Revisiting André Bazin’s What is Cinema?: The Most Influential Work in Film Theory

André Bazin’s What is Cinema?, a collection of his seminal essays written since the 1950s, has long been regarded as a classic reference in the field of film theory. Many have called it the “gold standard of film criticism,” and Bazin himself is often referred to as the “high priest of cinematic realism” who elevated cinema to a noble art form. The book, which introduces cinema as a unique art of recording reality, laid the foundation for modern film theory and had a profound influence on both thinkers and filmmakers—from Jean Renoir and Fritz Lang to the French New Wave.

Bazin’s Theoretical Foundations in What is Cinema?

Bazin considered cinema to be an “idealist phenomenon” that, through its mechanical camera, is capable of directly recording reality. He argued that this ability to “record phenomena in time” and create a “lasting imprint of reality” places cinema above painting and even photography. According to Bazin, cinema is not merely a copy of the world but emerges from the interplay between conceptual intent and technical means. The filmmaker, in his view, holds a responsibility to represent the complex reality of the world with minimal distortion or personal manipulation. For this reason, Bazin championed the use of long takes and deep-focus shots, allowing multiple details to be observed simultaneously within the depth of the frame.

Bazin aligned himself with the “camp of realists,” preferring that viewers have the freedom to choose where to focus their attention, rather than being overtly directed by the filmmaker. This approach is central both to his famous essay The Ontology of the Photographic Image and to the broader ideological shift in cinema toward the unfiltered depiction of everyday life.

He also spoke of the “myth of total cinema,” arguing that humanity has always strived to represent reality with increasing precision, and that cinema represents the ultimate realization of this dream. Every technical advancement—whether the addition of sound, color, or increased depth of field—was, to Bazin, a step forward in the evolution of cinematic language, bringing it closer to “the most realistic form possible.” For Bazin, the essence of cinema lies in eliminating the distance between film and the real world; each step in technological development, such as highlighting the human dimension of events, reflects an artistic effort to fully capture reality.

Montage and Mise-en-Scène: The Emancipatory Power of Film

One of Bazin’s central arguments in What is Cinema? is a critique of how montage can manipulate the viewer. He rejected the experimental and highly edited styles of the 1920s and 1930s, advocating instead for continuity through mise-en-scène. He believed that deep focus and wide shots—such as those seen in the films of Orson Welles or William Wyler—enable simultaneous actions in the background to be perceived, enriching the viewing experience.

For example, he cites a scene from The Best Years of Our Lives in which a crucial narrative event unfolds in a small rectangle at the back of the room, compelling the viewer to pay attention to both foreground and background. Bazin claimed that this “controlled ambiguity” and the delegation of interpretive responsibility to the viewer are what keep cinema free and intellectually engaging.

In contrast, cinema based on montage and heavy image manipulation tends to homogenize “meaning” and the urgency of action, thus reducing audience participation. Bazin considered such editing a form of “justificatory montage” that reveals cinema’s tendency to deceive the eye. He saw cinema as a medium for visual justice and insisted that filmmakers must not distort reality through artificial editing.

At the same time, Bazin believed in the auteur theory—the idea that every film inevitably reflects the director’s personal worldview. He emphasized the role of the director as a creative individual with a unique perspective. This understanding would go on to inspire both the French New Wave and auteur theory. In Bazin’s view, realism meant fidelity to “the most real form of the object,” but this fidelity should serve a distinct artistic and moral vision. Thus, the “reality” of a film is not merely surface-level events but rather rooted in content and its “inner necessity.”

Theory in Practice: Bazinian Realism in Film

Vittorio De Sica’s Bicycle Thieves (1948) is a paradigmatic example of Italian Neorealism for Bazin. He wrote that Italian neorealism, in its complete rejection of expressionism and the absence of montage, strives to bring cinema back to the ambiguity of real life. In the film, the everyday life of a poor man and his son is depicted directly and unpretentiously: scenes are filmed on the actual streets of Rome, with non-professional actors (a real impoverished father and son) playing themselves. De Sica’s approach exemplifies Bazin’s claim that cinema, through its simplicity, can evoke sincerity and emotional resonance. The father’s tragic fate—resorting to bicycle theft—serves as a symbol of universal human struggle, and Bazin sees the film’s somber but “real” ending (where even wrongdoing is shown as deeply human) as confirmation of cinema’s power to offer interpretive freedom.

Another Bazinian exemplar is De Sica’s Umberto D. (1952). Bazin highlights a particular scene near the end in which a maid, through subtle gestures in the background—merely waving her hand—generates what he calls a “true reaction,” an apex of the camera’s capacity to record reality. The camera remains still, and the maid’s gentle motion creates a “moment of authenticity.” Bazin uses this to demonstrate how even small details—like the trembling handle of a basket—can express the full impact of reality. In Umberto D., which tells the story of a retired elderly man, such simple, reflective human encounters beneath the surface of the imagery serve to distance the film from clichés and deepen the viewer’s empathy.
 

The Best Years of Our Lives (1946) is another of Bazin’s favorite examples. He refers to a scene where, though the apparent action occurs in the foreground, the true narrative turning point unfolds in a distant, small frame in the background. Bazin argued that this kind of deep-focus editing forces the viewer to look beyond the surface of the image and engage actively with its details. In his words, “the foreground action is secondary, while the real action happens almost secretly in a tiny frame in the distance… prompting the viewer into active participation.” This stands in stark contrast to conventional Hollywood cinema, which typically guides the viewer’s attention deliberately toward foreground characters. Bazin emphasized that the ability to “freely explore” the image is what gives cinema its semantic liberty and demonstrates its capacity to depict multifaceted reality.

In addition to these examples, Bazin analyzes the work of great directors like Charlie Chaplin in other essays within the book. He calls Monsieur Verdoux (1947) one of Chaplin’s most brilliant films and shows how its blend of comedy and tragedy challenges the viewer to confront the battle between angels and demons in cinema. While Bazin’s focus was on realism, he valued any cinematic form that approached life directly—daily stories, ordinary characters, and material struggles. Thus, in all the above examples, Bazin demonstrates his vision of cinema as a medium for “capturing reality” and validates his theory with concrete instances.

Legacy and Influence of What is Cinema?

Upon its publication, What is Cinema? became a foundational text in film theory, and its influence continues to this day. On one hand, the book significantly helped establish cinema as a serious academic discipline. As some scholars put it, Bazin more than anyone else “brought dignity and legitimacy to cinema.” Jean Renoir, the renowned French filmmaker, wrote in the preface to the English edition (1967) that Bazin had “granted cinema its royal charter” and assured readers of his lasting impact. According to Sight & Sound magazine, no other theorist has held such a central role in legitimizing cinema as an independent field of study.

On the other hand, Bazin’s realist approach has sparked extensive debates in the decades since. French New Wave theorists, including François Truffaut and Jean-Luc Godard, drew inspiration from Bazin’s respect for the viewer and his admiration for filmmakers like Jean Renoir. Truffaut himself wrote that Bazin’s work helped him see cinema as a vehicle for personal expression. In academia, despite the emergence of new theoretical frameworks—structuralism, postmodernism, and post-industrial film theories—Bazin’s writings remain foundational. In recent decades, numerous books have revisited Bazin, exploring themes such as “transcendental realism” and the role of religion and humanism in his thinking. Some argue that Bazin’s Christian personalist beliefs underpinned his hope in cinema as a medium for ultimate understanding and helped frame the concept of the “auteur director” as a moral imperative.

In conclusion, What is Cinema? remains essential reading for all serious students of cinema, more than half a century after its publication. Bazin’s insights on unmediated camera work, deep focus, and respect for the complexity of reality continue to resonate in film criticism, audience studies, and even contemporary documentary styles. In short, Bazin’s philosophy—which saw the soul of cinema in the “representation of realism”—formed the basis of much later theorizing and endures today as a vital legacy in global cinematic consciousness.