RedB 4aving already established that it is indeed necessary and possible to +udge the
artistic value of a film ob+ectively, we are now faced with the actual task of carrying
out this evaluation. )nce again, the tools of analytical will prove to be invaluable in
this task. The particular method we shall employ was first posited in the thirteenth
century by a man named Thomas A,uinas.
Thomas A,uinas was an Italian =atholic monk who belonged to the )rder of
6reachers, or -ominicans, and lived from about 1..> to 1.0>. 4e spent most of his
1< of 33
life writing essays on 6hilosophy and Theology, and is still considered one of the
most prominent =atholic theologians. Freatly influenced by Aristotle, Thomas
A,uinas has in turn been eminently influential to many great thinkers that came after
him, from philosophers like -escartes and Immanuel Cant to literary figures like
-ante, T.7. *liott and Dames Doyce. To know 7t. Thomas is to know the medieval
mind at its finest, its most powerful, and, indeed, its most modern. &or he is timeless
and timely, a man for all agesH And if, as Dohn 4. 8andall says in (tudies in
Civili.ation, the first modern philosopher is not -escartes but A,uinas, we may +ustly
say that at least some of our roots are within the fertile ground of Thomistic thought.
And for that reason we owe it to ourselves to know something of this remarkable man
=lark, 1!0<$ 1.%.'
)ne of A,uinas1s many valuable contributions to philosophy was his elucidation of
the criteria of beauty. In the first volume of his theological masterpiece, (umma
Theologiae, Iuestion 3!, article ", A,uinas states$
Three things are necessary for beauty$ first, integrity or perfection, for things that are
lacking in something are for this reason uglyE also due proportion or consonanceE and
again, clarity, for we call things beautiful when they are brightly colored. A,uinas,
1!#<$ #<%' A daring statement to make indeed, one that is certainly unpalatable in the
relativistic post2modernist environment of today1s universities. This could perhaps
account for the ignorance that most students have of this profound thinker from the
5iddle Ages. The three criteria allude to the possibility, however slight, that there
may +ust be some ob+ective criteria in e(istence with which to +udge art. -iscovering
the merit of A,uinas1s theory of the criteria for beauty would re,uire their careful
1> of 33
analysis and application to our case study, Three Colours: Red# a task to which we
now turn our attention.
:efore we continue, however, it is important to bear in mind that the three criteria are
posited as analytical tools and nothing more. They are the product of philosophy, a
discipline which is not synthetic but analytic. These criteria are not ingredients that go
into the creation of something beautiful, but tools that are used to analy;e the product
after the creation process has occurred. They reflect an effect2to2cause reasoning
process. Therefore the very e(istence of anything beautiful implies the possibility of
perfection, proportion and clarity. A denial of the possibility of any one of these
criteria would imply a denial of the possibility of beauty.
&irst is integrity or perfectionH A,uinas, 1!#<$ "0%'. In other words, something
can only be beautiful if it is perfect, or complete, in its way of being form%. In other
words, nothing that should be there is missing. It has everything that is needed. 9hat
is needed, however, is determined by each individual case. A missing arm in a woman
is a considerable fault that detracts from her physical beauty. In the case of the
famous statue of the Jenus -e 5ilo, however, no arms are needed, and therefore it is
considered complete 5aritain, 1!<#$ ..%. This is a very interesting idea, one which
finds an e,ually interesting application in film2as2art.
9e are taking this position because we are studying art and beauty from the point of
view of classical aesthetics. Insofar as classical aesthetics, particularly that of Thomas
A,uinas, ascribes wholeness to beauty, we shall apply this reasoning to film simply
because these are the confines we have limited ourselves to in this particular study.
1# of 33
Applying this criterion of wholeness or integrity to film, we reali;e that narrative
films re,uire the presence of certain elements in order to tell a story. These elements
are mainly dramatic, and can be found in most stories that are considered complete.
4owever, there are no fi(ed rules of how these elements should be applied. *ach
individual case presents its own needs for the story to be told effectively, integrally
and a result, beautifully.
In Red, we find that Cieslowski utili;es some time tested storytelling techni,ues that
improve the dramaturgy of the story and bring it to life. )ne of these is the dramatic
techni,ue of starting the story with conflict. Also known as the point of attack, the
early employment of conflict makes the story engaging from the very beginning
*gri, 1!<#$ 1".%. 9e see this in the opening scene of the story where Jalentine
speaks to her boyfriend 5ichel over the telephone. 7he tells him that she did
something stupid on the previous night, and 5ichel is clearly uneasy. This introduces
tension, conflict and immediate drama early on in the film, making it more engaging.
This e(change is immediately followed by Jalentine declaring that she wants to be
with 5ichel, and 5ichel ob+ecting Cieslowski, 1!!"$ ./3%. )nce again, conflict is
introduced early into the story by employing two characters with different, clashing
ob+ectives. Jalentine wants to be with 5ichel but 5ichel does not share this desire. It
is interesting to note that Cieslowski also employs this techni,ue in the opening of
,lue and White/ In ,lue, Dulie, the protagonist, forces her way out of hospital against
the will of her doctors. In White, Carol, the protagonist, clashes with his wife in court.
10 of 33
@et another constituent of the story that makes it feel entire is the presence of a
protagonist, or someone who makes things happen. This is another re,uirement for
the film Red, which is a human drama and therefore re,uires that human beings drive
the action *gri, 1!<#$ 0!%. Jalentine fulfills this re,uirement, and to some e(tent, so
does the Dudge. )nce Jalentine runs the dog over, she takes the decision to take it
back to its owner. )f her own initiative, she keeps on visiting the Dudge and the rest
of the story revolves around these visits. The Dudge to some e(tent also drives the
action in the story, especially towards the end when he gives himself up to the police
with the intention of making Jalentine come and visit him again Cieslowski, 1!!"$
.#3%. This human agency serves to make the story far more dramatic and compelling,
for it is in their actions that human beings most clearly reveal their character *gri,
1!<#$ 0!%.
The complement of the protagonist is the antagonist, someone who stands in their
way and prevents them from getting what they want 5ckee, 1!!"$ 31"%. 9ithout an
antagonist, the protagonist cannot be forced into action continuously, and as a result
there will be no events in the story. 7uch a story cannot be perceived as being
complete and integral, and would therefore be lacking in beauty. The antagonist in
Red is the Dudge. 4e stands in the way of Jalentine1s desires at various points in the
story. 4e refuses to take back the dog when she returns it to him. 4e opposes her
ideas about fraternity and good neighbourliness. 4e also refuses to reveal his private
life to her when she starts to ask him ,uestions. 4e becomes a very mysterious
character for her, and only towards the end of the story does he let her into the secrets
of his life completely. In the parallel story of August and Carin, Carin stands in the
way of August1s desires for true love by betraying him with another man. 4e
1" of 33
therefore tries different means to win back her love to no avail. These different
antagonists who force the protagonist into action also give the story a feeling of
wholeness. If one of these two sets of values that are clashing were left out, the story
would be lacking in integrity or wholeness, since an integrated story is one which has
all elements present, central to which are the antagonistic forces.
&rom the beginning of the film Red, as one watches Jalentine go through her daily
routine and e(perience her little conflicts with her boyfriend and the photographer,
one feels that the story needs to be set in motion, that something needs to happen.
This event, called the inciting incident by some theorists, is not lacking either and
contributes towards the integrity of the story 5ckee, 1!!!$ 1".%. It occurs about ten
minutes into the story when Jalentine runs over a dog on the street. 7he is not sure
whether to leave it or not, but eventually decides to take the dog to its owner. )nce
she meets the Dudge, the story is set in motion.
)ne of the most integral aspects of Red# as indeed of any other story, is the presence
of a beginning, middle and end. In the beginning, we are introduced to the main
characters of the story, who are Jalentine, August, the Dudge and Carin, as well as
Jalentine1s boyfriend. 7ince the story is about people, we witness how these people
grow and develop as the film progresses. At the end of the story, we witness the
permanent changes that have taken place in the characters of these people, and
achieve a deeper knowledge and understanding of who they are, which happens at the
same time and in the same way in which the characters also get to know about
themselves. 7ince the story is about people, it is necessary for it to e(plore their
1! of 33
personalities and lives very deeply, which Red does effectively. It can therefore be
said to be an integral or complete story.
According to the screenwriting theorist 7yd &ield, every story needs a turning point in
which the protagonist undergoes a change that happens at the end of the second act
&ield, 1!".$ .1%. In Red, there is no conceivable point at which Jalentine1s character
undergoes this transformation. 7he starts of by being a loving caring person, and at
the end of the story she is still a loving and caring person. If anything, it is her
warmth and affection that brings out the human side of the Dudge, who is not a
protagonist but a main character in the story. The story still feels complete in spite of
this seeming absence, because in its own particular case, it does not need this second
act turning point that leads to the clima(. The specific form therefore determines its
own rules and re,uirements for beauty, and not the other way round *co, 1!""$ 11.%.
9e therefore see that A,uinas1s conception of beauty being formally integral is still
achieved.
:y the interplay of the various parts of the story, Red becomes a whole, self2contained
unit of narration, or a story. It can therefore be apprehended as being beautiful
because of this. In his book, A Portrait of the Artist as a 0oung !an, Dames Doyce
offers an interesting summary of what we have been discussing. The first phase of
apprehension is a bounding line drawn about the ob+ect to be apprehended. An
aesthetic image is presented to us either in space or in time. 9hat is audible is
presented in time, what is visible is presented in space. :ut, temporal or spatial, the
aesthetic image is first luminously apprehended as self2bounded and self2contained
upon the immeasurable background of space or time which is not it. @ou apprehend it
./ of 33
as one thing. @ou see it as one whole. @ou apprehend its wholeness. That is
integritas' Doyce, 1!#1$ 3.%. Red is apprehended as a complete and entire whole by
its conclusion. It therefore manifests integrity, and as such is apprehended as being
beautiful.
Doyce1s analysis of the act of the perception of beauty leads us directly into the second
criterion of beauty delineated by A,uinas. Hthe synthesis of immediate perception
is followed by the analysis of apprehension. 4aving first felt that it is one thing you
feel now that it is a thing. @ou apprehend it as comple(, multiple, divisible, separable,
made up of its parts, the result of its parts and their sum, harmonious. That is
consonantia.' Doyce, 1!""$ 3.%
9hat Doyce refers to as harmony Doyce, 1!""$ 33%, A,uinas refers to as proportion.
In the first volume of (umma Theologiae, Iuestion 1, article 1., A,uinas states$
9hen we say one thing is in proportion to another we can either mean that they are
,uantitatively related G in this sense double, thrice, and e,ual are kinds of proportion
G or else we can mean +ust any kind of relation which one thing may have to another
A,uinas, 1!#<$ ./1%.' :efore we can apply this concept to the film Red# it is
necessary to gain a deeper understanding of it as A,uinas1s leaves it in a highly
abstract mould and does not develop it further. It is therefore useful to turn to the
analyses made by his various commentators, chief among who is the Italian
semiotician Amberto *co.
*co offers various interpretations of A,uinas1s idea of proportion. -istancing himself
from the purely mathematical and ,uantitative connotation of the first sense of the
.1 of 33
word proportion, he draws our attention to the more ,ualitative sense that imbues the
second meaning A,uinas posits *co, 1!""$ "1%.
The first, more ,ualitative sense in which the concept of proportion may be
understood, according to *co, is the relationship between matter and form. In this
sense, proportion would be the suitability of matter for receiving a form *co, 1!""$
"3%. It is form that produces order and design in things. :ut form enters into several
relationships of such a kind that it is subsumed into a larger whole. )ne of these is,
precisely, the relation of suitability which binds matter to it *co, 1!""$ "<%.' In other
words, proportion involves suitability between the form that the artist conceives in
their mind and the tangible matter in which they will e(teriorise it. 8elating this to
film, proportion or harmony would be the suitability of the form, that arrangement in
space and time that we refer to as story, to the medium of the cinema. &or a film to
indeed be beautiful, it must indeed be cinematic Tarkovsky, 1!"#$ 01%. This is a
reflection of the suitability between the reality being represented and the means
chosen to represent it. If the wrong means are chosen, then the results will be poor. A
non2cinematic story cannot be told well using film, in much the same way that a non2
dramatic story cannot be told well on the theatre stage.
Red is a highly cinematic film that would not be easily adapted into other closely
aligned arts such as drama or literature with the same effect. &or instance, the story
winds its way between small, claustrophobic indoor spaces and wide open e(teriors.
Take the opening shot, for instance, where the camera makes its way in one sweeping
movement from the city streets to the interior of an apartment. The closed, indoor
action that dominates most of the film is +u(taposed with the epic event of the sinking
.. of 33
ferry at the end. Indeed, one would be hard pressed to capture the sheer immensity of
the billboard with Jalentine1s face within the confines of the stage. Admittedly, one
may argue that literature would be able to achieve the same effect through pictures,ue
descriptions of the interior and e(terior spaces and the ob+ects such as the billboard.
?iterature, however, would be hard pressed indeed to create the effect or illusion of
the phone signals that travel underwater and across the channel to signify an
international phone call, as we see in the opening se,uence of the film. )ne of the
recurrent events in the film is that of Jalentine and August occupying the same space
but never meeting, despite their living in the same neighbourhood. Through cinema,
their continual physical pro(imity that never culminates in a meeting gives a sense of
the serendipity that rules their lives. The sheer tangibility of this would have been
difficult to communicate via the written word. There is suitability between the matter,
or the events of the story, and the form, or the way they are communicated. This is a
reflection of proportion, one of the components of beauty.
In addition, the cinematic form of the film is largely constructed on two devices that
are purely cinematic$ the moving camera and the point of view shot. As mentioned
previously, the opening se,uence of the film relies on the movement of the camera to
recreate phone signals moving. The moving camera also connects e(terior spaces
with interior spaces. 9henever the action is locked in a small space such as the
Dudge1s apartment, the moving camera reduces the need for editorial cuts which gives
a better perception of the space and enhances the feeling of intimacy.
It has been argued by some that the moving camera is the real artistic innovation of
film, and therefore what singles it out as an art in its own right ?anger, 1!>#$ <11%.
.3 of 33
Alfred 4itchcock, on the other hand, claimed that the innovativeness of cinema, and
what could be termed as ure cinema, is the point of view shot. The se,uence of close
up, what is seen, and reaction shot roots the audience in the sub+ectivity of the
character, which is something that no other art does 4itchcock, 1!>>$ 3.%. 9e see
this in several se,uences especially when characters look at other characters through
windows. *(amples include when Jalentine looks at the alleged drug dealer who
lives across from the +udge, or when she looks out her apartment window, or when
August sees Carin betray him with another man.
6erhaps it would be useful to reconcile these two seemingly contrary views that
?anger and 4itchcock have, with the end of showing that Red is a pre2eminently and
integrally cinematic film. ?anger claims that cinema1s sole innovation is the moving
camera, whereas 4itchcock claims that is the point of view shot. I would argue that
?anger and 4itchcock offer us different perspectives of the same idea. The real
artistic innovation of film has been the ability to create the sub+ectivity of perception.
9hereas in literature it is ,uite possible to create the sub+ectivity of thought through
stream of consciousness narration, it is impossible to make the reader erceive what
the character perceives, perception being a process aligned to the senses as opposed to
the intellect. ?iterature can create the abstractions of the sensations of sight and
sound. It cannot create the actual sensation. The work of the reader is to read the
abstraction and create the perception for themselves in their imagination. &ilm, on the
other hand, could be seen as doing the reverse process. It creates sensations but
cannot create abstract thoughts or ideas, leaving this work up to the viewer. This is
because an image is a perception, not an abstraction. The point of view shot and the
moving camera create the sensation of seeing what a character is seeing, and hearing
.< of 33
what a character is hearing, even if that character be the camera itself. 5ore than re2
creating, they actually create a tangible, corporeal e(perience. 4ence these two
devices can be said to create a sub+ectivity of perception.
In this regard, therefore, Red is a highly cinematic film because it combines the point
of view shot and the moving camera to create this sub+ectivity of perception. It can
therefore be termed beautiful because of this ade,uacy it shows between its substance
and its form.
Another type of proportion is sensible and basically ,uantitative. It is a relationship
among a multitude of fi(ed items. 5usical proportion is typical of this, and also, by
e(tension, proportion in shape and color. It produces an immediate feeling of pleasure
*co, 1!""$ ">%. 4ere *co ,uotes A,uinas again and refers to another sense in which
he uses the term proportion, which is in a more ,uantitative sense, with reference to
the parts that constitute the whole. This understanding of proportion is closer to the
interpretation that Doyce gives when he refers to proportion as harmony. )ne
apprehends an artwork as comple(, multiple, divisible, separable, made up of its
parts, the result of its parts and their sum, harmonious Doyce, 1!""$ 3.%.' In other
words, an artwork is constructed out of various parts, and is beautiful if those parts fit
together with a certain degree of balance between them.
Dust as a piece of music is perceived as being harmonious because it is composed of
different parts that fit together perfectly to create a whole, a film may be perceived to
be harmonious or proportioned because all of its parts fit together to create a balanced
whole. &or the parts to fit together harmoniously, it is necessary for no one part to
.> of 33
eclipse the whole, because a part cannot be greater than the whole. )ne part may
eclipse another part if the specific rules of the particular form in ,uestion necessitate
it, but this always done with the final goal in mind G the reali;ation of filmic form.
4ence even that eclipsing will be a manifestation of proportion.
If we consider that the film Red is composed of drama, cinematography, music and
editing, we reali;e that all these elements engage in a harmonious interplay without
one aspect overshadowing the others. &or instance, the very title of the film as well as
the poster images gives import to the colour red. Apon watching the film, however,
one is surprised by how the colour red is not used obtrusively. Apart from the huge
red billboard of Jalentine and the red dog2leash, the actual instances of the colour red
being given any attention are scant. This is because for Cieslowski the film is not
about the actual hue red 7tok, 1!!3$ .1"%. The colour itself certainly plays a stylistic
role, but cannot eclipse all the other elements of the film. The colour red is therefore
used harmoniously in the film, and as such is perceived as being beautiful.
The same can be said for the music in the film. There is harmony in the music itself,
as well as harmony between the music and film. The delicacy of the music fits the
delicacy of the story, and as a result never gets overbearing nor does it draw attention
to itself. The music therefore fits into the whole film integrally. It is this harmonious
unity that results in beauty.
The events of the story also fit together and make rational sense. 3o single event of
the story detracts from the others, but they all work together to create a unity.
6roportion does not refer only to sensible relations. It can also mean a purely
.# of 33
rational fit between things$ logical relations, or the harmony of a se,uence of thought,
or the proportion of thought to the laws of thought logic% *co, 1!""$ ">%.' This is
why it is difficult for people ruled by common sense to claim that e(perimental films
are beautiful. -oing away with e(cessive intellectuali;ation and rationali;ation, and
by the use of common sense one can see that most e(perimental films do not make
sense and therefore cannot be termed as beautiful because the parts do not fit together
into a logical, rational whole. In the words of A,uinas, In human matters beauty
goes with what is well ordered according to intelligence *co, 1!""$ "0%.'
)ne notices a very close connection between the concepts of integrity and proportion.
9here there is proportion, there is integrity, and integrity cannot be found if there is
no proportion. In fact, according to some commentators of A,uinas, integrity is a kind
of proportion *co, 1!""$ "0%. Applying it to film, for a film to feel whole, complete
and entire, the parts of the film must interplay harmoniously. Iuoting A,uinas,
9hen the parts are arranged in this way, they all combine into the wholeE so that out
of all the parts KHL there emerges one single wholeness of things *co, 1!""$ !.%.'
This is seen even in the arrangement of the basic parts of the film G beginning, middle
and end. 5any films have a tedious and boring middle section simply because the
story is biased towards activity in the beginning and the end 5ckee, 1!!!$ 3"%. This
is not the case with Red, where there is a balance in the action of the story, which is
evenly spread out across all three acts. It even becomes difficult to mark where the
story shifts from the beginning to the middle to the end because they are all
harmoniously balanced.
.0 of 33
The ability of this single wholeness to manifest itself to a viewer is what A,uinas
refers to as clarity. In a sense it is the most difficult criterion to analyse because it is
the most intuitive, occurring without the mediation of reason. *co describes clarity as
the fundamental communicability of form, which is made actual in relation to
someone1s looking at or seeing of the ob+ect *co, 1!""$ 11!%. It is the criterion that is
hardest to analy;e because it is the most intuitive of them all. In other words, clarity is
not perceived through the process of reasoning, through a series of concepts that are
formed one after the other and each dependent and the result of the previous one
Alvira, 1!".$ 30%. =larity is a moment of immediate perception, when the brilliance
of the form is beheld, comprehended and assimilated all in one instant 5aritain,
1!<#$ .3%. =larity is the natural result of proportion and integrity, both of which are
necessary if a form is to shine forth.
Applying this to film, clarity would be evident at the moment when the viewer gets
it', so to speak. It occurs at the moment when the viewer makes all the necessary
connections between the various parts of the film and reali;es or sees what the film is
about as an intelligible unit. In Red, for instance, there are many moments of clarity,
which result in the audience1s delight. &or instance, when the audience makes the
connection between August and the Dudge 2 that they are actually living the same life.
This was one of the ideas that Cieslowski wanted to communicate, and the audience1s
ability to comprehend it within the film itself without a need for e(tra2diegetic
e(planations% points towards the clarity of the film 7tok, 1!!3$ .13%. Another
moment when clarity shines forth in the film is at the end, when we see August and
Jalentine together after the shipwreck and we intuit that they are finally going to meet
and fall in love. This results in a moment of delight borne of understanding, and is
." of 33
one of the markers of beauty in the film. The clarity in the film is immediate, and
does not need the mediation of a co2viewer for an e(planation of what the film was
about.
The result of clarity in film, and in any artwork in general, is a sense of delight mi(ed
with wonder. )ne feels that one is in the facing mystery, and all the senses and the
mind are completely drawn into contemplation. This sense of mystery does not mean
that the film or artwork is not clear. It means, rather, that the film is so clear that the
viewer feels there is more on offer to be known than what their minds have grasped.
This is what happens in Red. At the end of the film, the viewer feels overwhelmed by
the sense of mystery when looking at how serendipity and providence seem to rule
the lives and loves of the characters. The viewer is left asking themselves ,uestions.
Is August the same person as the DudgeB 4ave they led the same lifeB 7ince the
Dudge1s actions indirectly led to Carin1s betrayal, could we say that he betrayed
himself in the past as he has done in the presentB Is history repeating itselfB -oes the
Dudge actually fall in love with Jalentine through August, since the Dudge and August
seem to be the same personB These and other ,uestions continue to resonate in the
mind of the viewer after watching the film, creating a sense of wonder. There can in
fact be mo mystery where there is nothing to know$ mystery e(ists where there is
more to be known than is offered to our apprehension. To define beauty by brilliance
or clarity% of form is to define it by brilliance of mystery 5aritain, 1!<#$ .3%.'
Integrity, proportion and clarity, the three criteria of beauty, are very closely linked
and conse,uent of each other because in reality they cannot e(ist separately. Dust as
matter and form are always found together but are separated by the philosophical
.! of 33
mind for the sake of analytical study, so are integrity, proportion and clarity always
found together in the ob+ect of beauty. These three criteria are therefore an analytical
tool and nothing more. They are by no means ingredients that go into the creation of a
beautiful film or any beautiful artwork. &rom the point of view of the filmmaker or
artist, these three principles are inherent in the process by which he creates the film or
artwork and cannot be considered separately. A film whose parts do not link together
harmoniously will not make sense as a whole, and therefore will be unintelligible.
9ith respect to the viewer, he is first apprehended by beauty before he can move to
comprehend why he was enraptured. These three criteria offer him a means by which
we can arrive at a reasoned understanding of why a certain work of art captivated him
so and caused delight. It is very much a secondary operation, the first one having
taken place at that moment of intuitive comprehension. =onfronted with the work of
beautyHthe mind re+oices without discoursing 5aritain, 1!<#$ <>%.'
4aving carried out an investigation into Cr;ys;tof Cieslowski1s Red, we can therefore
say that the film e(hibits a substantial amount of the wholeness, harmony and
radiance that would result in its being perceived as beautiful. =ould we therefore say
that the film is ob+ectively beautifulB At the risk of sounding academically boorish in
an age ruled by relativity and sub+ectivism, I daresay that Red is, ob+ectively
speaking, a beautiful film. It is important to reali;e, however, that beauty does admit
of relativism to a certain degree and only in a very specific sense. Thomas A,uinas
is careful to warn us that beauty is in a manner relative# 2 not to the dispositions of
the sub+ect in the sense in which relativity is understood nowadays, but to the peculiar
nature and the end of the thing and to the formal conditions in which it is involved
5aritain, 1!<#$ .<%.' Therefore what is beautiful in one film is not necessarily
beautiful in another. *ach film is its own determination of the rules that will govern
3/ of 33
its creation. A more philosophical approach to film theory results in the liberation
from the lifeless turgidity of rules.
In our e(perience of the worlds, artworks and sub+ects, there is no denying that there
is a certain sub+ectivity with respect to the viewer of the art. 9hereas some people
perceive some films as beautiful, there are others who would vehemently deny this.
The reason for this does not lie in the artwork itself but in the education of the
sub+ect. In the words of A,uinas, Hhowever beautiful a created thing may be, it may
appear beautiful to some and not to others, because it is beautiful only under certain
aspects which some discover and others do not seeH 5aritain, 1!<#$ .<% ' 4ence
the common e(perience of some educated individuals who have developed a taste and
culture for films being better able to perceive their beauty than others. This does not
however, detract from the ob+ective beauty of the film, which remains intact
regardless of the limitations of the viewer.
It is my belief, therefore, that a case certainly does e(ist for ob+ectivity in the
evaluation of art. Though our investigation may be argued to be flawed and
incomplete, it has nonetheless demonstrated the e(istence of a method through which
one can ob+ectively claim that an artwork is beautiful. )ur particular approach is
hopefully not the only one, and perhaps other paths could be investigated. 9hat is
certainly needed is some amount of trust in the capacity we human beings have for
rational thought, a capacity which is undermined by the overwhelming tendency in
today1s academic world towards sub+ectivity and relativism.
31 of 33
A! Biblio"ra#hy
&enner, -. 9hy 9as There 7o 5uch Agly Art in the Twentieth =enturyB' Dournal of
Aesthetic *ducation. 3!.. .//>%$ 1321<
:rand, 6. :eauty 5atters.' Dournal of Aesthetics and Art =riticism. >0.1 1!!!%$ 12
1/.
Doyce, D. 1!""$ A 6ortrait of the Artist as a @oung 5an. ?ondon$ 6aladin
A,uinas, T. 1!#<. 7umma Theoligiae. ?ondon and 3ew @ork. :lackfriars
7tok, -. ed%. 1!!3. Cieslowski on Cieslowski' ?ondon$ &aber and &aber.
*gri, ?. 1!<#. The Art of -ramatic 9riting. 3ew @ork$ 7imon and 7chuster.
Artigas, 5. 1!"<. Introduction to 6hilosophy. 5anila$ 7inag2 Tala
=arroll, 3 M =hoi, D. eds% .//#. 6hilosophy of &ilm and 5otion 6ictures. )(ford$
:lackwell.
5aritain, D. 1!<#. Art and 7cholasticism, 9ith )ther *ssays. ?ondon$ 7heed and
9ard.
-e Torre, D. 1!"/. =hristian 6hilosophy. 5anila$ 7inag 2 Tala
*co, A. 1!"". The Aesthetics of Thomas A,uinas. =ambridge, 5ass.$ 4arvard.
Alvira, T. =lavell, ? M 5elendo, T. 1!".. 5etaphysics. 5anila$ 7inag2 Tala
=lark, 5. ed% 1!0<. An A,uinas 8eader. ?ondon$ 4odder and 7toughton.
3. of 33
Tarkovsky, A. 1!"#. 7culpting In Time$ 8eflections on the =inema. ?ondon$ The
:odley 4ead.
Cieslowski, C and 6iesiewic;, C.1!!". Three =olours Trilogy$ :lue, 9hite, 8ed G
The 7creenplays$ Translated by -anusia 7tok. ?ondon. &aber and &aber.
5ckee, 8. 1!!!. 7tory$ 7ubstance, structure, style and the principles of screenwriting.
?ondon$ 5ethuen
&ield, 7. 1!".. 7creenplay$ The &oundations of 7creenwriting. 3ew @ork$ -ell
6ublishing =o.
-irks, Tim$ &ilm 4istory :efore 1!./, at www.filmsite.orgNpre./sintro.html
accessed 0 August /0%
4itchcock, A. 1!>>. )n 7tyle/ I3$ Fottlieb, 7. ed% 1!!>. 4itchcock on 4itchcock$
7elected 9ritings and Interviews. ?ondon$ &aber and &aber.
?anger, 7. 1!>3. A 3ote on the &ilm. I3$ =arroll, 3 and =hoi, D. eds% .//#.
6hilosophy of &ilm and 5otion 6ictures. )(ford$ :lackwell.
=ummings, -irk$ Cr;ys;tof Cieslowski, at
http$NNwww.sensesofcinema.comNcontentsNdirectorsNkieslowski.html accessed . Dune
/0%

33 of 33