6. After Modernity: Rohmer's Classicism and Universalism
6. After Modernity: Rohmer’s Classicism and Universalism Grosoli, Marco, Eric Rohmer’s Film Theory (1948-1953). From ‘école Schérer’ to ‘Politique des auteurs’. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2018 doi: 10.5117/978946298580/ch06 Abstract From the outset of his career, Eric Rohmer made no secret of his preference for classicism, as far as both aesthetics in general and cinematic aesthetics in particular are concerned. One must hasten to add, however, that he never really conceived of “classic” and “modern” as two opposite concepts. Rather, he maintained that what is truly classic is also truly modern, because in either case genuine art is primarily about achieving a certain harmony with nature. What he exactly meant by this forms the main subject matter of this chapter, which also clarifies the degree to which Rohmer’s aesthetics can be called “universalist” and “anti-evolutionist”, and why. In addition, Rohmer’s views on the key notions of authorship and mise en scene are also summarily sketched. Keywords: Rohmer, classic, modern, universalism, aesthetics 6.1. Beyond modern art Rohmer’s attachment to classical tragedy is a clear token of his overt classi- cism, which can hardly be accounted for as orthodox and one-dimensional. For him, ‘classicism’ and ‘modernity’ are not necessarily opposite. In order to clarify this issue, it is again useful to draw upon Kant, since the critic’s classicism and his peculiar, idiosyncratic Kantism ultimately shed a decisive light on each other. For one thing, Rohmer does not connect cinema and Kantian aesthetics in a straightforward way. Contrary to what the previous chapter(s) might have suggested, in spite of cinema’s capability to attain artistic and natural beauty and to tackle freedom, it would be too simplistic to maintain that Rohmer regarded cinema simply as the perfect match to Kant’s ideas on aesthetics.
[Show full text]