Die StaBe (The Street)

Important 1923 film for the Weimar Republic, directed by Karl Grune, for the move to Objectivity in that cinema
This film is shot with long shots, especially in the opening scenes of the house. From this original camera position, analytic cut ins, even inserts, are used, from seemingly the same angle, to focus in on one person. The takes are way longer than the contemporary expressionist movement. Saying this is a realist picture is true, but note also the use of expressionist shadows, the skull/face fadings, and the superimpostions. Realism here extends to the 'real' impressions the lead has.
This film is about contingency and chance, as reflected in the form. As the takes are long, as are many shots, contingency is allowed on the camera (as opposed to the tight organisation of Lang, Murnau, precise framings etc). A little movement of one actor, gestures, dropping something, a flick of light in the corner. This is the move towards a realism. Everyday actions are allowed to take place in front of the camera. These are the realist principles of Italian neo-realism and the Nouvelle Vague.
One would think that depth is required for the creation of such a world (Renoir is a fasinating reference point here). And depth is an interesting question in relation to this film. On one hand, despite the street setting it often takes place at one level of depth. The street is shot at such an angle that even with the diagonals, walking, the inhabitants stay at one depth. This is partly to do with the camera eqipment; shooting in the dark, any kind of depth is disqualified, and there is a narrow field of focus.
And yet on occassion depth is attempted; this usually fails to focus or really work, as the camera makes even actors far away all appear compressed. So what Grune does is adopt overhead angles, which allows an impression of a deeper space, while at once the depth is low. A smart move.
Also should be noted here the lighting, presumably down to the conditions of filming. The faces are ruthlessly overexposed, perhaps filming in the dark, contrast was necessarilly turned down, and the faces were the lightest things left. The corners of the frame are often kept darker.
So chance; the long takes, especially in the gambling and nightvclub scenes, allow chance to occur. Our bourgeois lead rejects chance, rejects contingency; all must be just so. The politics here are pretty vile; the film valorizes not taking chances, keeping money under one's hat, retreating to the home. It is an ideology of fear in this film.
Individual scenes here are quite remarkable; often long shots decentred, of the whole street. There is an incredible moment with the child (slightly weak subplot), off centre and only noticeable due to harsh light, among the crowds. Then, in a moment of magic, the whole city is stopped by the policeman. There is stasis among the constant movement.
Thinking about contingency on camera (early Godard, Rivette; 'mucking about', Brando stroking fabric), and the moral fight between this and precision (Lang, Murnau (?)) reveals no absolutes. What was true for Weimar Germany need not always be so. But the debate, if not starting here, reaches a crucial stage of articulation, setting this off (and its successors, we look forward to some Pabst in the future) against the great expressionists.