You Should Never Take Cinema "in Bulk"

A true artist can maintain the spontaneous energy of genuine creation, even when external pressures favor an academic and standardized style.

You never have to take our cinema "in bulk". I see with horror how our avant-garde is becoming, little by little, an infatuated, mannered academy, with a toque - still red, but capriciously wrinkled - over the aesthetic and traditional tailcoat, of a perfect, impeccable cut. She's suffocating! And it is not only the Leningrad "wing" that tends towards classicism - the most disgusting of all possible classicisms! - but of the general trend that encompasses most of the things that are done.

And, what's even worse, these tendencies also show up in those we work for! We "evolve" calmly, where we should again feel the need to revolutionize to the foundations. Instead of the pulsation of life and genuine passion, sterile styling becomes the rule and creation turns into a lifeless aesthetic.

These observations reflect the state of mind of Russian director Sergei Eisenstein and explain the motivation behind his chosen path in his next film, "The Old and the New." At the same time, they reveal his way of thinking and reaction to the difficulties inherent in the creative process.

To what extent does the transformation of the avant-garde into a conventional style affect the ability of your creation to remain a space of authentic exploration?

In the cinematic ecosystem, the diversity of the avant-garde can gradually be replaced by uniformity when conditions become mannered and infatuated. Creation, once full of life and genuine passion, is suffocated by an academic style, less resistant, but perfect in appearance. And this standardization leads to the loss of the revolutionary spirit and the creation of sterile works, elegantly arranged in their aesthetic dress, but lacking the spontaneous energy of true art.

Like an artificial garden replacing wild nature, this "calm evolution" of cinema risks turning the vital foundations of creation into mere standardized ornaments. The domesticated avant-garde thus becomes a conventional academy.

In innovative cinema, as in any creative organization, there is a risk that the avant-garde turns into a rigid academy, often constrained by rules that limit original vitality. Instead of being a space of genuine exploration, the tendency towards classicism takes root. The result? A style of refined, but suffocating, accuracy. Of course, this phenomenon leads to a sterility of the creative process, where the impulse to revolutionize is gradually replaced by conformity. And passion, once the engine of every project, is lost in rigid structures that prioritize form over life.

More worryingly, these trends occur even in those who are supposed to be catalysts for change. Instead of evolving through exploration and dynamism, we too easily accept a formalized aesthetic, void of passion and spirit. For creators like Eisenstein, however, this situation becomes a source of motivation, pushing them to respond to stagnation with works that reflect the true difficulties of creation. In any case, this reaction emphasizes a constant struggle between the desire to create from life and the need to avoid the pitfalls of a deadpan style.

Artistic leadership upholds the authentic energy of creation in the face of the pressures of academicism, being an act of courage that keeps alive the revolutionary breath of art.

You Should Never Take Cinema "in Bulk", because each creator has his own artistic vision, especially when the avant-garde risks becoming sterile academicism. Authenticity must be constantly renewed so that cinematic expression remains thrilling and true.

* Note: Ion Barna - Eisenstein, Tineretului Publishing House, 1966.