Early filmmakers turned ordinary moments into the foundation for lasting arguments about how cinema should relate to the world it records.

This article sets out clear learning objectives for anyone studying film theory. Readers will trace the emergence of realism as a central concept from the first decades of cinema. They will examine how specific historical conditions shaped the positions taken by major theorists. They will also connect those positions to practical choices in production and editing that remain relevant today.

By the end of the discussion participants will recognise the main lines of debate between realist and formalist approaches. They will understand why realism was never a single doctrine but a contested set of claims about photography, narrative and spectatorship. Concrete examples drawn from verifiable film practice will illustrate each stage of the argument.

The material assumes no prior specialist knowledge yet supplies enough historical and conceptual detail for motivated learners to move directly into further reading. All claims rest on established sources in film studies and avoid speculation beyond documented positions.

Origins in the First Decades of Cinema

The Lumière brothers presented their cinematograph in 1895 with short films of workers leaving a factory and a train arriving at a station. These actualités emphasised the camera’s ability to record events that would have occurred without intervention. Contemporary accounts noted the audience’s surprise at the lifelike movement, establishing an early association between the medium and direct observation.

Georges Méliès, working at the same time, chose instead to construct elaborate studio scenes and apply stop-motion tricks. His approach demonstrated that the same apparatus could produce imaginary events rather than record existing ones. The contrast between the two practices supplied the first practical illustration of the tension that later theorists would formalise.

Early Theoretical Responses

By the 1920s writers such as Béla Balázs began to ask whether cinema’s photographic basis imposed any obligation toward everyday reality. Balázs argued that close-ups could reveal psychological truths unavailable to the naked eye while still remaining anchored in photographed faces. His position already combined an interest in realism with an awareness of the expressive possibilities unique to the moving image.

Rudolf Arnheim, publishing in the same period, insisted that cinema’s artistic value depended on its difference from ordinary vision. He listed flattening of depth, absence of colour and the rectangular frame as deliberate limitations that should be exploited rather than minimised. Arnheim’s formalist stance therefore treated realism as one possible choice among many rather than an inherent property of the medium.

André Bazin and the Post-War Turn

After 1945 André Bazin developed a sustained defence of realism grounded in the ontology of the photographic image. He maintained that the camera records an imprint of reality that exists independently of human interpretation. For Bazin this property gave cinema an ethical dimension: the filmmaker should preserve spatial and temporal continuity so that viewers could encounter the world rather than a director’s commentary upon it.

Bazin’s essays repeatedly cited the Italian neorealist films of Roberto Rossellini and Vittorio De Sica. In Bicycle Thieves (1948) the use of non-professional actors, location shooting and available light allowed events to unfold without visible manipulation. Bazin praised these choices because they respected the ambiguity of real situations and invited viewers to exercise their own judgment.

Siegfried Kracauer’s Parallel Argument

Siegfried Kracauer advanced a related position in his 1960 book Theory of Film. He claimed that cinema finds its proper subject in the unstaged, the fortuitous and the everyday. Kracauer traced this affinity back to the Lumière actualités and forward to documentary practice. Like Bazin he regarded editing that fragments space and time as a potential betrayal of the medium’s recording capacity.

Both theorists wrote against the background of wartime propaganda and studio-dominated production. Their emphasis on realism therefore carried an implicit political dimension: an appeal for cinema that acknowledged the material conditions of ordinary lives rather than substituting controlled spectacle.

Formalist Counter-Arguments

Sergei Eisenstein had already articulated the opposing view in the 1920s. He treated montage as the essential cinematic operation, arguing that meaning arises from the collision of shots rather than from any single image. Battleship Potemkin (1925) demonstrates this method through rhythmic cutting that generates emotional and ideological effects unavailable in unedited footage.

Arnheim’s earlier catalogue of cinema’s limitations reappeared in later formalist writing as positive resources. Directors such as Alfred Hitchcock and later structural filmmakers deliberately used framing, lighting and editing patterns to shape spectator response. These practices showed that realism could be one stylistic option within a wider repertoire rather than a default requirement.

Continuing Exchanges in the 1950s and 1960s

The journal Cahiers du Cinéma, which Bazin helped found, became a forum for these debates. Contributors examined Hollywood directors for evidence of personal expression while still defending location shooting and long takes. The tension between realist and formalist claims therefore persisted even among critics who admired both Rossellini and Hitchcock.

Academic film studies later reframed the discussion through semiotics and ideology critique. Yet the original historical arguments continued to influence production decisions, especially in documentary and independent fiction where choices about camera movement and editing still invoke the same vocabulary of respect for the pro-filmic event.

Conclusion

The historical debates around realism established two enduring poles in film theory: one that values cinema’s capacity to record the world with minimal intervention and another that treats every technical choice as an opportunity for deliberate construction. Key figures such as Bazin, Kracauer, Eisenstein and Arnheim developed their positions in response to specific technological and political conditions rather than abstract preferences.

Learners who wish to extend this study should read Bazin’s collected essays in What is Cinema? alongside Eisenstein’s Film Form. Screening Bicycle Thieves together with Battleship Potemkin allows direct comparison of the techniques under discussion. Further exploration of Kracauer’s Theory of Film and Arnheim’s Film as Art supplies additional primary sources for tracing how realism remained a live issue across successive generations of filmmakers and critics.

Got thoughts? Drop them below!
For more articles visit us at https://dyerbolical.com.
Join the discussion on X at
https://x.com/dyerbolicaldb
https://x.com/retromoviesdb
https://x.com/ashyslasheedb
Follow all our pages via our X list at
https://x.com/i/lists/1645435624403468289
Visit our Immortalis horror fiction universe at https://immortalishorror.com