Art Cinema and Theatre of Absurd In "The Art of Cinema as a Mode of Film Practice," David Bordwell provides a definition of what he believes constitutes art cinema in order to define the style as an artistic movement. In "The Theatre of the Absurd," Martin Esslin provides similar arguments about theatre as Bordwell does about film. Bordwell and Esslin both provide an analysis of the elements that distinguish art cinema and art theatre from their mainstream counterparts.

There are several factors that contributed to the rise of art cinema in the post-World War II era. Art cinema became to be recognized as an acceptable and appropriate vehicle of expression given the gravity of historical developments of post-WWII Europe.

In "The Art of Cinema as a Mode of Film Practice," Bordwell explains art cinema "as a distinct mode appears after World War II when the dominance of the Hollywood cinema was beginning to wane" (Bordwell 716). Bordwell explains, "art cinema defines itself explicitly against the classical narrative mode, and especially against the cause-effect linkage of events [wherein] linkages become looser, more tenuous in the art film" (717). Thus, cause-effect linkages shift to the psychological constructs of its characters.

Bordwell proceeds to explain art...

One of the ways art cinema is realistic is in its depiction of psychologically complex characters that often "lack defined desires and goals" (718). These characteristics are a stark contrast to characters in classical narrative cinema who have defined traits and goals and who follow a goal-oriented path. Bordwell also argues art cinema "is less concerned with action than reaction; it is a cinema of psychological effects in search of their causes" (718). This forces the audience to analyze characters to determine why they are the way they are. Bordwell states, "Violations of classical conceptions of time and space are justified as the intrusion of an unpredictable and contingent daily reality or as the subjective reality of complex characters" (719). In art cinema, the author becomes "a structure in the film's system" and helps to define the film's narrative and style, as opposed to classical cinema in which a studio's vision defines the film.
While Bordwell argues realism and authorial expressivity serve to unify the individual elements of art film, he also contends "a realistic aesthetic and an expressionist aesthetic are hard to merge," a dilemma which is resolved through ambiguity. Ambiguity serves to fill in…