The title of this post was taken directly from Kuleshov’s piece on Montage, because it was a phrase that resonated with me. From our discussions it was pretty clear to me that ‘Film cannot portray Reality’ because reality is not as vivid or interesting. By this I mean, we can all have exciting, dramatic, scary, sad, happy moments happen in a matter of 2-6 years, but reality is no one wants to watch 2-6 years of footage. We want to see 90 minutes, of all the events, but in short bits.

So yes in the sense of time, we can’t mimic reality. But when I read this phrase “By means of cinema, we can observe the world,” I just thought that it is true because we can expose each other to our different experiences. Sure they won’t be ‘reality,’ but they do reveal a familiarity that we can all connect to or an unfamiliarity that we can contrast. The artist/director makes a decision on the cuts and edits such that they stray away from reality or sense of realness, but the content is what I am focusing on. For instance, if I traveled the world to film the harsh and problematic issues of immigration and nationalism in Europe and had a showing at Lafayette.  I would be able to reach to an audience who has not been exposed to issues of the ones I have footage of.

So in that sense, cinema does expose others to a world. In this hypothetical scenario, my film would be the vehicle to exposing lafayette members outside of just Easton or the USA.  But my representation may not be accurate? or will it? Regardless of the response to that question, I know that through the means of cinema, I am showcasing a part of a world that was a personal experience that I had. (hypothetically speaking) Which might be different than others who have been in Europe, or similar? (or will be another case of the help?)