ABSTRACT
For the past four years we have been discussing very earnestly the 'regeneration' of cinema. We have summoned, and continue to summon, all kinds of meetings, boards, commissions etc. which are supposed to take the appropriate measures to regenerate one of the most interesting areas of industry. The premature and anaemic 'film' journals and the 'film' sections of the theatrical journals are doing the same. As a general rule our discussions have been concerned with so-called 'art' cinema. We talk about the unusual qualities of the 'Great Silent', of 'Painting with Light'48 and of the' Art of Silence' - but these unusual qualities are only very vaguely defined: 'devoid of the lechery of the word', the 'ill-fated and great art' etc. The essence of cinema art has in the majority of cases hitherto been defined by its special characteristics, the emotional side of the film actor. I am bold enough to assert that those who write and have written about cinema have no grounds for stretching the word 'art'.
