O cinema inventou, meio-século mais tarde, se vangloriou como sendo a mais perfeita repro-dução possível da realidade, do mundo. O velamento nos lembra que essa perfeição, em seu automatismo, está sujeita ao erro – um erro não humano e, além do mais, fascinante. O véu –e aqui, pouco importa que seja acidente luminoso ou acidente químico – é o que deixa advir, no tecido “sem costura” do filme ideal, uma falha, uma fissura. O que se vê nessa ruptura? O real? Nada? Um mundo de formas fantásticas livremente interpretáveis? Sente-se que a res-posta depende da ideia que se fez do cinema e até mesmo do cinematógrafo. Emprego essa palavra de modo intencional, a qual Robert Bresson e Eugène Green opuseram nitidamente, como se sabe, ao cinema vulgar, que se contenta em fazer encenar fábulas com atores. Nessa concepção extrema, o cinema é muito simplesmente o que revela o real sob a realidade , e para ela o véu é uma incongruência: seja, caráter pueril de luz, acentua indevidamente e faz significar um dado do mundo, essencial, mas por essência mudo; seja, mácula de dissolução física, autoriza a matéria a se manifestar no mundo também ilegitimamente. Palavras-chave: cinema; representação; técnica; luz.
Cinema invented, half a century later, boasted as being the most perfect reproducibility of reality, of the world. The veil reminds us that this perfection, in its automatism, is subject to error - a non-human error and, moreover, fascinating. The veil - and here, it does not matter that it is a light accident or a chemical accident - is what leaves in the "seamless" fabric of the ideal film a fault, a fissure. What do you see in this breakup? The real? Anything? A world of fantastically freely interpretable forms? One feels that the response depends on the idea of the cinema and even the cinematograph. I use this word intentionally, which Robert Bresson and Eugène Green clearly opposed, as is well known, to vulgar cinema, which is content to make fables with actors. In this extreme conception, cinema is very simply what reveals the real under reality, and for it the veil is an incongruity: be it the puerile character of light, unduly accentuates, and signifies an essential, but mutated, world-data. ; whether it be a taint of physical dissolution, authorizes matter to manifest itself in the world also illegitimately. Keywords: cinema; representation; technique; light.Cinema invented, half a century later, boasted as being the most perfect reproducibility of reality, of the world. The veil reminds us that this perfection, in its automatism, is subject to error - a non-human error and, moreover, fascinating. The veil - and here, it does not matter that it is a light accident or a chemical accident - is what leaves in the "seamless" fabric of the ideal film a fault, a fissure. What do you see in this breakup? The real? Anything? A world of fantastically freely interpretable forms? One feels that the response depends on the idea of the cinema and even the cinematograph. I use this word intentionally, which Robert Bresson and Eugène Green clearly opposed, as is well known, to vulgar cinema, which is content to make fables with actors. In this extreme conception, cinema is very simply what reveals the real under reality, and for it the veil is an incongruity: be it the puerile character of light, unduly accentuates, and signifies an essential, but mutated, world-data. ; whether it be a taint of physical dissolution, authorizes matter to manifest itself in the world also illegitimately.
