Theorizing the moving image 9780521466073, 9781139085953, 9780521460491

Citation preview

Theorizing the Moving Image brings together a selection of essays written by one of the leading theorists of film over the last two decades. In this volume, Noél Carroll examines theoretical aspects of film and television through penetrating analyses of such genres as soap opera, documentary, and comedy, and such topics as sight gags, film metaphor, point-of-view editing, and movie music. Throughout, individual films are considered in depth. Carroll’s essays, moreover, represent the cognitivist turn in film studies, containing in-depth criticism of existing approaches to film theory, and heralding a new approach to film theory.

BLANK PAGE

:, =a ,=

Cambridge Studies in Film

=

, =a rT

GENERAL EDITORS Henry Breitrose, Stanford University William Rothman, University of Miami

ADVISORY BOARD Dudley Andrew, University of Iowa Anthony Smith, Magdalen College, Oxford Colin Young, National Film School OTHER BOOKS IN THE SERIES Film and Phenomenology, by Allan Casebier Metaphor and Film, by Trevor Whittock The Gorgon’s Gaze: German Cinema, Expressionism, and the Image of Horror, by Paul Coates Renoir on Renoir: Interviews, Essays, and Remarks, by Jean Renoir (translated by Carol Volk) The Taste for Beauty, by Eric Rohmer (translated by Carol Volk) The British Documentary Film Movement, 1926-1946, by Paul Swann Chinese Cinema: Culture and Politics Since 1949, by Paul Clark The “I” of the Camera: Essays in Film Criticism, History, and Aesthetics, by William Rothman Nonindifferent Nature: Film and the Structure of Things, by Sergei Eisenstein (translated by Herbert Marshall) Constructivism in Film: The Man with the Movie Camera, by Vlada Petric Inside Soviet Film Satire: Laughter with a Lash, Andrew Horton, editor Melodrama and Asian Cinema, by Wimal Dissanayake Film at the Intersection of High and Mass Culture, by Paul Coates Another Frank Capra, by Leland Poague Russian Critics on the Cinema of Glasnost, Michael Brashinsky and Andrew Horton, editors Projecting Illusion: Film Spectatorship and the Impression of Reality, by

Richard Allen ,

THEORIZING THE MOVING IMAGE

THEORIZING THE MOVING IMAGE

~ NOEL CARROLL University of Wisconsin, Madison

CAMBRIDGE Sy UNIVERSITY PRESS

Published by the Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 1RP 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011-4211, USA 10 Stamford Road, Oakleigh, Melbourne 3166, Australia © Cambridge University Press 1996 First published 1996

Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Carroll, Noél (Noél E.) Theorizing the moving image / Noél Carroll. p. cm. — (Cambridge studies in film) ISBN 0-521-46049-2. — ISBN 0-521-46607-5 (pbk.) 1. Motion pictures — Philosophy. 2. Television — Philosophy.

3. Television broadcasting — Philosophy. I. Title. II. Series. PN1995.C358 1996

791.43’01 — dc20 95-21558 CIP A catalog record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN 0-521-46049-2 Hardback 0-521-46607-5 Paperback

Acknowledgments The original places and dates of publication of articles in this anthology are as follows: “Medium Specificity Arguments and the Self-Consciously Invented Arts,” Millennium Film Journal, nos.

14/15 (Fall/Winter 1984-5), pp. 127-53; “The Specificity of Media in the Arts,” Journal of Aesthetic Education, 19, no. 4 (Winter 1985), pp. 5—20; “Concerning Uniqueness Claims for Photographic and Cinematographic Representation,” Dialectics and Humanism, no. 2 (1987), pp. 29-43; “The Power of Movies,” Daedalus (Fall 1985), pp. 79-103; “Toward a Theory of Film Suspense,” Persistance of Vision, no. 1 (Summer 1984), pp. 65-89; “As the Dial Turns,” Boston Review, XIII, no. 1 (February 1988), pp. 5-6, 20-1; “Toward a Theory of Point-of-View Editing,” Poetics Today, 14, no. 1 (Spring 1993), pp. 123-42; “Notes on Movie Music,” Studies in the Literary Imagination, XIX, no. 1 (Spring 1986), pp. 73-81; “Notes on the Sight Gag,” comedy/ cinemaltheory, edited by Andrew Horton (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), pp. 25-42; “Avant-Garde Film and Film Theory,” Millennium Film Journal, nos. 4/5 (Summer/Fall 1979), pp. 135-44; “Causation, the Ampliation of Movement and Avant-Garde Film,” Millennium Film Journal, nos. 10/11 (Fall/Winter 1981-2), pp. 61-82; “Language and Cinema,” Millennium Film Journal, nos. 7/8/9 (Fall/Winter 1980-1), pp. 186-217; “A Note on Film Metaphor,” Journal of Pragmatics forthcoming; “From Real to Reel,” Philosophic Exchange, (1983), pp. 5— 46; “Reply to Carol Brownson and Jack C. Wolf,” Philosophic Exchange, (1983), pp. 59-64; “The Image of Women in Film,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 48 no. 4 (Fall 1990), pp. 349-60; “Film, Rhetoric and Ideology,” Explanation and Value in the Arts, edited by Salim Kemal and I. Gaskell (Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 215-37; “Film/Mind Analogies,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, XLV, no. 4 (Summer 1988), pp. 489-99; “Hans Richter’s Struggle for Film,” Millennium Film Journal, no. 19 (Fall/Winter 1987-8), pp. 104-12; “A Brief Comment on Frampton’s Notion of Metahistory,” Millennium Film Journal, (Fall/Winter 1986-7), pp. 200-

05; “Cognitivism, Contemporary Film Theory and Method,” Journal of Dramatic Theory and Criticism,” VI, no. 2 (Spring 1992), pp. 199-219; “A Reply to Heath,” October (Winter 1983), pp. 81-102; “Film History and Film Theory,” Film Reader, no. 4 (1979), pp. 81-96; “Art, Film and Ideology,” Millennium Film Journal,” (Winter/Fall 1983-4) no. 15, pp. 120-32; “Toward a Theory of Film Editing,” Millennium Film Journal, no. 3 (Winter/Spring 1979), pp. 79-99.

Dedicated to My Brothers Hugh Felix Carroll Il and Patrick Joseph Carroll

BLANK PAGE

=

,, | == =

=

Contents

Acknowledgments Foreword, by David BordwellIV 1X

Introduction Xill Part I: Questioning Media 1 I Medium Specificity Arguments and the Self-Consciously Invented

Arts: Film, Video, and Photography 3

II The Specificity of Media in the Arts 25

III Concerning Uniqueness Claims for Photographic and

Representation 37 IVCinematographic Defining the Moving Image 49

Part II: Popular Film and TV 75

V The Power of Movies 78 VI Toward a Theory of Film Suspense 94

VII As the Dial Turns: Notes on Soap Operas 118

Emotion, and the Movies 125 IX Notes on Movie Music 139 X Notes on the Sight Gag 146

VIII Toward a Theory of Point-of-View Editing: Communication,

Part III: Avant-Garde and Documentary Film 159

Images 187

XI Avant-Garde Film and Film Theory 162

XII Causation, the Ampliation of Movement and Avant-Garde Film 169 XIII Language and Cinema: Preliminary Notes for a Theory of Verbal

XIV A Note on Film Metaphor 212 XV From Real to Reel: Entangled in Nonfiction Film 224 XVI Reply to Carol Brownson and Jack C. Wolf 253

Part IV: Ideology 257 XVII The Image of Women in Film: A Defense of a Paradigm 260 XVUI Film, Rhetoric, and Ideology 275 Vil

Contents

Part V: The History of Film Theory 291 XIX Film/Mind Analogies: The Case of Hugo Munsterberg 293

XX Hans Richter’s Struggle for Film 305

XXI A Brief Comment on Frampton’s Notion of Metahistory 313

Part VI: Polemical Exchanges 319 XXII Cognitivism, Contemporary Film Theory and Method: A

Response to the Warren Buckland XXIII Cracks in Acoustic Mirror321 336 XXIV A Reply to Health 343 XXV Replies to Hammett and Allen 360

Part VII: False Starts 373

Theory of Film 375

Index 421 XXVI Film History and Film Theory: An Outline for an Institutional

XXVII Art, Film and Ideology: A Response to Blaine Allan 392

XXVIII Toward a Theory of Film Editing 403

viii

|=

work has displayed many of the benefits which the aesthetic mode of inquiry offers to

FOREWORD scholars in the humanities. What we have in

™ this first collection of his essays is a positive, wholly up-to-date effort to make progress in

- ; ; ae

by David Bordwell ™ some problems around cinema.

This progress is marked, initially, by a = position of skepticism. Contemporary film scholars often want to believe in some theory

or another, with the consequence that they accept many theoretical claims uncritically.

“Classical” film theory, usually taken as Carroll starts with the assumption that any Spanning the fifty years or so before the rise — theory, from the most intuitively obvious

of semiology in the mid-1960s, was often to the most flagrantly uncommonsensical, concerned to define film as an art. Theorists | should be able to summon rational argusuch as André Bazin, Rudolf Arnheim, and ments on its behalf. Most famously, Carroll’s

the Soviet Montage directors sought to skepticism has led to the scrutiny of 1970s isolate distinctively cinematic principles of |= and 1980s film theory carried out in Mystify-

representation and expression. These were ing Movies (1988). Here, through painstak-

investigated with an eye to the artistic ingly close reading and analysis, Carroll qualities of films and the aesthetic experi- shows that much of contemporary film

ence of audiences. . theory rides on equivocation, overgenerali-

Yet in recent years, the film-as-art ap- zation, misplaced analogies, and sheer approach has seemed to many a dead end. peal to authority. If the influence of this Semiologists often saw no reason to distin- | strand of contemporary theory is waning guish between aesthetic and nonaesthetic now, Carroll’s book is one major cause. sign systems; psychoanalytically-inclined Carroll’s skepticism toward current develtheorists treated the art/non-art distinction | opments is not a conservative reflex. He as irrelevant to the study of cinema’s rela- _—_ displays no nostalgia for the good old days.

tion to the unconscious, and theorists pursu- Philosophical Problems of Classical Film ing ideological critique often charged that Theory (1988) scrutinizes three major tradithe very concept of aesthetics was a heritage tional thinkers (Arnheim, Bazin, and V. F.

of “bourgeois idealism.” , Perkins), and it finds each position problem-

Today much of this reaction looks short- —_ atic. “We must start again”: The last line of sighted. Many objectors understood aesthet- §Mystifying Movies is no less appropriate as ics as a batch of ahistorical speculations on — Carroll’s verdict on these classical theories.

art and beauty, and this notion, quaint even For this reason, perhaps the strongest then, can no longer be seriously sustained. _ initial impression left by Carroll’s first two

It has become clear that aesthetics, con- books is his skeptical rejection of major ceived as an open-ended inquiry into the positions. But his third book, The Philosoproblems surrounding the arts and art criti- phy of Horror (1990), examined a cluster of cism, has much to teach film studies — not problems around the structure, effect, and

least in serving as a model for what ener- social functions of “art-horror” fictions. getic, enlightening theorizing might look Here the critique of alternative theories

like. throws into relief his own solution to the Over some twenty years, Noél Carroll’s problem of the design and appeal of such Ix

Foreword

tales. In the course of his investigations of | Carroll advocates sensitivity to historical the horror genre, he also confronts and — context. But his conception of history harmakes progress on such general matters as __ bors no “grand narratives.” There are only

suspense and character identification. norms, styles, and practices, each with a The collection you now hold is similarly __ fine-grained causal history. And this histori-

balanced between criticism and theory- cal sensitivity is required for all theorizing: building. Although some pieces undertake any film theory, classic or modern, which demolition jobs, most are devoted to con- ignores the history of the medium is likely to structive theorizing. And the breadth of _ blind itself to counterexamples and plausible inquiry is striking. Carroll takes on several alternatives. Moreover, history is conceived

issues that crop up in the traditional not as “the facts” or sheer data. Carroll literature — medium specificity, visual meta- _ insists on the theory-governed quality of phor, the realism of documentary. But he _ research programs.

also addresses issues which post-1980s film This project, then, squarely faces the theory put on the agenda. He asks how films challenges flung down by contemporary function ideologically, whether an avant- theorists. If it often displays skepticism garde film can proffer a theory, how film — toward those theorists’ conclusions, it does theorists can engage with feminism, how a _ soon the basis of a sophisticated conception political theory of cinema might become _ ofresearch and theoretical disputation. “Em-

viable. piricism,” “positivism,” “scientism,” and As we might expect, Carroll sets forth other labels freely plastered up nowadays some fairly unorthodox views. He argues — will not stick to Carroll’s account. (They

that ideology, rather than involving depth- are all due for discard anyhow.) If you psychological processes such as “subject- doubt this, turn immediately to the essay positioning” and “identification,” is better | “Cognitivism, Contemporary Film Theory considered in the light of the folk wisdom of | and Method,” wherein Carroll spells out a maxims and the practical reasoning mobi- subtle version of “fallibilism,” the belief in lized by informal rhetoric. He proposes that approximate, comparatively reliable knowlthe “images-of-women” research tradition edge as a realistic goal of scholarly inquiry. rejected by some feminists is in many ways If Theorizing the Moving Image does nothmore tenable than the view that patriarchal ing else, I hope it makes it impossible for power is exercised through the look. He __film theorists to claim that a position propossuggests that a promising model for politics- | ing such a goal is inevitably vitiated by a

based theorizing can be found in Hans faith in “certainty,” “absolute truth,” or Richter’s work. He argues for the view that “disinterested knowledge.” documentary films can, in significant respects, be objective and yield knowledge. Carroll’s conclusions, whether or not they Many of these arguments will be attrac- | chime with the dominant opinion of the tive to readers beyond the narrow precincts moment, arise from a very different process of media studies. Yet insiders who may _ of reasoning than is common in the humaniinstinctively resist Carroll’s claims must ties today. Much of contemporary theory in

reckon with the fact that he cannot be literature, art, and film consists of assemcaricatured as the hidebound advocate of bling received doctrines of vast generality,

theory as it once was. He argues, for recasting them to fit one’s interests, yoking instance, that there is no “nature” or onto- — them to other (often incommensurate) doclogical essence of an art medium-—that _ trines, and then applying the result to a task

indeed the very existence of art media is at hand (typically, interpreting a particular radically contingent. Instead of essentialism, art work). If the theorist undertakes analysis x

Foreword

of a theory, the process usually focuses on might even owe him thanks for making their rhetorical argument rather than logicalinfer- = positions more intelligible and appealing ence. The reasoning routines of contempo- _ than they have managed to do. rary film theory warrant a separate study, but Now comes the analysis. How informait seems fair to say that few writers engage __ tive, consistent, and cogent are the concepts

in an activity of advancing, for criticism informing the view under discussion? How and rebuttal, reasonably well-justified con- —_ wide is the evidence base? (Carroll makes

ceptual analyses and inferences. There is diabolical use of counterexamples.) What something called Theory, to be quoted or _ distinctions need making, for example, in mimicked, but not much theorizing. the concepts of “point of view” or “objectivCarroll does theory differently. Heidenti- —_—ity?”” What is presupposed or implied by. the

fies a problem area — say, medium specific- __ theory, and is that presupposition absurd?

ity, or analogies between film and mind, or The ideas must be worked through, and sight gags. Instead of immediately dragging _ there are no shortcuts or free rides. This is

onstage a big theory on loan from else- not Theory but theorizing, and in Carroll’s where (Derrida on Kant, Freud on jokes), _ hands it is exhilarating.

Carroll tries to focus on a medium-level Part of the pleasure is that the activity question, such as what features of main- stands open to all. Carroll refreshingly stream movies might lend themselves to avoids the appeal to authority, the tactic of

cross-cultural comprehension. “My source can lick your argument,” the beThis inquiry is not staged in a vacuum. lief that quoting Bakhtin somehow counts as Few theorists in any academic specialty a criticism of Chomsky. (Recall the old comcommand as wide a range of knowledge as _ plaint: when confronted with an objection, a does Carroll. He mobilizes the literature of | Structuralist would answer with a bibliogra-

the visual arts, theater, dance, music, and _ phy.) Appeal to authority intimidates the the philosophy of mind and history in order _— interlocutor (maybe I haven’t read your to canvass theoretical answers to the target source) and encourages either uncritical question. He thereby surveys a wider range = acceptance or unreasoning rejection. Carroll

of opinions than one normally finds ina film operates on a level playing field; anyone essay. And there is usually a surprise. (Who — with an argument can get into the game, but

else found Loker on suspense?) then skill will be required to keep up. Out of this survey there crystallize some Having examined the competitors, Caralternative positions. Carroll holds the view, _ roll lays out their difficulties. (If he didn’t,

common enough in domains of philosophyI he wouldn’t have undertaken the task of

believe, that if knowledge is approximate theorizing in the first place.) He then and only relatively reliable, our best theo- = proposes amore plausible alternative. Whatries will be those which emerge as most _ ever its virtues, it will at least seek to avoid

plausible from a competitive field. Put the faults already diagnosed. More often, another way, there is no perfect theory; it will have a few extra values — clarity, there is only a theory which 1s, right now, to cogency, coverage. But faithful to his be reasonably preferred to its rivals. fallibilism, Carroll will acknowledge the In order to compare theories, they may __ partial, approximative nature of his results. need some sympathetic clarification or re- | What matters is that some progress has been

structuring. It is not noted frequently | made, not that some new dogma has been enough that, before the talk turns critical, | established. Open-ended and corrigible, Carroll is at pains to provide quite plausible theories can only be provisional pauseversions of some of the positions he eventu- points, moments in the activity of doing ally rejects. Some contemporary theorists theory. xi

Foreword

Significantly, the result will not have to This “piecemeal” theorizing has startling mesh with all our other beliefs about things implications. What could be more unnervcinematic. Carroll’s account of ampliationin —_ ing, even to the most self-consciously radical

editing will not be drafted to reinforce his media theorist of today, than the cheerful acattack on medium specificity. A theory of | knowledgment that if there is no Big Theory “verbal images” will not necessarily shore up of Everything, there is no Big Theory of a conception of why psychoanalytic concep- = Everything about Motion Pictures? But itis a tions of “the look” are weak justifications for natural consequence of treating film aesthet-

ideological critique. One of Carroll’s theo- ics as a mode of philosophical inquiry and ries might be better justified than another; debate. And the reward is that, in cultivating they come in separate packages. Thusnoone — unorthodox views and pursuing a rigorous theory stands or falls by the fate of its mates. | method of reasoning, Carroll simply risks The result is rather unexpected. If your _ being original. theory consists largely of applications of one Big Theory (or an amalgam of several), then _—All this is set forth in a direct, often amusing every question you pick out will have similar —_ prose. The style cultivated by many contemanswers. If you have only a hammer, every _ porary theorists offers evidence for Nietz-

problem looks like a nail. But if your — sche’s remark that readers often consider theoretical work is driven by intriguing something deep just because they cannot see questions and nagging problems, there isno — to the bottom. Carroll’s style, by contrast, guarantee that all your conclusions willhook __ lives by one precept: Let each sentence be up into something called a theory of film. impossible to misunderstand. Not the smallCarroll welcomes the upshot: unlike his — est pleasure of this book is its effort to be the predecessors, both classical and contempo- _most lucid, unshowoffish piece of academic

rary, he does not offer us a system. film writing of recent years.

xii

=

° = accurate for us to be thinking in terms of the 7 broader concept of moving images. = In naming my domain of inquiry, not only ; have I substituted “moving images” for Introduction “film,” but I have replaced “theory” with

| : ™ “theorizing.” By doing this, I intend to lay

, = emphasis on theorizing as an activity — an ongoing process rather than a_ product. = Many of the essays in this volume bear titles

| like “Toward a Theory of This or That,” or “Notes on Such and Such,” or “An Outline of... .” These titles are meant to acknowlThis book is a collection of my essays— — edge the provisional nature of my hypothe-

mostly old, but some new. They are all — ses. I present them to other theorists for concerned with theorizing moving images. criticism and for comment; I admit that they The term “theorizing moving images” is — can sustain refinement and expansion, perperhaps obscure and warrants some immedi- __ haps by theorists other than myself. And, of

ate comment. It is not just a fancy way of | course, some of my hypotheses will proba-

saying film theory. I prefer the idiom of ' bly have to be abandoned once they are moving images rather than film because I subjected to rigorous scrutiny. I regard these

predict that what we call film and, for that articles as contributions to a continuing matter, film history will, in generations to dialogue, not the last word on the subject. come, be seen as part of a larger continuous To say “a theory of film” or “the theory of history that will not be restricted to things __ film” has a ring of finality about it. It makes made only in the so-called medium of film it sound as though our research is finished but, as well, will apply to things made inthe _—_and the topic closed. But I would not want media of video, TV, computer-generated — to leave the impression that I think that film

imagery, and we know not what. It willbe a theory has been completed between the history of motion pictures or moving pic- covers of this book. Indeed, I think it’s tures, aS we now Say in ordinary language, hardly begun. or, as I recommend we call it, a history of Another problem that I have with calling “moving images,” of which the age of film, | what I’ve been doing “a theory of film” is strictly speaking, is likely to be onlyaphase. __ that it suggests a singular, unified enterprise. Moreover, I prefer “moving images” to — But I do not believe that there 1s a theory of “moving pictures,” since pictures imply rec- _film, or the theory of film. Rather, there are

ognizable representations, whereas by “im- _film theories, or, as I say, “theories of the ages” I mean to signal that much of the art moving image.” There are theories of film

that concerns us has been and will be narration and of metaphor, of editing and nonrepresentational and abstract. Many of acting. I, at least, do not proceed on the the essays in this book were written in terms — presumption that these will all add up to one

of film. But, in retrospect, it seems to me __ theory, organized by a single set of princithat none of the theories I advance in this __ ples or laws. Rather, my own work has been book need be taken to be film-specific; they | piecemeal, theorizing one mechanism of

all pertain to the aesthetics of moving cinematic articulation or confronting one images. For although the artform was born _ problem at a time.!

in film and although when I started writing Thus, this volume is a collection of about it I thought I was merely a film theories, not a theory of film, nor even a theorist, I now believe that it is more — theory of the moving image. Many of the xiii

Introduction

theories are involved in isolating andexplain- kinds of answers, many of which may not ing specific devices or structures or mecha- —_ segue into one neat story of the sort previnisms of cinematic signification including ously called a theory of film.

erotetic narration, variable framing, modify- For me, film theorizing involves posing ing music, sight gags, point-of-view editing, | general questions — such as how does pointsuspense, weak and strong ampliation, ver- _—of-view editing work? — and then attempt-

bal images, film metaphors, and so on. ing to answer them. I have called this Some of these small-scale or piecemeal piecemeal theorizing, and this book is a theories can be connected into larger constel- —_ collection of the piecemeal theorizing I’ve

lations, such as my conception of the power done for nearly twenty years. It is my of movies, but others are autonomous. For opinion that this approach to theory is example, neither my account of sight gags _ rather different than the kind of work done nor my account of film metaphor is con- __ by the classical film theorists, like Arnheim,

nected to a larger theoretical framework Kracauer, and Bazin, on the one hand, and

that pertains uniquely to cinema. by contemporary film theorists, like Heath Moreover, the activity of theorizing and Silverman, on the other hand. Both herein is not simply restricted to explaining __ classical film theory and contemporary film cinematic devices. I also address some long- __ theory strike me as grand theory, the atstanding theoretical questions that arise out tempt to ground a comprehensive perspecof film practice, such as whether nonfiction _ tive of film on certain foundational princifilms can be objective, and whether avant- __ ples, whether those concern the ontology of garde films are theoretical. Conjectures are —_ the cinematic image or subject positioning.

also offered on the way in which to talk Classical film theory, of course, focused about the ontology of film, about the film more on the analysis of the so-called film medium, and about cinematic representa- | medium, whereas contemporary film theory

tion. In short, there are a lot of different has been preoccupied with questions of things discussed in this book, and they don’t —_ ideology. And yet both approach the subject

add up to a single, unified theory of film, or as a unified field. Both try to isolate either

of anything else, for that matter. an essence or a function of film. And having This, I believe, is as it should be. Sociol- isolated that essence or function to their ogy is not reducible to a single unified | own satisfaction, these theorists go on to theory. It is comprised of many different refer every question of cinema back to it. theories of different levels of generality-— |= My own suspicion has been that film cannot theories of the homeless in America, of the — be reduced to a single essence or function, caste system in India, of modernization in —_and, correspondingly, I do not presume that developing countries, of socialization, and _— our _theories will result in a tidy package.

so on. My conception of film theory is Rather than an essence or a function of film, similar. It is not a matter of producing a — what we have are a lot of questions about grand theory that will answer every question _ film. Answering them will not yield a single

in our area of study by reference to a theory, but a collection of piecemeal theofoundational set of laws or principles. _ ries. I hope that this book will provide a Rather, it is the activity of answering a fruitful approximation of some of them. gamut of general questions about the prac- I also would like to add that I think that tice of making and receiving moving images. the piecemeal approach to theorizing is, in And since these questions can be raised at many ways, liberating. It is a very intimidatdifferent levels of generality — how do films ing prospect to imagine that what a film make metaphors? what isa documentary? — _— theorist must do is to erect a totalizing we should expect to find a range of different theory that has something informative to say xiv

Introduction

about every aspect of cinematic practice. It are irrelevant to film studies. At the same is far more practicable to proceed by posing time, I do think that certain questions well-defined questions about cinema. More about the workings of moving images do

people are likely to engage in original not entail questions of politics. But that theorizing when the sights are lowered. cannot be misconstrued as formalism, since More progress is likely to ensue if prospec- __I also believe that the ideological operation

tive theorists work on solving precise prob- of cinema raises legitimate questions for lems that can be answered manageably. Of _ theory.

course, I do not recommend piecemeal This volume is divided into seven parts. theorizing for its heuristic value; [think that Part I deals with questions about the nature

the likelihood of a grand theory of film is of the film medium and the nature of slim. But one mustn’t overlook the fact that | cinematic representation. Much of this sec-

a piecemeal approach makes theorizing _ tion is critical. It is directed against the more accessible at the same time that it notion that film can be analyzed in terms of

brings theory down to earth. its possession of a unique, determinate Many of the theories in this volume are medium that has directive implications apt to be rebuked as formalist, insofar as | about what artists should and should not do. they concentrate on the communicative op- _‘Indeed, the arguments in this section travel eration of certain devices — like variable — farther afield than film and mount a general framing — without commenting on their po- _—_ attack of the doctrine of medium specificity litical or ideological significance. The reason _across the arts. Throughout, I try to encour-

for this is that I do not believe that such age a general skepticism about the theoreticinematic devices are inherently ideological. cal usefulness of the ideas of the medium for This, of course, is an issue that sets me apart aesthetic theorizing in general and for film

from most contemporary film theorists. theorizing in particular. However, it is important to stress that in In this section, I also consider the case for spite of the fact that some of my analyses are — photographic realism, the view that there is what they call formalist, my overall position something ontologically unique about photois not formalist, since, given my piecemeal — graphic and cinematic images, and I reject disposition, along with the fact that I agree — it. However, Part I is not completely negathat some films are ideological (sexist and __ tive. It concludes by attempting to construct

racist), I think that we can ask about the an account of the moving image, although ways in which film and TV disseminate the ontological framework that I propose is ideology and sexism. Indeed, these are neither medium-specific nor essentialist. theoretical questions that I attempt to an- In a manner of speaking, Part I represents swer in some of the essays in this volume. my brief against the notion of film theory Thus, there is no reason to suppose that an _ that dominates the classical tradition. That approach to film theory like mine is antitheti- _— tradition attempted to organize its accounts

cal to the sort of ideological research that — of film around foundational conceptions of preeminently interests film scholars in the _ the essence of cinema, typically thought of

United States and Britain today. in terms of the putative medium of film. I do not think that all of our questions That is, a conception of the medium/essence about film are political, nor do I think that __ of film that provided theorists like Kuleshov all of our questions are reducible to gender. and Bazin with the keystone that held their But I agree that some are of this sort, andI _—_—unified theories together. But I have eshave even tried to begin to answer some of ' chewed an essence, a medium, and a key-

them. Thus, I am not a formalist; I do not stone, and, with them, the promise of a think that questions of politics and gender unified theory. Instead, I proceed by answerXV

Introduction

ing questions, loosely organized under head- not my point to marginalize or ghettoize ings that pretend to neither exhaustiveness — these modes in any way.

nor exclusiveness. This section comprises a mixed bag of That is, for organizational purposes, I concerns. On the one hand, it addresses

begin by accepting the traditional, rough- —_ certain perennial questions raised by these and-ready distinction of film into different modes, namely, can nonfiction films be ob-

modes: the movies, avant-garde film, and jective, and are avant-garde films really the documentary. Part II isa group of essays _ theoretical? My answer to the first question concerned with movies, under which rubricI __is yes and to the second question, it is no. I include not only mainstream fiction film, but — suspect that neither of these answers corre-

also commercial, narrative TV fiction. In sponds to received wisdom. Perhaps they this section, I offer theories of movie sus- — will serve to reopen the debate. pense, point-of-view editing, movie music The rest of Part III is involved in isolating and sight gags. Each of these is a piecemeal and analyzing several mechanisms of figuratheory. At the same time, in Part II, I also _‘ tion in motion pictures, including what I call offer an overarching theory about what ampliation, the verbal image and film metamakes certain devices appropriate to the _ phor. I have included them in the section on movies, given the intention of movie makers — the avant-garde because figuration is often to command mass audiences. This provides _associated with the avant-garde and because

one way in which to organize our thinking many of my examples of these cinematic about movies. But I don’t think that all our figures come from avant-garde films. But, of theoretical questions about movies can be _ course, this grouping is a bit arbitrary, since assimilated into this framework. For in- — the devices in question can also appear in stance, my discussion of sight gags in this movies and in documentaries as well. And,

section isn’t subsumed under the larger of course, many of the narrating strategies questions that I deal with under the label of _ that I’ve discussed in the section on movies

“the power of movies.” can also appear in avant-garde and documen-

Despite the fact that much of the discus- tary films. So, as I’ve already indicated, the sion in Part II revolves around film, I mean division between Part II and Part III is a it to apply to mass market TV as well. And matter of convention, not theory. the essay on soap operas, of course, deals During my career, I have gained a reputadirectly with TV. I also suspect that many _ tion as a dogged critic of contemporary film

of the devices that I discuss in this section theorists. But now let me say one (brief) will also figure in CD-ROM and other _ kind word about them. Even though I think computer-imaging technologies, where their — their theories have been consistently misoperation will be accountable pretty muchin — guided, many of the topics that they have put the ways that I’ve suggested they already — on the table for discussion are good ones.

work in film and T'V. Many of my own theories about the movies,

Part III concentrates on avant-garde film for example, were developed in response to and the documentary. This is a traditional questions that they raised for which I sought way of carving up the field and I’ve followed _ better answers. In no other section of this it. Nevertheless, I admit that thismay not be — book than in Part [V am I more indebted to the best way of proceeding. Avant-gardists | contemporary film theorists, since without and documentarists often complain about their persistent concern with ideology and being segregated in this way. But I, atleast, | gender I might not have appreciated the

have no ax to grind here. This grouping is urgency that led me to initiate my own purely a matter of tactical convenience; itis theories about these issues. In Part IV, as xvi

Introduction

always, I am very critical of contemporary does not only restage old battles; I also try film theory, but even I must acknowledge _ to provoke a new one by criticizing Kaja the contribution involved in placing these Silverman’s theory of the acoustic mirror. items on the agenda. I should also add that As a coda, in Part VII, I have included the essays in Part IV are somewhat program- — some of my earliest attempts at film theory. matic, sketching research which I intend to Since [am no longer satisfied with them, my

amplify in future writing. first thought was to exclude them from this

Part V is devoted to essays on the his- volume. But at the urgings of anonymous tory of film theory. It comprises essays on — readers, I have incorporated them, since Hugo Munsterberg, Hans Richter and Hollis they are still quoted in the literature and Frampton. Perhaps because of my back- since the publications where they originally ground in philosophy, I have always tended appeared are hard to come by. I hope that

to read theorists from the past as part of a the reader will be able to discern the continuing dialogue. Thus, in the essays on _—_— progress I’ve made since these early writ-

Munsterberg and Richter I have tried to __ ings. If not, I’m in trouble. locate issues in their theories that are rele- Preparing these essays for republication vant for contemporary discussions. And, I _ has been an exercise in autobiography for have addressed their theories critically, as I | me. Most of that is of no importance for the might address a living theorist. The essay on —_ reader. However, there is one aspect of my

the late Hollis Frampton is a different public biography that may merit comment. I matter, since, as a practicing artist, his | began my academic career in film studies in theorizing was not so much devoted to _ the seventies, but in the eighties I moved developing a theory of film in general as it into philosophy. And probably, my allewas to theorizing his own film practice. Thus, = giance to philosophy, especially what is my article on him is concerned with exposi- called analytic philosophy, is evident in tion rather than criticism; itis an attempt to these pages. However, one would be misreconstruct interpretively histheoryfromthe — taken if one regarded this text as primarily inside, given what I take to have been his __ philosophical. For in spite of the fact that

philosophical presuppositions. some of the essays are philosophical and Part VI includes several polemical ex- even though there are philosophical arguchanges with contemporary film theorists, | ments throughout, the bulk of the text is or at least my half of them. Some of the film theory, not philosophy, where by film articles are responses to criticisms of my _ theorizing (or theorizing the moving image) previous objections to contemporary film I have in mind the activity of proposing theory. The article entitled “Cognitivism, | substantive hypotheses of a general empiriContemporary Film Theory and Method” cal nature about motion pictures (and imtries to debunk some of the leading asper- _—_ ages). I do not wish to draw a hard-and-fast sions cast in my direction. It also sets out _ line between philosophy and theory; philosowhat I think is a decisive framework for — phy has arole to play in theory as I conceive

conducting the debate between psychoana- _it. But at the same time, it should be clear lytic film theory and cognitivism — atheoreti- — that this volume is not, first and foremost, a cal stance with which I am often associated, — series of exercises in conceptual analysis —

due to my tendency to defend cognitive however much conceptual analysis it conexplanations (explanations that do not ad- __ tains — but is rather preoccupied most often vert to the Freudian unconscious) over — with developing broad empirical conjectures psychoanalytic ones (especially with regard (substantive theories) about moving pictures to film comprehension). However, Part IV _—_ (and images).

XVii :

Introduction As well as being identified as a philoso- _—_ for the redundancy of psychoanalysis in the pher, I am also often identified as a cogniti- |§ domain in question.

vist. It is a label that has several senses. As I Another point of tension between many understand its application to me, the label | contemporary film theorists and me has to does not characterize a specific theory. It | do with style. One of the reasons that I left does not mark my commitment toadetermi- _film study for philosophy was my frustration

nate body of ideas. It does not mean that I with what I experienced as the predomiam what is called a cognitive scientist. Itdoes | nance of obscurantism in contemporary film not signal that I am a connectionist. What it — theory. Theories were written in a style that indicates is my fixed opinion that many of | wasso impossible to understand that it made

our questions about film — especially con- it difficult to evaluate the claims theorists cerning comprehension and reception-—can —_— were advancing. Thus, in my own writing, I

be answered without resorting to psycho- have attempted (not always successfully) to analysis. This is, I believe, the major boneof _ be as clear as possible and to outline what I contention between me and most current _ take to be the context of the discussion. I do

practitioners of film theory in the United not think that clarity proves my points.

States and Britain today. Rather, I think that by being clear, I can My opposition to psychoanalytic film make it easier for others to find my errors.

theory rests on my understanding of psycho- | For my own conception of theorizing is that analysis. Psychoanalysis, itseems to me,isa it involves a constant process of dialectical practice that concerns the breakdown of _ criticism and exchange in which the eliminarationality or of ordinary cognitive process- tion of error is one important, if unspectacuing. Thus, psychoanalysis is only appropri- __ lar, source of progress.

ate when there is a discernible breakdown in These essays span nearly two decades. rationality (that is not attributable to so- Thus, there are some minor inconsistencies matic malfunction). The domain of psycho- in them, since my views have changed (I analysis is the irrational. Therefore, if we | hope they’ve matured) on some issues over are able to explain some behavior or some __ time. In some cases, I speak of the medium mental phenomena in terms of rational — or of resemblance in ways that diverge from psychology (or somatic malfunction), then my present views. I also sometimes refer to there is no pressure to search for psychoana- —- unconscious processes in the nontechnilytic explanations; there is no conceptual — cal, nonpsychoanalytic sense — something I space for psychoanalysis to inhabit. Itis my | would not do today. However, I have left

diagnosis that a great many (I suspect most) these minor inconsistencies in the text. of the questions that film theorists have | Where the reader finds them, she may take about film comprehension and receptioncan my considered view to be generally the one be answered in terms of rational or cognitive — found in the later articles.

(and perceptual) psychological hypotheses, I think that, to a large extent, I have or, at least, many of the questions raised by | been regarded most frequently as a critic. contemporary film theory can be so an-_ of theories, rather than as a constructive swered. Thus, in my view, psychoanalysis theorist. The reason for this is twofold. has been as inappropriate in recent film | Some of my best-known articles have been theory as it has been popular. Indeed, one critical; and many of my constructive theocan read an implicit argument running _ retical pieces have been scattered in smallthroughout this book. For every time I circulation journals or in journals outside launch a theory based on a psychological the precincts of cinema studies. Thus, I conjecture in virtue of some rational or welcome this opportunity to collect my cognitive processes, I am in effect arguing — theorizing in one place. For it provides an XVili

Introduction

occasion to show that my inveterate nay- “cinematic” or “film” carry no implication saying to contemporary film theory does that the devices, structures, mechanisms,

not spring from mean-spiritedness, but Strategies, and so on are unique to film, from my conviction, based on the research essential to film, specific to film, peculiar to in this volume, that there are better ways of film, etc. A cinematic device is merely one doing theory. With that research assembled that we recoeniee to be muse film practi ve:

. Phrases devices” “cinein one place,like others“cinematic may now judge for ; ysimplyor matic mechanisms” none of the theothemselves whether my cause has been retical baggage that go with theories of the justified. peculiarly or uniquely cinematic nature of the

Notes . ; ; ;

film medium. My use of the term “cinematic” in such cases is simply historical. It picks out devices commonly associated with film while

1. Because, as will become evident shortly, I acknowledging that similar or parallel devices eschew the use of the term “cinematic” in may also play a legitimate or central role in an essentialist or medium-specific manner, I artforms other than film. should be specific about what I mean when I 2. By asserting that this volume is primarily the-

use locutions like “mechanisms of cinematic oretical and not philosophical, I mean to be articulation” or “cinematic devices” or “film drawing a contrast between it and something structures.” For me, a cinematic device or like Gregory Currie’s immensely interesting mechanism or structure or strategy is simply a and important book Image and Mind: Film, device or mechanism or structure or strategy Philosophy and Cognitive Science (Camthat is used in film. Adjectival modifiers like bridge University Press, 1995).

xix

BLANK PAGE

=

| ~ rhetorical lever for lifting film departments | into existence. For ifmedium film was a unique with a unique practice — one differ-

PART I = , . . then surely it required its own experts, ent from literature, theater and fine art —

Questioning Media ™ housed in their own department. People in

. | - other disciplines, with approaches geared to other media, were obviously not equipped

= to understand film as film. Or, so we said.

We needed our own discipline in order to study our own unique medium.

I lived inside this view long enough to When I began graduate studies in filminthe start to see where the bodies were buried. early seventies, there was still an abiding Teaching it — attempting to make sense of it obsession with “the cinematic.” Certain di- to others — made me acutely aware of where rectors, like Hitchcock, were cinematic; the doctrine lapsed into incoherence. I could others, like Bergman, were not. Sometimes __ hear myself uttering hypotheses aloud that I we called those other directors “literary.” It | realized were only a step or two away from

was not a polite way of speaking. nonsense — assertions frozen midair that I To be cinematic was to exploit the unique = knew would crack under the slightest logical features of the medium — to use film as film. — pressure. And that is how the first section of

It seemed self-evident at the time that the this anthology came to be written. The best films were the most cinematic, that they articles here register my gradually growing were the best because they were cinematic, skepticism about medium specificity talk. and that if anything were to succeed as film, Indeed, the final article in this series worries

it would be necessary for it to employ the about whether the notion of the medium is peculiar features of the so-called medium. of any theoretical use to us whatsoever and This prejudice in favor of the cinematic — suggests that it is not.

was not merely a critical bias. It also The first two articles — “Medium Specificappeared to be reflected in the major’ ity Arguments and Self-Consciously Intheoretical texts that were available to us— —_— vented Arts” and “The Specificity of Media

notably Arnheim, the Russians, Bazin, and _in the Arts” — are overlapping attempts to Kracauer. These theorists thought of film as | undermine the view that film and the other a unique medium and they appeared to arts each possess a unique medium that has presume that the nature of the medium had _ stylistic implications about what should and

stylistic implications. Moreover, this ap- should not be made in it. The scope of proach to cinema was also reinforced by _ the third essay — “Concerning Uniqueness theoretical approaches in the other arts; the | Claims for Photographic and Cinematinfluential aesthetics of Greenberg with ographic Representation” — is more narrow respect to painting and sculpture stressed — than the previous two essays, insofar as it the essential specificity of the medium as only focuses on photographic and cinematic

well. representation. But it is obviously related to Undoubtedly, the doctrine of the specific- the others, since the putatively unique

ity of the medium also served what might be _ nature of cinematic representation — its pho-

called academic-ideological purposes. In tographic realism —is often cited as the those days, there was an initiative to form _ relevant feature of film for our consideracademic departments of cinema. And the ation by medium specificity theorists. notion of medium specificity was a powerful The last essay — “Defining the Moving 1

Questioning Media

Image” — returns to the issue of medium find its application across every dimension specificity with new arguments. Also, it of film articulation — find the devices that advances a preemptive strike against poten- _ best realize it, or the way in which it can be tially new briefs for photographic realism. _ realized in the deployment of every cineSpecifically, it examines how recent recon- _matic device.! However, this highly unified siderations of photography by people like | program depends ultimately upon success-

Walton, Scruton and Maynard might be fully locating the specific nature of the used to reinstall the case for photographic |medium. And there’s the rub. Not only have realism in cinema and then it goes on to _ successive theorists failed to do this — often

block such a hypothetical attempt. advancing conflicting candidates as to the Of course, even if the doctrine of medium __ nature of the medium — but, as well, if the

specificity and the sort of essentialism it | arguments in this section are correct, it can’t espouses are false, it still may be the case be done. And without this particular key-

that cinema has an essence. “Defining the stone, the project of medium specificity Moving Image” explores that possibility and theory, no matter how pretty in principle, arrives at five necessary conditions for film, falls apart.

or, as I prefer to call the phenomenon, “the But even if we inhabit the ruins of moving image.” This falls short of essen- | medium specificity, theory still has enough

tialism, though I think that it makes a — space in which to thrive. For it remains positive contribution to the ontology of film. = possible to develop theories of the various

So, despite the fact that most of the first part devices, modes, genres, techniques, and

of this anthology is critical, it ends on a mechanisms of film, even if they are not

constructive note. referred back to some conception of the This first section has a pivotal role to play © overarching essence of cinema. These theo-

for the remainder of this book. Dialectically, ries will be piecemeal in contrast to the it displaces one type of film theorizing in systematic theories of film organized around order to make space for another. Part I, in conceptions of the specificity of the meeffect, is dedicated to dismantling medium dium. Thus, Part I disposes of Film Theory specificity theorizing in order to prepare the —_in order to make room for the film theories

stage for the type of piecemeal theorizing presented in the rest of the volume. that follows in the rest of this volume.

As an approach to film theory, the presupposition of medium specificity has Notes several advantages. Not only does it promote a unified approach to theory, criticism 1. Though I reject the notion of the “cinematic”

and filmmaking, it may also be used to as it is used in the opening paragraphs of this

suggest an evolutionary model for film section, often throughout the book, I talk history, inasmuch as the medium may be about cinematic devices. When I use that

; , ,in; Hegelian phrase, all I mean by it areindevices in thought, fashion, to film ti Itused h tati . . : : practice. aSdevelop no connotations Of such a Way that it discovers its own unique “uniquely cinematic devices” or “essentially

potentials over time. cinematic devices.” All I am talking about are

The medium specificity model has a tidy historically cinematic devices — devices we theoretical agenda: locate the unique style- recognize as being used in film (whether or implying features of the medium and then not they are used elsewhere as well).

2

7=

(=.

CHAPTER I = the new medium as a prospective art — i.e., for getting the culture to take the new

Medium Specificity = medium seriously by proclaiming it an

: Arguments and theone ARTpredicated - eventual’yon evokes a countermovee ment, a purist program.

| Self-Consciously Invented ™ Proponents of this purist program argue

Arts: Film, Video, that if the medium in question is to be and Photography truly regarded as an art, then it must have

, = some range of autonomous effects, effects

, that are its own and that are not merely copied from pre-existing, established artforms. The purist then specifies the range

There are no muses. All the arts were of effects peculiar to a given medium, and invented by humans. However, in many — goes on to urge that artists within that cases — such as musicand dance — thatinven- | medium focus their energies upon experi-

tion (or that process of invention) has been mentation within this range of effects. forgotten, lost, as it were, in history. Yet in Neediess to say, different theorists will other cases, arts have been self-consciously identify different potentials of that mecreated. Sometimes this has been the result dium. Thus, at stage two in our scenario, of hybridization — the combining of pre- we are greeted by contesting recommendaexisting artforms, as in opera. Or, asinthe tions about the correct line of stylistic case of film, video and photography, art- development within that medium — recforms have been erected upon the techno- ommendations, moreover, which are each logical discovery of new media. My purpose __ putatively based upon having isolated the

in this paper is to examine an aspect of the peculiar potentials or capacities of the latter cases — the transformation of techno- medium in question. logical media into artforms. I am especially The intent of this paper is to examine the concerned with the way in which this process __ role of medium specificity talk in the debates

has recurrently led the defenders of emerg- _—and criticism of self-consciously invented ing artforms to resort to medium specificity | arts. My major aim is to discredit the philoarguments — 1.e., arguments that purport to —_ sophical foundations of such talk. I will also establish that the new media have arange of __ try to characterize why proponents of emerg-

aesthetic effects peculiar to them whose ing arts are drawn to medium specificity talk, exploitation marks the proper avenue of — while offering, as well, an account of what I artistic development within the medium in __ believe such talk really amounts to. How-

question. ever, before embarking upon a critical assessIn studying the emergence of film, video ment of medium specificity talk, I think it will and photography as artforms — and instudy- __ be instructive to canvas a wide variety of

ing the polemics that attend these emer- historical and contemporary examples in gences — one is struck by certain arresting order to underscore the extreme extent to regularities. Each of these artforms appears — which medium specificity talk suffuses, at the to undergo an initial phase in which each _ very least, certain stages in the development

attempts to legitimatize itself as art by of the self-consciously invented arts of film, aping the conventions, forms and effects of | video and photography.

pre-existing arts. Film initially imitates Let us begin this review with the history theater; photography painting; and video of film. Early film theorists, reacting to

imitates film.! charges that film merely mechanically reproHowever, this strategy for legitimatizing duced theater, sought to identify effects said 3

Questioning Media

to be unique to film that could serve as a Like Arnheim, many Soviet montage basis for cinematic expressiveness, while — theorists, such as Lev Kuleshov,* believe also differentiating film from theater. One _ that the nature of the cinema medium can be leading figure in this enterprise was Rudolf — specified and that that specification can

Arnheim. He held that in various ways direct artistic decision making. For them, cinematic representation diverged from per- montage is the essence of film and stylistic fect recording, and, moreover, that by ex- _ choices in any film concerning scripting, set

ploiting these divergences — that is, the decoration, lighting, etc., must be subordiunique limitations on perfect recording nated to facilitating rapid editing. found in cinema — the artist would discover In opposition to the highly assertive a necessary condition for expression. A _ stylistic recommendations that Arnheim close-up, for example, can make an object and montage-essentialists made about the appear enormous in a way that would not truly cinematic use of film, a group of occur in natural perception; a filmmaker, in — succeeding theorists, often called realists, turn, can exploit this cinema-peculiar failure identified photographic representation as of perfect reproduction to impart a feeling — the essence of the film medium. Such theof power or giganticism in regard to the _ orists include, most notably, André Bazin

object photographed. Arnheim writes and Siegfried Kracauer. Bazin held that a realist style, one that aspires to the impresA film art developed only gradually when the sign of passive recording, follows from the movie makers began consciously or unconsciously ‘al photoeraphic nature of film. For

to cultivate the peculiar possibilities of cinemato- ©SS©D Ua! Photograph

graphic technique and to apply them toward the realists, the assertive, declamatory ap-

creation of artistic productions. proach to stylization found in Arnheim and

the montagists runs counter to cinema’s Summarizing his approach to cinema in a essential nature as a recording device.

recent article, Arnheim says Almost the reverse of Kuleshov, Kracauer

argues that all the elements of film, such as The strategy was, therefore, to describe the — pIot construction, should be subservient to differences between the images we obtain when the photographic element, because that

we look at the physical world and the images

perceived on the motion picture screen. These element, rather than montage, is the esdifferences could then be shown to be a source of sential ingredient of cinema. Proper film

artistic expression.3 style, for both realists and their predeces-

sors, depends on its basis in the nature of So Arnheim believes that cinema has certain the medium, though, of course, they dismedium specific limitations — also, mislead- agree in their accounts of the nature of ingly I think, spoken of as possibilities - and — cinema.

that artistic expression will derive from Nor does the opposition between realists cultivating these peculiarities. At the same and montagists exhaust the range of essentime, Arnheim believes that the cinematic _ tialism in film. Especially during the sevenmedium has a special subject matter, rooted _ ties, undoubtedly influenced by the sort of in its peculiar nature, which he identifies as __ gallery essentialism propounded by Clement the depiction of animated action. (However, | Greenberg, filmmakers identified their task

Arnheim never explains how this domain of — as that of reflexively revealing or foresubject matter logically follows from, or — grounding the essential conditions of their otherwise emerges from the types of cinema medium. This, of course, involves identifyspecific limitations — such as the lack of ing film’s essential characteristics and condiconstancy of scale —- which he spends most _ tions. Thus, we encounter works such as

of his time analyzing. ) Anthony McCall’s Line Describing a Cone, 4

Film, Video, and Photography

a thirty-minute film which begins as a line of Like Strand, Edward Weston was also light which widens until it becomes acone of | opposed to photo-painting — photography light. The purpose of the film is to demon- __ that imitates the strategies and conventions

strate an essential condition of the medium. of painting. Weston bases his attack on McCall says “Line Describing a Cone deals _ photo-painting in a firm belief in medium with one of the irreducibly necessary condi- _ specificity. He says

tions of film; projected light.’> a

As might be expected, given the fact that Each medium of expression Imposes its own ; , limitations on the artist — limitations inherent in ph otography is @ constituent element ; of the tools, materials and processes he employs.? cinema, essentialist arguments concerning photography often mirror those concerning — Weston goes on to claim that “among all the film. In Camera Lucida Roland Barthes, for arts photography is unique by reason of its example, offers an account of the nature of instantaneous recording.”!° The conception photography that sounds surprisingly like —_ of photography in this light leads Weston to Bazin’s — i.e., photography as anemanation —_uphold shooting, in opposition to optical or of past reality. And, he, Barthes, conjoins —_ chemical manipulation, as the proper terrain this with an aesthetic preference for photos _ of the photographer.

that afford the viewer the pleasure of Continuing this inventory of “essential discovering unexpected details, apreference _ natures,” essentialist grounds have also been again reminiscent of Bazin’s parti pris for _ proposed for photographic styles inimicable

depth-of-field cinematography.°® to straight shooting. Laszlo Maholy-Nagy Other, nonconverging accounts of the believed that his photograms, directly pronature of photography also abound. Paul duced by deploying objects on light sensitive Strand grounds his defense of the “straight” paper, produced perceptions attainable only approach to photography on the notion of by means of photography. He holds medium specificity. He writes

The photogram, or cameraless record of The full potential power of every medium is forms produced by light, which embodies the dependent on the purity of its use, and all nature of photographic process, is the real key attempts at mixture end in such dead things as _ to photography."

color-etching, the photographic painting and, in ae

photography, the gum print, oil print, etc., in This recognition is supposed to guide our which the introduction of hand work and manipu- concern with the productive rather than the

lation is merely the expression of an impotent reproductive aspect of photography. Mo-

desire to paint.’ holy-Nagy contends that with photography,

And, he adds, revealed.

light and shadow were for the first time fully

The photographer’s problem therefore is to see Through its black-white-gray reproductions of all

clearly the limitations and at the same time the colored appearances, photography has enabled potential qualities of his medium, for it is precisely us to recognize the most subtle differentiations of here that honesty, no less than intensity of vision, values in both the gray and chromatic scales: is the prerequisite of a living expression. This differentiations that represent a new and hitherto means a real respect for the thing in front of him, unattainable quality in optical expression. This is,

]5

expressed in terms of chiaroscuro . . . through a of course, only one point among many, but it is range of almost infinite tonal values which lie the point where we have to begin to master beyond the skill of human hand. The fullest photography’s inward properties, and that at realization of this is accomplished without tricks of which we have to deal more with the artistic process or manipulation through the use of function of expression than with the reproductive

straight photographic methods.® function of portrayal.!4

Questioning Media

Though essentialist accounts of film and _ ... builds upon the straight cut, and the direct photography continued throughout the sev- collision of images, or “shots,” extending a percepenties, the popularity of medium specificity tual domain whose most noticeable trait we might arguments in these fields has been often call successiveness. (In this respect film resembles superceded by politicized, semiotic accounts history.) But video does not seem to take kindly to

of a generally antiessentialist bent. How- the cut. Rather, those inconclusions of video art

; —- aor during which I have come closest to moments of

ever, medium Specificity characterizations real discovery and peripeteia, seem oftenest to remain strong in the area of video, where exhibit a tropism toward a kind (or many kinds) of what is and has been at issue since the metamorphic simultaneity. (In this respect, video beginning of the attempt to create an art of resembles Ovidian myth.) video has been its differentiation from film. So that it strikes me that video art, which must

Frank Gilette writes find its own Muse or else struggle under the tyranny of film, as film did for so long under the

As you investigate videotape you enter into tyrannies of drama and prose fiction, might best another reality. You investigate taped reality in a build its strategies of articulation upon an elasway which is peculiar to itself. No other medium ticized notion of what I might call — for serious quite gives you the advantages. What I’m trying lack of a better term — the dissolve.'4 to do is to develop a grammar, a syntax. A way of

relating evolves from this probing, this experi- Of course, from a very early date the mentation with the media in terms of holistic | potential of video for use in terms of what is phenomenon. In terms of the language of televi- —_ called instantaneous transmission has also sion, one assembles some kind of aesthetic that is led many to claim for the medium a special

intrinsic to television. oo, advantage, or maybe even a destiny, in the way that is structurally intrinsic to television, S€Tvice Of certain forms of documentation, For example, what makes it not film? Part of it is such as news reportage. that you look into the source of light, and with = the most distinctive function of television is film you look with the source of light. In its ability to show distant events at the moment television, the source of light and the source of when they are taking place. The Kefauver hear-

information are one.... What I’m involved ings, with a close-up of the hands of gangster with 1s designing frameworks where work with Frank Costello; the Army—McCarthy hearings;

television can pertain to its own linguistic the complete coverage of orbital shots; the references, its own syntax, its own way of presidential nominating conventions; the Great making sense, its own shared premise. Where it — Debates of 1960; the live transmissions from no longer parrots film. The content of my work — Eyrope and Japan via satellite — this is television is looking for a language with which to speak doing what no other medium can do.5 with videotape.

I believe in context not content. The context Positive reference to the exploitation of of what I do is to make sense of the state of the special nature of the video medium, as information and evolve a way of navigating an automatic form of commendation, also

, Borden writes

through it. That best relies on what I refer to as appears frequently in video criticism. Lizzie

a set of circumstances that can be extrapolated .

from the series of changes. And not from my prior history or from my anticipated future but Some of the closed-circuit environments by out of my immediate circumstances. Videotape Nauman have been among the most abstract

is the medium par excellence for that." works in video: given properties inherent in the

. medium, such as simultaneity of feedback, these

One area of video theorizing where me- pieces create their own conditions of presentadium specificity arguments occur with great tion, independent of externally determining frequency is in advocacy of image process- frameworks such as broadcasting or the monitor ing. Hollis Frampton writes that film within an arbitrary display situation.!® 6

Film, Video, and Photography

And more recently, John Hanhardt has nate the mind or consciousness, or that explicated the importance of Nam June they exemplify some new form of consciousPaik’s TV Buddha and TV Chair in terms of _ ness. But now I will only consider medium

video’s distinctive “ability to show on a _ specificity arguments.

monitor in real time what the camera 1s The most popular source for medium recording.”!’ Such criticism implicitly as- specificity arguments is Gotthold Ephraim sumes that cultivating the inherent, unique —_Lessing’s Laoco6én, a treatise that crys-

properties of the medium is prima facie, _ tallized one major trend in eighteenth-

aesthetically valuable. century aesthetics. Lessing wrote

What film, video and photography share,

along with being technologically complex I argue thus. Ifit be true that painting employs media for the production of visual imagery wholly different signs or means of imitation from

; ; . . . poetry — the forms andcircolors space, and representations, is one antheusing historical gsinven other articulate sounds in time — and if signs

cumstance mn which each attempts to have must unquestionably stand in a convenient relaitself taken seriously within the culture by tion with the thing signified, then signs arranged means of promoting itself as an artform. side by side can represent only objects existing Given this situation, the strategy appears to side by side, or objects whose parts so exist, while be to mount the claim that the forms in consecutive signs can express only objects which question have a right to the mantle of art succeed each other, or whose parts succeed each because there is something that, in virtue of Other, in time.

their respective media, they can do that Objects which exist side by side, or whose other arts cannot, or that these forms can __ Parts so exist are called bodies. Consequently,

; j cce ch other,

do better than other arts. That is, since bodies with their visible properties are the by dint of their media, these enterprises PU" subjects of painting.

y ° P Objects which succeed each other, or whose

achieve something new and/or better than parts succeed each other in time, are actions.

what is found in existing arts, they deserve Consequently, actions are the peculiar subjects of

recognition as new arts—ones that do _ poetry.18 not or should not copy existing forms and which are, therefore, autonomous. Corresponding to the practice of art of his Medium specificity arguments are attractive time, Lessing’s theory is stated in terms of

for the purpose of transforming a new imitative representations. Due to the strucmedium into a new artform, because they ture of the constituent forms of its medium, appear to provide a way of individuating — each art has a specificable domain of things arts and, thereby, isolating new ones. At _ that it most suitably represents. Generalizthe same time, this operation is based upon ing his position to abstract art, we can read a close look at the medium in question, — Lessing’s theory as claiming that each art, in which, in these cases, at least provides an virtue of its medium, has a uniquely approagreed upon starting point for disputants to _— priate range of effects such that only that

discuss. medium can discharge. Of course, it is not my claim that If Lessing supplies the locus classicus of medium specificity arguments are the only medium specificity arguments, it is also true type of arguments used to legitimatize arts that avant-garde filmmakers and video maklike film, video and photography. One also _ ers of the sixties and seventies were led to finds arguments in support of each of these — the advocacy of medium specificity because

media based upon various cognitive-value of the influential theory of Greenbergian claims — e.g., that these arts bring about modernism as regards the fine arts. Many the possibility for new perceptions, that film, video and photographic artists (not to they change perception, or that they incar- mention critics) had backgrounds in the fine 7

Questioning Media

arts, or practiced their trade in the context for purism strangely self-defeating, practiof the gallery, the museum, the art school, — cally speaking.

or other artworld venues. This tempted But apart from the local ironies and them, as it did dancers and performance _incongruities that beset the Greenbergian artists of the same period, to model their derived medium specificity polemics of film, polemics on the dominant modernist line of | video and photography in the sixties and the art world, which, in Greenberg’s, Fried’s seventies, it must be stressed that any and their imitators’ formulations, were version of the medium specificity theory

highly essentialist. confronts enormous — I think insuperable — Interestingly, by taking their marching _ problems. orders from gallery tastemakers, the propo- The medium specificity approach has nents of arts such as film selected incongru- two components — an internal component, ous candidates for the essential characteris- | which specifies the relation between a tics of their medium. For they often chose medium and an artform embodied in this candidates that really seemed to be merely medium in terms of a domain of legitimate extrapolations from the choices made by avenues of representation, expression and

theorists of painting. exploration; and a comparative component, For example, people came to be inter- — which specifies the relation between one ested in making films that acknowledged artistic medium and other artistic media in their surface, though a surface doesn’t seem __ terms of the legitimate domains of effects to be an attribute that one can literally apply — of all the parties canvassed by our compari-

to film images. For, there is no surface to = sons.* The internal component identifies

speak of in regard to film images—the the range of effects that accord with the screen is not the surface of the film image, special limitations and possibilities of the nor is the chemical configuration on the film §_medium in question, while the comparative

strip the film’s surface. Oddly enough, by component holds that there should be no emphasizing what they thought of as “the imitation of effects between media. We can film’s surface,” for the sake of purism, such — pursue the problems inherent in this posi-

filmmakers were actually imitating another ‘tion by first considering the perplexities

medium, viz., painting. caused by the internal component of the Even where filmmakers, video artists, approach and then by turning to the difficuldancers and performance artists do not ties of the comparative component. apply the categories of Greenbergian essen- The internal component examines the tialism so blatantly, they nevertheless tend — relation between the medium and the artin general to be influenced by the origin of | form embodied in it. Each medium has a the theory in the fine arts, insofar as they _ distinctive character, conceived of in terms emphasize the visual dimension of their — of limitations and possibilities, which sets

medium. Thus, a piece of performance art the boundary for stylistic exploration in might engage in reflexively stressing the — the artform embodied in the medium. Our frontality and shallowness of theater space. earlier inventory of medium specificity talk Also, recalling painting, a video image indicates how easily proponents of this line might be said, rather peculiarly, to fore- — shift from speaking of limitations to speakground its status as a real-object. But such ing of possibilities and capacities. But these enterprises at least hint at a striving after the

effects of modernist painting at the same am: . .

time that this is done, curiously, in the name The internal component considers what a medium ? ? does best of all the things it does. The comparison of medium-purism. The derivation of the component considers what a medium does best compolemic in the gallery renders these quests _ pared to other media. 8

Film, Video, and Photography

are hardly the same sorts of things. Why _ For example, if we read the idea of medium-

should the limitations of a medium be _ limitations in a literal way, the medium grouped with the medium’s potentials? — specificity thesis appears trivial. For it the How do these things fit together? Some notion of medium limitations amounts to theorists, like Arnheim, hold that limita- “Do not make a medium do what it cannot,” tions create possibilities —i.e., limitations then the slogan is otiose since it is quite in terms of representation make expression _ frankly impossible to make a medium do possible. But this is a controversial thesis be- —_— what it can’t. It is a waste of energy to warn

cause, contra Arnheim, expression in film artists not to do the impossible, since if the seems possible without exploiting the limita- | enterprise in question is literally impossible, tions of the medium but through exploiting _ it will never be executed. A famous example its representational powers — e.g., its pow- of _Lessing’s concerns the sculpture “Laoc-

ers of recording already expressive objects don” which attempts to depict a movementand scenes. There is, however, a broader __ packed action in the face of the fact that it is point to be made here—-namely, unbe- impossible for figures in stone to move. But,

knownst to most proponents of medium of course, the statue neither attempts or specificity, they are often simultaneously es- | achieves something impossible. It tries to pousing two different theories —- one that a __ project the impression of movement, as medium has special limitations — limitations | Lessing recognizes, by designing a frozen on what it can represent perfectly - which | movement in a way that suggests continuity

are supposed to direct stylization, and with the past and the future of the action in secondly, that a medium has special po- question. Nothing literally impossible is at tentials — potentials for best representing stake. If we say that the statue is full of certain subject matter —- which mark what movement, we are employing a useful metaendeavors should be pursued in the me- __ phor but we are not saying that the sculpture dium. Arnheim primarily holds a limitation has done something literally impossible or theory of medium specificity while Lessing violated either a law of logic or physics. The holds a special power theory. These ap- sculptor can’t do anything that violates logic

proaches may not be easily connectable or physics. And there’s the end to one since one is based on the idea that a me- _ strong reading of the medium specificity dium imperfectly represents certain things thesis. while the other holds that there are certain Similarly, a strong reading of the “possibilthings that the medium most adequately ity” variation on the medium specificity represents. But it is by no means clear that approach shows it toothless. For if the we can be sure that these two different slogan is to be “only aspire for effects that approaches can always be coherently com- = are possible in your medium,” the same bined to lead to the same results. Arnheim objection suffices; for we can be certain that says that cinema has a special capacity to no artist will ever execute anything that is represent animated action, but it is not literally unattainable, literally not possible, apparent how that follows from the repre- _—_in his medium.

sentational limitations of the medium. In- The answer, of course, to the preceding deed, isn’t this very power the opposite of — objection is to note that it rides on construanything we could meaningfully construe as _—ing the medium specificity thesis in terms of

a limitation of cinema? logical possibility, whereas what might be

There are other problems with the no- meant by medium specificity theorists is that tions of “limitations” and “possibilities” in when speaking of the possibilities of the these theories, apart from the ambiguities | medium, they are speaking of the special involved in attempting to combine them. powers of the medium, i.e., what the me9

Questioning Media

dium achieves with great ease or with little | success or failure cannot be prejudged; we resistance. Thought of this way, the medium must simply wait and see what the outcome

specificity thesis becomes “Aim at those _ is. And failure in such cases need not be goals that the medium most perspicuously attributed to the medium; it may rather be facilitates.” A similar rewriting of the notion _ said that artists in that medium have not yet

of “limitation” might yield the slogan “Do discovered a convincing way to secure the not pursue effects that are difficult within — effect in question. the medium.” However, these rewritings do Perhaps it will be urged that even if these not, I think, bolster the credibility of the | medium specificity slogans are not without medium specificity thesis. For evenifwe do — exception, they are our best rules of thumb

not buy into the myth that the production of for making recommendations about the any work of art should entail astruggle, Ido —_ projects artists might embark upon. It may not see how, given art as we Knowit, we can __ be argued that if one does not pursue that

accept principles that presume that the best which the medium facilitates, then things line of production in art is the line of least _—_are likely to go badly for the artist. So the

resistance or the easiest approach. best line of attack is generally the easiest. In Moreover, these reformulations of the some sense, of course, this may be the safest medium specificity thesis will also be difficult way for artists to proceed. However, it is not

to implement because we will be hard putto — customary, I think, for us to encourage

determine what is easy or difficult in a artists to minimize risks. Also one wonders medium. Here, perhaps, we will have to whether the rules of thumb adduced in such abandon purely internalist considerations — cases are really based on the nature of the and speak of ease and difficulty via compari- |§ medium or whether they really refer to the sons between media. But this will quickly —_ routine practice in the medium? Of course, lead us back to the sorts of issues we have just an artist has a better chance at a limited

been considering. Certain action-packed form of success if he repeats what has events, like chariot races, are said to be already been done. But who would accept easier to mount and to execute convincingly § adherence to existing stylistic formulas as an

in film than they are in theater. But chariot imperative for all art?

races in theatricalizations of Ben Hur were A related modification of the medium

staged on treadmills in the first decades of specificity thesis would be to say that specifi-

this century. If these chariot races were cation of the medium’s powers helps us exciting, suspenseful and spectacular, what explain why certain works succeed and difference does it make that they would have others fail. It is often said, for example, that

been easier, in some sense, to execute in stage plays or screenplays with much diafilm? Similarly, it may be easier to convinc- _—_ logue and restricted movement are not easily

ingly dissolve astaked vampire intosmokein acquitted in cinema. Such attempts, often film than it is in theater, but an effect of this disdained as “canned theater,” result in sort was quite breathtaking in Gorey’srecent | awkward films. But it is important to notice stage version of Dracula. Why should com- _ that often our paradigm cases of “canned parative difficulty make any difference ifthe theater” — viz., early talkies — were not simfinal effect is excellent? Of course, it might — ply bad movies; they were also bad theater. be said that the overall effect of a work that Their directors used their actors, sets, props

fails to exploit the specific potentials of a and dramatic materials unimaginatively or medium cannot, of necessity, be successful. inconsistently. As theater productions they But this is to elevate the issue to a matter of | would have been just as execrable onstage as logic, whichit clearlyisnot. Whetherembrac- —_ they were onscreen. The problem was not ing a difficult effect ina medium willresultin ‘that the film medium was being used to do 10

Film, Video, and Photography

something that the medium resisted but that | sequential organization of words can only the dramatic execution of these works were _ represent actions rather than, say, states of inept, banal and, at times, ridiculous. What _—_ affairs. Nor does his idea of the necessity of

are often problems that supposedly derive a “convenient” relation between the strucfrom the attempt to force a medium to what ture of a sign and its referent seem much it cannot do, or cannot do easily, itseems to more than question-begging, given the indisme, are problems, such as canned theater, putable existence of things like the “Laocwhich are better described in terms of oon” statue. But of even greater importance

unimaginative or lame execution. We do is the question of how Lessing knew to expect from works of art that they be — choose the temporal dimension of poetry — wrought in such a way that their elements —_- written poetry — over its spatial-design possihave multiple significances and functions __ bilities. Presumably, Lessing would object to

which multiplicity is partially captured by — concrete poems like Ian Hamilton Finlay’s Goodman’s notion of relative repleteness. “The Horizon of Holland,” whose typograExamples of canned theater generally lack phy suggests windmills, or Jackson Maclow’s such added layers of meaning and design. “Jail Break,” which looks like the facade of

Their problem is they are impoverished. But a prison.!? These works can be viewed if a film, recall the courtship scene in Henry holistically as a single image, scanned like a

V, is theatrically rich to an appreciable painting with no preordained sequence of extent, then we have no call to disparage it. | glances. But a theorist of Lessing’s persuaAnd we obviously have quite successful sion cannot conceivably maintain that these

stage adaptations, and also dialogue-laden | concrete poems are unnatural to the mefilms, such as Lifeboat and My Night at dium. For this type of poetry grows natuMaude’s. It may be difficult to make films rally out of the significance of typography under the constraints the latter two films — for written poetry, which, in turn, grows out accept. But that is no reason to avoid — of conventions concerning the importance of attempting such works. Moreover, that cer- _ line endings which, of course, is connected tain attempts of this sort have been success- __ to one of the levers of temporal control that

ful suggests that the unsuccessful ones may __the writer exercises over the reader of not be indicative of failures of the medium __ poetry. But if this is the case, how does one

but of failures of artistry. That is, the artists | ascertain that the temporal potential of in question have failed to figure out an poetry is more natural than the potential for imaginative and compelling way of mount- __ spatial elaboration? The potential for spatial

ing their dramas. elaboration is as much a part of the poetic

The issue of forcing a medium to do _ sign system of the practice of written poetry what goes against its grain raises another as is the potential for temporal elaboration.

major internalist problem for the medium Proponents of medium specificity argu- . specificity approach, namely, how does one _ ments generally proceed as if identifying the

identify what the grain of a medium actu- sort of effects an artform should explore is ally is? Lessing tells us that the units that self-evident, once one examines the physical comprise poetry — words — are organized se- _— structure of the medium in which the quentially and that, therefore, the medium artform is embodied. Lessing isolated words is suited to representing actions since they _—as the building blocks of poems and from too evolve over time. Poems should not be that he extracted that the temporal elaboraviewed with a timeless gaze like a painting tion of actions was the proper domain of

or a Statue. poetry. But, even aside from the issue of

Lessing’s account, of course, is quite identifying words as simply physical constituwrong, for he is just mistaken that the — ents, one also wants to note that words, like 11

Questioning Media

splashes of paint, appear next to each other. | proposed as fundamental constituents of How, then, did Lessing know that spatial photographic cinema —i.e., elements withrepresentation was not a primary area of | out which there would be no photographic

experimentation in poetry? cinema. But, then, on what basis does a

The issue will not be settled by asserting — realist such as Kracauer know that editing that the proper direction of the medium will should subserve the purpose of a certain follow from the identification of its essence, kind of photography, or does a montagist

where that essence is construed as the — such as Kuleshov hold that photography physical feature that defines entities as being = should subserve the exigencies of organizing

instances of that medium. For though a the celluloid strip sequentially in a certain flexible celluloid base is the physical charac- = way?

teristic that defines entities as film, nothing Of course, even if there were a single or

follows from that concerning what it is basic component for each medium, we proper to represent in film, or concerning would still confront the problem of specifywhat effects are cinematic. What this exam- _—ing the dimension or property of that eleple is meant to show is that even if media ment that is relevant for artistic elaboration. have essences, which is itself a controversial | Kracauer connects fortuitousness with pho-

issue, it is far from clear that an ostensible tography, but why should this be more essence of a medium has any directive force __ significant for a photographer than the types

regarding how the medium is used, let alone of planned precision effects the medium how it should be used. Obviously the uses, makes available to the photomontagist? And including contradictory uses, of a flexible | furthermore, even if we could decide that celluloid base are too innumerable to pro- _ there were a basic dimension or property or vide a focused recommendation, or even a effect of the medium, we would still be at a family of recommendations, about the — loss for a decision procedure that would

proper evolution of the medium. enable us to choose the stylistic enterprise Medium specificity theorists often write — best suited to cash in on it. Suppose that as if the various media they investigate had immediacy is the special property of video. only one component, or, at least, only one This would nevertheless give us no indicabasic component worth considering for aes- — tion of whether the medium should exploit

thetic purposes. But in terms of the first this potential in terms of the immediate assumption, it 1s important to stress that feedback possibilities of image processing, every medium has more than one compo- _ the immediate feedback possibilities vis-anent. In our previous discussion of Weston, _ vis introspective explorations of psychologihe appears to presume that optical and — cal processes, the possibility for real time chemical processing are not really a part of | monuments, the possibility for the on-thephotography. This is an eminently self- | spot transmission of news, and so on. serving view, given the style of photography Of course, the deepest problem revealed he wishes to advocate, but can the develop- by these examples is not simply that the ing and printing of photos really be excluded _ nature of the medium may be indeterminate from the basic components of the mediumin in regard to alternative stylistic approaches, a non-question begging fashion? The notion but that the medium may support conflicting

that media have basic or lead elements, to and even contradictory avenues of developwhich other elements must be subservient, ment. In film, the montage style is construed also runs into justificatory problems. Filmis as the opposite of the deep-focus style of composed, at least, of photographic images __ realism. And in practice, it seems difficult to and a flexible band that is projected in time. imagine both being pursued simultaneously

Both of these features can be sensibly and wholeheartedly in the same sequence of 12

Film, Video, and Photography

the same film. Similarly, the aesthetics of We have noted that each medium is image processing appear inimicable to the | complex — complex in its constituents, its purpose of location news coverage. The _ effects, the properties of its constituents, medium specificity theorist, it would seem, and in the ways styles are related to these has no non-arbitrary way to choose between _— properties and potential effects. The meconflicting aesthetic programs that may be dium specificity theorist promotes the myth equally grounded in the complex of possibili- — that these complex alternatives can be nar-

ties afforded by the medium. Nor is this | rowed down to a coherent artistic program problem a merely academic one. For very simply by looking at the medium. If we look often contesting artistic programs attempt to at poetry, it has been proposed, we will see vindicate themselves by means of invocating — that sound rather than space is its essence, the nature of the medium. But this is of little | and that musicality rather than spatial demoment, because the media we are consider- _ sign is its proper terrain. However, anteced-

ing can each support contradictory pro- ent to some use we have for the medium, it grams. A medium does not ordain a single is not clear that such decisions have any style or even a single family of styles, but rational foundation. Of course, if we have a generally affords the opportunities for a use for a medium the problem becomes plethora of incompatible styles. Thus, invok- malleable. That is, if poetry is meant to be ing the medium in defense of a particular spoken aloud rather than read silently, then line of stylistic development is not an espe- _it makes sense for the musical dimension to

cially advisable starting point. be prized over the spatial possibilities. But The picture that believers in medium here it is the use we have for the medium specificity generally labor under is that the — that determines which aspects of the memedium has some significant, often thought dium are relevant, and not the medium that

to be essential, feature or features that determines the use. If we want imagistic art dictate the proper line of developmentinthat then we will focus upon the special effects medium. The facility for special effects en- capacity of video over other possibilities. tails a commitment to image processing in _ But it is not the capacity for special effects video; the facility for juxtaposition signals that commits us to imagistic video. If we the centrality of editing for film; the causal desire to encourage an active exploratory relation between image and referent suggests | mode of spectatorship toward film, then the an objective style for photography. Yet,aswe — exploitation of hard-focus, long shots is

have seen, we can just as easily adduce emphasized. But if the effect we seek is several competing and even incompatible heightened control over the sequence of the programs for each of these arts, andeach of §audience’s perceptual responses, certain these will be connected to some possibility of | editing possibilities are recommended. It is the medium, i.e., each will, at the very least, the use we find for the medium that deterbe logically and physically possible withinthe |= mines what aspect of the medium deserves

medium. What this indicates is that the our attention. The medium is open to our nature of the medium does not have any purposes; the medium does not use us for its determinate directive force concerning the own agenda. way in which that medium is to be developed. An artist may determine a particular, In fact, in any sense of the “nature of the original use for the medium. But generally medium” that relates to artistic stylesembod- an artist embraces pre-existing uses and ied in the medium, there is no nature of the — purposes as those are found in extant and medium where that is conceived of as predat- | emerging styles, genres and artististic moveing and determining the uses we find for the |= ments. Most of the time when we are told

medium. that someone has transgressed his or her 13

Questioning Media

medium, what is actually meant, if anything, That a given artwork exploits an inherent is that the typical effects of a certain genre capacity of video, for example, is besides or style have been contravened. For exam- _ the point not only because in some sense ple, it may be claimed that direct address by every video work does, but also because, a character to a camera is inherently un- until it is said why doing that is important or cinematic. But itis perfectly appropriate ina | worthwhile in a given context, we have no film of autobiographical dimensions — such _ cause for interest.

as Journeys from Berlin — for the author to Thus far I have concentrated on what I appear and to speak to us ina long take. If _ earlier called the internal component of the one criticizes a shot like this as uncine- medium specificity thesis. This internal commatic, then one is probably assuming that all ponent is the notion that there is some films should be committed to exposition in special range of effects, derived from the terms of dramatic action a la Hollywood _ distinctive features of the medium, which International —1.e., in terms of revealing = should be pursued by an artform embodied thoughts and feelings through action rather in that medium. But the thesis also has a than soliloquies. But that is a stylistic | comparison component. Each artform empreference, not a preference based upon __ bodied in a different medium should pursue what it is possible for a medium to do. a different range of effects than artforms The genre, style or artistic movement a embodied in other media. Generally, it is work inhabits determines whether one’s added that each artform should pursue those choices are appropriate or not. What hith- —_ effects which it acquits best of all artistic

erto have been identified as mediumistic media. It may be felt that once we add the questions are in fact stylistic questions. In | comparison component, many of the quesanswer to this, I may be asked where styles, __ tions I raised earlier about the medium genres, movements and their subtending _ specificity thesis can be solved. For if we purposes come from. Well, not from the — wish to know what feature of the medium is medium. The medium is initially tongue-tied = important, or which of conflicting programs as regards these issues. Rather the purposes in a medium should be pursued, we may be

we find for the medium derive from the told to apply one of the two following preoccupations of the culture at large aswell _— directives: (1) focus on those features that as the particular momentums -— artisticrevo- _ differentiate the medium in question from

lutions and long term developments — that other media, or (2) focus on the program inhere in the artworld at a given point in that results in the range of effects where the

time. medium in question excels when compared Placing emphasis on the use or purpose __ to other media. of the medium entails certain consequences The first of these directives identifies the

for the issue of evaluation. For if we distinctive feature of the medium and the evaluate the objects produced ina medium ___ distinctive program of the medium as those

in virtue of use, then our assessments will that differentiate it from other media. Positend to be of two sorts; evaluations of _ tively, the directive encourages pursuit of whether the object implements the purposes — whatever differentiates media while nega-

it is aimed toward, and appraisals of _ tively it directs media not to duplicate each whether such purposes are worth pursuing. — other’s effects.

The former sort of evaluation is more Taken at face value, the negative formulanarrowly formalistic, while the latter in- — tion of this standard is as vacuous as the volves general humanistic considerations directive to pursue only what it is possible to

that touch upon the aesthetic, moral and accomplish in a given medium. Medium intellectual concerns of the life of a culture. _—_ specificity theorists, such as Bernard Bosan14

Film, Video, and Photography

quet, often argue that each medium is ask for anything more than interest from physically different than others and will = artworks? perforce impart different qualities.“° A po- Of course, if the comparison component lemicist like Weston often begins with this of the thesis is framed in terms of what a assumption. But of course if this notion is | medium is said to excel in — when compared taken literally, then there is no reason to — to other media — then some of the preceding worry that one medium will duplicate an- questions about the value of differentiation other. For each physical medium will auto- disappear since by speaking of “excelling,”

matically impart qualities that are different we already know that the specific differfrom those of other media. A silent, black entiae in question have some aesthetic and white, edited film like The Cabinet of | value. However, if the preceding questions Dr. Caligari cannot be taken as a duplicate appear to recede a different set of problems of a stage rendition of the same drama, forit | remain. For medium specificity proponents

has properties, such as certain types of — tend to presume that what a medium does cinematic illumination, depth and continu- best among media is what it can be said to ity, that are discernibly different from a do best in some univocal sense. But this is comparable stage production. There is no not evident. Indeed, following the demand reason to implore artists in different media for differentiation we may arrive at someto differentiate their effects; they will do so _ thing that is less than the best in certain

without trying. respects. The positive formulation of the directive — Let us draw a distinction between two

“exploit that which differentiates media” -— = ways in which a medium does something

though perhaps not vacuous is certainly “best.” The first is the differentiation sense puzzling. Why suppose that what differenti- of “best”: what a medium does best is what ates media — their defining features— leads it does better than any other medium. But

in any way to interesting aesthetic results. by “what it does best” we may also be Nor is it at all clear that the program thatcan referring to that which a medium does best only be realized in a specified medium willbe = of all the things it does. Call this the an interesting or worthwhile one. Forexam- mediumistic sense of “best.” Clearly these ple, some video artists, such as the Vasulkas, — two senses need not coincide. What photog-

appear to believe that an image is significant raphy may excel in, in the differentiation just because it is video-pure. But just because __ sense, is the detailed representation of very a given image or effect can only be made by _ small things. But suppose what it excels in in

means of video does not give usanyreasonto the mediumistic sense is portraiture. Yet expect that that fact alone guarantees that _—_ painting of all the arts excels in this regard.

the image will be aesthetically interesting. So the differentiation requirement directs us Presumably what the medium specificity to expect from photography not what it does theorist is offering us is a guideline for — best but only what it does uniquely well — determining fruitful avenues of aesthetic offer detailed representations of very small

research, and as well, a logical basis for things. Likewise if narration were the best critical evaluations of a certain sort. But itis | mediumistic use to which video could be difficult to see how the injunction to pursue put, even though this does not differentiate differentiation per se successfully fulfills | the medium from film, AND there is some either of these roles. Moreover, if it is said — special effect that video can achieve more that the correct formulation here is that the compellingly than film, we will have to medium should pursue that which differenti- sacrifice the best (in one sense) that video ates the media and which is also interesting, § might offer and to settle for its lesser virtues then we would want to know why we should ~=as_ those would be mediumistically con15

Questioning Media

strued. The medium specificity theory does _ implicitly on a value placed on the type of not assure us that each artform will aspire to __ efficiency afforded by the division of labor. be as interesting as it can be, even though _ Analogized to society the arts are urged to this sounds like our most basic expectation avoid waste by avoiding duplication.

regarding the arts. Rather the medium Certainly this picture of the division of specificity theory maximizes purity instead labor does not capture the way the arts

of excellence. really are. The arts are marked by many Of course, it may be felt that where trans-art endeavors. Many arts are devoted

there is purity, excellence correlates and to narrative, and rhythm, as well, 1s an effect

vice-versa. But this is false. As a matter variously shared by different media, from of fact, however theatrical, W. C. Fields’ Glass’s Einstein on the Beach to Mondrian’s monologues remain excellent enshrined in One Way Boogie-Woogie. Furthermore, the

celluloid. history of art has been beneficially served by Broadly speaking what appearstobe most innumerable trans-art movements, such as

problematic about the medium specificity German Expressionism, in which artists

approach is that, due to its comparison attempt to translate one theme or set of component, it enjoins us to forgo potential | concerns into a number of different media. excellence for the sake of purity. Had Waiting Thus, since the arts do not already approxi-

for Godot been originally proposed as a mate a neat division of labor, the medium videotape, many medium specificity po- specificity thesis must be construed as a lemicists would have vetoed the project, | recommendation that artists embrace a diviwhile for some medium specificity propo- sion of labor. nents, a film such as Animal Crackers should But it is not clear that the model of the not have been made. Moreover, the medium ___ division of labor 1s really appropriate to the

specificity theorist would have us foreclose arts. For example, there is no real problem such historically indisputable avenues of — of potentially wasteful duplication in the

artistic creativity as the inspiration of one arts. If we are confronted by a massive artform by another. Cinematic city sympho- number of excellent narratives — produced nies, based on musical analogs, and works _ by several media —- we would regard ourlike L’Age d’Or, derived from strategies of selves as lucky rather than as suffering from Surrealist poetry, would be inadmissible. But a wasteful glut. Whereas a society might what warrants all these sacrifices? Clearly | produce too many cars to be used, it is not medium purity is not a morally significant | obvious what would constitute too many ideal such that it overrides any competing interesting stories. We certainly have never aesthetic interests. So why should we sacri- —_ reached such a point, though many media fice all manner of aesthetic excellence in have been working at full steam for quite a order to secure the purity of the medium? long time producing narratives. That wasteIn fact, very little reason is offered for the — ful duplication is not a problem for the arts injunction to differentiate art forms. Rather, — is a decisive disanalogy with those practices

it seems to be proposed as self-evident. | where a division of labor makes sense. A Undoubtedly it is based upon the metaphor _ division of labor, therefore, need not be of the division of labor. In order to maxi- —_ imposed on the arts. mize the efficient use of scarce resources, to Also the notion of a division of labor puts a

avoid waste in terms of unnecessary duplica- premium on the efficient use of scarce tion, and to meet a set quota of needs, resources. And, though the resources humansociety and business parcel out tasks, ideally —_ ity has for producing art may be limited, it is

to those best suited for them. Similarly, not the case that efficiency is something we medium specificity theorists seem to rely — care about when it comes to artworks. For it 16

Film, Video, and Photography

is the results and not the process of produc- _—_ artform. If new media proffer work that is

tion that counts with artworks. Allmannerof interesting, aesthetically interesting, then inefficiency, waste, self-indulgence andsoon the new media will be established as art. will be accepted in the production of satisfy- Film came to be established as an art ing art. Perhaps this is because with the arts | because masterpieces, such as the highly we have no antecedently defined set of — theatrical work of Chaplin, were produced aesthetic needs or precise quota of specific in that medium. It is not the possibility of aesthetic interests, however true it may be _ purity or the efficient production of a that we may have some general aesthetic unique effect that wins a medium a place interests that may be satisfied in diverse among the arts, but the creation of interestways. But where there is no exactly defined _ ing, though often “impure,” works.

output, the notion of efficiency loses its The medium specificity theorist may also

applicability to a large degree. Yet the rely on the division of labor notion as a medium specificity theorist has little more defensive gambit. That is, opponents of than some vague appeal to efficiency to emerging media may claim that a new

recommend his or her program. medium is extraneous, since an existing Indeed if we need a model for the arts artform already does what the new medium that is drawn from notions of the social aspires to. Of course, when a new medium organization of work, then perhaps itis not emerges, it will most likely imitate existing the division of labor we should look to, but —_artforms, insofar as that is the natural place

rather to the utopian pictures of Fourier and for artists in the new medium to turn in Marx in which the worker of tomorrow, a _ order to get ideas about how to use the new generalist to the core, pursues diverse activi- medium. And, as a matter of fact, many ties, hunting in the morning and philosophiz-_ — works produced at this early stage will be

ing in the afternoon. This picture corre- bad imitations or slavish imitations of their sponds better to the various sorts of freedom = sources—e.g., the early Films d’Art. To the arts are thought to enshrine both in their — remedy this situation, the medium specific-

consumption and their production. Apply- ity theorist urges that the new medium ing this metaphor to media, unfettered by — pursue those unique effects that it executes the claims of efficiency, one would envision _ best. Thus, we avoid such violations of the each medium exploring all available effects, ideal division of labor as bad duplications of including those achieved in other media. theater in film. However, this way of thinkThough the division of labor image is an __ ing confuses issues. For what is problematic unsupportable one in regard to the arts, itis | about things such as Films d’Art is not that clearly the idea behind the medium specific- | they are imitations — for imitations can be ity attempt to legitimatize emerging arts healthy, exciting and progressive — but that like film, video and photography. Employed __ they are bad and slavish imitations. Here the

as an offensive strategy, the position asserts problem is not a matter of medium for

that these media have a right to exist surely one can have bad, slavish and inept because they can do something — perform imitations within the same medium. The some task — that no other art can do. But, —_ defect of slavish and inept imitation belongs of course this is a suspect maneuver. Just — to the artist, not the medium. It is incidental

because a medium can do what no other whether an inept imitation occurs transdoes hardly recommends it to us, unless media or within one medium. Of course, that which it does has some worth. But if | where the imitation — construed perforce as that which it does has worth, then that an imitation in certain respects — results ina alone, rather than the medium’s unique- successful piece or a masterpiece, the ques-

ness, is what attracts us to works in that tion of extraneousness just disappears. 17

Questioning Media

There is no point to caring whether Julia purism. But what is important here is that Margaret Cameron’s photos of Tennyson while making medium specificity arguments, and Longfellow duplicate strategies of por- = polemicists are usually, although inconsistraiture in painting. It is enough that they _ tently, disturbed by overlaps between cer-

were made, and that they move us. tain arts, while overlaps with other arts are In favor of the division of labor meta- — either ignored or treated as benign. Obviphor, the medium specificity theorist may — ously, the real question in such cases is not

ask what reason there would be for the _ one of the theoretical differentiation of the existence of different arts, unless they were arts across the board, but a question of meant to have different purposes? But the — dividing up a turf, generally between two question itself is inadmissible. It presup- arts or two arts movements that perceive poses a view of the history of the arts asthe — themselves as competing for the same audirational unfolding of a grand plan. But, in — ence. Film worries about theater and vicefact, we have the arts we have as the result versa; photography worries about painting; of discrete chains of events. Film was in- painting worries about sculpture; video worvented because Edison thought it would be __ ries about film.

profitable to have visual accompaniments The discussion of the competition befor his phonograph records, and not because — tween the arts may appear to supply at least a he discerned a lacuna in the system of the | compelling excuse or vindication of the use of

arts. Perhaps dance was born when a burly mediumistic arguments and recommendaNeanderthal accidentally stepped into his — tions by proponents of arts such as film, video camp fire and, while hopping about on one _—_ and photography. Beleaguered by competi-

foot, his clansmen clapped rhythmically in tors accusing the new media of insignificant appreciation. That we have the arts we have _—_ and extraneous imitation, these new media

and that they evolved as they did are — seek some differentiating effect in order to contingent matters, often related to separate — silence the polemics raised against them. In

chains of events, and not the fruition of _ this they accept the presupposition of their some grand dream Apollo hatched in an detractors — viz., that there must be division

Olympian arcade.?! between the arts — which the medium speci-

Moreover, in terms of the way that _§ficity proponent goes on to explicate. Thus, it medium specificity polemicists generally pro- might be argued that for purposes of first

ceed, it is clear that they are not really — legitimatizing a medium as an art, it is concerned to neatly demarcate each artform rhetorically persuasive to accept the major from all the other arts. Usually such po- premise of detractors of the medium, and to lemicists are only exercised by differentiat- | demonstrate that the medium can perform as

ing one artform from another art, one a unique art. Once a medium is accepted as which, for contextual reasons, is perceived an art, once the struggle for legitimacy is as a rival. Most film theorists are vexed by — won, it might be said, artists in that medium the problem of sharply cleaving film and — can go on to do whatever they like, traffick-

theater, but they are scarcely moved to ing in polymorphous mixtures with other differentiate film from the novel and the arts. For once a medium is acknowledged as short story, or film from photography. And an art, the uniqueness issue dissipates. If film if a film theorist or artist worries about and photography won their campaigns to be novelistic or literary cinema thatis generally | regarded as art, then no one thinks twice because he or she is championing an alterna- _— about the theatricality of Rohmer’s Perceval,

tive style of cinema. Ironically, often a or the painterly and cinematic dimensions of cinema based on musicalist analogies is | Duane Michel’s work. Perhaps, on the horiurged over literary cinema in the name of zon, video artists, once their medium is 18

Film, Video, and Photography

unequivocably accepted, will cease worrying dium specificity arguments may seem to about the uniqueness of their form. Thus, __ present itself almost naturally. Medium specgiven this story, medium specificity polemics __ificity arguments, it might be said, do not might appear to have a valuable sort of work _ legitimatize emerging media as art, but they

to do, i.e., have an acceptable function to do function to perform the valuable service perform, in the historical and social context of legitimatizing new styles, genres and of the emergence of an artform, especially | movements. There are at least two things from a reproductive technology. In other wrong here. First, medium specificity arguwords, medium specificity arguments and ments can be marshalled just as easily to their related recommendations may seem to — defend established styles as they can be to

have a legitimate use at least in certain defend new and innovative art. Herbert

situations. Read, for example, uses medium specificity But this defense of the medium specificity intuitions to oppose the linear sculpture of

approach has several flaws. First, I see no Muller, Stankiewic, Kneals, Uhlman and reason to accept the division of labor model —_ Baldessari, among others, by invoking sculp-

for art, even as a debater’s point. Rather, —ture’s supposedly essential concern with the defender of the new medium is better mass,”” while there is the infamous case of advised to deny the pressure for a division of | Arnheim’s rejection of sound in film in the labor, and point to the accomplishments— name of the medium’s commitment to anithe works of aesthetic excellence — that the mated action. Clearly, medium specificity

medium has produced as evidence that the arguments are not always on the side of medium is an established art. Of course, ifa —_ either the angels or the future. Nor does it medium has no compelling accomplishments — seem defensible to claim that medium speciyet, it is idle to claim it is an established art. _ficity arguments are acceptable when used

Another problem about the preceding to support stylistic innovation but invalid defense of medium specificity recommenda- —= when used for the sake of tradition. The tions is that it really misconstrues what is medium specificity approach should be neugenerally at stake in such situations. Most tral between the claims of the past and the often, perhaps in all cases, medium specific- _ future.

ity recommendations turn out to be not Of course, my second objection to the defenses of a given medium per se, but notion that medium specificity arguments briefs in favor of certain styles, genres and have an acceptable role to play in the artistic movements. Weston is advocating a defense of innovative styles has been the style of photography, straight photography, |= major theme of this paper. If a style, genre over another style, photo-painting; he isnot or movement has some aesthetic, intellec-

really defending photography per se. As tual and/or moral value of what added well, the debate between montagists, real- _ significance is the fact that it exploits some ists and modernists in film is not a matter of | unique feature of the medium? And if a a defense of the medium, but of defenses of | style, movement, or genre has no compelcontesting styles and their subtending aes- _—_ ling aesthetic, moral or intellectual value, thetic, intellectual and moral commitments. — why should we care about it, even if it is true But if one wishes to defend a style, a genre _ to the inherent possibilities of its medium, Or an artistic movement, the way to do that whatever they are? If a style, like imageis to show the value or worth — aesthetic, — processing in video, is to be defended, then intellectual and moral — that derives from _ that defense must be based on showing the embracing the specific commitments in- aesthetic, intellectual and moral values avail-

volved in the practice of that style. able in this style. Medium specificity arguAt this point, a final vindication of me- ments have no defensible role to play in 19

Questioning Media

aesthetic debate in the realm of self- that artists take advantage of only those consciously invented arts, nor in the realm properties of one’s artform that are unique of those arts whose origins are submergedin _ to it. As a result, at least one form of

the haze of history. aesthetic duplication will be avoided. So

Appendix ne

where we are concerned to enhance the

, diversity amongst the artworks we have, the medium specificity approach can be seen as

Though medium specificity arguments an artistically fruitful means to that end. would appear to be inadvisable in any form, Several things about this argument retwo philosophers have recently attempted to | quire comment. First, it assumes that one make limited claims on their behalf. Their — can isolate the unique features of a medium.

aim has been to find whatever truth there I, on the other hand, submit that the may be in such arguments. Thus, they have — supposedly unique features of a medium are

tried to find at least some restricted cases _ those features that are relevant to certain where such arguments are legitimately per- _—_ styles, genres, and the purposes presupsuasive. The purpose of this appendix is to posed by them. Thus, if we want plurality

question even such minimal endorsements we are better advised to advocate the

of medium specificity arguments. creation of new genres and styles than to Edward Sankowski has attempted amodi- —_ look to the medium as our guide. After all,

fied defense of at least some cases of the | Sankowski’s account really appears to be medium specificity argument on the grounds _—_— based on coming up with the best policy

that, purportedly, the thesis provides a recommendation we can make in certain strategy for (1) assuring plurality and diver- — circumstances of artistic impoverishment.

sity in art as well as a strategy for (2) And calling for new styles seems more guaranteeing that the original achievements germane than medium specificity briefs.

of a given artform will be sustained and Secondly, the acceptability of Sankowdeveloped.*? Sankowski is claiming that on _ ski’s defense of the medium specificity thesis some occasions the medium specificity thesis | also presumes a premium placed on having a

can be advocated on the pretext that it will diversity of novel kinds of artworks. This promote the overall aesthetically desirable |= premium on diversity may be connected to end of encouraging the creation of novel — both a concern for originality in artistic crekinds of art. Sankowski is also claiming that _—ativity and a desire for a range of variesome medium specificity arguments can be | gated aesthetic experiences for artgoers. Of justified on the grounds that abiding by the _ course, the plurality of aesthetic value is a directives of the medium specificity thesis | stated preference in the artworlds of North

guides present-day artistic activity in sucha Atlantic industrial cultures. But one can way that the original achievements in the — envision other cultures wherein a certain artform in question will be conserved and homogenizing similarity between various

expanded upon in an optimum fashion. artforms is sought. Indeed, one can even First let us consider Sankowski’s plurality —_ recall in our own culture moments of both argument. He begins by postulating that itis | such consolidation and of the desire for such

aesthetically important that we have diver- —_ consolidation. And in contexts of these sity among our artworks. Sankowski points sorts, medium specificity arguments that are out that one way of insuring this is by — grounded in the desire to maximize diversity

encouraging artists in one field to avoid are undercut. duplicating the types of patterns that artists But let us assume with Sankowski both in other fields are creating. This, Sankowski _ the viability of the project of isolating the

holds, can be implemented by advocating unique characteristics of the medium, and 20

Film, Video, and Photography , situations in which artistic diversity is val- Contra medium specificity proponents, it ued. We will immediately note that the | seems to me that the arts often do imitate uniqueness approach is just as likely to eachother with productive effects. An examobstruct the creation of novel kinds of ple of this is the case of stylistic movements positively valuable art as it is to facilitate it. | where the concerns and strategies of one art

For example, one can easily imagine the infect others. The aims and purposes of the seven or eight arts busily pursuing that style, as it emerges concretely in one art, are which each agrees are its unique potentials | used by artists in other arts, which adapt their so that the work in each artform is arrest- | forms to converge on the effects of the lead

ingly similar to other works in the same art. Often the analogies between arts of the artform. There is no reason to believe that same stylistic movement can be quite strikmedium specificity or uniqueness arguments __ ing, as each art applies the imperative of the

will be conducive to a variety within movement, as derived from a lead art, to its artforms. And therefore, the medium speci- medium. Also the spread of a stylistic move-

ficity approach may contribute to an ex- ment in this way can be quite positive and tremely regular and lamentably predictable valuable. Insofar as the medium specificity

artistic landscape. thesis closes off this obvious source of creativ-

The medium specificity approach, if it — ity, the thesis seems open to objection. Of guarantees any diversity, guarantees only — course, this sort of imitation is not the only one sort, viz., the differentiation between _ kind that might persist between arts. One art

artforms. However, there are other impor- might imitate another art for expressive tant modes of artistic diversity, ones, indeed, — effect. A film might imitate theatrical style in

that commitments to medium specificitymay order to appropriate the connotations of the

in fact impede. For example, often the basis notions of theater in our culture, e.g., for the creation of novel art is the result of — present “theatrical” acting in order to symbol-

breaks with historical traditions, e.g., the ize that the characters of the fiction are shift from Classicism to Romanticism. More- “playing roles.” Of course, this is not to say over, with the introduction of anew, innovat- __ that all types of imitation between media are ing artistic movement —such as German acceptable. Some imitation across arts will be Expressionism, Surrealism, or Minimalism — __— boring, rote, and unimaginative. But then it is often the case that there is one lead art, — the problem is that the work is boring, rote, which other arts emulate. For instance, with and unimaginative, not that there are overMinimal Art, the example and theory of fine laps between media. Indeed, there is nothing art inspired dancers and filmmakers to con- —_ wrong, in principle, with imitation across the

trive equivalents of the type of work gallery arts unless one mistakenly assumes that artists pursued.*4 The result was novelty and _ imitation, per se, is unimaginative.

experimentation but this is in clear violation Sankowski’s defense of a limited number of the often explicit stricture of medium _ of cases of the medium specificity argument specificity proponents who claim thatthe arts | seems to be that in some instances we will be

should not imitate each other. Medium able to enhance the diversity of art by telling specificity theorists appear to believe that artists to take advantage of the properties loyalty to the medium is a way of increasing — unique to their medium. As I have argued, it

the likelihood that novel art will be pro- is by no means apparent that loyalty to the duced. But it may be that imitation and — unique properties of one’s medium is likely interanimation between the arts are as reli- to generate the most abundant or fruitful able if not more reliable than medium _ diversity. Nor do I think that loyalty to the specificity for propagating circumstances in medium, rather than stylistic innovation, is

which novelty flourishes. the straightest path to the creation of a 21

Questioning Media

plurality of novel artworks. Infact, at best,in past. Medium specificity arguments are the

Sankowski’s account, medium specificity is | battering rams of aesthetic revolution. an indirect means which in some cases leads Sankowski himself cites Jerzy Grotowski’s to artistic pluralism. But then, it is a tactic, Towards a Poor Theatre, while in film an not the principle its proponents often pre- —__ essentialist brand of realism denied much of sume. It will be dispensable in circumstances the achievement of silent cinema. In these where it does not have the desired effect. | cases and others, medium specificity claims Sankowski will undoubtedly be satisfied by — break with tradition rather than developing

this conclusion since he only claims that from it. Also, the role that Sankowski “some” medium specificity arguments are attributes to medium specificity arguments defensible. However, I wonder, evenincases __ vis-a-vis traditions appears at variance with

where we desire to bring about diversity, the role he attributes to such arguments in whether a policy based on medium specificity regard to artistic diversity. In one case, is practicable. For we still will be confronted |= medium specificity is to stimulate a profuby the problem of isolating unique character- _ sion of different kinds of art, whereas in the

istics of the medium. Again, calling for | second case the allegiance to medium specistylistic innovation seems to be the more __ficity is to lead to the production of more of direct means of bringing diversity about. In _ the same kind of art. One wonders how the fact, if 1am correct about the claim that one | same sort of argument can be justified by does not really ever isolate independently its performance of such conflicting funcdeterminable, “unique” features of the me- _ tions. Here, Sankowski may answer that dium but only elements of prevailing styles, | there is no conflict, because what he inthen Sankowski’s purported reworking ofthe — tends by the adoption of medium specificity

medium specificity argument is less an argu- _is that there should be diversity between ment than a “gambit” based ona myth that the arts but also uniformity within each art. directs artists to return to the styles of their | However, this is very close to just assuming

several arts in the guise of pursuing the the medium specificity argument which quidity of each art. This course of action, | Sankowski is supposed to be defending; for moreover, is favored (questionably) inoppo- example, he never explains why uniformity sition to and as superior to obvious prospects and diversity should be distributed in just for diversity attainable through the pursuit of this way.

a single cross-art style (or movement), or a Indeed, one also wants to ask why delimited set of such stylistic explorations as = Sankowski thinks he is justifying uniqueness

such is shared across various arts. arguments rather than simply indicating Another goal that Sankowski feels me- | what people sometimes are trying to bring dium specificity arguments could be said to about by making such arguments. By saying

bring about is the sustaining of the achieve- that one uses a uniqueness argument to ments within a certain tradition. Sankowski _ bring about a legitimately desirable state of writes “the uniqueness arguer often could affairs one hasn’t shown that an argument is

be construed as claiming that if creative a good one, but only that the person who activity proceeds as his uniqueness argu- makes it has commendable practical reasons ment enjoins, the original achievements of for presenting such arguments.

the art form will be sustained and/or devel- In his “Uniqueness of the Medium,” oped... .”*° This claim appears to be false. | Donald Crawford argues that though meVery often medium specificity arguments dium specificity claims do not play a logical

are made in the context of polemics role in supporting evaluative judgments wherein the advocacy of medium specificity | about works of art, the notion of medium is meant to break with the forms of the specificity is relevant to judgments we make 22

Film, Video, and Photography

about artists. Speaking of the idea that the Paul Oskar Kristeller’s “The Modern System works of one medium should not imitate of the Arts,” in Art and Philosophy, ed. W. those of another, Crawford holds “this criti- D. Kennick (N.Y.: St. Martin’s Press, 1979),

cism is, I think, a disguised criticism of the p. 17. . .

artist rather than the work itself. When 2. Rudolf Arnheim, Film as Art (Berkeley: U.

stainless steel flatware is criticized (for imitat- of Calit. Press. 1967) » P- 39. 3. Rudolf Arnheim, “On the Nature of Pho-

ing I suggest Critical that we are really t 10 (Sept., tgs . Oosilver), ae ography,” Inquiry, 1974),

criticizing the artists for being unimaginative, p. 155. or for prostituting his creative talents to a 4. Lev Kuleshov, Kuleshov on Film, trans. and fairly simple functional task when he need ed. by R. Levaco (Berkeley: U. of Calif. not have: he’s responding to a commercial Press, 1974). market rather than creating a demand for an 5. Anthony McCall, “Two Statements,” in The

artistic product... .”26 Crawford may be Avant-Garde Film, ed. by P. Adams Sitney correct in his assessment of the motive (N.Y.: New York University Press, 1978), p. behind the medium specificity language in 250. For those who think that essentialism is such cases; however, it is not obvious that the long behind us in film, consider the eponyreal issue in these cases has anything to do mous essay lM Christian Metz's Amaginar y

; oe ; . gical essen

. Signifier (Bloomington: U. of Indiana Press,

with claims about the uniqueness of the 1982). I discuss Metz’s methodological , media. Rather, it 1s equally persuasive to tialism in my review of the Imaginary Sig-

maintain that the problem is with the motives nifier which is forthcoming in the Journal behind and the intelligence of the imitation. of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. That Metz’s It is not a problem of what is being imitated methodological essentialism is indisputably by what, as the medium specificity proponent in vogue is evinced by the way it is uncritiavers. It is a question about the qualities — cally parrotted in books like John Ellis’s Visboth moral and intellectual — to be found in ible Fictions (London: Routledge and Kegan

the particular act of imitation at issue. We Paul, 1982). . . may complain that, in a given case, the cross- 6. Roland Barthes, Camera Lucida (N.Y. : Hill

media imitation has no point or is shallow and Wang, 1983). Similar recent essentialist

or views ofBut photography cansame be found inofSusan duplication. these are sortsYork: SDelta i. ontag, On the Photography (New challenges we will bring against imitations Books, 1973), and Stanley Cavell, The World

within a specified medium. Viewed (N.Y.: Viking, 1971). I criticize the Barthes-Bazin-Sontag-Cavell position in my

Notes “Concerning Photographic and Cinematic Representation,” which is in the journal 1. At the rhetorical level, rather than simply at Dialectics and Humanism. This essay is also

the level of practice, this process of legi- included in this volume. timatization-through-imitation takes place as 7. Paul Strand, “Photography and the New polemicists analogize their favored medium God,” in Classic Essays on Photography, ed. to existing arts. In film, Vachel Lindsay’s by Alan Trachtenberg (New Haven: Leete’s The Art of the Moving Picture (New York: Island Books, 1980), p. 142. Macmillan, 1922) is an early, salient, Ameri- 8. Ibid.

can example of this. 9. Edward Weston, “Seeing Photographically,

Also, the play of differentiation/imitation in Classic Essays on Photography, p. 170. involved in the emergence of the self- 10. Weston, 171. Ansel Adams would also be an consciously invented arts of film, video and example of the straight-shooting school. See photography somewhat recalls the way in his “I am a Photographer,” in The Camera which painting strove to differentiate itself Viewed, ed. by P. R. Petruck (N.Y.: Dutton, from the crafts while simultaneously valoriz- 1979), Vol. II, pp. 25-40. ing itself through analogies with poetry. See 11. Laszlo Moholy-Nagy, “A New Instrument of 23

Questioning Media

166. 1964), pp. 247-257.

Vision,” in The Camera Viewed, Vol. I, p. Sculpture (N.Y.: Oxford University Press,

12. Moholy-Nagy, 167. 23. Edward Sankowski, “Uniqueness Arguments

13. Frank Gilette, Video Process and Meta- and Artist’s Actions,” in the Journal of Process (Syracuse, N. Y.: Everson Museum of Aesthetics and Art Criticism (Fall, 1979), pp.

Art, 1973), pp. 21-22. 61-74. Sankowski’s “plurality” argument can 14. Hollis Frampton, Circles of Confusion (Roch- be found on pp. 66—67; his argument from ester, N. Y.: Visual Studies Workshop, 1983), tradition is on p. 71. pp. 166-67. For a similar affirmation of the 24. For an example of a dancer influenced by medium-based potential of special-effects Minimal Art see Yvonne Rainer’s “A Quasi video, see the interview with Richard Lorber, Survey of Some ‘Minimalist’ Tendencies in “From Cimabue to Cunningham,” in Millen- the Quantitatively Minimal Dance Activity nium Film Journal, 10/11 (Fall/Winter 1981- Midst the Plethora, or an Analysis of Trio 82), p. 7. And Bill Viola reasserts the impor- A,” in Minimal Art, ed. Gregory Battcock

tance of medium specificity in the interview (N.Y.: Dutton, 1968), pp. 263-273. The with him in Sightlines, Spring, 1983, p. 24. influence of Minimalism is also richly docu15. Edward Stasheff and Rudy Bretz, The Televi- mented in Sally Banes’ Terpsichore in Sneak-

sion Program: Its Writing, Direction and ers (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1980). Production (N.Y.: A. A. Wyn, 1961), p. 3. For examples of filmmakers who are influ16. Lizzie Borden, “Directions in Video Art,” enced by gallery aesthetics see P. Adams from Video Art, ed. by Suzanne Delehanty Sitney, Visionary Film (New York: Oxford U. (Philadelphia: Institute of Contemporary Art, Press, 1979), especially pp. 369-397.

1975), p. 88. 25. Sankowski, 71.

17. John Hanhardt, “Paik’s Video Sculpture,” in 26. Donald Crawford, “The Uniqueness of the

Nam June Paik, ed. by John Hanhardt Medium,” The Personalist, 51 (Autumn, (Whitney Museum of American Art, 1982), 1970), p. 467, parenthetical information

p. 98. added. Additionally, I should also like to

18. Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, Laocoén (N-Y.: object to a remark that Crawford makes on

Noonday Press, 1969), pp. 91-92. page 461. He says, “. . . The film has a facility 19. These examples can be found in Anthology of for organizing temporal relations and spatially

Concrete Poetry, ed. by Emmet Williams disparate representations unequalled by any (N.Y.: Something Else Press, 1967), n.p. other medium.” I do not understand the basis 20. Bernard Bosanquet, Three Lectures on Aes- of this assertion. Surely literature can leap thetics (London: Macmillan and Co. Ltd., through time and space as easily as film.

1915). Indeed, my own prejudice is to suspect that

21. A more expanded version of this particular literature is even more adaptable than the

argument can be found in my “The Specificity cinematic conventions we presently have in of Media in the Arts,” in The Journal of regard to complex spatial and temporal juxtaAesthetic Education, Vol. 19, n. 4 (Winter, positions. Just in regard to time, for example, 1985). This essay is also included in this it should be remembered that literature has a

volume. much richer battery of explicit tenses to play

22. Herbert Read, A Concise History of Modern with.

24

= = A modernist work of art must try, in principle, to . avoid dependence upon any order of experience

CHAPTER II not given in the most essentially construed nature | = of its medium. This means, among other things,

suis Specificity of Media renouncing illusion and explicitness. The arts are

. = to achieve concreteness, “purity,” by acting

| = selves.

in the Arts solely in terms of their separate and irreducible : Modernist painting meets our desire for the

= literal and positive by renouncing the illusion of the third dimension.’

For Greenberg, optical, two-dimensional

I effects are the medium-specific domain of

painting, while tactile, three-dimensional The idea — which I shall call the medium- — effects are the domain of sculpture. And specificity thesis -— that each art form, in _ video artists, influenced by this version of virtue of its medium, has its own exclusive | Modernism, believe that the proper direcdomain of development was born in the _ tion of their art form will be involved in the eighteenth century, almost at the same time _ isolation and definition of the quidity of the that the distinctions between the aesthetic | video medium. Moreover, with Greenberg, and the nonaesthetic and between the fine these medium-specificity proponents are

arts and the practical arts crystallized. Yet advocating that the differences between despite its age, the medium-specificity the- | media should supply us with a standard of Sis continues to exercise a tenacious grip on —_~what art should and should not be made.

the imaginations of artists and theorists | And, if medium-specificity is transgressed, alike. On the contemporary art scene, this the medium-specificity critic is thought to is perhaps most evident in the arena of have a reason to evaluate a given work of

video aesthetics, where one group, the art negatively. image processors, advocate their stylistic Contemporary photographic criticism explorations on the grounds that they are also shows some recurrent tendencies toconcerned with the basic attributes of | ward upholding the medium-specificity thevideo. Summarizing their position, Shelley — sis. For example, in his extremely popular Miller writes: “Electronic image processing book, Camera Lucida, Roland Barthes aruses as art-making material those properties gues that photographic representation is

inherent in the medium of video. Artists — essentially different from representation work at a fundamental level with various — based on analogy or copying, 1.e., the kind

parameters of the electronic signal, for of representation found in painting. Barthes example, frequency amplitude or phase, — writes: “The realists, of whom I am one and which actually define the resulting image | of whom I was already one when I asserted

and sound.”! that the Photograph was an image without

Undoubtedly many video avant-gardists | code — even if obviously, certain codes do are predisposed toward the medium-specifi- infect our reading of it — the realists do not city thesis because, given backgrounds in __ take the photograph for a copy of reality, but the fine arts, their thinking has been and is _ for an emanation of past reality: a magic, not

swayed by the still influential tenets of an art.” Furthermore, realist aesthetic prefModernism a la Clement Greenberg. This erences appear connected to Barthes’s realapproach to painting and sculpture is ist account of photographic representation — strongly essentialist. Greenberg proclaims: specifically, his taste for photos that afford 25

Questioning Media

the opportunity for the spectator actively to Jean Baptiste Dubos, James Harris, Moses

discover uncoded details.* Mendelsohn, and most famously, Gotthold

The persistence of the medium-specificity | Ephraim Lessing revolted against the kind thesis has significance for educational policy of art theory proposed in Charles Batteux’s as well. For when video makers and photog- __ tract entitled The Fine Arts Reduced to the raphers strive to form their own academic Same Principle.’ As Batteux’s title should departments or divisions, a prospect already suggest, pre-Enlightenment art theorizing

before us, they are likely to do so by _ tended to treat all arts as the same — e.g., as asserting their autonomy from other arts on _ striving for the same effect, such as the the basis of medium-specificity arguments. imitation of the beautiful in nature. Enlightenment proponents such as Lessing, pos-

II sessed by the epoch’ssought zeal for distinctions, to differentiate the arts in terms of The medium-specificity thesis holds that their medium-specific ingredients. Using the each art form has its own domain of expres- —_- concept of a sign in advance of semiology, sion and exploration. This domain is deter- _ Lessing felt that the proper subject matter of

mined by the nature of the medium through each medium could be extrapolated from which the objects of a given art form are the physical properties of its constituent composed. Often the idea of “the nature of signs: poetry, whose words are encountered the medium” is thought of in terms of the —_ sequentially, is a temporal art, specializing in

physical structure of the medium. The _ the representation of events and processes, medium-specificity thesis can be construed — while painting, whose signs, daubs of paint,

as saying that each art form should pursue are encountered as only spatially contiguthose effects that, in virtue of its medium it ous, should represent moments.°®

alone — 1.e., of all the arts — can achieve. Or The impression that proponents of the the thesis might be interpreted as claiming §medium-specificity thesis impart is that one that each art form should pursue ends that, need only examine the physical structure of

in virtue of its medium, it achieves most the medium, and the sort of effects the art effectively or best of all those effects at its | form based in that medium should traffic in disposal. Most often the medium-specificity more or less jumps out at one. Paint is the

theorist unconsciously relies upon (and major ingredient in painting. Therefore, conflates) both these ideas. Each art form __ painting should primarily exemplify flatness

should pursue only those effects which, in (or, at least, be constrained to exemplify virtue of its medium, it excels in achieving. only effects that are consistent with flatThe thesis holds that each art form should ness). However, it is far from clear that one pursue ends distinct from other art forms. can move so neatly from the physical me-

Art forms should not overlap in their ef- dium to the ¢elos of the art form. For fects, nor should they imitate each other. | example, if anything can lay claim to being Also, each art form is assumed tohave some _ the physical trait that essentially defines range of effects that it discharges best or _ film, it is its flexible celluloid base. But what

uniquely as a result of the structure of its does this suggest to us about the kinds of physical medium. Each art form should be things that could or should be represented limited to exploiting this range of effects, | or expressed in the medium? Indeed, why which the nature of the medium dictates. suppose that the essential characteristics of a The idea that each art form has its own medium necessarily have any directive consedomain and that it should not overlap with |= quences for the art made in that medium? the effects of other art forms hails from the Of course, this point also pertains when we eighteenth century, when theorists such as _are speaking of other than essential aspects 26

The Specificity of Media in the Arts

of the physical medium. If some sort of are these more pertinent to the mediumwriting instrument, e.g., a typewriter (or, to — specificity theorist than the flexible-celluloid be more up-to-date, a word processor), and _ base of cinema?

some material surface, say paper, are the Of course, if we already have a specific customary, basic materials of the novelist, | use for a medium, say poetry, then we may what can we extrapolate from this about the __ be able to say that features of the medium,

proper range of effects of the novel?’ even what physical features, are relevant for Perhaps we will be told that language serving that purpose. However, here it pays

rather than print is the novelist’s basic to note that a feature, like sound in lanmaterial. But then what different effects | guage, might be better characterized as a should poetry and the novel pursue, insofar feature relevant for the purposes of poetry

as they have the same basic material? rather than as the basic, determinant feature Maybe a move will be made to suggest that of the medium. Basic-feature talk seems to

sound is the basic material of poetry, imply or connote that prior to any uses of whereas events and actions are the basic the medium, a medium could have a feature material of the novel. Of course, it is very | that would be more important and more difficult to understand why we are to con-__ indicative than any other of its features strue actions and events as physical constitu- concerning what ranges of expression the art

ents of a medium on a par with candidates form embodied in the medium should exlike the paint of paintings. And, undoubt- plore. But, in fact, we have no idea of what edly, the medium-specificity theorist, at this features of the medium are important unless

point, will tell us that we need not be we have ause for the medium. committed to a simple notion of the medium Furthermore, once we realize that it is restricted solely to its physical characteris- | our purposes that mold the medium’s develtics. But once we abandon a supposedly opment and not the medium that determines physicalist account of the medium, how are _ our artistic purposes, we realize that the we to determine what the basic elements or — problem of overlaps between media is viticonstituents of the medium are? Whether or ated. We may have a purpose, such as the

not it is true that actions and events are the dramatic portrayal of human action, that basic elements of the novel, of course, isnot — will cross media, selecting the features of

my concern. My interests in the preceding each medium that best facilitate our purdialectic lie in what it reveals about medium- _— pose. These features in each medium, in

specificity arguments, viz., that itis not an _ turn, either may resemble or may sharply easy task to identify the basic materials of a _—— contrast with those of other media. The

medium, let alone to move from a simple _ provisional purposes we designate for a enumeration of a medium’s physical ele- | medium may in fact be best pursued by ments to the effects the art form embodied imitating another medium. Thus, Jeanin the medium should be committed to Marie Straub, in his film The Bridegroom, explore. Indeed, it is often difficult to know the Actress, and the Pimp, mimes theater at what level of analysis we should focus our _ outright in order to make — quite effectively,

attention vis-a-vis medium-specificity ac- I might add — his reflexive point that all film counts. For though they generally suggest _is “staged.” Moreover, it is likely that when

that their starting point is some physical we introduce a new medium like video or element or constituent, medium-specificity photography, we will have to begin by discourse also easily drifts into consideration attempting to adapt it to already existing of nonphysicalistic elements or constituents: | purposes and strategies, e.g., portraiture, space and time, for example, are often said | whose implementation perforce will recall to be the basic ingredients of film. But why _ the effects of other media. With such incipi27

Questioning Media

ent arts, that is, practitioners will have to _ theorist offer a nonarbitrary basis for select-

begin somewhere. The evolution of the ing the program suggested by one basic medium will depend on the purposes we find _ feature of the medium over another? Perhaps for it. The medium has no secret purpose of | the medium-specificity theorist will opt for

its own. the program suggested by that element of the Another way to approach this point is to medium that isa sine quanon of the medium. remember that all mediahave morethanone _ But in our film example, both photography constituent component. To simplify, let us —_ and the sequential structure of the film strip say that paint, paint brushes, and canvases _are Sine qua nons. are the basic materials of painting. How does Of course, the medium-specificity theothe medium-specificity theorist knowtoiden- __rist may argue that no problem arises for tify paint as the pertinent element in this — him because basic elements of the medium group? And, having identified paint as the — suggest different lines of development. For, lead element, how does the Modernist know it may be said, the artist can pluralistically

to identify the potential for flatness, as | pursue more than one line of development. opposed to impastos of ever-widening den- | However, there are often cases where the sity, as the relevant possibility of paint thatis | candidates for the basic features of the to be exploited? Clearly paint itself cannot medium suggest programs of development dictate how it is to be used — paint can be _ that conflict with each other. Both cinemaadapted for covering houses, covering can- tography and editing are counted as among vases, portraying funerals, or proffering — the basic elements of cinema, ones purportcolor fields. Paint does not determine howit — edly enjoining radically opposed styles: realwill be used, but the purposes for which paint ism versus montage. Here it is impossible is used — art and/or Modernism — determine __ that the artist can fully explore the range of

the relevant features of the medium for the effects his medium excels in, because it is task at hand. Flatness, forexample, could be impossible simultaneously to exploit the made to express Modernist ideals of purity cinematic potentials of rapid editing and and rigor. In short, the purposes of a given deep-focus, realist cinematography. Simiart — indeed, of a given style, movement, or larly, video’s capacity for immediate transgenre — will determine what aspects of the —_ mission makes it a useful device for creating physical medium are important. The physical = certain news documents, while its potential

medium does not select a unique purpose, or for instant feedback enables it to be emeven a delimited range of purposes, foranart ployed for abstract image processing. But

form. one cannot make an abstract, imageThe fact that a medium is generally processed news document. composite in terms of its basic constituents A medium may excel in more than one

leads to other complications for the medium- __ effect, and these effects may be incompatispecificity thesis. For different features ofthe ble, thus making it impossible for the artist medium may suggest radically different direc- to abide by the medium-specificity thesis by

tions of artistic development. Film has pho- doing what the medium does best. For it is tography as a basic element, which has led __ not possible to do all that the medium does many to designate it as a realist art. But the — best. Nor does the medium-specificity thesis appearance of movement generated by the — have a nonarbitrary way to decide which of

sequential structure of the film strip is — conflicting “medium-based” styles is to be equally basic to cinema, and it has led some __ preferred. Obviously, one will gravitate toto champion cinema as a magical art. Insuch — ward the technique that serves one’s purcases, which aspect of the medium should be __ poses best. What aspects of the medium are

emphasized? Can the medium-specificity to be emphasized or exploited will be 28

The Specificity of Media in the Arts

determined by the aims of the artists andthe | connected. Our landscape paintings with

purposes of the art form. If poetry is to be their depth cannot be rejected on the read silently on the page, then it makes grounds that paintings cannot disregard the sense to emphasize certain aspects of the — essential flatness of the medium. Quite medium, such as where each line ends; if clearly some paintings do and, therefore, poetry is primarily to be declaimed aloud by _ can ignore the Modernist’s constraints con-

bards, however, line endings will not be a — cerning pictorial flatness. In such cases, very determinant feature of the medium, — excellence in the service of a definable even if our poets compose their songs ahead _— purpose — e.g., accurately portraying recog-

of time on paper. A medium is used toserve _nizable landscapes — will be our leading the purposes of an art form, a style, or a criterion for accepting each modification of genre. Those purposes make different as- | the medium, at least where there is agreepects of the medium relevant, rather than ment about how to use the medium. More-

vice-versa. over, where there is not agreement, refer-

In response to my claims about the _ ence to traits of the medium will have little priority of use, it may be asserted that there |= sway concerning alternative styles, since are certain uses to which a medium cannot traits of the medium are only significant visbe put. And this, is might be said, is the —_a-vis uses. Rather, we will have to find other basic truth of the medium-specificity claim. reasons for advocating one use over others. However, if the force of cannot here is that It may be felt that whatever persuasiveof either logical or physical impossibility, | ness the foregoing account has, it can be then the medium-specificity thesis is nothing _resisted on the grounds that there are but a truism, one irrelevant to art criticism straightforward examples where artistic failor art making. For if it is literally impossible —_ ure can be incontestably ascribed to ignoring

for a given medium to be put toa givenuse, the medium-specificity thesis. Imagine a then it never will be. Thus, since there is _ silent film drama in which we see a gun never any likelihood that media will over- pointed at X, followed by an intertitle step themselves in terms of what is logically reading “Bang!,” followed by an image of a or physically possible for them to do, there prostrate, dead X. One explanation of what is no reason to warn them to be wary inthis has gone wrong here is that the filmmaker

regard. has failed to execute the scene in terms of

Clearly the existing output of any me- — what the medium does best — viz., showing dium will only consist of objects designed to —_ things. However, we must ask whether the serve uses that it is logically and physically | putative error here would be an error in any

possible for the medium to perform. Use _ kind of film or only in certain types or determines what aspects of the medium are - genres of film with very special purposes.

relevant for aesthetics, rather than some Put this way, I think we see that the essential trait of the medium determining sequence just described might be a brilliant the proper use of the medium. Butifthe use =‘ invention in a comedy or in a film striving of the medium is key, then effects will be after Brecht’s vaunted alienation effect. On evaluated in terms of how well they serve — the other hand, the sequence is an error presiding purposes. Some uses of painting, |= within the Hollywood style of the action

| 29

landscape, for example, enjoin the exploita- = genre for which, among other things, considtion of pictorial depth — obviously a logical erations of pacing as well as of spectacular and physical possibility of the medium. Such _ effects would favor showing the gunshot.

instances of pictorial depth, then, will be Style, genre, and art form, and the purposes evaluated in light of the degree to which — rooted therein, determine what elements of they serve the purposes to which they are — the medium will and will not be relevant.

Questioning Media , That is, contra the medium-specificity the- the other arts. We can call these two sis, there are no techniques that are unavail- | components of the medium-specificity thesis

able to an artist because of a failure to the excellence requirement and the differenexploit certain characteristics of a given tiation requirement, respectively. There are medium (or because of overlaps with other many problems with the medium-specificity media). Rather there are styles, genres, art —_ thesis. Some of these are a direct result of forms, and their presiding purposes, which — the combination of the differentiation and determine the viability of a technique within excellence requirements.

a context of use. Where certain artistic An underlying assumption of the

failures occur — such as in cases of canned medium-specificity thesis appears to be that theater — we are not confronting transgres- | what a medium does best will coincide with

sions of the medium but errors within what differentiates media (and art forms). prevailing styles that cannot be recuperated |= But why should this be so? For example,

by references to other existing styles or | many media narrate. Film, drama, prose,

other defensible purposes. and epic poetry all tell stories. For arguEarlier I assumed that the “cannot” inthe = ment’s sake, let us say it is what each of medium-specificity thesis —1.e., “Make no _ these arts does best —1.e., what each does

medium do what it cannot do” — signalled better than anything else it does. Yet, either logical or physical impossibility. How- _— narrative will not differentiate these art

ever, there is another sense of “cannot” that forms. What does the medium-specificity the medium-specificity theorist is banking thesis tell us to do in such a situation?

on. According to the medium-specificity If film and the novel both excel in approach, we are told that if one wants to __ narration, (1) should neither art form nar-

identify the aspects of the medium that a rate since narration fails to differentiate given art is to exploit, then one must look to. —=them? or (2) should film not narrate since those aspects that differentiate the medium narration will fail to differentiate it from the in question from all other media. Thus, itis | novel and the novel claimed the domain of the purported flatness of paint that distin- _ narration first? or (3) should the novel give

guishes it from sculpture. So painting-as- up narration and let the newcomer have its surface is the painter’s proper arena. Here — chance?? we see that the medium-specificity thesis is The first alternative is simply absurd. to be read normatively — “Do not make an ‘It would sacrifice a magnificent cultural art form do what it cannot do” means “Do __ invention — narration — for whatever bizarre not make it do what it ought not do because _ satisfaction we can derive from adherence to

some other art does it.” Thus, the medium- the differentiation requirement. That is, to

specificity formula is an injunction. what end would we be forgoing artistic As an injunction, the medium-specificity | excellence in cases like this? Clearly attainthesis has two components. One component able excellence will always be more imporis the idea that there is something that each "tant to us than differentiation for its own medium does best —- alternatively, best of sake. everything else a given medium does or best The second alternative is also unattrac-

in comparison with other media. On both tive. In this case, the medium-specificity counts, Lessing thought that painting repre- _— theorist would appear to confuse history sented moments best and poetry actions. — with ontology. Film is to foreswear narrating Rudolf Arnheim thinks that films represent just because literature already has that turf

animated action best.§ Also, the medium- staked out. But surely this is only an specificity thesis holds that each of the arts accident of history. What if movies had should do that which differentiates it from arisen before writing? Then would novels 30

The Specificity of Media in the Arts

have to find some occupation other than ponent. Perhaps one interpretation of the narrative? And what might that have been? _ theory is that each art form should pursue

Clearly, accidents of history should not those projects which fall in the area of preclude an artistic medium from exploring _ intersection between what the art form excels

an area in which it excels. Nor should in and what differentiates the art form from accidents of history be palmed off as other art forms. But this does not seem to be ontological imperatives, another proclivity an acceptable principle because, among

of the medium-specificity thesis. That is, other things, it entails that an art form might according to one very natural construal of | not be employed to do what it does best just the medium-specificity thesis, the special | because some other art form also does it well subject matter of each art form follows or, for that matter, can merely do it passingly.

from the nature of the medium it is Again, the specificity thesis seems to urge us embodied in. However, in fact, we have — willingly to sacrifice excellence in art on

seen that the medium-specificity thesis is principle. But I think that excellence is even more complicated than this because a _ always the overriding consideration for decid-

medium is supposed to specialize in what it ing whether or not a particular practice or excels in as a result of its nature, but only | development is acceptable.

where that area of special achievement Indeed, I believe that what could be differentiates the medium in question from __ called the priority of excellence is the central other media. So, the question of differentia- __ telling point against the specificity thesis. ‘To

tion is not simply a question about the dramatize this, let us imagine that for some nature of what a medium in isolation excels — reason the only way that G. B. Shaw could in, but a question about the comparison of get backing for Pygmalion was to make it as

arts. And it is quite possible that a new art a talking picture — perhaps in the possible may be invented which excels in an area world we are imagining, Shaw was only where an older art already excels.‘° To reputed as a successful screenwriter. Let us award the older art the domain just because _—_also suppose that in some sense it is true that it is already established seems arbitrary, as _ theater is a better showcase for aesthetically

does the third alternative above —- awarding crafted language than talking pictures. the domain to the younger art just because | Would we decide that Pygmalion should not it is younger. If two arts both excel in an —_ be made, even though film will afford an

area it seems natural to permit them both adequate mode of presentation for it? I to explore it. What reason do we have tobe si think our answer is “no,” because our against this option? Following this policy, intuitions are that the medium-specificity we will enrich ourselves by multiplying the — thesis should not be allowed to stand benumber of excellent things we have. This is — tween us and excellence.

surely the case with narrative. The world is Nor need the excellence be a matter of richer for having novels and fiction films — the highest excellence achievable in a given and epic poems and drams and operas and medium. One interpretation of the mediumcomic books and narrative paintings, etc., specificity thesis urges that a medium pursue though the differentiation component of only that which it does best of all the things the medium-specificity thesis would seem to _—it does. But if a medium does something urge us to forsake some if not all of these — well and the occasion arises, why should an treasures should we choose to regard the art form be inhibited especially just because medium-specificity thesis as a guideline for there is something that the art form does deciding what art can and cannot be made. __ better? Certain magical transformations —

| The specificity thesis has both an excel- | weaklings into werewolves — can be most lence component and a differentiation com- __ vividly executed in cinema. But it can also 31

Questioning Media

be done quite nicely on stage. Should this | whether the artwork in question achieves its

minor excellence be forgone in a stage ownends. adaptation of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde either Surprisingly, there is little by way of because language, not transformation, is defense for the medium-specificity thesis, what theater handles best or because film — especially when it is thought of as a way of can make the metamorphosis more graphic? determining what art should and should not

The medium-specificity thesis guides us be made. The thesis usually succeeds by to sacrifice excellence in art. We should appearing to be intuitively self-evident. Uneschew Groucho Marx’s movie monologues doubtedly, the medium-specificity theorist because they more appropriately belong to _ leads listeners to accept the thesis through an

theater, just as the Laocodn should have implicit analogy with tools. Tools, for exambeen poetry. But is there reason to give up __s ple, a Philips-head screwdriver, are designed all this real and potential excellence? There — with functions in mind, and efficiency dic-

is the medium-specificity argument con- tates that we use the tool for what it is ceived of as a rule that tells us what art designed for. If you wish to turn a screw with should or should not be made. But on what —an x-shaped groove on top, use a Philipsgrounds? It is not a moral imperative. So __ head screwdriver. If you wish to explore the what is its point? What do we gain from __ potentials of aesthetically crafted, dramatic abiding by the medium-specificity dictum language, employ theater. If your topic is that compensates or accounts for the sacri- | animated action, use film. Likewise, just as fices of excellence the medium-specificity | you should not, all things being equal, use a theorist calls for? Here it is important to. Philips-head screwdriver as a church key recall that the medium-specificity thesis has (though it can open a beer can), you should often been mobilized to discount acknowl- __ not, all things being equal, use cinema to

edged artistic accomplishments." perform theater’s task and vice-versa. The medium-specificity theorist may But I think that to carry over the tool maintain that his position is basically com- _—_ analogy to an art form 1s strained. Art forms mitted to the proposition that each medium _are not tools, designed and invented to serve

should only pursue those effects that it a single, specific purpose, nor are they even acquits better than any other medium. This _ tools with a delimited range of functions.

not only raises the question of why a Most art forms were not self-consciously medium should only pursue that which itis invented and, therefore, they are not dethought to do better than any other (in _ signed.!* Painting was not invented to celeopposition to what it is merely thought to _ brate flatness. Moreover, even with selfdo as well as other media, or what it does —_ consciously invented arts like photography,

well but not as well as other media are film, and video, it was soon realized that thought to do); it also raises the question of | these media could perform many more tasks whether it makes sense to compare arts in _ than they were expressly and intentionally terms of whether they are more or less — designed for. Indeed, our interest in an art successful in performing the same generic form is in large measure an interest in how functions. Can we say whether film, drama, artists learn or discover new ways of using

or the novel narrates best, or is 1t more their medium. But the idea of the artist appropriate to say they narrate differently? | discovering new ways of using the medium

Moreover, the relevant issue when com- would make no sense if the medium were mending a given artwork is not whether itis | designed for a single, fixed purpose, as the an instance of the medium that is best for — strongest variants of the medium-specificity the effect the artwork exemplifies, but — thesis seem to suggest. 32

The Specificity of Media in the Arts

An art form is embodied in a medium of arts, we ask “why?” The answer that which, even in the cases of the self- seems most reasonable 1s: “Because each art consciously invented arts, is one whose has, or should have, a different function.” many potentials remain to be discovered. Again, there is some underlying idea of But discovery would not be a relevant _ efficiency. expectation to have of artists, nor would an An important presupposition of this arguinterest in it be relevant to an art formifthe ment is that it is legitimate to ask why we task of the art form were as fixed as that ofa have different arts. It also supposes that it is Philips-head screwdriver. A correlative fact legitimate to expect as an answer to this against the idea of the fixedness of function question something like a rational principle.

of art forms is the fact that art forms To paraphrase Wittgenstein, where there continue to exist over time, obviously be- is no question, there is no answer. We can, I cause they are periodically reinvented and __ think, use this principle to rid ourselves of the

new uses are found for them. But if art preceding argument. For its question, when forms were as determinately set in their stated nonelliptically, is not “Why are there function as are things like Philips-head diverse arts?” but “What is the rationale that screwdrivers, one would expect them, like explains or justifies our possession of exactly most tools, to pass away as their function the diverse arts we have?” Now there may be becomes archaic. That art forms are con- an answer, or, better, a series of answers to stantly readapted, reinvented, and redi- — the former question — answers of an historirected bodes ill for the central metaphor — cal and/or an anthropological variety. For suggested by the medium-specificity thesis: | example, we have film because Edison

that of the art form as specialized tool. wanted an invention to supplement the Furthermore, the notion of “efficiency” | phonograph. Perhaps we have painting beas it figures in the allure of the medium- cause one day a Cro-Magnon splashed some specificity thesis is suspect. For itisnotclear adhesive victuals on a cave wall and the result that if film undertakes the task of painting - —_ looked strikingly like a bison. And so on. But showing a still setting — it will be inefficient | we have no answer to the second question — in the sense of incurring more labor. Norisit | “What is the rationale for having exactly the obvious that expenditures of time, material, | several arts we have?” Rather, each art arose

or labor are really relevant in the appraisal due to a chain of events that led to its of artworks. Excellence of effect is what we discovery or invention and to its subsequent care about. Moreover, if “efficiency” is popularization. The result is the collection of thought of as “operating competently,” then arts we have, which we only honorifically

it is difficult to see how the medium-_ refer to as a system. The arts are not specificity theorist can employ it in a non- _ systematic, designed with sharply variegated question-begging fashion since things such functions, as the medium-specificity thesis as the Laoco6n do support some measure of holds. Rather, they are an amalgamation of aesthetic experience even if they supposedly __ historically evolved media whose effects

transgress their medium. often overlap. There is no rationale for the

One way to attempt to defend the — system, for in truth, it is only a collection. medium-specificity thesis is by asking, “Why — Thus, we have no need for the explanation

else would there be different art media if afforded by the medium-specificity thesis. they were not supposed to pursue different As I mentioned earlier, one area where it

ends?” The medium-specificity thesis is, in will be tempting to resort to mediumthis light, an inference to the best explana- _ specificity arguments is in the justification of tion. Given the fact that we have a number _ the formation of new arts-educational de33

Questioning Media

partments, such as film, video, photography, — with the practices of preexisting forms such

holography, and so on. Proponents of such as theater, literature, or fine art. departments will argue that their medium is

distinct from the other arts in such a way Ul

that it will not receive its due if condemned

to existence in departments dominated by _ In concluding, I would like to emphasize specialists in literature, theater, and fine art. that the strongest and most pervasive in-

Furthermore, it may be added that the stances of the medium-specificity argumedium-specificity thesis is of great heuris- | ment maintain that the various media (that

tic value insofar as it entreats students to art forms are embodied in) have unique think deeply about the specific elements of — features — ostensibly identifiable in advance

their trade. of, or independently of, the uses to which I do not wish to demean the fact that the the medium is put-—and, furthermore,

medium-specificity myth has and can have _ these unique features determine the proper

useful results. But I wonder whether the domain of effects of the art form in students who benefit from this myth are question. However, it seems to me that really doing something as simple as consider-_ — what are considered by artists, critics, and

ing the materials of their arts rather than the — theorists as aesthetic flaws, traceable to

“state-of-the-art” techniques, conventions, violations of the medium, are in fact and styles that dominate their practices. violations of certain styles, the purposes of And, furthermore, the medium-specificity those styles, and their characteristic modes

thesis can result in undesirable conse- of handling the medium. That mediumquences. Students can become mired in the _ specificity arguments are often connected prevailing traditions of their medium, closed with advancing the cause of one artistic to the possibility of innovating inspiration movement or use of the medium should from the other arts. Indeed, my own preju- _— indicate that what is urged under the dice is to suspect that once students have banner of medium specificity is linked to mastered the basic techniques of their me- _— implicit conceptions of preferred artistic dium, their best strategy is to explore not _ styles.

only the history of their art, but other arts Even when analysts are not concerned and culture at large for new and stimulating with saying how a medium should be used

ideas. but are only attempting to describe the Concerning the usefulness of medium- — unique, artistically pertinent features of a specificity arguments for the justification of | medium, I suspect that they are really

new academic departments, it can be said — speaking of styles within the medium. If we that this is a rhetorical matter, not a logical are told, for example, that temporal manipu-

one. That administrators may be persuaded lation is the artistically relevant, unique by such arguments, or that the proponents feature of film, our informant clearly is of new arts-educational disciplines feel they — thinking of film in relation to certain styles need such arguments, does not show that — of filmmaking. For real-time exposition is

the medium-specificity thesis is valid. On also a feature of the medium, one pertinent the other hand, such departmental realign- to alternate styles of filmmaking, which, of ments can be defended without reference to — course, have different purposes.’

medium specificity. We may argue that the Similarly, if we are told that the potential practice in question has become oris becom- _— for wordless action and spectacle, rather ing so important to the life of our culture — than ornate language, is the key element of

that it warrants intensive and specialized an authentic, nonliterary theater, then it is study, even if the enterprise does overlap — evident, I think, that we are being asked to 34

The Specificity of Media in the Arts

advocate one style of theater while being basis of their physical structures. But this confused about the reasons for doing so. We does seem problematic. Why claim that are led to believe that our decision is based daguerreotypes should be grouped in the upon some facts about the nature of the same medium as _celluloid-based photogratheatrical medium rather than assessing the phy? The physical structure and certain of the

purposes of the style of the nonliterary physical potentials of these processes are so

theater we are asked to endorse. ; ;

different. Why not claim there are at least two media here? Obviously, the question of

The task of the theorist of an art is not to individuating media is not simply a matter of determine the unique features of the medium physicalistic considerations. Media are culbut to explain how and why the medium has tural and historical constructions. The topic been adapted to prevailing and emerging of the way in which media are individuated is

styles and, at times, to either defend or too large to include in this paper. For the condemn the prevailing or emerging pur- purposes of my argument, I am hypotheti-

oe : ; V .

poses artists pursue. Such debate should not cally assuming the adequacy of our present proceed by arguments about what the me- distinctions between media. But for further

dium dictates, but rather by finding reasons — Imave in hie my efining the Moving artistic, moral, and intellectual — that count 8. Rudolf Arnheim, Film, trans. L. M. Sieve-

for or; ing against genres, artworks, k and and those F. D.styles, Morrow (London: Faber and their subtending purposes which con- Faber, 1933).

front us in the thick of the life of the culture. 9. It is interesting to note that most often when medium-specificity claims are advanced in

Notes support of the program of a particular art, generally, the theorist does not contrast the 1. Shelley Miller, “Electronic Video Image Pro- art he champions with every other art — cessing: Notes toward a Definition,” Expo- which one would expect given the theory —

sure 21, no. 1 (1983): 22. but only with selected arts. Thus, painting is

2. Clement Greenberg, “The New Sculpture,” contrasted with sculpture, or video with film, from his Art and Culture (Boston: Beacon, or photography with painting, or film with

1961), p. 139. theater, etc. Film, for example, is not usually

3. Roland Barthes, Camera Lucida, trans. Rich- contrasted with the narrative novel in order ard Howard (New York: Hill and Wang, 1981), to find film’s proper domain of effects, nor is

p. 88. I criticize this position on photography video contrasted with music. The theory is in my “Concerning Uniqueness claims for only applied to certain neighbors of the art in Photographic and Cinematic Representation,” question, normally ones with which the art in in the journal Dialectics and Humanism, no. 2 question is competing for attention and for (1987). This essay is also included in this audiences. The differentiation requirement,

volume. in such contexts, does not seem to be a matter 4. See Barthes’s discussion of the photographic of ontology but a rhetorical lever in aesthetic punctum in Camera Lucida, esp. pp. 51-60. power struggles. This is discussed at greater 5. The historical remarks here follow the ac- length in my “Medium Specificity Arguments count offered by Monroe C. Beardsley in his and Self-Consciously Invented Arts: Film, Aesthetics: From Classical Greece to the Video and Photography,” in Millennium Film Present (New York: Macmillan, 1966), pp. Journal nos. 14/15 (Fall/Winter, 1984-85).

160-63. This essay is also included in this volume.

6. Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, Laoco6n, trans. Parenthetically, it is worth pointing out E. Frothingham (New York: Noonday Press, that most frequently medium-specificity argu-

1969), pp. 91-92. ments are used in the context of comparing

7. In the paragraph above, I am accepting the only two arts. This may be the cause of the frequent presupposition of specificity theo- fact that it is difficult to find elaborately rists that media can be individuated on the articulated statements of the general thesis. 35

Questioning Media

Rather, the general thesis is most commonly styles. Likewise with the artforms embodied

assumed as a premise for the purposes of a in artistic media.

more local argument. 13. Another reason that I advocate the priority of 10. Here we are not speaking of the arts excelling stylistic considerations over mediumistic ones relative to each other but excelling in terms of is that our stylistic aims, needs, and purposes

one thing that they do compared to other lead to changes in the very physical structure

things that they do. of media. It is because we are committed to 11. For example, see Erwin Panofsky’s attack of certain stylistic aims that we mold dancers’ The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari in his “Style and bodies in a certain way; it is because we

Medium in the Motion Pictures,” in Film already are committed to certain styles of Theory and Criticism, ed. Gerald Mast and realism that various technical innovations, Marshall Cohen (New York: Oxford Univer- like cinemascope, are introduced into the

sity Press, 1970), p. 263. film medium. The physical structure of a

12. Here an analogy with human beings may be medium does not remain static. It is modified helpful. Human beings are not designed with as a result of the needs and imperatives of our a fixed function and, as a result, we do not existing and emerging styles, genres, and art attempt narrowly to constrain, the ways in movements. Those often literally shape the which they can fruitfully develop. We accept medium, rather than the medium dictating

a range of alternative, even competing, life- style.

36

= Stanley Cavell, in turn, sympathesizes with

CHAPTER III ™ Bazin’s notion of some sort of identity

; ; relation between the photographic image

Concerning Uniqueness ™ and its referent when he urges “A photoClaims for Photographic graph does not present us with ‘likenesses’ and Cinematographic ™ rane. 5 it Presents us, we want to say, with

. things themselves.”

, Representation ™ Once the relation between the image — = the photograph or the cinematic shot — is

thought of as some sort of identity relation, the ruling idea of representation becomes re-presentation, i.e., the image is thought to

The Issue present again some object or event from the past. Bazin writes One long-standing and still persistent view of photographic and (photographically based) | The objective nature of photography confers on

cinematographic representation (i.e., the it a quality of credibility absent from all other frame and the shot) is that they are essen- _— Picture making. In spite of any objections our tially distinct from other forms of pictorial critical spirit may offer we are forced to accept as

representation, notably painting. Whereas real the existence of the object reproduced,

toe actually re-presented, set before us in space and

painting is thought to rely upon a resem- 4.04

blance relation between the referent and its representation, the photographic arts, includ- Bazin’s re-presentational theory is echoed ing cinema, are believed to sustain aniden- _ by Roland Barthes when, writing of himself tity relation between their referents andtheir _as a realist, he says “. . . the realists do not

representations. André Bazin writes take the photograph for a ‘copy’ of reality, but for an emanation of past reality... .”° Before the arrival of photography and later of = floy proponents of the re-presentational cinema, the plastic arts (esp. portraiture) were theory, the photograph has a special bond the only intermediaries between actual physical with reality. Susan Sontag claims “...a

presence and absence. Their justification was ; . , their resemblance which stirs the imagination and photograph 1s never less than the registering helps the memory. But photography is something of an emanation (light waves reflected by else again. In no sense is it the image of an object objects) — a material vestige of its subject in or person, it is its tracing. Its automatic genesis | 4 Way that no painting can be.”°

distinguishes it radically from the other tech- From these quotations, it is possible to niques of reproduction. The photograph pro- derive the key elements of the re-preceeds by means of the lens to the taking of a _ sentational theory of the photographic and luminous impression in light — to a mold. As such cinematic image. First, it is essentialist, it carries with it more than a mere resemblance, claiming that the nature of photographs and namely a kind of identity — the card we call by Cinematic shots is unique, distinct, that is, that name being conceivable only in an age of from drawings. paintings. etc. Second. some

photography. ! wings P IBS» § oe, sort of identity relation is held to persist

and between the photograph or film image and its referent because, third, the film image or

The photographic image is the object itself. . . . photograph is directly produced or is caused

It shares by virtue of the process of its becoming, to be by its referent. And, lastly, the the being of the model of which it isa reproduc- |§ photographic image has singular, existential

tion; it is the model.” import because it is produced from some37

Questioning Media

thing that existed which caused itto be. That pointing to the symmetrical nature of idenis, in photographic and cinematicrepresenta- __ tity. For by making reference to the causal tion, something is always thought to be re- —_ process of photography, the symmetrical presented — either the object itself, a pat- _—_ relation of identity, in this formulation, is tern of light rays, an emanation, a trace, or — blocked from entailing that “If a model y is

an imprint. identical with its image x then the model y The purpose of this paper is to examine ___ represents the image x” because it is not the

the re-presentational theory, and several case that the image is a causal factor in the subsidiary hypotheses and arguments that — production of the model. That is, a photo of are associated with it, and, finally, to offer | the Empire State Building was not a factor an alternate approach to photographic and in the making of the Empire State Building.

cinematographic representation. If the re-presentational theory diverges from a simple resemblance approach, it also

Problems with the Re-Presentational diverges from our ordinary concept of repre-

Theory sentation, includingtation. photographic represenIndeed, the re-presentational theory

The re-presentational theory of photo- is merely homonymous with our everyday graphic and film representation purports — sense of representation. For example, the re-

that there is an identity relation between presentation sense of representation is the image and its model. Sometimes this — broader than our ordinary notion. It mainnotion is unpacked by the metaphor of a __ tains that acinematic shot and its referent are mold. What are we to regard as the “mold” _ identical because the image is a causal effect in this context? One option, a likely one it — of the light reflected by the model. It is in this

seems to me, is to think that the raw film sense that photographic representation is stock functions as the mold. That is, the — said to be re-presentational. Yet, by this mold “fits” both the final image and its standard, we must endorse many kinds of model. These are related in the manner of _ images that we do not ordinarily count as two subway tokens. This metaphor, in turn, — representational. A close-up of a square inch

could be further explicated by taking the of a bare, undifferentiated wall is a reidentity claim of the re-presentational presentation putatively, but it is hardly what theory to hold that the photograph or film — we usually call a representation. Obviously, image is identical to its singular referent in —_ recognizability is key to our ordinary concept

terms of the pertinent patterns of light, of representation. Re-presentation, howemanating from the referent, which gave _ ever, proposes itself as a physicalist analysis rise to the image. Thus, a strong version of | without psychological dimensions. Therethe re-presentational theory maintains that: — fore, all manner of shots — like the close-up For any photographic or film image x and __ of the wall — satisfy the requirements of reits referent y, x represents y if and only if | presentation without being what we gener-

(1) x is identical to y (in terms of pertinent ally think of as representational images. patterns of light), and (2) yis a causal factor Thus, the operative concept of re-prein the production of x. The term pertinentis sentation here is broader than our ordinary included in the formula in order to attempt concept of representation in that shots we to accommodate the transposition of color — would typically count as non-objective and

scenes into black-and-white photography. contrary to the style called representaThis theory of re-presentation has certain —_ tionalism, the re-presentational theory must advantages over the simple forms of resem- _— count as representational in its very sense of

blance theories attacked by Nelson Good- _ the word.

man.’ It cannot be reduced to absurdity by It may be felt that the re-presentational 38

Uniqueness Claims for Cinematographic Representation

theorist’s stipulation that photographic and __ existential import that is presupposed by the cinematic representation is defined by iden- __re-presentation thesis. Thus, the re-pre-

tity of light patterns between image and _ sentation thesis is narrower than our ordi-

model will enable him to pick out only nary concept of representation because recognizable images via his theory. This, — there are cases of trick photography which however, is not true. Angle and distance — we ordinarily regard as representations but from the subject of the shot may preserve = which are not re-presentations of actually identity of light patterns to a station point existing events and objects.

but they in no way guarantee recognizabil- The issue of singular existential import ity. This is especially true of very close also raises questions about whether the shots, very long shots and unfamiliar cam- _— preceding definition of photographic and

era angles. cinematic representation is able to logically Not only is the re-presentational theory — support the overall re-presentational thesis.

broader than our ordinary concept of repre- That is, are the conditions in that thesis sentation, itis also more narrow. Thiscanbe enough to pick out a singular, actually seen by recalling the emphasis the theory _ existing referent for each photographic or places on the existential import of the cinematic image? I think they are not. photographic and cinematic image. Every The re-presentation theory, outlined earsuch image supposedly re-presents asingular __ lier, proposes something like identity of light

referent that actually existed. Now consider _ patterns as a condition for singular reprocess shots, especially where these shots presentation. Yet such identity is not a are made via an optical printer. Certainly, — sufficient condition for singular representawe ordinarily think of these shots as repre- _ tion because it is not enough to show that an

sentational. When Gary Cooper gallops image and a model deliver identical light along on his horse to the accompaniment of | patterns to a station point in order to a back-projection, that is representational. — establish that the image re-presents a given

Moreover, the image wouldremainrepresen- model. The reason for this is that many tational if the image was achieved by means models will have the same identical patterns

of an optical printer rather than back- of light.’ This is borne out by several of the projection. All those optically constructed |= Ames experiments in perception.’ That is, it images in Star Wars are representational in _ has been shown experimentally that we can, terms of our ordinary concept of representa- for example, build all sorts of different, tion as is Alexander Shitomirski’s photo- — distorted rooms, among other things, which montage “Dieser Gefreite fiihrt Deutsch- deliver to a prearranged, monocular station land in die Katastrophe.” Yet if we construe —_ point the same patterns of light as a normal representation as re-presentation a problem — room. In this respect, in terms of identity of arises — viz., what is the existential import light patterns alone, one cinematic image of the printed shots or the photomontage? — could be identical with many models. Which What is the one place in the world that is — one would it re-present?

being re-presented? Even if there is an The proponent of the re-presentation answer here it is certainly a radically differ- | thesis would undoubtedly answer that our ent sort of answer than the one we normally — cinematic image re-presents the model that supply to the question of what is represented |= was involved in its causation. But this

by such “trick photography,” process shots proposal is easily confounded. Let us and photomontages. My own guess is that gather three shots of three different Amescertain types of process shots will not count type rooms, each of which delivers an as representations under the re-presenta- identical batch of light patterns to a camtional analysis because of the requirement of — era. We have three different shots, each re39

Questioning Media

presenting a different, actually existing then x is identical to z. Hence, each of place. Now let us superimpose these three __ these shots if they are identical to the refer-

shots in printing so that all the contours ent, must also be identical to each other. within the shots match. The shots, though — But as a matter of fact the shots will not be of different places, are all identical. And by identical in terms of the light patterns they

superimposition, each place becomes a_ deliver. Thus, the re-presentational thesis, causal factor in our fourth image which, in _—_‘ formulated in virtue of identical light pat-

turn, is identical with the other three shots. terns, when combined with some mundane In such a case, it is impossible for us to say _—_ facts of photography, leads to a contradic-

that image x (our fourth shot) re-presentsa tion. Consequently, this version of the model y (one of the models for the first thesis must be abandoned. three shots) even though x and a given y It may be thought that the thesis can be are identical in terms of patterns of light — saved by arguing that what is re-presented is

and though y is a causal element in x’s__ not a pattern of light but rather a certain production. Here we see that identity and —_ view from the past, a view, for example, that

causal efficacy are not jointly sufficient to | would have been available of the object

guarantee singular re-presentation. from a certain position, under certain condiAdmittedly the preceding counter- tions, such as through a certain type of lens. example presents a highly specialized case. This alternative, however, is unattractive. However, there are even deeper problems _ For it asks us to countenance in our ontolthat beset the re-presentational thesis, ones ogy the existence of such things as views-ofthat defeat at least the preceding formula- _—_— objects in addition to accepting the individu-

tion conclusively. Let us photograph a man _ ally existing objects themselves. But one with a 16mm motion picture camera. Let us _—_ doubts that there are such things as views-of-

take three shots in which we keep the man ___ objects over and above the objects that we the same size in the finished frame of each view. Moreover, if there are such things then

shot while also varying the focal length of ' there are an infinite number of them for the lens in each shot. We may take one shot __ there will be a view of every object there is with a 9mm lens, one witha 17mm lens and from every point in the universe as well as a one with a 100mm lens — i.e., one shot with — view from every conceivable lens as they are

a normal lens, one with a wide-angle lens stationed at every point in the universe. and one with a telephoto lens.!° The re- Ontological parsimony, in short, urges us sult will be three shots each of which, all not to proliferate actually existing views to things being equal, one would expect to be _ be re-presented in photos and films.

re-presentations of the self-same subject. Another option might be to say that what However, as a matter of empirical fact, the is re-presented is a trace from the past.!! patterns of light will differ — differ grossly | However, the problems here are similar to enough that the disparities can be detected — those encountered in the formulation based

even by the untrained eye. They all puta- upon identical patterns of light. For a tively re-present the same subject, yet each __ tracing, in any full-blooded sense, suggests

delivers a different pattern of light, not matching contours between the original and because of physical changes in the subject | the medium that traces it. But the requirebut because of changes in the focal length ment of matching contours again prompts us

of the lens. The re-presentational theory to consider the disparate “tracings” that commits us to viewing each of these shots different lenses will afford of the object. as identical, “to a mold,” with its subject. | Thus, though each tracing supposedly identiHowever, identity is a transitive relation-— cally matches the original, contradictorily, if x is identical to y, and y is identical to z, __ the tracings will not identically match each 40

Uniqueness Claims for Cinematographic Representation

other. Nor is it helpful to claim special — sentation, it is extremely important that the authority for the rendering of the “normal” photographic process is a mechanical prolens, for what has been considered the — cess. Bazin, Sontag and Cavell believe that “normal” lens has changed over history. since photographic images are made autoAt this point, it may seem that the best matically via a physical process, they are manoeuver for the re-presentational theorist | objective, objective in a way that is impossi-

is to drop the suggestion of an outright ble, for example, in painting. This objectividentity relation between the original and __ ity, moreover, is taken by someone like Bazin

the image and to say that the process of to indicate that the filmmaker is committed projection re-presents the exact imprint or _ to realism as the proper aesthetic direction impression of light that was reflected by _ for the film medium.

objects and people in the past. This is Bazin writes probably true enough, but it makes out-of-

focus shots, wildly underexposed shots, Originality in photography as distinct from shots with mounds of vaseline on the lens, originality in painting lies in the essentially flash-pans, in fact, every kind of shot, no objective character of photography. (Bazin here

. .; makes a point ofortheunrecognizable, fact that the lens, the basis matter.; how distorted < of photography, is in French called the ,“ob-

representational. That Is, to define cine- jectif,” a nuance that is lost in English. Tr.) For matic and photographic representation in the first time, between the originating object and terms ofre-presentations ofluminousimpres- _jts reproduction there intervenes only the instru-

sions from the past makes every photograph __ mentality of a nonliving agent. For the first time and cinematic shot representational whether —an image of the world is formed automatically, or not they are of the sort normally catego- —_ without the creative intervention of man. The rized as representational. This is to sap the _—_ personality of the photographer enters into the

concept of photographic representation of proceedings only in his selection of the object to

any significant contrast and to make its > photographed and by way of the purpose he application exorbitantly uninformative. This has in mind. Although the final result may reflect

of his personality, this does not;play also renders the; something concept useless ; . . ; the same role as is logically played by that of thefor painter.

someone like Bazin who hop es to ground his All the arts are based on the presence of man, advocacy of a specific cinematic style of only photography derives an advantage from his realism on the notion of re-presentation absence. Photography affects us like a phenomeinsofar as cinematic representation con- non in nature, like a flower or a snowflake whose ceived of as the re-presentation of animprint — vegetable or earthly origins are an inseparable is any shot in any style. The re-presentation _ part of their beauty.”

thesis of photographic representation must . . ;

be rejected, therefore, because, under the ‘From these considerations, Bazin surlikeliest interpretations, it either leads to mses that “. . . the cinema is objectivity in

contradictions or it is vacuous. time.”!3 And it is this connection with objectivity that determines the proper use of the medium for him. Bazin says

Subsidiary Arguments Concerning

Uniqueness Claims for Photographic The aesthetic qualities of photography are to

Representation be sought in its power to lay bare the realities. It is not for me to separate off, in the complex

The Automatism Argument fabric of the objective world, here a reflection on a damp sidewalk, there a gesture of a child. Only

For proponents of the idea that photographic _the impassive lens, stripping its object of all those and cinematic representation are essentially —_ ways of seeing it, those piled-up preconceptions, distinct from other forms of pictorial repre- _ that spiritual dust and grime with which my eyes 41

Questioning Media

have covered it, is able to present it in all its | subjectivity is excluded, so to speak, from

virginal purity to my attention. . . .”!4 the machine. These dimensions of objectivity are said to be special to the photographic

This argument appears to be that since media. But are they special to photography

cinematography and photography are me- and film in any way that marks a real chanical/automatic processes, they are difference between the photographic arts objective — both in the sense that their and other representational arts? images are objects, the products of natural When I write a novelistic description of a processes, and in the sense that they are room and my fingers touch the keyboard of not subjective, i.e., not personal visions. | my IBM, the process of printing the words is For Bazin, this objectivity, furthermore, automatic. Is the mechanical process bemakes a certain kind of realism possible— = tween me and the final text any less autonamely it makes showing things without matic with the IBM typewriter than with the preconceptions possible. And, given that camera? Indeed, there is a way in which it is this is a unique power of cinema, it follows appropriate to describe a typewritten (or

for Bazin that cinema should be used to even a handwritten) page as a natural

implement a realist project. product, if what one means by that is that The first thing to note about thisargument the page is a result of a causal process. is that it does not give logical support to a_ _—_ Likewise the fine arts have physical, natural,

style of realism. At most the conclusion causal dimensions. When a sculptor hamfavors a form of realism conceived of as the _ mers his chisel or a painter daubs oil on his showing of things without preconceptions. canvas, certain physical processes come into

This corresponds to the way that Bazin play. In both cases the media in question characterizes some aspects of Italian Neo- have physical dimensions whose mechanical realism but it does not entail endorsement of | manipulation involves natural causal prosuch favored Bazinian techniques as long- — cesses. Every representation in every media takes and medium shots. Nor does this notion is, IN some sense, a product of a causal

of non-preconceived presentation corre- process. Cinema and photography are not spond to some enshrined variety of realism- _—_ alone in this respect. Every medium in some

as-such. Zola, for example, thought that the | degree has a physical-process dimension realist was committed to the scientific view- and, therefore, has some aspect of “the point of things rather than being committed automatic” about it. Thus, at best, the sort to an eschewal of any viewpoint. Thus, — of objectivity that Bazin attributes to cinema even if cinematic images were such that they — can only differ in degree rather than kind show the world without preconceptions, no froma similar type of objectivity to be found existing style of realism can be grounded in __in all representational media.

this fact and this fact alone. But one wonders whether Bazin can However, an even deeper error besets the |= sustain even a mild claim for cinema’s argument from the start. Its basic premise is __ relatively greater objectivity. One problem that some sort of objectivity is built into the — with Bazin’s position is his peculiar notion of

photographic medium because it is an auto- “objectivity.” When someone claims that matic or mechanical process. The automatic cinema is objective what we really want to nature of photographic reproduction is know is whether or not cinema’s mechanical thought to be objective in the sense that the = processes either guarantee objectivity or photographic image is a natural product-— —_ exclude subjectivity where those terms are like a snowflake — and inthe sense that once ~ used in their normal epistemic senses. We

the photographic process is set in motion, are not concerned with the sense of “objec42

.;lhh-

Uniqueness Claims for Cinematographic Representation

tivity” through which the photographic im- _‘ The Re-presentation of Objects

age can be construed as a natural product/ ; ;

object. And when we focus on the epistemic pazin believes t hie oe ane by exten sense of objectivity, it is apparent that it is tial an ort. A ee ra hicinaa ° is alwavs not true that cinema’s mechanical processes an oye 6 f ohnethin P specifi an + ig * either guarantee objectivity or exclude sub- ‘mage e f the object © i. ces ven ts and

jectivity. They cannot guarantee objective 5 Jee'ss P ‘ ; results because the processes, in and of persons that gave rise (0 It. A photographic themselves, can’t guarantee any sort of image re-presents its model. The image is success objec tive or otherwise. An at- rooted in reality. Thus, Bazin, and certain of temp ted ph ; to of a room may be overex- his followers, such as Stanley Cavell, hold posed beyond all recognition — and that as that with regard to photographic images ~ in an automatic result of the process of photog- contrast to paintings and drawings ~ It ak

raphy. That is, photography as a set of ways makes sense to ask what lies beyond physical reactions doesn’t guarantee objec- any Photograpne image d weet . joing the

tive results insofar as it doesn’t guarantee Je 16 C 10)

any recognizable results. To get recogniz- the image. Undoubtedly, the belief that the

able results requires a photographer adjust- photo graphic meee 1S 4 slice out of the ing the camera mechanism, the lighting, etc. continuum of reality is one reason that many However. once this is a dmitte d then it mn Bazinians champion the idea of lateral depth

clear that the photographer can set the of held in opposition to the painterly and “automatic” process in action in such a way theatrical conceptions of the frame as an that the results are highly subjective and enclosed box - But it Is important to recall personal. Imagine a photographer with a that this stylistic choice is purportedly defenphobia for vegetables — following Weston’s sible by reference to an ontological tact monumentalizing examples, he could easily about photographic images ~ tat ney Fe

transform a green pepper and some carrots biects P , > P , , into a giant threatening insect, armored and Basin himself does not reallv supplv an horned. This is not to say that there cannot . Y SUPP 'Y be objective photographs — e.g., those of argument for this point. However, the lead-

Cartier-Bresson. The point is rather that the deo, Covet ory aan > Sraney waves

question of the objectivity or subjectivity of Lo. 5 y 8

a photograph or a film cannot be settled by what it is that films reproduce? He sees two reference to the automatic mechanical pro- major alternatives: either f ims reproduce cesses of the medium. Thus, realism does the very objects that give BSe to the image not follow from the supposed “automatic or the film reproduces the sight or appear objectivity” of the medium because there is ance of the object represented by the image. no such automatic objectivity. Moreover, it Cavell writes should be pointed out that evenif Bazinhad = We said that a record reproduces a sound, but we succeeded in establishing that the cinematic cannot say that a photograph reproduces a sight image is, in some distinctive sense, objective (or a look, or an appearance). A sight is an object

in terms of being the product of a natural (usually a large object like the Grand Canprocess, this would have no implications for YO") -- - Objects don’t make sights or have realism. It would show that cinematic im- sights . . . they are too close to their sights to give , , . them up for reproducing.!” ages can be called real in certain specifiable

respects, not that they are or should be And apart from these ordinary language

realistic. considerations, Cavell also argues that 43

Questioning Media

“sights” are rather queer metaphysical en- from this that the only alternative that is left

tities that might be better banished from is to say that then it must be the case that one’s ontology in the name of simplicity-— _it is the object that is reproduced. For in-

indeed, imagine how very many “sights” stead we may say that what photography each object, viewed from an infinity of does is to produce a recognizable proxy for angles, will have. But ifitisnotthe “sight” or | its model. Therefore, the image does not the “appearance” of the object that a photo- _ literally re-present anything whatsoever.

graphic image re-presents, then it must be It should also be noted that re-presentathe object itself that is re-presented. Thatis, — tionalists are fond of connecting the sup-

Cavell assumes that a photographic image posed existential import of photographic must either re-present the sight of the object images to an essential distinction between or the object itself. And, since there is no _— paintings and films. It is urged that with such thing as a sight of an object (indepen- _ paintings it does not make sense to ask what

dent of the object), then it must be that is adjacent to an image — such is the signifiphotographic images re-present objects. cance of the framing convention in fine art — The obvious problem with this argument — whereas it always makes sense to ask what is

is the assumption of the premise that = offscreen with film. photographic images either re-present ob- However, I see no reason to believe that jects themselves or sights of objects. The — it never makes sense to ask what is adjacent problem here is not that Cavell has failed to —_ to the view portrayed by a painting —1.e.,

give us enough alternatives. Rather the | what we would see if the painting did not problem is that the premise begs the ques- end where it does but continued on. To tion about the nature of cinematic represen- —_ support this, imagine a painting of the battle

tation by assuming that the photographic of Waterloo. I see Napoleon’s grenadiers image must re-present something from the — repulsed by Wellington’s thin red line. I am

past, and by assuming that the task of taken by the historical accuracy of the work. analysis is simply a matter of determining I turn to the painter and ask him “where are what that something is — is it an object ora _ the Prussians?” It seems perfectly reasonsight? But I think that we can ask why we able to me for him to point to a place on the

must believe that anything is in fact re- wall two feet from the left of the painting presented via photographic representation. and say “they’d be about here given the The idea of re-presentation is doubtless a scale and orientation of the painting.” Inpowerful metaphor for the phenomenon of deed, since this painting is one that is representation. But we must ask whether it committed to historical accuracy, this anis literally true that anything —- whether an =swer makes more sense than possible alternaobject or a sight — is re-presented or repro- __ tives such as “in the world of this painting,

duced by photography or cinematography. there are no Prussians at the battle of In fact, in an earlier section of this essay the = Waterloo.” I am not denying that a painter

very intelligibility of the concept of “re- could portray a fictional battle of Waterloo

presentation” was called into question. where there were no Prussians. But this A representation, I want to say, presents a would be the special case, one, indeed, that stand-in or a proxy of a model; it does not _ the painter would have to flag in some way if re-present either the model or the sight of | he wanted viewers to delete the Prussians the model. Cavell may be right when he says __ from his Waterloo.

that the sight or appearance of the object is On the other hand, it is not true that it “too close” to the object to be pried off for | always makes sense to ask what is adjacent re-presentation. But he is wrong to surmise —_ to a photographic or cinematographic im44

Uniqueness Claims for Cinematographic Representation

age. Again the problem of fiction looms in An Alternative Approach to Photographic a way that makes this issue almost unintelli- | and Cinematic Representation gible. For re-presentationalists believe that

cinema literally re-presents the models that Perhaps the most peculiar feature of the give rise to the image. Thus, if it always concept of re-presentation, which is held by makes sense to ask what is adjacent to peoplelike Bazin and Cavell, is the charactercinematic images, we may arrive at some ization it implies of what is represented by very perplexing answers. What’s next to the _fictional films and photographs. The reland of Oz? The MGM commissary. And presentational theory maintains that films apart from these obvious problems, it have existential import — the film re-presents

seems to me that there are films, just as some x from the past. Film images, in there are paintings, whose internal struc- | supposed contrast to all painting, represent tures are designed to imply that a viewer _ things in a unique way — i.e., they re-present should not ask what is adjacent to what is — things — which compels us to accept their

on-camera because the film presents its referents as real. A re-presentationalist imagery as that of a fantastic realm or | would seem to have to defend this claim by of a realm completely constructed by con- _— saying something like “Citizen Kane reventions rather than in terms of the mime- _ presents Orson Welles.” But this is a curious sis of the normal space of physics. Blood of _ thing to say since what is most relevant to

a Poet, Andalusian Dog and Heaven and _ viewing the fiction Citizen Kane is that it Earth Magic are examples of the former. represents Kane. It certainly does not reRohmer’s Perceval is an example of the present Kane nor does it “fictionally reprelatter. Rohmer’s images do not signal that sent” Welles. If it does re-present Welles, they are to be regarded as realistic. They — that seems beside the point if we are interare completely conventionalized, making di- ested in appreciating the film as a fictional rect allusions to theatrical staging and the —_ representation — in which case it is about scale changes of medieval painting. We are Kane and not Welles.

best advised not to assume that there are A photo of Tip O’Neill might be said spaces adjacent to those on camera. We _ to re-present Tip O’Neill — photos, in our are indeed best advised to regard the frame culture, are generally used to document. line as a proscenium insofar as this accords __Re-presentationalists extrapolate from this with the overt theatricality of the rest of the | conventional use of the photo — documenfilm. Moreover, this theatricality is rigor- tation — to an account of all photographic ously enforced to give the film its aura of | andcinematicrepresentation. But, of course, artificiality, decorum, containedness and _ the presupposition that even photography — delicacy. To say of Perceval that it always let alone feature films — can only be used to makes sense to ask what is immediately | document or to literally re-present is quite offscreen, it seems to me, is a profound mistaken. Richard Avedon’s recent advermistake. It makes no more sense than to _ tisements for Christian Dior are miniature ask what is next to Swan Lake —-that is, fictions replete with three characters: Wizjust beyond the leg curtains — in the ballet ard, Mouth and Oliver. The character of

of the same name. It is the purpose of the Wizard is modeled by the avant-garde work or genre in question that determines dramaturg André Gregory. Yet when I look

whether it makes sense to ask what is at one of these ads, I may be forced to adjacent to the action represented on- accept the fact that the character, The screen, on canvas or on stage. The issue is Wizard, had to have some model who

not an ontological one. existed at some time and some place, but 45

Questioning Media

this admission does not entail that one in short, departs radically from what we characterizes the ad as a representation of | would normally describe as the reference of André Gregory. That André Gregory plays _fictional movies.

the role of The Wizard is irrelevant to the The problem that the re-presentationalist fictional representation at work in the _ theory confronts with the issue of fiction is a photo. The re-presentational conception of — function of its implicit assumption that there photography, on the other hand, seems to is only one form of cinematic representation. say that what is important about any photo- __ But like other media, artistic and otherwise, graphic image — whether in a fictional con- _ there is more than one mode of representatext or otherwise — is what it re-presents. — tionin cinema. In fact, we can mobilize some Yet what is literally re-presented ina photo- of Monroe Beardsley’s terminology in order graphic fiction may be completely irrelevant to illustrate that there are at least three types to what the fiction represents. That is, when — of representation in cinema which we must

confronted with fiction, the re-presen- distinguish before we can appreciate the tationalist theory implies strange results by —_ representational range of the medium.!”

ontologically misplacing, so to speak, the The first level of cinematic representation focus or our attention — e.g., having it that is physical portrayal. That is, every shot in a it is the re-presentation of André Gregory __ live-action photographic film physically porrather than that it is the fictional representa- __ trays its model, a definite object, person or

tion of The Wizard that concerns the — event that can be designated by a singular

Avedon series. !® term. It is in the physical portrayal sense that This anomaly in regard to photography _ it can be said that Psycho represents Anescalates when we turn to the issue of — thony Perkins rather than Norman Bates — it feature films. At least with photography, © was Anthony Perkins who served as the documentation rather than fictionalizationis | source of the image. Every live action shot usually thought of as the primary role or — will physically portray its model. This is purpose of still photography in our society. obviously the point re-presentationalists It is easy to see how, in our culture, one have in mind when they speak of films recould confuse the pervasiveness of the snap- _ presenting the past. Because of the way such

shot with the essence of photography. But it images are produced, every shot in a live is harder to see how the theorist can action film physically portrays whatever peooverlook the possibility of fiction when it ple, places and things caused the image. Such comes to the feature film because fiction is — shots are called “recordings” in the most surely the most visible purpose for which __ basic sense of the term if the only representafilm is used in our culture. What is most tional function that they perform is physical bizarre about the re-presentationalist theory — portrayal. A physical portrayal is a represenis that it is strangely ill-suited to account for _ tation of the particular person, object or

what is represented in fictional films. Films event that caused the image. Traditional seem to become records of actors and actual realist film theory is preoccupied with physiplaces; their fictional referents dissolve, ina ___ cal portrayal to the extent that this mode of

manner of speaking. M is about Peter Lorre representation is taken to be either the only

rather than about a psychopathic child use of shots or the most essential, most killer; The Creature From the Black Lagoon — important or most fundamental use of shots.

is not about a rivulet off the Amazon but As a result, the use of shots in fictional about Wakulla Springs, Florida. Films you representations becomes utterly mystified thought were representations of castles, | and confused since the realist must give an graveyards and forests are really about account of what is represented in a fiction in studio sets. The re-presentationalist theory, | terms of physical portrayal. 46

Uniqueness Claims for Cinematographic Representation

But physical portrayal is not the only portrayal, possible. A shot that physically mode of representation in film and photogra- —_— portrays Anthony Perkins in Psycho depicts

phy. A film, for example, not only physi- a madman while also, given its place in the cally portrays its source — a particular per- context of the story, it nominally portrays son, place, thing, event or action-— but it Norman Bates. A shot is a nominal poralso depicts a class or collection of objects, _—_ trayal of a person, object or event when it

designated by a general term. A shot from _ represents a particular person, place or Psycho physically portrays Anthony Perkins _ thing different from the person, place or while also depicting a man; likewise a shot _ thing that gave rise to the image. Nominal of the Golden Gate Bridge in Attack of the _ portrayal in film is a function of such Killer Tomatoes physically portrays the factors as voice-over commentary, titles, an

Golden Gate but also depicts a bridge. on-going story or editing. These devices Every shot of a live action film physically establish that the objects, persons and portrays its model—some specific indi- events shown in the image “stand for” vidual — while also depicting a member of a _ particular objects, persons and events other class, describable by a general term— man, _ than the ones that caused the image. For bridge, fire, cow, battle, etc. A film may be example, in the fictional world of the story

important in terms of what it physically of Psycho, the images stand for Norman portrays — e.g., a record of President Rea- _—_‘ Bates rather than for Anthony Perkins, the

gan’s oath of office. Or a shot may be actor whose presence in front of Hitchimportant in terms of what it depicts. | cock’s camera brought those images of Imagine, for example, a montage introduc- _—_ Bates into existence. Nominal portrayal is tion to an evening news program. Let ussay — the most important mode of representation

that this montage includes an image of a in terms of the way our culture uses film — fire — one that occurred on the northwest _ i.e., uses feature films — since nominal porcorner of 23rd Street and Lexington Avenue __ trayal is the basis of all fiction films.

in New York City on 12/11/72. But what is By advocating that cinematic and photoimportant in this prologue to the news _ graphic representation be seen as participatprogram — important in terms of what is —ingin nominal portrayal and depiction as well

being communicated —- would not be the as in physical portrayal, I am, of course, portrayal of a particular fire (i.e., the fire of giving up the prospect of defining a unique 12/11/72), but rather that the image stands form of representation that is peculiar or for, represents, depicts a fire, which is the specific to only the photographic media. For kind of thing — more specifically news— nominal portrayal and depiction, as well as with which the program is concerned. A __ various techniques of physical portrayal, are

film image can depict a class as well as available in other than photographic media. physically portray an individual. And in Nor should we be surprised that the photosome contexts of communication it may be _ graphic media share the range of modes of the case that only what the image depicts is representation available to other media. For relevant for communication. That is, the — the technologies of photography and cinema shot’s relation to its model can be communi- arrived after other media had already refined

catively irrelevant. a series of modes of representation. SubseWhat is theoretically important about quently, the practitioners of the new media depiction — as a mode of cinematic repre- looked to already existing media to find sentation — is that it splits the shot, as a purposes and projects to which the new communication element, from its source, | photographic technologies could be applied. and it is this split that makes our third _ Fictionalization, for example, especially in mode of cinematic representation, nominal _ regard to film, provided one such preexisting 47

Questioning Media

purpose. Thus, film became atechnologyfor 11. Both Bazin and Sontag explicitly evoke the

producing the nominal portrayals of Rhett notion of a trace. Butler and Scarlet O’Hara, of King Kongand 12. Bazin, 13. Dracula. The modes of representation that 13. Bazin, 14.

are relevant to consider in the analysis and 14. Bazin, 15. . . .

appreciation of cinema and photography are 15. Emile Zola, The Experimental Novel,” in

. Modern ed. George determined byLiterary thePrinceton usesRealism, to which these ,;Press, —- Becker ; (Princeton: University 1969), technologies are put. There is not an essence pp. 162-196. of photographic media or of photographic 16. Cavell, 23. representation that directs the evolution of 17. Cavell, 1920. these media or our proper appreciative 18. In The World Viewed, Cavell appears to responses to these media. The media rather connect the re-presentationalist consequence

are adapted to the cultural purposes and that we view actors, such as Bogart, in projects we find for them. The relevant types feature films to the phenomenon of the star of representation we observe in photography system. Thus, one SUTTHUSES, Cavell does not

and cinema are not a function of the ontology find it odd to say that in viewing feature of the photographic image but of the pur- fiction films we are, among other things,

, . respectively viewing — atfor thestill level poses we have found andof. our appreciative response — Katherine Hepburn, Cary Grant, moving photography. Buster Keaton, et al. Indeed, Cavell seems to want to correlate what he takes to be the

Notes camera’s natural affinity for individuals to the flourishing of the star system as an expressive 1. André Bazin, What is Cinema?, trans. H. dimension of cinema. It is as if the star system Gray, Vol. I (Berkeley: University of Califor- is thought to flow from the photographic

nia Press, 1967), pp. 96-97. nature of the medium. However, the star

2. Bazin, 14. system does not correlate exclusively with 3. Stanley Cavell, The World Viewed (Boston: film. Theater, opera and dance, indeed all the

Harvard University Press, 1979), p. 17. performing arts, have star systems. Star

4. Bazin, 14. systems, it seems to me, are a function of 5. Roland Barthes, Camera Lucida, trans. Rich- institutional arrangements rather than of the

ard Howard (New York: Hill and Wang, ontology of any medium. Moreover, when-

1981), p. 88. ever a medium is representational and it has a Delta, 1978), p. 154. that a spectator is responding both to a

6. Susan Sontag, On Photography (New York: star system, it appears reasonable to allow

7. Nelson Goodman, Languages of Art (India- character and to the star portraying the napolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1968), p. 4. character — e.g., both to Faust and to Rich-

8. Goodman, pp. 11-12. ard Tucker. The kind of dual attention

9. W. H. Ittleson, The Ames Demonstrations in implied by star systems does not seem pecuPerception (Princeton: Princeton University har to photographic arts.

Press, 1952). 19. Monroe Beardsley, Aesthetics (New York:

10. For a concrete example of this see Plate 44 Harcourt, Brace and World, 1958), espein Guide to Filmmaking by Edward Pincus cially Chapter VI, section 16. See also (New York: Signet, 1969). This plate also Goran Hemeren, Representation and Meandemonstrates that identity of light patterns is ing in the Visual Arts (Lund: Scandanavian not really a necessary condition for photo- University Books, 1969) especially Chap-

graphic representation. ter IT.

48

=.a |

for an essentialist answer, and my position

, has been stridently anti-essentialist. Am I IV = now contradicting my earlier position? Not , CHAPTER really. The sort of essentialism that film

Defining the , theorists have traditionally sought is misMoving Image ™ guided, as I hope I have shown. But that - does not preclude the possibility that film has some necessary, general features whose

= explicit acknowledgment is useful in locating (though perhaps not pinpointing) the place of film among the arts. Thus, I intend

to approach the question “What is cinI. Background: The Problem of Medium- ema?” while at the same time avoiding an

Essentialism essentialist answer to that question.

Of course, saying only this is somewhat “What is cinema?” has been one of the — obscure, since essentialism comes in many presiding questions that has agitated many _ shapes and sizes. So in order to clarify my film theorists throughout much of the twenti- |= own approach, I should be overt about the

eth century. The aim of this essay is to try to varieties of essentialism that I wish to provide one sort of answer to this question. — eschew. First and foremost, in answering the Namely, I shall attempt to defend a defini- | question “What is cinema?” [I want to avoid tion of the class of things - moving images — __ the pitfalls of what might be called medium-

to which film belongs and in which, I essentialism, which is the variety of essenbelieve, film is most appropriately catego- __ tialism to which I believe film theorists have rized. My reasons for preferring the idiom of | been most prone. My answer to the question

“moving images” over “cinema” or “film” “What is cinema?” also falls short of what will emerge as my argument proceeds. might be called real-definition essentialism, Moreover, I should also warn the reader on the one hand, and Grecian essentialism, that though I intend to define the moving — on the other hand. But more on that later. image, my definition is not what is called a | For now it is most instructive to indicate “real” or an “analytical” or an “essential” |§ how my approach grows out of a response to definition —i.e., a definition in terms of | medium-essentialism, since it is mediumnecessary conditions that are jointly suffi- | essentialism that has been of primary concient. Instead, my definition comprises five — cern for film theorists.

necessary conditions for the moving image. I What is medium-essentialism? Roughly it do not claim joint sufficiency for them. ForI is the doctrine that each artform has its own suspect that would involve more precision __ distinctive medium, a medium that distinthan the subject will bear. And, like Aris- — guishes it from other other forms. This is a totle, I think that it is advisable to respect general doctrine, espoused by many theothe limits of precision available in a given __rists across the arts. Perhaps it was especially

domain of inquiry. attractive to film theorists because it began

If you have read the preceding articles in to suggest a way in which to block accusathis book, it may appear peculiar to you _ tions that film was merely a subspecies of that I should now embark upon the enter- __ theater.

prise of attempting to answer the question Furthermore, essentialists of this ilk re“What is cinema?” or, at least, a question gard the medium as an essence in the sense very much like it. For the question “What __ that it, the medium/essence, has teleological

is cinema?” is generally taken as a request ramifications. That is, the medium qua 49

Questioning Media

essence dictates what it is suitable todo with the essence of an artform — its medium — the medium. A weak, negative version of indicates, limits or dictates the style and/or this is the “limitation” view that maintains content of the artform; and, finally, that film that in virtue of its identifying medium, possesses such an essence. certain artforms should not aspire to certain The view that every artform has a distinceffects. Thus, Lessing reproached the at- _ tive medium appears false on several counts. tempt to simulate hyperactivity in stolid, — First, it is not clear that every artform has a

unmoving stone. medium at all. Does literature have a meAlternatively, a stronger version of dium? Words, you might say. But are words medium-essentialism holds that the medium the right sort of thing to constitute a medictates what will function best -intermsof dium? Aren’t media, in the most straightforstyle and/or content — for artists working in __ ward sense, physical, and are words physical

that medium, and that artists ought to in any interesting way? But put that set of pursue those and only those projects that questions aside for heuristic purposes. Even

are most efficiently accommodated by or if words can be taken to constitute the even mandated by the nature of the me- medium of literature, would they amount to dium. For example, it might, on this basis, a distinctive artistic medium? For words are be urged that painters specialize inrepresent- = shared with all types of speech and writing,

ing still moments rather than events.! on the one hand, and with other artforms Medium-essentialism is an exciting idea. like theater, opera, song, and even some For it promises not only a means for differen- | painting and sculpture, on the other hand. tiating artforms, but also for explaining why — Likewise, if one says that the medium of some artworks fail and others succeed. Some ___ literature comprises human events, actions fail, it might be said, because they do not and feelings, that, for similar reasons, would heed the limitations of the medium, often by __ be hardly distinctive.

attempting to do something that some other So, as a general theory of the arts, medium is more essentially suited to dis- | medium-essentialism is false in its first charge; while other artworks in a medium ___ premise. Not all artforms have distinctive

succeed because they do what the mediumis media. Literature does not-—nor do its essentially suited to do-—they realize the — various parishes, including the novel, po-

telos inherent in the medium. Medium- _ etry, and the short story. But perhaps the essentialism may also be enticing because it —_ position can be qualified in a useful way as

addresses artists where they live. This isnot merely stating that some artforms have dry philosophy cataloguing what is after the — distinctive media and those that do, in fact,

fashion of some ontological bureaucrat. possess the teleological structure that Medium-essentialists give the artist helpful | medium-essentialism describes. Then, the

advice about what the artist should and question for us becomes whether film is should not do. Medium-essentialism is not a such an artform? And that, of course, bland, pedantic exercise in definition. Ithas | depends on what one takes the medium of explanatory and pragmatic value. Unfortu- _film to be. If it is identified as light and

nately, it is false. shadows, then film has no distinctive meMedium-essentialism depends onanum-~ dium, since light and shadow are also

ber of presuppositions, many of which are — arguably the medium of painting, sculpture,

extremely controversial. Some of these in- photography, magic lantern shows, and so clude the following: that each artform hasa __ on. Similarly, and for the same reason, light distinctive medium; that the material cause, | and shadow could dictate nothing by way of so to speak, of an artform — its medium - is __film-specific style and content.

also its essence (in the sense of its telos); that Of course, yet another reason that the 50

Defining the Moving Image

premise that each medium has its own fundamental across various artforms and distinctive medium is mistaken is that—in —_ unique to none.

the most literal senses of what a medium Obviously, what is meant by the phrase might be — many artforms (most? all?) pos- = “artistic medium” is highly ambiguous, refer-

sess more than one media, some of which ring sometimes to the physical materials out are hardly distinctive. That is, the view that of which artworks are constructed, someeach and every artform must have a single _ times to the implements that are used to do medium that is uniquely and distinctively its | the constructing and sometimes to the forown must be erroneous, since artforms mal elements of design that are available to generally involve a number of media, includ- _—_ artists in a given practice. This ambiguity

ing frequently overlapping ones. alone might discourage us from relying on For example, if we think of the medium __ the notion of the medium as a theoretically as the material stuff out of which artworks — useful concept. Indeed, I think that we

are made, then painting comprises several might fruitfully abandon it completely, at

media: oil paints, water color, tempera, least in terms of the ways in which it is acrylic, and others. Also, in this rather standardly deployed by aestheticians. Be straightforward sense of media, sculpture — that as it may, it should be clear that most comprises a wide range of media, including = artforms cannot be identified on the basis of at least bronze, gold, silver, wood, marble, a single medium, since most artforms corregranite, clay, celluloid, acrylic (again), and —_— late with more than one medium.

so on. Film is certainly like this. If we think of the On the other hand, if we think of a medium on the basis of the materials from

medium as an implement used to produce an ___ which the images are made, our first impulse artwork, painting can be made by brushes, _might be to say that the medium is obviously

palette knives, fingers, and even human a film strip bearing certain photographic bodies (remember Yves Klein); while sculp- | emulsions. But flicker films, like Kubelka’s tures can be made by means of chisels, blow- Arnulf Rainer, can be made by alternating

torches, casts, and, among other things, | clear and opaque leader, sans photographic fingers. Perhaps every musical instrument is |= emulsion. And one can paint on a clear film

a discrete musical medium in this sense, but, strip and then project it. Moreover, in

then, so is the human voice, and, once principle, video may be developed to the

again, so are fingers. point where in terms of high definition, it Thus, it cannot be the case that every maybe indiscernible from film, or, at least, to

artform has its own distinctive medium since — the point where most of us would have little many (most? all?) artforms possess more _ trouble calling a commercial narrative made

than one medium, many of which them- from fully high-definition video a film. And, selves have divergent and nonconverging of course, if films can be made from magnepotentials. Nor, as these examples should _ tized tape, film would share a medium with suggest, are these media always distinctive music. of one and only one artform. Plastic acrylic If we think of the film medium in terms of figures in painting and sculpture; celluloidin the implements typically employed to make film and sculpture; bodies in painting, sculp- | cinema, cameras undoubtedly come to mind. ture and dance; and fingers, in one way or ' But as our previous example of flicker films

another, everywhere. Furthermore, if we and painted films indicate, cinema can be think of the medium of an artform in terms made without cameras, a point reinforced by of its characteristic formal elements, then the existence of scratch films. And one could the cause is altogether lost. For features like imagine films constructed completely within line, color, volume, shape, and motion are the province of CD-ROM; while, at the same 51

Questioning Media

time, formal features of film — such as line, — ons. To hypostatsize this diversity under the

shape, space, motion, and temporal and _ rubric of something called The Medium obnarrative structures — are things that film scures the richness and complexity of the reshares with many other arts. Consequently, it —_ lations of the artform to its material base(s).

should be clear that, strictly speaking, there | Undoubtedly some might resist my skeptiis no single medium of film from which the — cism about the medium here on the grounds film theorist can extrapolate stylistic direc- | that my construal of medium talk is far too tives; at best there are film media, some narrow. However, at this point in the dialec-

perhaps which await invention even now. tic, the burden of proof rests with them to It may seem counterintuitive to urge that come up with a concept of the medium that we think of media where heretofore we have _is immune to my objections.

referred to the medium. But it shouldn’t. So far I have been challenging two preThere can be little question that photogra- = suppositions of medium-essentialism, viz.., phy is comprised of many media such as the ' that each artform has a unique, singular daguerreotype and the tintype, on the one —=medium and that this is so of film. But the hand, and the polaroid, on the other. How other presumptions of medium-essentialism fine grained we should be in individuating are also worthy of scrutiny, often for reasons media may be problematic. Are panchro- — connected with the issues we have already matic and orthochromatic film stocks differ- | broached.

ent media? Are nitrate and ascetate both The medium-essentialist thinks that the film? Is the fish-eye lens a different me- — so-called medium of an artform is also the dium than the so-called normal lens? One _ essence of the artform in the sense that it can imagine respectable arguments on both _ carries within it the distinctive telos of the sides of these questions. But such disputes form, somewhat in the manner of a gene. notwithstanding, the observation that art- This is a surprising doctrine because many of

forms involve multiple media, which, in the candidates for the medium that one turn, may be frequently mixed, 1s incontro- = encounters are not only shared by different vertible. Talk of the (one and only) medium _—_artforms, but because in many cases — like

with respect to an artform, then, is gener- oil paint or celluloid — the candidates seem ally a misleading simplification or abstrac- | to underdetermine the uses to which they tion. Indeed, it seems to me that there isno might be put.

way to stipulate selectively (from the vari- But the doctrine can also be challenged ous media that comprise a given artform) — when one recalls that artforms do not generan hypostatized medium for the artform at ally possess a single medium but are better the physical level of media that would not thought of in terms of media. For if artforms

be guided by a notion of the proper possess several media, there is no reason to function of the artform, a notion, more- — suppose that they will all converge on a single

over, that is informed by one’s stylistic effect or even a single range of effects. The

interests. media that comprise a single artform may

Of course, by denying that artforms sustain different, nonconverging potentials possess a medium in the way that idea is and possibilities. There is no antecedent standardly used, I do not intend to say that reason to think that all the media that artworks lack a material basis or that they comprise an artform gravitate toward the are not fashioned by physical implements. same range of effects. Indeed, the more My point is simply that artworks in a given media that comprise an artform, the more artform may employ different media, some- _ likely statistically it will be that their assorttimes simultaneously, and that they may be _ ment of effects may diverge. Thus, the fact

constructed through various implementati- that the media of an artform are multiple 52

Defining the Moving Image

tends to undermine the supposition that a _ lege” it) as the medium. This maneuver at single medium (out of all the media) of the least superficially makes the derivation of a artform in question could define the telos of | coherent telos for the artform appear more the artform as a whole. This is not to deny '_ plausible. But this ignores the fact that that even a single medium might have a artforms are constantly expanding their prononconverging range of effects such that it ductive forces. New media are, in principle, might fail to specify asingle coherent endfor always available to artforms, thereby openthe artform. Rather when that possibility is | ing new possibilities to the practice. One can

added to the problem that artforms are no more shackle these developments by composed of multiple media, the probability means of theories that privilege a single that the putative medium might correspond medium in a given artform than one can to an essence or telos of an artform becomes shackle the means of production by means

immensely dubious. of ideology.

In commenting on the multiplicity of the One does not identify the essence or telos

media that may comprise an artform, I of an artform such as film, on the basis of noted that some of the relevant media may something called the medium, nor does this

not have been invented yet. Media are alleged medium indicate or mandate the added to artforms as times goes by. Bellini _—_legitimate domain of exploration in terms of

could not have known that plastic would style or content with respect to an artistic become a medium of sculpture. Moreover, _ practice. One way to see the inadequacy of it almost goes without saying, when media the medium-essentialist’s view in this regard

are added to an artform they may bring is to compare the implications of the with them unexpected, unprecedented possi- |= medium-essentialist’s view for stylistic devel-

bilities, ones that may not correspond to opment with reality. the already existing effects familiar to art- The strongest version of mediumistic ists. Drum machines and samplers have _ essentialism appears to regard artforms as

recently been added to the arsenal of natural kinds outfitted with gene-like promusical media in order to imitate existing | grams that mandate stylistic developments.

sounds, but it was soon discovered that The artform has an unalterable nature — they could also be used creatively to pro- inscribed in the medium — and this unalterduce heretofore unimagined sounds. For able nature dictates style. But this is clearly example, with a sampler one can combine _ a false idea. An artform is not analogous to

the attack of a snare drum and the sustain a natural kind. Artforms are made by of a guitar by means of a careful splice. human beings in order to serve human That an artform is not static—at least purposes. Artforms are not unalterable; because it can acquire new media with they are frequently adapted, altered and unpredictable, nonconverging possibilities — _ reinvented, often to serve preordained stylis-

indicates that one cannot hope to fix the _ tic purposes. And this, moreover, is exactly telos of an artform on the basis of one of its the opposite course of events from that

constituent media. predicted by the medium-essentialist.

It may be that artforms do not possess Consider musical instruments. They have coherent essences in the way in which the a fair claim to be considered artistic media in tradition has supposed. But evenif they did, — the sense that they are physical implements no single medium constitutes the essence or — used to construct artworks. They are media telos of an artform. Perhaps theoreticians in _in the same sense that chalk and crayon are the past have missed this because they have media. Furthermore, new musical instru-

tended to select out one medium of a given ments are constantly being invented and artform and treat it (or, as they say, “privi- | readapted. And, in many cases, these devel53

Questioning Media

opments are driven by stylistic interests. The prefer to say). I only wish to dispute the piano, for example, was introduced at a time crucial premise of the medium-essentialist, when composers were becoming increas- | who maintains that style is determined by ingly interested in sustained crescendos. _ the structure (notably the physical structure) Here, stylistic interests figure in the alter- of the medium. That must be false because ation of the very shape of the medium. sometimes it is style that determines the very Likewise, individual musicians adapt musi- __ structure of media.

cal media to suit their stylistic aims as did I hypothesize that medium-essentialism the jazz performer Jack Teagarden when he ___ derives a great deal of its appeal from its

took the slide off his trombone and cupped association with the apparently commonthe horn with a whiskey glass. In such cases, __ sensical view that artists should not attempt

the medium does not fix the parameters of | to make a medium do what it cannot do. style, but stylistic ambitions dictate the | Once the medium-essentialist secures agree-

production or reinvention of media. ment with this negative prognostication, he Nor is this phenomenon unique to music. — then goes on to suggest that one can also In film, the move to various wide-screen — specify certain determinate things that an processes was undertaken, to a certain ex- _ artist ought to do with the medium. But tent, in order to facilitate certain “realistic” | two points are worth noting here. stylistic effects that practitioners had ob- First, there is no way logically to get from

served imperfectly realized in earlier for- the truistic, negative prognostication to mats.? Likewise, in the late 1910s and early some robust, positive prescription of any 1920s, as Kristen Thompson has shown, determinateness about what artists should filmmakers introduced the use of portrait do with the medium. Second, the negative lenses and gauze over the lens to create — prognostication itself is idle. It is an empty noticeably soft images for certain stylistic | admonition for the simple reason that if

effects. And there is also the case of the something truly cannot be done with a reintroduction of the use of arc lamps for — certain medium, then no one will do it. No black-and-white cinematography that Welles one can do the impossible. The case is and Toland pioneered for stylistic effects closed. But also, again, from the vacuous involving depth of field in Citizen Kane, — warning that no one should do what it is which others picked up in the 1940s. Insuch impossible to do with the medium, nothing cases, the “medium” is modified or re- — follows about what live possibilities of the invented in order to serve stylistic purposes. |§ medium an artist ought to pursue. MediumThe so-called medium is physically alteredto — essentialists who leave the impression that coincide with the dictates of style, ratherthan — their positive recommendations are implied

style docilely following the dictates of some by the negative injunction to refrain from

fixed medium. making a medium do what it cannot are What cases like this suggest, of course, is | simply trading in non sequiturs.

that, contra the medium-essentialist, stylis- I have spent so much time disputing the tic developments need not follow the “direc- | presuppositions of medium-essentialism be-

tives” of the so-called medium (even if one cause of my conviction that this approach could identify said “directives”) because in has unfortunately dominated previous atmany cases, it is stylistic considerations that tempts to answer the question “What is influence the invention, adaptation and re- cinema?” Thus, in what follows, I will define

invention of artistic media. This is not to film, or what I call the moving image deny that sometimes artists arrive at their without reference to a specific physical distinctive stylistic choices by contemplating | medium, and, furthermore, my definition features of the medium (or “the media,” asI —_ will not have stylistic ramifications for what 54

Defining the Moving Image

film artists should and should not do. The __ being of the model of which it is a reproduc-

problems of medium-essentialism become, tion; it is the model.” in other words, constraints on my theory, Among other things, what Bazin intends demarcating certain areas of speculation to achieve by emphasizing the photographic where I shall not tread. By way of preview, __ basis of film is to mark the essential differwhat I intend to produce are five necessary — ence between film and other picture-making conditions for what I call the moving image. __ processes like painting. Those traditional Moreover, as I will try to explain, this does _ picture-making processes are representanot amount to the assertion of anew kind of __ tional, and what is distinctive about represenessentialism — of either the real-definition tation, in Bazin’s opinion, is that it is rooted or Grecian variety — for reasons that I shall in resemblance. But film, like photography,

defend in my concluding remarks. is presentational, not representational, according to Bazinians. It presents objects, per-

«eye . . sons and events again, and, in consequence,

HI. Revisiting Photographic Realism there is some kind of identity relation be-

In this section, I shall attempt to introduce — tween photographic and cinematographic imone necessary condition for what I call the ages of x and x itself. Moreover, this distincmoving image. I shall try to argue on behalf — tion between presentational images, on the

of this condition dialectically by showing — one hand, and representational images, on how a case for it can emerge in the process __ the other, is connected for Bazin to the fact of demonstrating the shortcomings of one _ that photographic and cinematographic im-

traditional view of the essence of cin- ages are machine-made whereas more tradiema, namely photographic realism (a view __ tional images are handmade.

discussed in the preceding essay in this Is there really such a vast difference

volume). between a machine-made picture and a As 1s well Know, André Bazin answered handmade picture? In order to bolster the the question “What is cinema?” by stressing intuition that there is a deep difference

the photographic basis of film. For him, lurking here, the Bazinian can invite us to photography was what differentiates the consider the following comparison.® Quite film image from other sorts of pictorial frequently, objects that the photographer art, such as painting. He maintained that never noticed in the profilmic event appear whereas handmade pictorial practices like in photos and cinematic images. This can painting portrayed objects, persons, and _ be quite embarrassing when, for example, a events by means of resemblance, machine- —_ Boeing 707 turns up in the background of a

made pictures, like photographs and films, shot from E/ Cid or a telephone pole literally presented or re-presented objects, | appears in First Knight. But even when it persons and events from the past to view- isn’t embarrassing, photographers often ad-

ers. If the relation of paintings to their mit finding things in photos of which they objects is resemblance, then the relation of | were unaware when they snapped the shut-

photos and, by extension, film images to ter and exposed the film. The reason for their referents is identity. The photo of _ this is simple. Photography is a mechanical Woodrow Wilson is Woodrow Wilson pre- —— process. The apparatus will record everysented again in his visual aspect to contem- _— thing in its field of vision automatically,

porary witnesses. Film and photography — whether or not the photographer is alert provide us with telescopes, so to speak, into _ to it.

the past. Bazin says: “The photographic But, on the other hand, the Bazinian image is the object itself....It shares by might suggest that such an occurrence is virtue of the process of its becoming, the impossible in painting. One simply can’t 55

Questioning Media

imagine a painter returning tohercanvasand position has also been encumbered by a being shocked at finding a building there. number of liabilities. One of these is that Painting is an intentional action such that Bazin himself was never very helpful in every object portrayed in the painting is explaining how we are to understand the there because the painter intended it to be — supposed identity relation between a photo there. There will be no surprises of the sort — or shot of x and x itself. Patently, a shot of that photographers typically encounter when Denzel Washington is not the same thing as the painter looks at her painting - unlessshe — the man himself. So, in what sense is the

has amnesia or unless someone else has image its model? Unless a reasonable antampered with it — because every person, swer can be supplied to this question, object or event in the painting is there asa photographic realism seems dead in the

result of her intentions. water. ’

Because a painting is man-made, or Secondarily, photographic realism, as adwoman-made, in a way that is dependent vanced by Bazin, represents a variation on upon the maker’s intention to portray thisor the medium-essentialist refrain, and, therethat, it is, so the story goes, impossible that fore, involves many of the shortcomings a painter could be shocked by the discovery rehearsed a moment ago in this essay. of a Boeing 707 in her portrait of the Cid. | Consequently, added to its potentially incoBut that very sort of shock is not only _ herent account of the relation between the possible, but fairly routine when it comes to cinematic image and its referent, Bazinian photography. Many scenes from movies photographic realism is also open to the must be reshot when things from the _ charge that it attempts to mandate aesthetic profilmic situation —- which no one noticed choices on the basis of spurious ontological at the time of shooting — wander into the _ claims.

frame. A director may demand to know Yet these problems may not be so daunt“How did that get into my shot?” when she ing. On the one hand, the photographic reviews the dailies. But the painter never _ realist may detach his position from the has to ask. She knows already since she put’ medium-essentialist biases of Bazin. He may

it there — whatever it is. agree that his position has no stylistic implicaThus, the Bazinian surmises that the — tions about what must or must not be done by difference between machine-made and _ way of cinematic style at the same time that handmade pictures is not a trifling matter he maintains that cinema is essentially photoof alternative techniques. It is situated on — graphic. That is, photographic realists can an ontological fissure that goes deep into argue that the photographic basis of film is the very structure of the world at the level _ the essential feature of the cinema without dividing what is possible from what is committing themselves to the idea that this impossible. And since what is possible in logically implies a determinate style or range film (because it is machine-made) isimpossi- of styles for filmmakers.

ble in painting (because it is handmade), Moreover, turning to photographic realthe Bazinian photographic realist believes ism’s other problem, a number of philosthat he has discerned a fundamental differ- | ophers — including Roger Scruton, Kendall entiating feature that separates traditional | Walton and Patrick Maynard — have begun pictorial representations from photographic — to work out the sort of identity claims which

presentations. were only obscurely hinted at by Bazin in a Undoubtedly, the photographic realist way that makes them intelligible, if not

can marshall some very powerful intuitions | compelling.® Thus, if they are able to provide

on his side. But until recently, as we argued a coherent account of the way in which in the previous article in this volume, this photography is a presentational, rather than 56

Defining the Moving Image

a representational art, thenit may once again shot from an old newsreel enables one to see be plausible to ask whether or not photogra- = Babe Ruth at bat.

phy is an essential feature of cinema, one that The argument here takes the form of a sets it off from traditional forms of pictorial slippery slope. If a periscope enables us to

representation, like painting. see directly over a wall into an adjacent

A new defense of photographic realism § room, why not say that a video set-up does could begin by analogizing film to tele- the same thing. One’s first response is to say

scopes, microscopes, periscopes and to “But we don’t see the contents of the those parking-lot mirrors that enable you to adjacent room directly when we look at a look around corners. When we look through — video monitor.” But what does it mean “to devices like these, we say that we see the _ see directly?”

objects to which these devices give us One thing that it means is that our access. We see stars through telescopes; perception is counterfactually dependent on bacteria through microscopes; aircraft carri- _—_ the visible properties of the objects of our

ers and atomic blasts through periscopes; perception — 1.e., had the visible properties

and oncoming traffic through parking-lot of those objects been different, then our mirrors. Such devices are aids to vision. AS —_ perceptions would have been different.

such, we may regard them as prosthetic There is a causal chain of physical events devices.” Moreover, these prosthetic devices between the objects of our perception and

enable us to see things themselves, rather our perceptions such that if the starting

than representations of things. point in that network had been different,

When I look through my theater glasses = our perception would have varied accordat the ingenue, I see the ingenue, rather _ ingly. For example, I see the redness of the than a representation of the ingenue. De- _—_apple because the apple was red, but had the vices like these glasses, and the ones men- _ apple been green, what I would have seen tioned above, enhance my visual powers. would have been green. And had the object They enable me to see, for example, what is been a banana, rather than an apple, what I

faraway or what is small. Indeed, they would have seen, all things being equal, enable us to see the things themselves, not would have been a banana.

merely representations of these things. Similarly, when I look through the periThese devices are not, in principle, different | scope, what I see is also counterfactually from the eye glasses we use to correct our dependent on the objects that give rise to vision. They enable us to overcome visual my perception. This is why I am willing to

shortcomings and to make direct visual say that what I see through a periscope or contact with objects otherwise unavailable through a pair of opera glasses is seen

to us. directly. These devices boost the powers of But if we are willing to speak this way _ direct perception. They are on a continuum

about microscopes and telescopes, the pho- _—- with unaided sight inasmuch as what they tographic realist asks, why not regard pho- __ give us access to possesses the property of

tography in the same light? Photography counterfactual dependence. What we see and cinematography are prosthetic devices through them would have been different if for vision. They put us in direct visual _ the visible properties they are aimed at were contact with persons, places andeventsfrom different. The causal chain of physical the past in a way that is analogous to the — events involved in looking through a pair of manner in which telescopes put us in direct opera glasses may have an added step when visual contact with distant solar systems. A —_— contrasted to unaided vision. But the step is

photograph enables a wife to see her dead _ not different in kind. It is still a causal husband on their wedding day once again. A __ process that preserves the feature of coun57

Questioning Media

terfactual dependence. It is on a par with _ things to which they give us visual access — prosthetically unaided vision and so we are _ such as JFK’s assassination.

willing to say that opera glasses, like un- One might say “Not so fast; what about aided vision, put us in direct (coun- — the temporal difference between the events terfactually dependent, causal) contact with in newsreels and the events themselves?”

objects. But the photographic realist can respond

But, then again, is the situation so dif- that this is not really so different theoretiferent with photography and cinematogra- cally than the case where the images of stars phy? Photographic and cinematographic “vi- delivered to us by telescopes — through sions” and unaided, “normal” vision are as___ which we see directly — come from the past.

strikingly analogous as opera glass “visions” Given this argument, the photographic and “normal” vision insofar as all three realist maintains that photographic and cineexhibit the relation of counterfactual depen- matic images are transparent—we see dence with respect to the objects of which — through them to the objects, persons, and they are “visions.” We expect a photograph ~— events that gave rise to them.!® It is this

of x to present the visible properties of x in species of transparency, one conjectures, such a way that if x’s visible properties had __ that Bazin had in mind when he talked about been altered, the photograph would have _ the relation between the photographic image

been altered in corresponding respects. For and its referent in terms of identity. By example, we expect a photograph or a means of transparency, we see through the cinematic image of a white church to be _ photograph to that of which it is a photo-

white, though if, counterfactually, the graph. The photograph is a transparent church had been black, then we would have __ presentation of something from the past

expected the photographic depiction to which we see directly in the sense of counshow it as black, at least in cases of straight — terfactual dependence — i.e., had the rele-

shooting. vant objects been different, the photography This, of course, once again correlates | would have been different in corresponding with prosthetically unaided visual experi- | ways as a result of the kinds of physical ences of x where it is presumed that my __ processes involved in photography. visual experience of x depends on the visible Furthermore, traditional picture-making features of x in such a way that had the practices, like painting, are not transparent

visible features of x been different, my in this way. Paintings need not be counvisual experience would differ — had the tan __ terfactually dependent upon the visible prop-

lion been red, I would have seen a red lion. erties of what they portray. They are depenBoth prosthetically unaided vision and pho- _ dent on the beliefs the painter holds about tography are counterfactually dependent on ‘those objects. The chain of events from

the visible properties in the same way objects to paintings of objects are not because of the particular physico-causal physico-causal chains like those found in pathways between these sorts of vision and what I have called unaided, “normal” vithat of which they are “visions.” We say that — sion. The relation is mediated by the beliefs we are in direct visual contact in the case of _—_ and intentions of painters. A green apple in

vision unaided by opera glasses and vision a painting would have been blue had the aided by opera glasses because of the kindof painter intended the apple to be otherwise; physico-causal processes involved. Since the something other than “natural” physicosame kind of physico-causal processes are — causal chains of events are involved. This is involved in photographic and cinematic vi- | why drawings are not accepted as evidence sion, we have no reason, in principle, to say = in court in the way that videotapes are. A

that they do not directly show us those drawing of Rodney King being beaten 58

Defining the Moving Image

would not have possessed the evidential tion. Reading, for example, we might conpower of the videotape for this reason. fuse mud for mut because the lettering is so We do not see directly through paintings. |= similar; such a mistake might come quite Paintings are representations. They are me- __ easily if we are confused or hasty. However,

diated by intentions. They are not transpar- = when out in the world, viewing objects in ent presentations. A painting offers us a nature, so to speak, it appears nearly imposrepresentation of an object, whereas a _ sible to mistake an unsculpted mud puddle photograph, and, by extension, a cinematic for a mongrel canine, if the light is good, our image, provides us the object that gave rise _ eyes reliable, our distance from the objects to the image in the same way that a _ in question reasonable and our command of microscope boosts our perceptual powers in __ visual categories in place.

a way that is continuous with “normal” On the other hand, when it comes to

vision so that we directly see tiny things. seeing in nature, it may be easier to mistake What photography and cinematography en- __ the back of a garage for the back of a house,

able us to see transparently are the very — whereas even when fatigued it is difficult to things from the past that started the mechani- mistake the word “garage” for the word

cal processes that caused the images in “house.” What accounts for these differ-

question. ences? One very plausible hypothesis is that

In order to “see through” a picture, itisa | confusions between objects in the case of necessary condition that the photographic natural seeing is rooted in real similarities process put us in contact with its object by | between the objects in question, whereas

purely mechanical means. But though thisis — the confusions between the words is based a necessary condition for something tocount on similarities in lettering which is, in one as a transparent photographic presentation, — sense, perfectly arbitrary. Thus, the photoit is not sufficient. Why not? Well, imagine a graphic realist may say that seeing through a

computer that was capable of scanning a photographic process obtains only where visual array and then printing out a descrip- confusion over the object in the phototion of it. It need not be acomplicated visual = graphic or cinematic image is a function of array; it might be comprised of very simple __ real similarity relations. Descriptions, even geometric shapes. Surely, there would be no if mechanically generated, do not provoke

problem in constructing a computer that visual confusion on the basis of the real could recognize such shapes and correlate similarities between the objects that they them to simple descriptions. Yet in such _ refer to, but only through confusion over circumstances, it would appear that we are _lettering, which lettering is arbitrary. Trans-

in the sort of mechanical contact with the parent presentations, in contrast, traffic in array that warrants attributions of transpar- _ real or natural similarities, whereas descripent seeing. But something is wrong here, __ tions do not. since descriptions are not transparent pic- Consequently, in order to block countertures for the simple reason that they are not examples like mechanically generated depictures at all. So what then must be added scriptions, the account of transparent seeing to mechanical contact to differentiate be- or seeing through pictures must be suppletween computer-generated descriptions of | mented by the stipulation that the presentathe sort imagined here and the kind ofimage tions in question preserve real similarity

that we might be able to see through? relations betwixt the photo and that of One way to get at this difference is to which it is a photo. note some of the ways in which we might be So, summarizing: x is a transparent preconfused by a picture versus the ways in _ sentation if only if (1) x puts us in mewhich we might be confused by a descrip- _— chanical contact with its object, and (2) x 59

Questioning Media

preserves real similarity relations between —__ cases, corresponds to no independently exist-

things. These conditions are individually ing spatial field, in part or whole.

necessary and jointly sufficient conditions Perhaps, the photographic realist will for transparent pictures or transparent pre- = protest that every constructed image must sentations. Moreover, the first condition have some photographic elements through provides the crucial differentia between which we see directly. But surely we are on representations, like painted pictures, and _ the brink of completely digitally synthesized transparent presentations like photographs. _ films. Matt Elson’s animation short Virtually We have traveled this rather long and _ Yours, starring the completely constructed winding path in order to indicate that, | Lotta Desire, substantiates this possibility." unlike Bazin, the contemporary photo- Moreover, the exorbitant costs of film actors graphic realist can give an intelligible ac- nowadays provides an awesome financial count of what it is to see through a photo- _ incentive for film to turn toward the develop-

graph to its referent. The photographic ment of fully computerized characters.” realist, thus, can advance the claim that The future of film may become, in large transparent seeing is the essential feature of | measure, the future of digitally synthesized photography or, at least, a necessary fea- images, where the notion of seeing directly ture. And arguing that the photographic has little or no purchase, since such images basis of cinema is an essential feature of | need not possess a model in nature that we

film, the photographic realist could, if he | can see directly. There is no reason in wished, then go on to argue that transparent _ principle why this cannot come about. The

seeing is the essential feature of film or, at epoch of photographic film, then, may least, a necessary feature, thereby reinstall- | represent nothing but a brief interlude in the ing something like Bazin’s insight, albeitina artform. But even if these prophecies fall on theoretically more sophisticated framework. — fallow ground, seeing directly is neither an But even if the claims of photographic _ essential or a necessary feature of film even

realism can be rendered intelligible in the now, since we already have some fully way indicated, it does not seem that trans- | computer-generated images. Nor need the parent seeing can be accepted as an essen- only source of our counterexamples be tial or necessary condition of cinema or contemporary. Hollywood has used matte even photography. For photography is not shots— another technique that problemthe only medium of film. Cinema (and _§atizes the notion of direct seeing — for dephotography) can be computer generated, — cades, and though these shots are often only as the stampeding dinosaurs of Jurassic Park __ partially constructed, there is no reason in amply demonstrate. These images are cer- __ principle why a fully constructed matte shot

tainly cinema, but there is nothing for the or “composite” should not count as an viewer to see directly by means of them. instance of film as we know it." In this case, The first computer-generated sequence ap- _as in the case of computer-generated impeared in major motion pictures, like Star _ages, film approaches the status of painting. Trek IT in the eighties and computer simula- But what of earlier intuition pumps that tions have been deployed increasingly since — suggested that film shots and paintings must

then, as in Roger Corman’s The Fantastic be essentially different, since filmmakers Four. Since the eighties, some shots in films could be surprised at finding Boeing 707s in

have been wholly composited: several matte their images, but painters could not? In paintings, animation and so on have been truth, the intuition was premature. There is “jigsawed together,” without any photogra- __ no principled difference between film shots

phy of three-dimensional objects having and paintings here. Picasso tells the story of been involved. The array we see, in such finding the outline of a squirrel in a painting 60

Defining the Moving Image

by Braque.’ Braque was unaware of the railyard. Moreover, where we might tend to presence of the squirrel, since it inhabited — confuse objects (like spades and hoes) in the the “negative” space in the image, rather _ railyard, we will also tend to confuse objects like the vase that inheres in some pictures of | in the model, because the model preserves facing profiles. Switch images like these- __ real similarity relations between things.

and the duck/rabbit and the old woman/ Will we be disposed to call the model a young woman -— are well known, and we presentation of the railyard, rather than a have no problem imagining a painter who, representation (in the standard sense) of it? while knowingly drawing one of the aspects Will we say that we see the railyard directly

of such an image, also unknowingly draws through the model? The answer to both the other aspect. Something like this appar- = questions, I predict, will be no. Thus, the ently happened to Braque. As Picasso tells conditions that the photographic realist pro-

the story, it is comical. But it is also poses to identify a class of transparent theoretically important. For in documenting __ presentations that are ontologically discrete

the possibility, Picasso shows how a painter from the class of representations are not could be as surprised as a cinematographer adequate to the task, which, in turn, implies at finding some creature or object, that he — ‘that the story the photographic realist has had not intended to be there, lurking in his __ told so far about transparent presentation is

picture. insufficient to bear out claims about the

For the photographic realist, the cine- | uniqueness of photographic and cinematic matic image is a presentation, notarepresen- images. tation in the standard sense of that term as it The photographic realist maintains that pertains to things like paintings. The cine- cinematic images are transparent presentamatic image presents us with things that we __ tions, not representations (in the standard see directly; it is a transparent presentation. sense of that term). We see through them.

It is a transparent presentation because it This conclusion is advanced by analogies puts us in mechanical contact with what we — between photographs and film, on the one

see and it preserves real similarity relations hand, and microscopes and telescopes, on between things. But one wonders whether _ the other. If we are willing to say that we see this is really sufficient for calling something — through the latter, why should we be hesi-

a presentation rather than a representation tant about saying the same thing with

(in the standard sense of that term). respect to the former? The photographic Imagine a railyard. Suppose we build a __ realist has us on a slippery slope. Do we point-by-point model of the railyard. Sup- have any principled reason for regarding pose also that we link every square inch of _ telescopes as visual prosthetic devices while

the railyard to a super computer so that withholding the same status from photoevery change in the surface of the railyard = graphic and cinematic images? I think that

registers a change in the model. Next wedo. imagine that we interpose the model be- If I look through a pair of binoculars at a tween us and the railyard so that we do not __ brace of horses racing to the finish line, the

see any part of the railyard directly and so visual array I obtain, though magnified, is that the model occupies our field of vision at __ still connected to my own body in the sense the angle and scale the railyard would, were _ that I would be able to find my way to the the model not standing in the way between finish line, were that my wish. That is, when us and the railyard. In such acase, we would —_I use binoculars, I can still orient myself

be in direct mechanical contact with the spatially to the finish line. My bodily orienta-

railyard, and every change we perceived in tion to the things that I perceive is prethe model would notate a change in the — served. The same story can be told about 61

Questioning Media

typical microscopes and telescopes. When I __ perspicuously relate myself spatially to look through them, I can still point my body them —i.e., unless I know (roughly) where

, approximately in the direction of the bacte- _ they are in the space I inhabit. ria and the meteors that they reveal to me. Yet if this requirement is correct, then I But the same cannot be said of photo- do not literally see the objects that cause graphic and cinematic images. Suppose that photographic and cinematic images. What I I am watching Casablanca and whatIseeon _ see are representations in the standard sense the screen is Rick’s bar. I cannot, on the ' or displays — displays whose virtual spaces basis of the image, orient my body to the = are detached from the space of my experi-

bar—to the spatial coordinates of that ence. But insofar as cinematic images are to structure as it existed some time in the early | be understood as representations in the forties in California (nor could I orient my | standard sense of the term or what I call body by means of the image to the putative “detached displays,” they are better categofictional locale [in North Africa] of the film). rized with paintings and traditional pictures, Looking at the cinematic image of the bar, I —_— rather than with telescopes and mirrors.

will not know how to point my body toward Photographic realism, then, is mistaken. Rick’s bar (the set) or away from it. Thatis, | Photographic and cinematic images are not I would not know, looking at the image on __ instances of transparent presentations that the screen, how to point my body in the afford direct seeing. Photographic and cinedirection that I would have to take in order matic images cannot be presumed to be on a to walk, or drive or fly to Rick’s bar (i.e., — par with binoculars as devices through which

some set on a sound stage in L.A.). The the sight of remote things is enhanced. For image itself would not tell me how to get to —_ authentic visual, prosthetic devices preserve

the set, presuming that it still exists, norhow a sense of the body’s orientation to the to get to the place in the world where, if it objects that they render accessible; whereas no longer exists, it once did. For the space, § photographic and cinematic images present so to speak, between the set of Rick’s bar _ the viewer with a space that is disembodied and my body is discontinuous; it is discon- or detached from her perspective. Nor can nected, phenomenologically speaking, from —_ we speak of direct seeing here either, for the

the space that I live in.'© same reasons.

Following Francis Sparshott, we might call Undoubtedly the photographic realist will this feature of viewing cinema “alienated — respond by saying that the feature of “norvision.”!” Ordinarily, our sense of where we — mal” vision and of prosthetic vision that I are depends on our sense of balance and our __have stressed as essential is an adventitious kinesthetic feelings. What we see is inte- feature that should not be used to block the grated with these cues in such a way as to = analogies the photographic realist underyield a sense of where we are situated. Butif | scores. However, I cannot agree. Surely it is we call what we see on the silver screen a __—ithe fact that normal vision connects us “view,” then it is a disembodied view. Iseea __ spatially with its objects that accounts for its visual array, like Rick’s bar, but I have no — evolutionary value. That vision informs us sense of where the portrayed space reallyisin | how to move toward what we want and away relation to my body. On the otherhand, with from what threatens us explains, in part, prosthetic devices like binoculars, telescopes — why vision, as we know it, is an adaptively and microscopes — at least in the standard __ selected attribute. Apart from the pressure cases —I can orient my body in the space I of common sense, then, another reason to live in to the objects these devices empower __ think that the feature of vision that I have me to see. Indeed, I submit that we do not emphasized in order to draw a brake along speak literally of seeing objects unless can —_ the photographic realist’s slippery slope is 62

Defining the Moving Image

not an avoidable one is that the feature in detached displays? No: because it is not the

question plays a significant role in the image itself that provides the orientational evolutionary theory of vision. Nor can the information, but our knowledge of the photographic realist object that the analogy placement of the camera in addition to the does not hold because mirror-vision is direct information available in the image. We and yet there are some arrangements of might be easily deceived in such cases, were

mirrors where light is relayed along such a_ the image of an identical room being complicated pathway that we could not broadcast to our monitor from a remote locate the source in nature of the image location. reflected before us. For though we may be One necessary feature of a motion picture said to see directly through some mirrors, I image, then, is that it is a detached display. see no reason to believe that we see directly | Something is a motion picture image only before any imaginable arrangement of mir- _if it is a detached display. Such an image rors. The mirror arrangements that make __ presents us with a visual array whose source spatial orientation implausible, indeed, are is such that on the basis of the image alone

just the ones we do not see through. we are unable to orient ourselves toward it I have spent a great deal of time disputing in the space that is continuous with our the photographic realist’s candidate for an own bodies. We are necessarily “alienated” essential or necessary feature of film.!* But from the space of detached displays whether though the argument has been primarily — those displays are photographs or cinematic negative so far, the outcome has had atleast images.

One positive result. For in the course of However, though this feature of film — challenging the photographic realist’s ac- that it projects detached displays—is a count, we have discovered a necessary plausible necessary condition for motion condition of the cinematic image: all photo- __ picture images, it does not yet provide us graphic and cinematic images are detached —_ with the conceptual wherewithal to distindisplays. It is this feature of suchimages that —— guish film from other sorts of visual represen-

block the claim that photographic images tation, such as painting. To that end, we are not representations in the standard sense must introduce consideration of another of the term, but rather are transparent necessary condition of film. presentations that enable us to see through

them to the objects they display. But this III. The Moving Image

feature, insofar as it blocks the photographic

realist’s account across the board, also Even if it is a necessary condition of a film reveals a telling attribute of all fimimages-— image that it be a detached display, this that they all involve alienated visions, disem- feature does not enable us to draw a bodied viewpoints, or, as I prefer to call distinction between motion pictures and them, detached displays. That is, all cine- _ paintings. For a painting of a landscape is matic images are such that it is vastly — typically a detached display or a disemimprobable and maybe effectively impossi- bodied viewpoint in the same sense that a ble that spectators, save in freak situations, |§ moving picture is. For we cannot orient our

be able to orient themselves to the real, bodies spatially to the vista in nature that the profilmic spaces physically portrayed on the __ painting portrays on the basis of the paint-

screen. ing. That is, sitting in my study in Madison, What of a situation where a video moni- Wisconsin and looking at a painting of a

tor shows us what is going on in aroomon _ street scene in Mexico City, I do not know,

the other side of a wall? Isn’t this a on the basis of the painting, how to walk to counterexample to our thesis concerning that street. Like a cinematic image, the 63

Questioning Media

painting is a detached display. So what then might move. Thus, if you know what you are

differentiates paintings from film images? looking at is a slide and you understand A useful clue is already available in what a slide is, then it is unreasonable — ordinary language, where we call the phe- _—indeed, it is conceptually absurd — to sup-

nomena in question motion pictures or pose that the image can move. moving pictures.!? But we should be careful Movement in a slide would require a in the way that we exploit that clue. Roman miracle; movement in a film image is an Ingarden, for example, maintained that in artistic choice which is always technically films things are always happening whereas _ available. Before Band of Ninjas concludes — paintings, drawing, slides and the like are __ that is, until the last image flickers through

always static.2? But this is not perfectly the projection gate — the viewer may preaccurate. For there are a number of films in — sume, if she knows that she 1s watching a film,

which there is no movement, such as that there may yet be movement in the Oshima’s Band of Ninjas (a film of acomic image. For such movement is a permanent strip), Michael Snow’s One Second in Mon- __ possibility in cinema. But if she knows that treal (a film of photos) and his So Is This (a __ what she is looking at is a slide, it would be film of sentences), Hollis Frampton’s Poetic irrational for her to entertain the possibility

Justice (a film of a shooting script on a _ that it might move. It would be irrational, of tabletop with a plant), Godard and Gorin’s __ course, because if it is a slide, it is impossible Letter to Jane (another film of photos), and _ for the image to move, and if she knows what Takahiko Iimura’s / in 10 (a film of addition _a slide is, then she must know this.

and subtraction tables). Furthermore, the difference between

A perhaps better-known example than _ slides and films applies across the board to any of these is Chris Marker’s La Jetée, a the distinction between every species of still film of almost no movement whose time- __ picture — including paintings, drawings, still travel narrative is told primarily through the = photos and the like —and every sort of projection of still photographs. Of course, moving picture — including videos, mutothere is one movement in Marker’s film, but scopes, and movies. When it comes to still it should be easy to imagine a film just like pictures, one commits a category error, if La Jetée but with no movement whatsoever. one expects movement. It is, by definition, Some may respond to cases like these by _ self-contradictory for still pictures to move. saying that surely the prospect ofsuchmovies That is why they are called still pictures. without movement is oxymoronicor perhaps Thus, to watch what one understands to even self-contradictory. Such experiments, it be a painting with the expectation that it might be charged, are little more than slide will move is absurd. But it is eminently shows mounted on celluloid, maybe for the | reasonable — and never irrational —to ex-

purpose of efficient projection. pect to see movement in films because of the But there is a deep difference between a kind of thing-—a moving picture — that a film image of a character, say from our film is. Even with a static film, like Poetic imagined version of La Jetée, and a slide Justice, it is strictly reasonable to wonder taken of that character from La Jetée. Foras — whether there will be movement until the long as you know that what you are watch- _last reel has run its course.

ing is a film, even a film of what appears to With a film like Poetic Justice, it is an be a photograph, it is always justifiable to _ intelligible question to ask why the filmentertain the possibility that the image might maker, Hollis Frampton, made a static film, move. On the other hand, if you know that since he had movement as a genuine option.

you are looking at a slide, then it is But it makes no sense to ask why Raphael categorically impossible that the image — foreswore literal movement in his School of 64

Defining the Moving Image

Athens. Unlike Frampton, he had no other ture movementis reasonable, or, at least, conalternative. Asking why Raphael’s philoso- —_— ceptually permissible; but with still pictures,

phers don’t move is like asking why ants __ suchasslides, itis never conceptually permis-

don’t sing The Barber of Seville. sible. The reason for this is also quite clear. Of course, once one has seen a static film Film belongs to the class of things where from beginning to end, then it is no longer movement is a technical possibility, while _ justifiable to anticipate movement in re- paintings, slides and the like belong to a class peated viewings, unless you suspect that the of things that are, by definition, still.

film has been doctored since your initial Ordinary language alerts us to a necesviewing. On first viewing, it is reasonable, sary feature of films by referring to them as or, at least, not irrational to wonder whether “moving pictures.” But the wisdom implicit there will be movement on the screen up in ordinary language needs to be unpacked. until the film concludes; on second and __ It is not the case that every film image or subsequent viewings, such anticipation is — every film leaves us with the impression of out of place. However, on first viewings, | movement. There can be static films. Howone can never be sure that a film is entirely ever, static films belong to the class of things still until it is over. And this is what makesit — where the possibility of movement is always reasonable to stay open to the possibility of | technically available in such a way that stasis movement throughout first viewings of static is a stylistic variable in films in a way that

films. But to anticipate movement from it cannot be with respect to still pictures. what one understands to be a slide or a__ Perhaps the label, “moving pictures,” is painting is conceptually confused. preferable to “film” since it advertises this Why categorize static films as films rather deep feature of the artform.

than as slides or as some other sort of still Of course, the category of moving picpicture? Because, as I’ve already noted, tures is somewhat broader than that which stasis is a stylistic choice in static films. Itisan has traditionally been discussed by film option that contributes to the stylistic effect theorists, since it would include such things of a film. It is something whose significance as video and computer imaging. But this

the audience contemplates when trying to. expansion of the class of objects under make sense of a film. It is informative to say consideration to moving pictures in general, that a film is static; it alerts a potential viewer in my opinion, is theoretically advisable, to a pertinent lever of stylistic articulationin since I predict that in the future the history the work. Contrariwise, there is no pointin of what we now call cinema and the history

saying of a painting that it is a literally still of video, TV, CD-ROM and whatever painting. It is thoroughly uninformative. It | comes next will be thought of as of a piece.

could not have been otherwise. To call a Nevertheless, there is at least one limitapainting or a slide a still painting or a still _—_ tion in calling the relevant artform moving

slide is redundant. pictures. For the term “picture” implies the

Indeed, one canimagineaslideofaproces- sort of intentional visual artifact in which sion and a cinematic freeze frame of the exact one recognizes the depiction of objects, same moment in a parade. The two images _ persons and events by looking. But many . may, in effect, be perceptually indiscernible. _ films and videos are abstract, or nonrepreAnd yet they are metaphysically different. | sentational, or nonobjective. Consider some Moreover, the epistemic states thateach war- of the work of artists like Eggeling and

rants in the spectator when the spectator Brakhage. These may be comprised of knows which of the categories — slide or nonrecognizable shapes and purely visual film — confronts him are different. With mo- structures. Thus, rather than speaking of tion pictures, the anticipation of possible fu- = moving pictures, I prefer to speak of moving 65

Questioning Media

images, as the title of this article indicates. the performance. For movement is a permaFor the term image covers both pictures and _ nent possibility in theater, even in works abstractions. Whether the image is pictorial that do not exercise it as a stylistic option. or abstract is less pertinent for this investiga- | Thus, theater meets the two conditions that tion than that it is moving imagery in the — we have so far laid down for the moving sense that it is imagery that belongs to the image. Are there some other ways in which class of things where movement is techni- _ to signal the boundary between these two

cally possible. artforms? So far then, we have not only recom- Roman Ingarden locates the border bemended a change in the domain of investiga- | tween theater and film by arguing that in tion for film theory — from cinema to mov- _ theater the word dominates while spectacle ing images — but we have also identified two (as Aristotle would have agreed) is ancilnecessary conditions for whatistocountasa lary; whereas in film, action dominates and

moving image. In answer to the question, | words subserve our comprehension of the “What is a moving image?” we argue thatx action. But this ignores films like History is a moving image (1) only if itisa detached Lessons and Fortini-Cani by Jean-Marie display and (2) only if it belongs to the class |= Straub and Daniele Huillet, and Yvonne of things from which the impression of — Rainer’s Journeys from Berlin, as well as movement is technically possible. The sec- | Godard’s videotapes, not to mention pedesond of these conditions enables us to distin- — trian TV shows such as Perry Mason.

guish film, or, as I call it, the moving image Some photographic realists have atfrom painting, but this will not discriminate | tempted to draw the line between film and it from theater, since theatrical representa- theater by focussing of the performer.*? Due tions also warrant the expectation of move- _ to the intimacy between the photographic

ment. So what, then, differentiates moving lens and its subjects, some, like Stanley images from theatrical representations? Cavell, think of film acting primarily in terms of star personalities, whereas stage

IV. Performance Tokens performers are actors who take on roles. For

Erwin Panofsky, stage actors interpret their

A theatrical performance is a detached roles, whereas film actors, again because of display. Watching a theatrical performance __ the intimacy of the lens vis-a-vis the actor,

of A Streetcar Named Desire, we cannot incarnate theirs. When it comes to movies, orient our bodies—on the basis of the | we go to see an Eastwood film, whereas with images onstage —in the direction of New __ theater we go to see a Paul Scofield interpre-

Orleans. The space of the play is not my _ tation of Lear. space. It is not true of the play that Hamlet But this contrast does not seem to really dies three feet away from me, even iflam_ fit the facts. Surely people go to the theater sitting in the first row. Nor can I point my _ to see Baryshnikov dance and Callas sing no

body toward Elsinor on the basis of the matter what the role, just as they did to see

theatrical image before me. Sarah Bernhardt or Fanny Elssler. We may Furthermore, though there may be liter- _—_ say that “Sam Spade is Bogart,” but only in ally static theater works — performances be- __ the sense that people once said that Gilette reft of movement, such as Douglas Dunn’s_ —_was Sherlock Holmes or O’Neill was the

10171 —in such cases, as in the case of Manin the Iron Mask. moving pictures, it is reasonable for the The difference, then, does not appear to audience to suppose that movement might _ reside in the performers in film versus those

be forthcoming up until the conclusion of in theater. But it may reside in the token 66

Defining the Moving Image

performances of the two artforms. Both — can be objects of artistic evaluation, but the theater and film have performances. On a ___ film performance itself 1s neither an artwork given evening, we might choose to go to a ___ nor is it a legitimate candidate for artistic live performance of Ping Chong’s Kindness __ evaluation.

or a performance (a screening) of Robert The film performance — a film showing or Altman’s Ready to Wear. Both might begin _ screening — is generated from a template. at eight. In both cases, we will be seated in Standardly, this is a film print, but it might

an auditorium, and perhaps both perfor- also be a videotape, a laser disk, or a mances start with a rising curtain. But computer program. These templates are despite the similarities, there are also pro- —_ tokens; each one of them can be destroyed

found differences between a theatrical per- and each one can be assigned a temporal formance and a film performance. location. But the film — say Zoni by Renoir — Undoubtedly, this hypothesis will seem _is not destroyed when any of the prints are strange to some philosophers. For they are = destroyed. One might think that the master

likely to divide the arts into those that or negative is privileged. But the negative of involve unique singular objects (e.g., paint- | Murnau’s Nosferatu was destroyed as the ings and sculptures) versus those arts that — result of acourt order, and yet Nosferatu (the

involve multiple copies of the same art- film, not the vampire) survives. Indeed, all work — there are probably over a million the prints can be destroyed and the film will copies of Vanity Fair. And having seg- survive ifa laser disk does, or if a collection of

regated some artforms as multiple, phi- photos of all the frames does, or if a losophers frequently go on to characterize computer program of it does whether on the multiple arts — like novels, plays and disk, or tape or even on paper or in human movies — in terms of the type/token rela- | memory.”

tion. But on the basis of this distinction, To get to a token film performance — theatrical performances and film perfor- tonight’s showing of Pulp Fiction — we remances do not look very different; in both quire a template which 1s itself a token of the cases, the performance in question is a film type. Whereas the paint on Magritte’s token of a type. Tonight’s film performance Le Chateau des Pyrénées is a constituent is a token of the type Ready to Wear by _ part of a unique painting, the print on the Robert Altman, whereas tonight’s dramatic page of my copy of the novel The Mill on the performance is a token of Kindness, a play = Floss conveys George Eliot’s artwork to me. of Ping Chong. Consequently, it might be Similarly, the film performance — the projec-

concluded that there really is no deep tion or screening event —is a token of a difference between theatrical performances — type, which token conveys Pulp Fiction, the

and film performances. type, to the spectator. :

But, though the simple type/token distinc- The account, however, is both different tion may be useful as far as it goes, it does and more complicated when it comes to not go far enough. For even if theatrical plays. For plays have as tokens both objects performances and film performances may and performances. That is, when considered both be said to be tokens, the tokens in the as a literary work, a token of The Libation theatrical case are generated by interpreta- | Bearers is a graphic text of the same order of tions, whereas the tokens in the film case are my copy of The Warden. But considered

generated by templates. And this, in turn, from the viewpoint of theater, a token of yields a crucial aesthetic difference between The Libation Bearers is a performance the two. The theatrical performances are — which occurs at a specific place and time. artworks in their own right that, thereby, Unlike the film performance, the theatrical 67

Questioning Media

performance is not generated by atemplate. | ingeniously and performed brilliantly; and It is generated by an interpretation. For — every other combination thereof. This manwhen considered from the perspective of _ ner of speaking, of course, presupposes that theatrical performance, the play by Aeschy- we regard the play, the interpretation, and lus is akin to a recipe that must be filled in the performance as separate levels of artistic by other artists, including the director, the |= achievement — even where the play is writactors, the set and lighting designers, cos- — ten by someone who directs it and acts in it

tumers, and the like. as well. The play by the playwright is one This interpretation is a conception of the = artwork, which is then interpreted like a play and it is this conception of the play that __ recipe or set of instructions by a director and

governs the performances from night to — others in the process of producing another night. The interpretation may be performed — artwork or series of artworks.

in different theaters; it may be revived after But our practices with regard to motion a hiatus. For the interpretation is a type, — pictures are different. If in theater, the play-

which, in turn, generates performances _ type is a recipe that the director interprets, which are tokens. Thus, the relation of the —_and the recipe and the interpretation can be

play to its performances is mediated by an _ regarded as different though related artinterpretation, suggesting thatthe interpreta- | works, in film both the recipe and the tion is a type within a type. What gets us interpretations are constituents of the same from the play to a performance is not a —= artwork. When the writer produces a play, template, which is a token, but aninterpreta- | we appreciate it independently of what its

tion, which is a type. theatrical interpreters make of it. But in the One difference between the performance — world of moving pictures, as we know it, of a play and the performance of a film is scenarios are not read like plays and novels, that the former is generated by aninterpreta- _—_ but are ingredients of moving pictures (or,

tion while the latter is generated by a more accurately, moving images). That is, to template. Furthermore, this difference is | speak metaphorically, with movies, the rec-

connected to another, namely, that perfor- ipe and its interpretation come in one mances of plays are artworks in their own __ indissoluble package.

right and can be aesthetically evaluated as Sometimes people say things like “many such, whereas performances of films and actresses can play Rosalind and the perforvideos are not artworks. Nor does it make —_ mance will still be a performance of the play sense to evaluate them as such. A film may _ type As You Like It, but it would not be an

be projected out of focus or the video instance of the movie type White Heat tracking may be badly adjusted, but these | without James Cagney.” The reason for this are not artistic failures. They are mechanical is that Cagney’s performance of Cody — his or electrical failures. That is, a film projec- ‘interpretation — in concert with the director tionist may be mechanically incompetent, | Raoul Walsh is a nondetachable constituent

but he is not artistically incompetent. of the film. The interpretation is, so to In theater, the play, the interpretation, | speak, etched in celluloid. The interpretaand the performance are each discrete are- __ tion in the case of film 1s not separable from nas of artistic achievement. Itisto be hoped, __ the film type in the way that interpretation is of course, that they will be integrated. And __ separable from the play type.

in the best of all cases, they are. Neverthe- Whereas film performances are generless, we recognize that these are separable ated from templates which are tokens, play stratas of artistry. We often speak of a good __ performances are generated from interpreta-

play interpreted badly and performed __ tion types. Thus, whereas film performances blandly; or of a mediocre play, interpreted are counterfactually dependent on certain 68

Defining the Moving Image

electrical, chemical, mechanical and other- motion picture (or moving image) perforwise routine processes and procedures, play §mances and theatrical performances is that performances are counterfactually depen- _ the latter are artworks and the former are dent upon the beliefs, intentions and judg- _— not, and, therefore, that performances of ments of people — actors, lighting experts, | motion pictures are not objects of artistic

make-up artists and so on. Though in _ evaluation, whereas theatrical performances modern Western theater, there is typically |§ are. Or, another way to state the conclusion an overarching directorial interpretation of is to say that, in one sense, motion pictures the playwright’s recipe, the realization of |= are not a performing art — 1.e., they are not the token performance on a given night something whose performance itself is an art.

depends of the continuous interpretation of This sounds bizarre and is apt to call that play, given the special exigencies of the | forth counterexamples. Here are three. First,

unique performance situation. It is because before motors were installed in projecof the contribution that interpretation tors, film projectionists hand-cranked the makes in the production of the performance — performance, and audiences were said to that the performance warrants artistic appre- come to prefer some projectionists over ciation; whereas the performance ofafilm— others. In these cases, it might be argued, a film showing — warrants no artistic appre- =‘ the projectionists were performers whose ciation, since it is simply a function of the — performances elicited artistic appreciation. physical mechanisms engaging the template | Second, the avant-garde filmmaker Harry properly. Or, in other words, itis a matter of | Smith sometimes accompanied some his film

running the relevant devices correctly. screenings by personally alternating colored A successful motion picture perfor- gels in front of the projector lens. Was he in mance — the projection of a film or the _ this case any less a performing artist than a running of a video cassette - does not com- __ violinist? And lastly, Malcolm LeGrice pre-

mand aesthetic appreciation, nor is it an sented a piece in the early seventies which artwork. We do not applaud projectionistsas he called Monster Film. In it, he walked — we do violinists. We are likely to complain stripped to the waist — into the projector and to perhaps demand our money back if beam, his shadow becoming progressively the film emulsifies in the projector beam, but _ larger (like a monster), while a loud crashthat is a technical failure, not an aesthetic | ing sound dominated the space. If Monster one. If it were an aesthetic failure, we would Filmis a film, then surely its performance is expect people to cheer when the film doesn’t —_an artwork.

burn. But they don’t. For the happy film However, these counterexamples are not performance only depends on operating the |= compelling. Since the early projectionists apparatus as it was designed to be operated, — who are usually cited are also said to have and since that involves no more than often cranked the films they thought were tedious quite minimal mechanical savvy, running the _ in such a way that the action was comically

template through the machine is not re- sped up, I doubt that their performances garded as an aesthetic accomplishment. On were actually performances of the film types the other hand, asuccessful theatrical perfor- advertised, rather than travesties or paromance involves a token interpretation of an _ dies thereof — that is to say comic routines in

interpretation type, and inasmuch as that _ their own right. On the other hand, both depends on artistic understanding and judg- Smith and LeGrice seem to me to have ment, it is a suitable object of aesthetic | produced multimedia artworks in which film

appreciation. or the film apparatus play an important role,

Moreover, if this is right, then we may © but which cannot be thought of as simply conjecture that a major difference between motion pictures. 69

Questioning Media

What may be disturbing about my denial _ furthermore, the two differentia under conthat moving pictures (and/or images) are sideration apply to all films, videos and the

instances of the performing arts is that like, whether they are artworks or not. motion picture types are generally made by

people whom we standardly think of as performing artists — actors, directors, chore- | V. Two-Dimensionality

ographers, and so on. But it is essential to note that the interpretations and the perfor- So far we have identified four necessary mances that these artists contribute to the — conditions for the moving image. Summariz-

motion picture type are integrated and ing our findings, we can say that x is a edited into the final product as constituent moving image (1) only if x is a detached

parts of the moving image type. display, (2) only if x belongs to the class of When we go to see Moby Dick, wedonot _ things from which the impression of move-

go to see Gregory Peck perform, buttoseea ment is technically possible, (3) only if performance of Moby Dick. And while performance tokens of x are generated by a Gregory Peck’s performance required art- template that is a token, and (4) only if istry, the performance of Moby Dick -the — performance tokens of x are not artworks in showing of it — does not. It requires nothing _ their own right. Moreover, these conditions above and beyond the proper manipulation —_ provide us with the conceptual resources to of the template and the apparatus. A perfor- _—_ discriminate the moving image from neighmance of a play, contrariwise, involves the _ boring artforms like painting and theater.

kind of talents exhibited by Gregory Peck However, these conditions also seem prior to the appearance of the first template | vulnerable to at least one sort of counof Moby Dick. That is why the performance — terexample. Consider what might be called

of a play is an artistic event and the moving sculptures of the sort exemplified performance of a motion picture is not. by music boxes. Once wound up, the box Thus, there are important differences plays a tune while mechanical figurines between the performance of a motion pic- _ shaped like ballerinas cavort in a semblance ture and the performance of a play. Two of _ of pirouettes. This is a detached display; the them are that the play performance is gen- __ virtual space of the ballerinas is not our erated by an interpretation that is a type, space. The image moves. It is manufactured whereas the performance of the motion pic- from a template, and the mechanical danc-

ture is generated by a template that is a ing is not an artwork. But clearly this is not token; and the performance of a play is an _ the sort of thing that we customarily think artwork in its own right and is an appropri- of as a moving picture or even a moving ate object of aesthetic evaluation, whereas _ image. the performance of the motion picture is In order to forestall cases like this we need neither. Moreover, the first of these con- to add a fifth condition to the preceding four, trasts helps us explain the second. For it is namely, that x is a moving image only if it is insofar as the performance of the motion — two-dimensional. Perhaps, it might seem unpicture is generated by engaging the tem- _ necessary to supplement the preceding forplate mechanically that itis not an appropri- mula this way, since some may contend that ate object of artistic evaluation in the way — two-dimensionality is already entailed by the that a performance generated by aninterpre- _— fact that we are talking about moving pictation or a set of interpretations is. These — tures and moving images which are, by their two features of film performance are enough _ very nature, two-dimensional. This may be to differentiate performances of moving _ right when it comes to pictures, but it surely images from performances of plays, and, cannot hurt to make it explicit that the im70

Defining the Moving Image

ages we have in mind, when speaking of animated by the nineteenth-century device moving images, are two-dimensional. known as the zoetrope fit the formula. But Here, of course, the weary reader may _ these do not seem to be the kind of phenomcomplain “Why wasn’t two-dimensionality ena that one has in mind when speaking of introduced earlier, since it would have given moving pictures in ordinary language, or of us the boundary between film and theater at moving images in my slightly regimented a stroke?” “Why do we need all that extra _language.

paraphernalia about tokens generated by You might attempt to preempt this spetemplates?” The answer I think is simple: — cies of counterexample by requiring that theater can be two-dimensional. Consider moving pictures (and/or images) be prothe shadow-puppet plays of Bali(the Wayang _ jected. But that would have the infelicitous

Kulit), and of China. In order to count them consequence of cashiering early Edison as theater rather than motion pictures, we —_kinetoscopes from the domain of motion will require recourse to the notion that film, pictures. Obviously, it will be hard to draw in particular, and the moving image, more _—_ any firm boundaries between motion pic-

broadly, are tokens generated by templates tures (and images) and the protocinematic

that are themselves tokens. devices that led to the invention of cinema, without coming up with difficult cases;

. indeed, we should expect to find problem-

Concluding Remarks atic border cases in exactly this vicinity. But I have proposed five necessary conditionsfor in any event, it does not seem obvious to me

the phenomena that I am calling moving _ that we can turn the preceding five necesimages. Of course, once one has accumu- _ sary conditions into jointly sufficient condilated so many necessary conditions, it is — tions for what is commonly thought to be a natural to wonder whether or not they might motion picture, without doing some severe not be jointly sufficient conditions for what — violence to our everyday intuitions.

we typically call motion pictures. But they Thus, the characterization of moving are not, for treated as a set of jointly pictures (or moving images) proposed in sufficient conditions for what it is to be a _ this essay is not essentialist in the philomotion picture, they are overly inclusive. sophical sense that presupposes that an Consider for example, the upper-right-hand _ essential definition of cinema would be page corners of Arlene Croce’s The Fred comprised of a list of necessary conditions Astaire and Ginger Rogers Book.*® There _ that are jointly sufficient. That is, my acyou will find photographs of Astaire and — count is not an example of real-definition Rogers dancing. If you flick the pages quickly — essentialism. Nor is it what I earlier called

enough, you can animate the dancers after | Grecian essentialism. the fashion of a flip book. Although the third By a Grecian essence, I mean a necessary condition of my theory — that token motion — condition for x whose citation a theorist picture performances are generated by believes is useful for understanding x. When templates — excludes handmade, one-of-a- Plato speaks of drama as essentially mikind flip books from the category of moving metic, he does not suppose that this is a images, the Astaire/Rogers example clearly unique feature of drama, but only that it is a meets the condition in question, aswouldany necessary feature of drama (as he knew it) mass-produced flip book, whether it em- _ to which it is useful to draw our attention, if ployed photographs or some other kind of | we wish to understand how drama works. mechanically produced illustrations. Simi- | However, though I have pointed out what I larly, Muybridge-type photographs of horses _ think are five necessary features of moving 71

Questioning Media

pictures, I do not think that they are 2. This, at least, is how artists may regard particularly central to our understanding of mediumistic essentialist when they are enamhow moving images function. For example, ored of it. Once disenchanted, they are apt to we don’t — at least as far as I can see at scorn it as a narrow-minded, unimaginative, present — derive any deep insights into the intrusive, and altogether inappropriate exer-

ee pe: Before

effects of movies or into film style by cise In proscription. ;

, we 3. Such an interpretation is suggested by

contemplating these five conditions. Charles Barr in his “Cinemascove: Bef

And lastly, my position 1s not that of what and After,” in Film Theory and Criticism: I earlier called medium-essentialism. For, Introductory Readings, second edition, edited among other things, my analysis is not con- by Gerald Mast and Marshall Cohen (New nected to any specific medium. Moving im- York: Oxford University Press, 1979). Of ages, as I call them, can be instantiated in a course, I don’t mean to suggest that stylistic variety of media. The moving image is not a considerations were either the only reasons medium-specific notion for the simple rea- or even the most important reasons behind son that the artform that concerns us, though the adoption of realism. But they were, for born in film, has already undergone and will the reasons Barr suggests, one motivating

.transformation factor. At the sameas time, it should noted continue to undergo new Se saebeof 99 ;. . , . . . that Barr’s “realist/essentialist” reading his media are invented and integrated intocanits ;. preferred use of cinemascope be readily history. oo challenged by considering the use that Sergio

Furthermore, my position is not that of a Leone makes of those cinemascope close-ups medium-essentialist since the five conditions of Clint Eastwood’s and Lee Van Cleef’s eyes that I have enumerated have no implications in the dazzling edited arrays in his spaghetti

)g,...

for the stylistic directions that film and/or westerns.

video and/or computer imaging should take. 4. See, David Bordwell, Janet Staiger and The preceding five conditions are compatible Kristen Thompson, The Classical Hollywood

with any motion picture style, including Cinema: Film Style and Mode of Production styles that may conflict with each other. to 1960 (New York: Columbia University Thus, if I have indeed managed to set out five Press, 1985), pp. 287-93.

oe ; ; 5. André Bazin, What is Cinema?, vol. I,

necessary conditions for moving pictures translated by Hugh Gray (Berkeley: Univer(and images), then I have also shown that sity of California Press, 1967), p. 14. See also contrary to previous traditions of film theory, pp. 96-97. In conversation, David Bordwell it is possible to philosophize about the nature has argued that the quotation above is a bad of moving images without explicitly or im- translation. However, even if this is true, the plicitly legislating what film, video, and position represented by the translation is still computer artists should or should not do.?’ worth debating, since it has given rise to what

Notes Bazin’s.

might be called a Bazinian position. And that

position needs refuting, even if it is not

6. The shift to the idiom of the “Bazinian” here

1. The idea that each art has its own province is meant to indicate that the following arguand, thus, possesses unique features goes ment was not developed by Bazin himself, back at least to the Renaissance and the though I believe that if Bazin had thought of

tradition of the paragone. It was also a this “intuition pump,” he would have been prominent feature of turn-of-the century mod- happy to use it. ernism. Thus, it may seem reasonable that 7. For challenges to the coherence of Bazin’s theorists who were interested in justifying claims about the identity of the photograph to film as a fine art would naturally draw on its model, see my essay “Concerning Uniquepremises already endorsed by the tradition of ness Claims for Photographic and Cinemato-

high-art. graphic Representation,” in this volume. 72

Defining the Moving Image

8. Roger Scruton, “Photography and Represen- 15. Reported in Life with Picasso by Francoise tation,” in The Aesthetic Understanding (Lon- Gilot and Carlton Lake (New York: Anchor

don: Methuen, 1983); Kendall L. Walton, Books, 1989), p. 76. “Transparent Pictures: On the Nature of 16. This disanalogy has also been noted by Nigel Photographic Realism,” Critical Inquiry 11, Warburton is his “Seeing Through ‘Seeing no. 2 (December 1984); Patrick Maynard, Through’ Photographs,” Ratio, New Series 1 “Drawing and Shooting: Causality in Depic- (1988), and by Gregory Currie in his “Photogtion,” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism raphy, Painting and Perception,” Journal of 44 (1985). In “Looking Again through Photo- Aesthetics and Art Criticism 49, no. 1 (Winter graphs,” Kendall Walton defends his position 1991). against Edwin Martin’s objections in “On 17. F. E. Sparshott, “Vision and Dream in the Seeing Walton’s Great-Grandfather”; both Cinema,” Philosophic Exchange (Summer articles appear in Critical Inquiry 12, no. 4 1975), p. 115.

(Summer 1986). 18. The reason for using the singular here — e.g.,

9. See David Lewis, “Veridical Hallucination an essential feature of film is that the photoand Prosthetic Vision,” in Philosophical Pa- graphic realist will have to introduce at least

pers, vol. 2 (Oxford: Oxford University one further feature in order to differentiate Press, 1986) and E. M. Zemach “Seeing, film from photography. Perhaps he might ‘Seeing’ and Feeling,” Review of Metaphysics avail himself of the feature I defend in the

23 (September 1969). next section, called “The Moving Image.”

10. This view should not be confused with the 19. Here, and throughout this section I have been

view of transparency employed by Althusser- profoundly influenced by Arthur Danto’s ian-Lacanian film theorists. For them, view- brilliant article “Moving Pictures,” Quarterly ers mistakenly take cinematic images to be Review of Film Studies 4, no. 1 (Winter 1979). transparent, but they really are not. Photo- 20. Roman Ingarden, “On the Borderline be-

graphic realists, on the other hand, are tween Literature and Painting,” in Ontology committed to the view that photographic of the Work of Art: The Musical Work, The and cinematic images — or, at least, most of Picture, The Architectural Work, The Film, them — are actually transparent in pertinent translated by Raymond Meyer and J. T.

respects. Goldwait (Athens: Ohio University Press,

11. See “Computer Technology and Special Ef- 1989), pp. 324-25.

fects in Contemporary Cinema” by Robin 21. For descriptions of this piece see Sally Banes, Baker in Future Visions: New Technologies Terpsichore in Sneakers (Boston: Houghton

of the Screen, edited by Philip Hayward Mifflin Company, 1980), p. 189, and Noél and Tana Wollen (London: BFI Publishing, Carroll, “Douglas Dunn, 308 Broadway,”

1993). Artforum 13 (September 1974), p. 86.

12. See “Virtual Studio: Computers Come to 22. See, for example, Stanley Cavell, The World Tinseltown,” The Economist 333, no. 7895 Viewed: Reflections on the Ontology of Film, (December 24, 1994—January 6, 1995), p. 88. the enlarged edition (Cambridge, Mass.: Har13. At this point, the photographic realist may vard University Press), pp. 27-28; and Erwin

argue that, nevertheless, there are some Panofsky, “Style and Medium in the Motion transparent pictures and that is really the Pictures,” in Film Theory and Criticism, edbottom line in his theory. But if this is the ited by Gerald Mast and Marshall Cohen view, then transparency cannot count as a (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985). necessary condition of cinematic images. 23. See Richard Wollheim, Art and Its Objects 14. On mattes, see Fred M. Sersen, “Making (Cambridge University Press, 1980), sections Matte Shots,” in The ASC Treasury of Visual 35-38. Effects, edited by George E. Turner (Holly- 24. This would be true of a silent film. If we are

wood: American Society of Cinematogra- talking about a sound film, the soundtrack phers, 1983); and Christopher Finch, Special would have to be retrievable as well. Effects: Creating Movie Magic (New York: 25. If you can print the code out, then it is

Abbeville, 1984). theoretically possible for it to be memorized, 73

Questioning Media if not by one person, then by a group -— like 27. This paper represents a substantial rewriting the population of China. It is at least imagin- and expansion of my “Towards an Ontology

able, therefore, that we might run something of the Moving Image,” in Film and Philosolike the Fahrenheit 451 scenario for film, with phy, edited by Cynthia Freeland and Tom groups of guerrilla film buffs learning the Wartenberg (New York: Routledge, 1995). I programs of forbidden films in defiance of would also like to thank David Bordwell,

totalitarian censors. Arthur Danto, Stephen Davies, Jerrold Levin-

26. Arlene Croce, The Fred Astaire and Ginger son, and Alan Sidelle for their comments on Rogers Book (New York: Vintage, 1972). an earlier version of this paper.

74

=

| = uniqueness, that it generally subsumed these

structures into totalizing, though unsub-

PART I = stantiated, theories of film, and that it was , often prescriptive. But, despite these probPopular Film and TV = lems, we should not overlook the fact that the

enterprise of classifying and explaining the

, = operations of specific devices, structures, mechanisms, and techniques is a worthwhile

= one. It is an objective that I think we should continue to pursue, albeit in a piecemeal way.

The approach that I advocate is piecemeal inasmuch as it recommends initially Historically, the notion that film was a _ considering such devices — like point-ofunique artistic medium provided theorists view editing -— one at a time, developing with a program that was both straightfor- | explanations of their operation without tryward and unified. Identify the unique fea- _ing to fit those explanations into a totalized tures or function of the medium and then _ theory of film.! Of course, this does not discuss its ramifications for every dimension mean that theorizing must remain atomic. of cinematic articulation. What kind of | Once we have various piecemeal analyses of stories are best suited to the medium? What _sfilm structures in front of us, we may then kind go against its grain? Is montage or _ proceed to see whether they can be assemdeep-focus, long-take cinematography more __ bled into larger theoretical constellations —

genuinely cinematic? And so on. Such a __1.e., whether there are generalizations that program is immensely unified, since every- can coordinate our piecemeal analyses into thing is referred back to the unique feature larger frameworks. Yet even here I suggest or function of the medium -— usually as _ that we should resist the expectation that all either an instance or a transgression thereof. our small-scale theories will fit into one If only that unique feature could be identi- —_— unified, overarching theory of film.

fied, everything else, it seems, would more Much of what follows in this anthology

or less fall into place. are attempts at piecemeal theories of film. But as we have seen in the previous For convenience sake, this section and the section, establishing the credentials of a | subsequent one follow the frequent tencandidate as the unique feature of the dency in film studies to divide the field into medium — such that it entails stylistic di- different modes: the mainstream, commerrectives — is an ill-advised project, burdened cial fiction, the avant-garde film, and the with conceptual and empirical difficulties. | documentary. Under these headings, I atAS a consequence, it is my contention that tempt to offer various piecemeal theories of we must devise new ways of theorizing — different film structures — such as suspense motion pictures. The alternative that I and metaphor — and to address certain long-

propose is piecemeal theorizing. standing questions — such as whether avantOne of the strengths of the medium - garde films are theoretical and whether specificity approach to film theory was thatit | documentaries are objective. The articles in focused attention on film structures. What- these two sections could probably be distribever its shortcomings, the approach illumi- uted differently under different headings. If nated the operation of all sorts of cinematic — readers do not like this way of divvying up techniques. The problems with thisapproach the field, they should ignore the headings were that it tended to characterize these tech- _—_and just read the articles.

niques and structures in terms of cinematic This section of the book focuses on 75

Popular Film and TV

commercial narrative fictions or movies, research, nor even that they are the only under which label I also count TV fictions. | mechanisms that contribute to the power of

The section looks at various devices or movies. It is my hope that the essays in this structures of film, including the cinematic — section will encourage further piecemeal image, variable framing, erotetic narration, theorizing about movie devices and further point-of-view editing, suspense, modifying discussion of the elements that comprise the music, sight gags, and the sort of episodic | power of movies.

narration associated with soap operas. A “Toward a Theory of Film Suspense” and

large number of these analyses and/or “As The Dial Turns: Notes On Soap Optaxonomies may be read and evaluated in eras” develop from the notion of erotetic their own right. One may regard my theories _ narration broached in “The Power of Mov-

of point-of-view editing apart from my _ ies.” “As The Dial Turns” contrasts serial hypotheses about the power of movies. But _ narrative construction with the typical conat the same time, several of these piecemeal struction of movie narratives in an effort to

accounts are also amalgamated into alarger locate one of the enduring attractions of hypothesis about what makes movies such soap operas. “Toward a Theory of Film an effective means of mass communication.* Suspense” begins with a consideration of I refer to this hypothesis as the power of — erotetic narration as a foundation for proposmovies. But though I do advance a some- __ing a theory of one of the most recurring what comprehensive theory under this ru- emotional effects of movies, the elicitation bric, it is not a total theory of film, noreven of suspense.*

a total theory of the movies. For not only Though the other essays in this section can theoretical questions not pertaining to _—are interrelated in various ways, “Notes on the power of movies be posed about movies, __ the Sight Gag” is freestanding. It does not

but it is not even the case that all the link up with the other theories propounded piecemeal theories about movie structures in this section. Moreover, it is less an advanced herein fit into my hypothesis exercise in explanation than one in taxonabout the power of movies. The essay about omy. And it is more descriptive than it is

sight gags, for instance, does not. systematic. I suspect that future researchers In the first essay, “The Power of Movies,” — will do a better job organizing this field of I advance accounts of the cinematic image, | phenomena than I have; I hope my halting variable framing and movie narration, along attempt will both help and inspire them to with a conjecture about how variable fram- _do so. In this respect, the essay is perhaps

. . ; Notes

ing and movie narration are standardly best regarded as prototheoretical.> integrated. The essay also attempts to indicate how these structures serve the abiding

aim of the movies — to command mass audiences. “Toward a Theory of Point-of-View 1. Though my own theorizing tends to emphasize

Editing: Communication, Emotion and the the analysis of cinematic structures of articulaMovies” and “Notes on Movie Music” pur- tion, Ido not believe that the ambit of film sue the piecemeal theorizing of film struc- theorizing — including piecemeal theorizing —

tures into further domains and, as well, s limited to this domain of inquiry. Film theorists may also ask questions about film speculate about the ways in which these distribution, about film content, about film devices advance the effectiveness of movies technology, and so on. I want to be fairly as a means of mass communication.’ There is liberal about what counts as film theory. no presumption that the structures analyzed Roughly, if something is an explanation or in this section exhaust the compass of movie taxonomy of sufficient generality about some 76

Popular Fim and TV phenomenon of film practice, I am willing to “The cinematic,” in that sense, is alien to my countenance it as film theory — as a theory positive theoretical conjectures. about something about film. Moreover, my 4. For an expansion of my account of suspense, liberalism here concerning film theory is see Noél Carroll, “The Paradox of Suspense,” probably also connected to my disposition in Suspense: Conceptualizations, Theoretical toward piecemeal theorizing, since it seems Analyses and Empirical Explorations, edited fairly unlikely that every theoretical question by P. Vorderer, H. J. Wuff and M. Friedrichen we can ask about film — from accounts of the (Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, nature of camera movement to theories of the forthcoming). impact of film on American politics — will 5. Tom Gunning has criticized one of the con-

segue into one totalized theory. jectures in this essay on the grounds that the 2. This discussion itself is nested in a larger sight gag is as old as cinema. But I don’t theoretical preoccupation. See Noél Carroll, believe that my essay denies this. It only “The Nature of Mass Art” and “Mass Art, claims that slapstick is more the mark of High Art and the Avant-garde: A Response early cinema and that the sight gag (espeto David Novitz,” Philosophic Exchange: A cially the intricately developed sight gag) is Journal of the State University at Brockport, the aesthetically dominant structure in the

no. 23 (1992). twenties. This is a hypothesis about the differ-

3. When I use phrases like “film structures” in ential degree of what was most important the sentence above, or terms like “cinematic when. It is not an absolute claim about where devices” in what follows, I merely mean you find sight gags versus where you find structures and devices that are used in film slapstick. Obviously, my conjecture does rely and are so recognized. Since in the preceding on certain aesthetic judgments about what I section, I have rejected the use of the claim is aesthetically most important in differappellation of “the cinematic” in the medium ent periods. But I don’t think that my specific sense, my use of adjectives like judgments are particularly idiosyncratic in “film” and “cinematic” should not be taken this regard. For Gunning’s criticisms, see his as having medium specificity implications. extremely interesting essay “The Origins of They are simply meant to inform the reader American Film Comedy” in Classical Hollythat the structures in question are ones that wood Comedy, edited by Kristine Brunovska occur in film. Let there be no insinuation that Karwick and Henry Jenkins (New York: they are specific, unique, or essential to film. Routledge, 1995), p. 361.

77

=

- effects, is not very persuasive. For it re-

quires attributing rather bizarre and frankly

CHAPTER V =to dubious mental states to spectators. Specta} 7 tors are said be under the illusion that the , . , film image is its referent; or we are thought The Power of Movies ™ to believe that the film image is reality = narrating itself; or that the film image is

somehow natural. Some of these imputed

, , = psychological effects — for example, “reality narrating itself” — sound downright incoher-

ent. But all of these variations on the

realistic effect are suspect because they For much of its history, film theory has been _attribute to spectators states of belief that obsessed with various notions of realism. In would preclude our characteristic forms of

what has come to be called classical film response to, and appreciation of, cinema. theory, i.e., film theory until 1965, the — For, were we spectators ever to mistake the writings of André Bazin evince the extreme — representations before us for the referents

form of this obsession. Bazin held that the those images portray, we could not sit by film image was an objective re-presentation comfortably, inactively, and appreciatively of the past, a veritable slice of reality.!_ In while buffaloes stampede toward us, while addition to this view of the ontology of film, — lovers reveal their deepest longings to each Bazin also advanced the psychological corol- — other, and while children are tortured.?

lary that spectators somehow regard the The realist approach to film theory, either

images on screen as identical with their as an ontological thesis or in its more referents. Contemporary film theorists re- | contemporary, psychologized variations, is a

ject Bazin’s metaphysics concerning the dead end. However, the questions that nature of the film image; influenced by motivated the realist answers may well be semiotics, such theorists deny there is any worth asking. That is, what is it that the literal sense to be made of the idea that film various realist approaches in film theory are is some kind of natural mirror onto reality. | designed to explain, and is it worth explainYet contemporary film theorists do hold ing? At least two candidates seem key here.

onto a portion of the realist approach, Realism, especially as a psychological effect, notably its psychological presuppositions. is supposed to play a role in explaining the That is, contemporary theorists, while reyect- | way in which film disseminates ideology, ing the notion that film is a slice of reality, | according to contemporary film theorists. nevertheless agree that in its standard uses, Second, the attribution of realism is meant film imparts a realistic effect to its viewers. — to explain the power of movies, to explain This effect, a psychological effect, is de- | why the moving picture, including narrative scribed by various formulas, including the TV, is the dominant art form of the twentieth notions that film gives the impression of — century.

reality narrating itself; film causes an illu- Certainly, “How does cinema promote sion of reality; or film appears natural. ideology?” and “What makes movies powerSurely, contemporary theorists are cor- ful?” are good questions. The purpose of rect in forsaking the extravagances of _ this paper is to attempt to answer the second Bazin’s ontology of film, the great influence question, without resorting to the invocation

of his theory notwithstanding. However, of realism.* We shall try to explain what contemporary film theory’s psychologizing | makes motion pictures our dominant mass of the realist approach, in terms of realist art, one that is so widespread, internation78

The Power of Movies

ally pervasive, and accessible across bound- _— powerful; it is not the medium of cinema that

aries of class and culture. We shall further- has gripped such widespread audiences so more attempt to explain what makes the intensely. Instead, it is the adaptation of the response to movies so intense for so many, — medium to the purposes of Hollywood Interespecially when compared to art forms such _ national. When people speak of the power of

as opera and theater. the medium, they are, I believe, talking The hypothesis of realism was meant to about the power of this particular genre or

deal with such questions by suggesting that __ style. For it is the movies, and not modernist since films appear to be slices of reality, they | masterpieces or medical instruction films, are widely accessible insofar as everyone is __ that have captivated the twentieth-century

familiar with reality. But the reference to popular imagination. It is the power of reality here won’t give us much help with the —= movies about which researchers are really

intensity of our response to movies, because curious. in large measure we conceive of the special To speak of movies rather than film or intensity of movies exactly in contrast toour cinema deliberately eschews essentialism. more diffuse responses to quotidian reality. | Posing the problem in an essentialist idiom —

Another way to put this, of course, is to i.e., what makes the medium of cinema point out that since our response to realityis | powerful — would pervert the question. For

so often lackluster, claiming that a film neither the medium nor every style of film appears to be a slice of reality promises no _—found in it is accessible to or intensely explanation of our extraordinarily intense | engaging of mass, popular audiences. Thus, response to films. So another explanation, plumbing the essence of the medium, if there

one not reliant upon realism, must be found is such a thing, would not provide the to account for the power of movies. information we seek. Instead of comparing

the medium of film to other media such as To begin an account of the power of movies, — theater or literature, then, this paper will some characterization of the phenomenonin focus on the genre of movies in order to question is relevant. First, the word “mov- determine just what features of the stylistic ies,” as used here, does not refer to film or choices of Hollywood International enable it cinema at large — thatis, toabodyofcultural to evoke a level of widespread, intensive productions that includes, not only commer- engagement that is, ex hypothesis, unrivaled cial, narrative films, but also industrial docu- by other media, Indeed, this way of stating mentaries, medical training films, ballistics | the project is not quite accurate; for it is not

tests, experimental films, modernist art the case that the genre of movies is really to films, propaganda films, and so on. Rather, — be contrasted with other media, but rather “movies” refers to popular mass-media films, that movies will be contrasted with other the products of what might be called Holly- — genres within other media. We want to know

wood International — films made in what has what features of movies like Red River, been dubbed the “classical style,” whether Psycho, and Blue Thunder make them more _ they be American, Italian, or Chinese, and appealing and more intensely engaging for whether they be made for the screen or for mass audiences than, for example, plays TV. Movies, inthissense,areagenre,notthe like King Lear and Hurlyburly, ballets like whole, of cinema. It is about this genre’s Giselle, and novels like Middlemarch. My

power that my paper is concerned. Why §anti-essentialism amounts to a refusal to speak of the power of a genre of cinema _—_ answer questions about the power of movies

rather than of the power of the medium? in terms of the specificity of the medium of Well, the answer to that is simply that the cinema. It may seem that proclaiming this medium of cinema is not, in and of itself, | variety of anti-essentialism at this late date is 79

Popular Film and TV

so much redundant arm-waving. But ’m not — over and above object recognition. Whatsure. The influence of Christian Metz’s re- ever features or cues we come to employ in cent essay, “The Imaginary Signifier,” which object recognition, we also mobilize to proceeds methodologically in an essentialist | recognize what pictures depict. A child

manner, trying to isolate and analyze a raised without pictorial representations will, cinema-specific feature of the medium which after being shown a couple of pictures, be

he identifies as a special sort of play of able to identify the referent of any picture of presence and absence, testifies to the persis- |= an object with which he or she is familiar.®

tent appeal of the essentialist approach.° The rapid development of this pictureThe power of movies comprises two recognition capacity contrasts strongly with factors: widespread engagement and intense the acquisition of a symbol system such as

engagement. This paper will attempt to language. Upon mastering a couple of explain the former in terms of those features words, the child is nowhere near mastering of movies that make them highly accessible _ the entire language. Similarly, when an adult

to broad audiences. It will also try toexplain is exposed to one or two representational the intensity of movies by examining those __ pictures in an alien pictorial idiom, say a features that enable movies to depict situa- | Westerner confronting a Japanese image in tions with a very high degree of clarity. Ina __ the floating-point-of-view style, he will be

nutshell, its thesis is that the power of able to identify the referent of any picture in movies resides in their easily graspable that format after studying one or two repre-

clarity for mass audiences. sentations of that sort for a few moments.

We can begin to understand the general § But no Westerner, upon learning one or two popularity of the movie genre by consider- _ linguistic symbols of the Japanese language,

ing those features that make it generally could go on to identify the reference of all, accessible to mass, untutored audiences. A or even merely a few more, Japanese words. good place to start this investigation is with Moreover, historically the Japanese were the image projected by the single-shot- a eminently able to catch on to and replicate close-up of the hero’s face, or along-view of — the Western system of perspectival picturing

Castle Dracula. These images are, for the | by examining a selection of book illustramost part, representational, but, more im- _ tions; but they could never have acquired portant, they are pictorial representations. any European language by learning the They refer to their referents by way of | meanings of just a few words or phrases.’ picturing, by displaying or manifesting a Pictorial representations thus differ radidelimited range of resemblances to their cally from linguistic representations. The referents. By recognizing these similarities, | speed with which the former is mastered

the spectator comes to know what the — suggests that it does not require special picture depicts, whether a man, a horse, a _ learning, above the realization, perhaps,

house, and so on. that flat surfaces are being used to stand for

Given that the typical movie image is a _ three-dimensional objects. Rather, the capictorial representation, what has thisto do __ pacity to recognize what a picture depicts with accessibility? Well, a picture is a very emerges in tandem with the capacity to special sort of symbol. Psychological evi- recognize the kind of object that serves as dence strongly supports the contention that the model of the picture. The reciprocal we learn to recognize what a picture stands __ relation between picture recognition and

for aS soon as we have become able to object recognition, of course, explains how recognize the objects, or kinds of objects, _ it is possible for us, having acquired detailed

that serve as the models for that picture. visual information from pictures, to recogPicture recognition is not a skill acquired nize objects and places we have never 80

The Power of Movies

encountered in real life. And, of course, the The remarks thus far are apt to displease fact that pictorial recognition does not re- —_‘ the majority of cinema researchers. For the quire any special learning process would — contention that pictures (and, by extension, also explain how movies, whose basic con- moving pictures) work by looking like their

stituent symbols are pictures, are immedi- __ referents in those pertinent respects to ately accessible to untutored audiences in which our perceptual system is keyed, goes every corner of the world. These audiences against the contemporary received wisdom do not need any special training to deal with _— that pictures, like any other symbol, are the basic images in movies, for the capacity matters of codes and conventions. Undoubtto recognize what these images are about — edly, some reader will recall an anthropol-

has evolved part and parcel with the — ogy class in which he was told that certain viewer’s capacity to recognize objects and non-Western peoples were unable to under-

events. stand pictures shown to them by missionar-

The technology of film could be adaptedin ies and other field workers. However, this such a way that the basic images of a film | evidence has never been entirely decisive. genre or film style were not pictorialrepresen- | Complaints about the fidelity of the phototations. One could imagine a motion picture graphs involved have been raised, along industry of changing abstract forms, afterthe | with the more serious objection that what fashion of Hans Richter’s Rhythmus 21, or _ the subjects failed to understand, and then one of spectacles of color, such as Stan only initially, was the practice of using flat Brakhage’s Text of Light. But that was not — surfaces to portray three-dimensional obthe road taken by the movies. Movies be- _jects.8 Once they got the hang of that, they came a worldwide phenomenon —- and alu- had no trouble in recognizing what hitherto crative industry — precisely because in their — unseen pictures referred to — assuming they

exploitation of pictorial recognition — asop- were familiar with the kinds of objects posed to symbol systems that require mastery displayed in the pictures.” Also, on the nonof processes such as reading, decoding, or = conventionalist side of the scale, we must deciphering in order to be understood — they weigh the psychological evidence of the rely on a biological capability thatis nurtured — child’s acquisition of pictorial recognition, | in humans as they learn to identify the — the easy cross-cultural dissemination of pic-

objects and events in their environment. torial practices, and the zoological evidence The basic images in movies are not simply _ that certain animals have the capacity for pictorial representations; they are, stan- pictorial recognition,’ against exotic anecdardly, moving pictorial representations. dotes that are meant to demonstrate that the But just as an audience need not go through __ practices of picturing are cultural convena process of learning to “read” pictures, — tions that must be learned in the fashion of a

neither is its perception of movie “move- language. We can consider our own cases. ment” learned. Rather, itis afunction of the |= We all recall our own language acquisition,

way stroboscopic or beta phenomena affect and we know how to go about helping the brain’s organization of congruous input youngsters to learn to speak and to read. presented in specifiable sequences to differ- | But who remembers undergoing a similar ent points on the retina. Of course, follow- = process in regard to pictures, and what ing a movie involves much more than the — techniques would we employ to teach a capacity to recognize what its moving im- _—youngster pictorial literacy? Yes, we may ages represent. But we should not overlook = show a child a few pictures and say the name

the crucial role that the relative ease of — of the object portrayed. But very shortly the comprehending the basic symbols of movies child just sees what the picture is of; the plays in making movies readily accessible. child doesn’t “read” the picture or decode it 81

Popular Film and TV

or go through some process of inference. part of the ideas of code, convention, and And from a meager set of samples, the child —_ culture; terms that in film studies are treated

can proceed to identify the subjects of a as equivalent. If something is coded or plethora of pictures, because there is a conventional, then it is regarded as a culcontinuum between apprehending pictorial tural production. This seems fair enough. representations and perceiving the world — But it is more problematic to presume, as that does not depend upon learning any- _ffilm researchers do, the reverse; that if thing like the conventional, arbitrary correla- | something is a cultural product, then it is an

tions of a vocabulary, or the combinatory example of coded or conventional phenom-

principles of a grammar. ena. Thus, if pictorial representations, inThere is undoubtedly a temptation to cluding moving, pictorial representations, think that picture recognition involves some are cultural productions, which they cerprocess of decoding or inference because of __ tainly are, then they must be conventional.

the contemporary influence of the computa- The difficulty here lies in the assumption tional metaphor of the mind. We think that that everything that is cultural is necessarily computers supply us with powerful insight conventional. into how the mind works. And if we were Consider plows. They are cultural producto build a computer to simulate pictorial tions. They were produced by certain agriculrecognition, it would require a complex _ tural civilizations that had culturally specific information-processing system. But it does needs not shared, for example, by hunternot follow that if computers employ com- _ gatherers. Is the design of a plow a matter of plex information-processing systems in pic- convention? Recall, here, that for semiotic torial recognition, then humans must like- _ film theorists, arbitrariness is a key defining wise possess such systems. It may rather be feature of a convention. That is, a group that our neurophysiology is so constructed creates a convention — like driving on the that when stimulated by certain pictorial right side of the road — when there are a arrays, we see what the picture is of. John number of alternative ways of dealing with Searle notes that balance is controlled by _ the situation and when the choice between the fluids in our inner ear. Were a robot to _ these alternatives is arbitrary, a matter of be built, balance would probably be gov- _ fiat. But the adoption of the design of the erned by some complex computational pro- — plow could not have been reached by fiat.

gram. But, for us, balance is a matter The plow had a purpose — digging furrows —

governed by our fleshy hardware. A and its effectiveness had to be accommosimilar case might be made that biology-— _—_ dated to the structure of nature. It would rather than information processing- may have tobe heavy enough and sharp enough to

have a great deal to tell us about the cut into the earth, and it had to be adapted workings of object recognition and picture — tothe capacities of its human users — it had to recognition. And to the extent that pictorial be steerable and pullable by creatures like us

representation is a matter of the way in withtwoarms and limited strength. A device which humans are made, a practice rooted such as a plow had to be discovered; it could

in pictorial representation —such as the not be brought into existence by consensus. movies — will be widely and easily accessi- | We could not have elected pogo-sticks to do

ble to all humans made that way. the work of plows. The plow was a cultural Many contemporary semiotically inclined invention, not a cultural convention. It was film theorists resist approaching pictorial § adopted because it worked, because it met a representation in the movies in the preced- cultural need by accommodating features of

ing fashion. Their resistance rests on a nature and biology. confusion, or rather a conflation, on their The point of introducing the concept of a 82

The Power of Movies

cultural invention here is, of course, to block —_ paper, though, has not invoked any of these

the facile identification of the cultural and _ realist, psychological effects, nor anything

the conventional. Applied to the sort of _ like them. It has instead claimed that the pictorial representations found in movies, — untutored spectator recognizes what the film

this concept suggests that pictorial represen- image represents without reference to a tations may be cultural inventions, inven- —_ code; it has not claimed that the spectator tions that, given the way people are built, — takes the pictorial representation to be, in cause spectators who are untrained in any _—_ any sense, its referent. Man’s perceptual

system of conventions to recognize what capacities evolve in such a way that his pictures stand for. The structure of such capacity for pictorial recognition comes, images is not determinable by a mere almost naturally, with his capacity for object decision. Given the constraints of the hu- recognition, and part of that capacity is the man perceptual apparatus, we cannot de- ability to differentiate pictures from their cree that anything Jooks like anything else, _—_ referents. Thus, we are not talking about a though we may decree that anything can _ realist, psychological effect — the taking ofa stand for anything else. It seems cogent to _— representation for its referent — but only

suppose that this limitation is in large about the capacity of movies to exploit measure attributable to human biology. And __ generic, recognitional abilities. Another way insofar as movies are constituted of a mode __ to see the difference between this approach

of representation connected to biological and that of the realists is to note how often features of the human organism, they willbe their accounts of the power of movies empha-

generally more accessible than genres in _ size the importance of the fact that movies other media, such as the novel, that presup- are photographic, whereas in the account pose the mastery of learned conventions offered here the important technology for such as specific natural languages. Also, if | explaining the accessibility of movies is the the recognition of movie images is more _non-cinema-specific technology of pictorial analogous to a reflex than it is to a process _—_ representation.

like reading, then following a movie may If up to this point anything can be said to turn out to be less taxing, less a matter of | have been demonstrated, then, admittedly, it active effort, than reading. Perhaps this can must also be conceded that we are a good be confirmed by recalling how much easierit distance away from a full account of the is to follow a movie when one is fatigued power of movies. We have explained why

than it is to read a novel. movies are more accessible than genres like

The claim has so far been made that a __ novels. But what features of movies account crucial element in the power of moviesisthe for their presumably superior accessibility fact that movies usually rely, in terms oftheir and intensity in comparison with media and

basic imagery, on pictorial representations genres like drama, ballet, and opera, in that allow masses of untutored spectators which recognition of what the representaeasy access to the fundamentalsymbolsinthe tions refer to is, like movies, typically not system, due to the way humans are con- mediated by learned processes of decoding, structed. But is this not justareversiontothe — reading, or inference? What standard feakind of realist explanation we began by _ tures of movies differentiate them from the dismissing? Not at all. The Bazinian claims — standard features of the presentation of that the spectator somehow takes the film __ plays, for example, in a way that make typical image to be identical with its referent, while |§ movies more accessible than typical theatricontemporary film theorists hold that the — cal performances? Our hypothesis is that due typical film image imparts the illusion of — tocertain devices developed early in the evo-

reality, transparency, or naturalness. This lution of movies, the typical movie is, all 83

Popular Film and TV

things being equal, easier to follow than the the proscenium stage, the audience’s attentypical play, i.e., theatrical performances as __ tion can be guided by: the central position-

have so far been commonly encountered. ing of an important character; movement This caveat is added because there is no rea- in stasis; stasis in movement; characters’ son to believe that theatrical devices that —eyelines; light colors on dark fields; dark would be functionally equivalent to the — colors on light fields; sound, notably diamovie devices about to be discussed could logue; spotlighting and variable illumination not be invented, thus changing the relative of the array; placement of important objects

accessibility of typical movies and typical or characters along arresting diagonals; plays. Our anti-essentialist bias, however,de- | economy of set details; makeup and cosmands that we not compare the eternal es- tume; commentary; gestures; and so on. sence of the film medium with its putative | But movies appear to have further devices theatrical counterpart, but rather the stateof | and perhaps more effective devices for the art of movies with the state of the art of | directing attention than does theater as it is

theatrical production. presently practiced. The variability of focus

Movies are said to be more accessible in film, for example, is a more reliable than plays. What does this mean? We have _means of making sure that the audience is asserted that movies are easier to follow looking where the spectator “ought” to be

than plays. What is it that is distinctive looking than is theatrical lighting. Even about the way in which spectators follow more important is the use in movies of movies? With the typical movie, given cer- _ variable framing. Through cutting and cam-

tain of its characteristic devices, notably era movement, the filmmaker can rest variable framing, the movie viewer is gener- assured that the spectator is perceiving ally in a position where he or she is _ exactly what she should be perceiving at the attending to exactly what is significant inthe = precise moment she should be perceiving it. action-array or spectacle on screen. Another |§ When the camera comes in for a close-up, way of getting at this point is to say that the — for example, there is no possibility that the

filmmaker in the movie genre has far more spectator can be distracted by some detail potential control over the spectator’s atten- — stage-left. Everything extraneous to the tion than does the theatrical director. The story at that point is deleted. Nor does the consequence of this is that the movie specta- —_ spectator have to find the significant detail; tor is always looking where he or she should __ it is delivered to her. The viewer also gets as

be looking, always attending to the right close or as far-off a view of the signifidetails and thereby comprehending, nearly cant objects of the story — be they heroeffortlessly, the ongoing action precisely in ines, butcher knives, mobs, fortresses, or the way it is meant to be understood. Due to _— planets — as is useful for her to have a various devices, such as variable framing, — concrete sense of what is going on. Whereas

movies are easier to follow and, therefore, in a theater the eye constantly tracks the more accessible than theatrical productions action—often at a felt distance, often because movies are more perspicuous cogni- amidst a vaulting space — in movies much of

tively. The element of cognitive clarity that work is done by shifting camera posiafforded by movies may well account, too, tions, which at the same time also assures for the widespread intensity of engagement that the average viewer has not gotten lost

that movies elicit. in the space but is looking precisely at that Of course, movies and standard theatri- which she is supposed to see. Movies are cal productions share many of the same therefore easier to follow than typical stage devices for directing the audience’s atten- productions, because the shifting camera tion. Both in the medium-long shot and on __ positions make it practically impossible for 84

The Power of Movies

the movie viewer not to be attending where degree may vary as to whether a given

she is meant to attend. bracketing is more important for what it

Variable framing in film is achieved by — excludes, rather than what it includes, and moving the camera closer or farther away __ vice-versa.

from the objects being filmed. Cutting and There is also a standard deviation from camera movement are the two major pro- __ this use of bracketing. Often the important cesses for shifting framing: inthe former, the element of a scene is placed outside the

actual process of the camera’s change of frame so that it is not visible on-screen, e.g., position is not included in the shot; we jump __ the child-killer in the early part of Fritz from medium-range views, to close views, to | Lang’s M. Such scenes derive a great deal of far-off views with the traversal of the space __ their expressive power just because they between excised; in camera movement, as subvert the standard function of bracketing. the name suggests, the passage of the camera As the camera is moved forward, it not from a long view to a close view is recorded __ only indexes and places brackets around the

within the shot. Reframing can also be objects in front of it; it also changes their achieved optically through devices such as _ scale. Whether by cutting or camera movezooming-in and changing lenses. These me- ment, as the camera nears the gun on the chanical means for changing the framing of __ table, the gun simultaneously appears larger an on-screen object or event give risetothree |§ and occupies more screen space. When the formal devices for directing the movie audi- camerais pulled away from the table, the gun ence’s attention: indexing, bracketing, and —_ occupies less screen space. This capacity to scaling. Indexing occurs when a camera is _ change the scale of objects through camera moved toward an object. The motiontoward positioning -— a process called “scaling” —

the object functions ostensively, like the can be exploited for expressive or magical gesture of pointing. It indicates that the — effects. Scaling is also a lever for directing viewer ought to be looking in the direction attention. Enlarging the screen size of an the camera is moving, if the camera’s move- _ object generally has the force of stating that

ment is being recorded, or in the direction __this object, or gestalt of objects, is the toward which the camera 1s aimed or point- important item to attend to at this moment in ing, if we have been presented with the shot the movie.

via a cut. Scaling, bracketing, and indexing are When a camera is moved towards an _ three different ways of directing the movie array, it screens out everything beyond the __ spectator’s attention through camera posiframe. To move a camera toward an object _ tioning. In general, a standard camera posieither by cutting or camera movement gener- _— tioning, whether executed by cutting or ally has the force of indicating that what is camera movement, will employ all three of

important at this moment is what is on these means. But one can easily think of screen, what is in the perimeter of the — scenes in which the bracket is reoriented, frame. That which is not inside the frame __ but the scaling stays effectively the same, for has been bracketed, excluded. It should not, | example, a lateral pan as a character walks

and in fact it literally cannot, atthe moment toward the edge of the frame. Likewise, a it is bracketed, be attended to. At the same camera movement might be important for time, bracketing has an inclusionary dimen- _—_—-what it indexes rather than for whatever

sion, indicating that what is inside the frame | changes occur in the bracketing or the or bracket is important. A standard camera _ scaling: there are moving shots in the early position will mobilize both the exclusionary _Italian film Cabiria, for example, where the

and inclusionary dimensions of the bracket camera nudges a few feet forward in a to control attention, though the relative spectacle scene in order to point the viewer’s 85.

Popular Film and TV

eye in a certain direction, though neither it. Yet it is key to why movies are accessible;

the bracket nor the scale of the objects in’ as we have noted, it contributes to the the scene are changed appreciably. Both the _ intensity of engagement movies promote.

swamp scene and the trolley-car scene in Through variable framing, the director asSunrise are artistically important for the way _ sures that the spectator is attending where

in which they call attention to the bracket, | and when she should. The action and its

rather than for their scaling or indexing. details unfold in such a way that every However, bracketing, scaling, and indexing element that is relevant is displayed at a can be employed in tandem, and when they _ distance that makes it eminently recogniz-

are, they afford very powerful means by able and, in a sequence that is intelligible. which the movie-maker controls the audi- _—_Ideally, variable framing allows us to see just ence’s attention. We suddenly see aclose-up — what we need to see at changing distances

of a gun, indexed, scaled, and bracketed as and at cadences that render the action the important object in the scene, and then __ perspicuous. The action is analytically brothe bracket is changed - we see a medium __ Ken down into its most salient elements, shot in which the gun is being pointed at the _ distilled, that is, in a way that makes it heroine by the villain, telling us thatnowthe — extremely legible. This kind of clarity, which important thing about the gun is its role — 1s bequeathed to the audience automatically within this newly framed context or gestalt. | by variable framing, contrasts strongly with The constant reframing of the action that is the depiction of action in theatrical represen-

endemic to movies enables the spectator to tations. There, the depiction is not analytic follow the action perfectly, and, so to say, but a matter of physical enactment, gener-

automatically. ally occurring in something approximating

Adaptations of stage technology, of _ real time, and presented at a fixed distance course, could probably establish theatrical to each viewer. Of course, theatrical action means that would be functionally equivalent is abstracted, simplified, for the sake of to the scaling, bracketing, and indexing legibility, often employing emblematic gesfunctions of movies. Magnifying mirrors _ tures. It is clearer, that is, than the actions might be used to enlarge stage details at | we encounter in everyday life. But theatrical appropriate moments; the leg curtains could _action is not as clear and analytically distinct

be motorized to constantly reframe the as movie action as portrayed by variable action; and indexing might be approximated _ framing. Movie action, given the way it can by use of revolving stages that rotate the — be organized through camera positioning, is important characters:and actions toward the _—_ also far more intelligible than the unstaged audience. If these devices were not too — events we witness in everyday life. This is an distracting in and of themselves, they might important feature that helps account for the provide the theater director with attentional § way in which movies grip us.

levers that are functionally equivalent to Our experience of actions and events in scaling, bracketing, and indexing. However, movies differs radically from our normal these devices are not customary intheateras | experiences; movie actions and events are so we presently know it, and our project hereis organized, so automatically intelligible, and to contrast movies as they are with theater — so clear. The arresting thing about movies,

as it currently is. contra realist theories, is not that they create

Of course, films can be made without the illusion of reality, but that they reorgavariable framing; but movies rely on vari- nize and construct, through variable framable framing to automatize the spectator’s ing, actions and events with an economy, attention. Also, variable framing is not legibility, and coherence that are not only unique to movies; other film genres employ automatically available, but which surpass, 86

The Power of Movies

in terms of their immediately perceptible action, a narrative would probably be the basic structure, naturally encountered ac- likeliest, though not the only, means of ortions and events. Movie actions evince ganizing our information: George, racked visible order and identity to a degree not with guilt feelings about his father’s tulips found in everyday experience. This quality and convinced that a beautiful garden is a of uncluttered clarity gratifies the mind’s means to the coveted ideal of good citizenquest for order, thereby intensifying our ship, decided to have a beautiful garden; and

engagement with the screen. when he read, on May 17, 1953, that such

So far, our speculations about the sources —_ gardens could not be had without watering of the power of movies have been restricted the tulips, he went out and watered the tulips to what would have classically been consid- (on May 18). We might add that he contin-

ered the medium’s “cinematic features”: | ued to do so happily ever after. Insofar as pictorial representation and variable fram- _ this sort of narrative is one of the most ing. This, of course, does not reflect a belief | common forms of human explanation, and that these elements are uniquely cinematic, insofar as much movie narration belongs to

but only that they are features that help _ this category, movies will be familiar and account for movies’ power, the capacity to accessible. Moreover, the explanatory qualengender what appears to be an unprece- ity of such narration will also contribute to dentedly widespread and intense level of _ the clarity of movies. engagement. There is another core defining Of course, the logical relations that subfeature of what we are calling movies that __ tend this sort of narrative, at crucial points,

needs to be treated: this is that they are — remind one, and are parasitic upon, those fictional narratives. The question naturally — of practical inference. If I am George, for arises to what degree this fact about movies example, I reason thusly: I want a beautiful

can help explain their power. garden; I do not believe I can secure a The fact that movies tend to be narrative, beautiful garden unless I water the tulips; concerned primarily with depictions of hu- _ therefore, I proceed to water the tulips. man actions, immediately suggests one of | What makes narratives of the sort that I told the reasons they are accessible. For narra- above explanatory is that they, at nodal tive is, in all probability, our most pervasive moments, reflect processes of practical reaand familiar means of explaining human soning. Practical reasoning is part of everyaction. If you ask me why George is watering one’s life. And the actions of others are the tulips, I may answer that George intends _ intelligible to me when I can see them as to have, or wants, a beautiful garden, and consequences of the sort of practical reasonthat he believes that he can’t have abeautiful ing I employ. Insofar as movie narratives degarden unless he waters the tulips. SoI say _ pict the human actions of characters in forms he undertakes to water the tulips. You might _ that are reflective of the logic of practical ask me how he formed the desire to have a _ inference, the movies will be widely accessi-

beautiful garden. I may refer to either his _ ble, since practical inference is a generic belief that this is a means to being a good _—_ form of human decision making.

citizen or his guilt about never caring for his Undoubtedly, this discussion of narrative

father’s garden, or both if his action is may be too broad and too abstract to be of overdetermined. If you ask, where didhe get much use to the film analyst. In all probabilthe notion that the garden would not be _ ity nothing of great interest would be gained beautiful unless he watered it, Isay he read __ in film studies by showing that a series of it in a book called Beautiful Gardens on May _ scenes reflected a series of practical infer-

17, 1953. Now if we tried to sum up this _ ences on the part of characters. Rather, the somewhat banal explanation of George’s __ film scholar will be interested in an analysis 87

Popular Film and TV

of the characteristic forms of plotting found appears offshore, unbeknownst to the local

in movies; she will want these described authorities, and begins to ravage lonely more specifically than they were in the | swimmers, this scene or series of scenes (or preceding discussion. And she will want to __ this event or series of events) raises the

know what it is about these forms, if | question of whether the shark will ever be anything, that contributes to the power of detected. This question is likely to be an-

movies. swered in some later scene when someone In a recent paper on film suspense,’ I figures out why all those swimmers are

attempted to identify what I think is the missing. At that point, when it is learnt that most basic form of movie plotting, and I the shark is very, very powerful and nasty to would like to take advantage of those spec- _ boot, the question arises about whether it can ulations now. My position owes a great deal _—_ be destroyed or driven away. The ensuing

to the Soviet filmmaker and theoretician events in the film serve to answer that V. I. Pudovkin.!3 Pudovkin, like his teacher, question. Or, if some atomic bombs are

L. Kuleshov, studied American movies, con- —_ skyjacked in the opening scenes, this genertrasting them with Russian films in order to. —_ates questions about who stole them and for

discern what made the American films of | what purposes. Once the generally nefarious

the twenties more effective on popular purposes of the hijacking are established, the audiences than were comparable Russian question arises concerning whether these films. Pudovkin and Kuleshov undertook _ treacherous intents can be thwarted. Or, for this investigation, of course, in order to a slightly more complicated scenario, shortly calculate the best means for creating anew after a jumbo jet takes off, we learn that the Soviet cinema for the masses. The theories — entire crew has just died from food poisoning

of filmmaking they produced were meant while also learning that the couple in first to instruct other filmmakers in technique _ class is estranged. These scenes raise the and praxis. As is well known, Pudovkin — questions of whether the plane will crash and

and Kuleshov tended to become very pre- whether the couple in first class will be scriptive in these matters, a tendency for — reconciled by their common ordeal. Maybe which they have been duly chastised ever — we also ask whether the alcoholic priest in since. But whatever their dogmatism, we — coach will find God again. It is the function of should not overlook the fact that beneath _ the later scenes in the film to answer these their debatable prescriptions about the way — questions.

films should be made, they often had Of course, the narrative organization of valuable insights into the way in which — Hollywood films is far more complex than popular films, especially Hollywood movies, — these examples suggest, and I have tried to

were actually constructed. What Pudovkin develop this subject with more precision has to say about movie narration is acasein —_elsewhere.'* For present purposes, let us say

point. that, as is suggested by the writings of A story film will portray a sequence of | Pudovkin, the core narrative structures of scenes or events, some appearing earlier, | Hollywood-type films — the movies discussome later. A practical problem that con- _ sed in this paper — involve generating quesfronts the filmmaker is the wayinwhichthese _ tions that ensuing scenes answer. Not all scenes are to be connected, i.e., what sort of narrative films employ this approach. Often, relation the earlier scenes should bear tothe | modernist films generate questions — e.g.,

later ones. Pudovkin recommends-—as a did I meet her at Marienbad before? — primary, though not exclusive, solution-— without supplying any answers. Or, I might that earlier scenes be related to later scenes chronicle my day at the beach: first I had a as questions are to answers. If a giant shark _ hot dog, then [ put on suntan lotion, then I 88

The Power of Movies

swam, then I went home. Surely we can _ serviceable guide for producing stories that conceive of a home movie like this, where _ strike one as typically “movieish,” especially none of the early scenes raised any ques- _in their economy. Partial confirmation of the

tions, and where none of the later ones question/answer model is its capacity to supplied any answers. Thus, to narrate by _ direct the simulation of movie scenarios.

generating questions internal to the film that If the model of the erotetic narrative subsequent scenes answer is a distinctive captures the characteristic narrative form of form of narration. Admittedly, this is nota § movies, then perhaps we can note certain form unique to films or movies, for itis also —s features of this mode of narration which will

exploited in mystery novels, adventure sto- shed light on the power of movies. A movie

ries, Harlequin romances, Marvel comics, scene or a series of depicted events make and so on. Nevertheless, it is the most — certain questions salient. An orphan wancharacteristic narrative approach in movies. ders the street, importuning adults needHow can this be proven? The best sugges- _— fully. Will the orphan find a surrogate tion one can make here is to embrace the "parent? This could be answered in the next question/answer model of movie narration—- — scene, or it could take the entire film to what I call the erotetic model of narrative- = answer. However, by characterizing the and then turn on your TV, watch old movies _ function of this scene as that of saliently and new ones, TV adventure series and posing a question, we have put ourselves in a romances, domestic films and foreign popu- _— position to account for one of the most lar films. Ask yourself why the later scenes notable features of audience responses to in the films make sense in the context of the linear narrative movies, that 1s, expectation. earlier scenes. My prediction is that you will | Given the erotetic model, we can say what it

be surprised by the extent to which later is that audiences expect: they expect anscenes are answering questions raised ear- = swers to the questions that earlier events

lier, or are at least providing information have made salient-— will the shark be that will contribute to such answers. In — stopped; will the jumbo jet crash? If it is a adopting the hypothesis that the narrative general feature of our cognitive make-up structure of a randomly selected movie is __ that, all things being equal, we not only want

fundamentally a system of internally gener- but expect answers to questions that have ated questions that the movie goes on to assertively been put before us, this helps answer, you will find that you have hold ofa explain our widespread, intense engagement

relationship that enables you to explain with movies. Even if the question is as what makes certain scenes especially key: insignificant to us as whether the suburban they either raise questions or answer them, adolescent in Risky Business will be found or perform related functions including sus- out by his parents, our curiosity keeps us taining questions already raised, or incom- __ riveted to the screen until it is satisfied.

pletely answering a previous question, or Though space does not allow for a full answering one question but then introducing — elaboration of the matter, important distinc-

a new one. tions can be made among the different types Apart from the confirmation of the hy- — of questions that animate the erotetic movie

, pothesis afforded by this confrontation with narrative. One such distinction can be empirical data, further support for the | drawn between micro-questions and macroquestion/answer model might be gained by _—_ questions. A scene or an event may raise a

using it, not to analyze, but to develop question that is immediately answered in the movie scenarios. For when certain complexi- — succeeding scene or by the succeeding event,

ties and qualifications are added to the — or by ascene or event temporally proximate model of the erotetic narrative, itis a very — to the questioning scene. For example, some 89

Popular Film and TV

burglars trigger an alarm. This raises the —_ pactness. It answers all the questions that it question of whether the authorities will hear —_ assertively presents to the audience, and the it. Next, there is a scene of two policemen _ largest portion of its actions 1s organized by a reading magazines in their squad car; they — small number of macro-questions, with little look up and switch on their siren, raising the | remainder. The flow of action approaches an question of whether they will arrive at the _ideal of uncluttered clarity. This clarity conscene of the crime on time, and soon. Such _trasts vividly with the quality of the frag-

localized networks of questions and answers ments of actions and events we typically are “micro” in nature. They connect two observe in everyday life. Unlike those in real individual scenes or a limited series of life, the actions observed in movies have a scenes and sequences. But movies are also _level of intelligibility, due to the role they

generally animated by macro-questions, play in the erotetic narrative’s system of ones for which we await answers throughout questions and answers. Because of the most of the film, and which may be thought question/answer structure, the audience is of as organizing the bulk of significant action —_left with the impression that it has learned in the movie — indeed, the micro-questions — everything important to know concerning the

are generally hierarchically subordinate to action depicted. How is this achieved? By the macro-questions. For an example of a assertively introducing a selected set of macro-question, consider Wargames; at a pressing questions and then answering certain point most of the action is devotedto them -— by controlling expectation by the answering the question of whether nuclear manner in which questions are posed. This destruction can be averted. Of course, imbues the film with an aura of clarity while movies often have more than one macro- _ also affording an intense satisfaction concernquestion. Into the Night asks both whether _ing our cognitive expectations and our prothe romantic leads can escape the Middle __ pensity for intelligibility. Eastern villains and whether this couple will The clarity imparted by the erotetic narrabecome lovers. Both macro-questions are _ tive in movies is, of course, reinforced by answered by means of roughly the same _ other clarity-producing methods, such as

sequences of action, and the micro-ques- directing audience attention through the tions and answers that structure those se- single shot or variable framing. These dequences tend, finally, to dovetail with the — vices are the filmmaker’s means of visual answers to these presiding macro-questions. narration. They enable him to raise quesWhat is called “closure” in movies can be _ tions visually: the question “Will Jones be

explained as that moment when all the — shot?” can be “asked” by focusing on a saliently posed and sustained questions that close-up of a gun. At the same time, the the movie has raised have been answered. visual depiction of an action can either A successful erotetic narrative tells you, sustain or answer a question. “Will Eli literally, everything you want to know about Wallach die by hanging?” can be sustained

the action being depicted, i.e., it answers by showing him teetering on a chair with a every question, or virtually every question, noose around his neck, or answered by that it has chosen to pose saliently. (I say showing us Clint Eastwood severing the “virtually” in order to accommodate endings _—_ rope in an act of super-human marksman-

such as that in the original Invasion of the | ship. Of course, many of the pressing Body Snatchers, where the audience is left | questions that drive movies forward are not with one last pregnant question.) But even __ primarily set forth visually but are stated countenancing these cases, aneroteticmovie — explicitly in the dialogue, or are already narrative has an extraordinary degree of implied in the scripting of the action. Neverneatness and intellectually appealing com- __ theless, the devices of visual narration, if not 90

The Power of Movies

the original source of the questions, help material that is digressive from the point of

make those questions salient. view of the erotetic narrative, for example, a The visual devices of movies were earlier | melodic interlude from the heroine by the described in terms of the type of clarity they | campfire in a Western. While this paper afforded the audience, of how they enable — cannot fully develop a theory of such dithe audience to see all that itis relevant for — gressions, I suggest that the most important them to see at the appropriate distance and _ digressions typically found in movies are a

in the appropriate sequence. At the same function of the sub-genres the movies in time, another sort of clarity has been attrib- | question belong to (one could go on to uted to the erotetic narrative as a primary — explain those digressions by analyzing the ground of the power of movies. How do _ sub-genres they most frequently appear in these two “clarities” relate to each other? and, perhaps, proceed to analyze the power Well, generally in movies, devices such as _ of those sub-genres). scaling, bracketing, and indexing will be employed so that the first item or the first | We began by addressing the issue of the gestalt of items that the audience is led to. power of movies, which was understood as a attend to in a given shot is the item or gestalt | question concerning the ways in which that is most relevant to the progress of the movies have engaged the widespread, in-

narrative —to the posing, sustaining, or tense response of untutored audiences answering of those questions the movie — throughout the century. We have dealt with elects to answer. The importance of variable the issue of the widespread response to framing for movies is the potential it affords | movies by pointing to those features of for assuring that the audience attends to movies that make them particularly accessieverything that is relevant, and that it does _—_ ble. We have also dealt with our intense

so automatically, so to speak. “Relevance” engagement with movies in terms of the is here determined by the narrative, or, impression of coherence they impart, i.e., more specifically the questions and answers __ their easily grasped, indeed, their almost that drive the narrative, which in turn are — unavoidable, clarity. The accessibility of saliently posed and answered in important movies is at least attributable to their use of

ways by means of variable framing. pictorial representation, variable framing, In order for this account to be ade- and narrative, the latter being the most quate, certain qualifications need to be ac- _ pervasive form of explaining human actions. knowledged. While generally processes such __ Their clarity is at least a function of variable

as variable framing are coordinated with the framing in coordination with the erotetic narrative for the purpose of emphasizing the _ narrative, especially where erotetic narrafirst item, or gestalt of items, seen by the au- __ tion and variable framing are coordinated by dience, there are standard deviations to this __ the principle that the first item or gestalt of

principle. These deviations are often em- items the audience apprehends be that ployed in thrillers for shock effect: the which, out of alternative framings, is most important subject, say, the killer, is hidden important to the narration. In short, this in the shot in such a way that the audience __ thesis holds that the power of movies — their only comes to see him belatedly (but un- — capacity to evoke unrivaled widespread and

avoidably). In terms of our account, these intense response — is, first and foremost, at deviations are not destructive counterexam- _ least a result of their deployment of pictorial

ples, because they still illustrate how the representation, variable framing, and the flow of narration is kept under strict control —_erotetic narrative.

and the audience in rapt attention. It will undoubtedly be noted that in this Standard movies also often contain much attempt to account for the power of mov91

Popular Film and TV

ies, we have restricted our purview to as factors such as the transportability and features in movies which address the cogni- _ reproducibility of movies. Research in these

tive faculties of the audience. This is abso- areas should not be abandoned. However, lutely central to the argument. For only by — considerations along these lines do not focusing on cognitive capacities, especially | obviate the present sort of speculation, since

ones as deeply embedded as pictorial recog- there must still be something about the nition, practical reason, and the drive to get = product, so marketed, that sustains interest.

answers to our questions, will we be in the Pictorial representations, variable frambest position to find the features of movies _ ing, erotetic narration, and the interrelation

that account for their phenomenally wide- of these elements in the ways proposed spread effectiveness; since cognitive capaci- will, at the very least, be constituents of ties, at the level discussed, seem the most any account of the power of movies. This plausible candidate for what mass-movie paper does not pretend to have offered a

audiences have in common. That is, the complete account of why movies are question of the power of movies involves powerful —its modesty is signaled by the explaining how peoples of different cul- hedge “at the very least.” Perhaps movies tures, societies, nations, races, creed, educa- employ other clarifying features, such as tional backgrounds, age groups, and sexes music, that require analysis. Furthermore, can find movies easily accessible and grip- apart from the question of why movies are ping. Thus, the power of movies must be — powerful, we may wish to pursue different, connected to some fairly generic features of | but related, questions about why certain

human organisms to account for their movies or groups of movies are powerful power across class, cultural, and educa- for certain groups of people; how do tional boundaries. The structures of percep- movies, or at least certain varieties of tion and cognition are primary examples of | movies, engage particular classes, nations, fairly generic features of humans. Conse- — genders, and so on. Theoretical interest in quently, it seems that if we can suggest the — these questions would undoubtedly lead to

ways in which movies are designed to a focus on elements of structure and conengage and excite cognitive and perceptual tent that have not been addressed here, structures, we will have our best initial since we have been concerned with the approximation of their generic power. generic power of movies, not the power of Some qualifications, of course, are in movies for specific times, locales, sexes, order. First, we are not claiming that people = and interest groups. However, nothing we do not respond intensely to forms other than _ have said suggests an objection in principle movies; indeed, some people respond more _—to these more specific questions, which intensely to other art forms than they do to _— questions, of course, will, in all probability,

movies. There are opera buffs and bal- — lead to speculation about aspects of audiletomanes, after all. But this is compatible — ences over and above their cognitive faculwith the claim we are examining, that there __ ties. Social conditioning and affective psyis something special about the widespread — chology, appropriately historicized, must be

and intense, though not necessarily univer- introduced to explain the power of given sal, response that movies have been ob- movies for target groups. Sociology, anthro-

served to command. pology, and certain forms of psychoanalysis Next, we are not denying that there may may be useful in such investigations. We

be levers beyond those we have discussed can therefore continue to examine the that also figure in the account of the power —_ power of movies by asking about the power

of movies. Marketing structures, including of certain movies for historically specific advertising, are important elements, as well audiences. However, if we wish to explain 92

The Power of Movies

the power of movies for the world commu- proach in a review of this book in the Journal nity, then pictorial representation, variable of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Winter 1984. framing, and the erotetic narrative will be 6. J. E. Hochberg and V. Brooks, “Pictorial key elements in our account because of the Recognition as an Unlearned Ability,” Ameriways in which they address common cogni- KA on nal of Psychology, no. 75, 1962, pp.

tive and perceptual capacities. 7. Ichitaro Hondo, “History of Japanese Painting,” in Painting 14—19th Centuries: Pageant

Notes of Japanese Art (Tokyo: Tokyo National Museum, 1957), vol. II, pp. 54-55. 1. See André Bazin, What is Cinema? (Berke- 8. J. B. Deregowski, E. S. Muldrow, and W. F.

ley: University of California Press, 1971), Muldrow, “Pictorial Recognition in a Re-

especially vol. 1. mote Ethiopian Population,” Perception, no.

2. For an example of an author who employs 1, 1972, pp. 417-425. these approaches, see John Ellis, Visible 9. John M. Kennedy, A Psychology of Picture Fictions: Cinema, TV, Video (London: Rout- Perception (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass;

ledge and Kegan Paul, 1982). 1974), p. 79.

3. For detailed criticism of the Bazinian approach 10. K. J. Hayes and C. Hayes, “Picture Percep-

see my “Concerning Uniqueness Claims for tion in Home-Raised Chimpanzee,” Journal Photographic and Cinematic Representation,” of Comparative and Physiological Psycholwhich is included in this volume. For extensive ogy, no. 46, 1953, pp. 470-474. criticism of contemporary attributions of realis- 11. John Searle, Minds, Brains and Science (Cam-

tic psychological effects to viewers, see my bridge: Harvard University Press, 1984), pp.

“Address to the Heathen,” October, no. 23, 51-52. 1982, and my “A Reply to Heath,” October, 12. Noél Carroll, “Toward a Theory of Film Susno. 27, 1983; the latter article is included in this pense,” in Persistence of Vision: The Journal

volume. of the Film Faculty of the City University of

4. The question of film’s ideological operation is New York, no. 81, 1984. This article is in this

also a good one, one I shall take up in volume.

another essay currently in preparation. 13. V. I. Pudovkin, Film Technique and Film 5. This essay is in Christian Metz’s The Imagi- Acting (New York: Grove Press, 1960). nary Signifier (Bloomington: University of 14. Carroll, “Toward a Theory of Film Sus-

Indiana Press, 1982). I criticize Metz’s ap- pense,” op. cit.

93

=

= Undoubtedly some film scholars believe that we have little need to construct an

CHAPTER VI = original concept of film suspense because,

they might argue, we already have a rigorous

Toward a Theory - concept ready-to-hand in Roland Barthes’s of Film Suspense “Structural Analysis of Narratives.”4 There Barthes states:

=

: Suspense is clearly only a privileged — or “exacer= bated” form of distortion: on the one hand, by keeping a sequence open (through emphatic procedures of delay and renewal), it reinforces the contact with the reader (the listener), has a

I. The Problem manifestly phatic function; while on the other, it offers the threat of an uncompleted sequence, of

For over eighty years, film audiences have an open paradigm (if, as we believe, every thrilled to chases, races, escapes, and res- sequence has two poles), that is to say, of a cues. And a cursory glance at any nightly logical disturbance, it being this disturbance TV listing shows that younger generations which is consumed with anxiety and pleasure (all are already being nurtured with a taste for the more so because it is always made right in the

suspense. But although suspense is one of ©84)- “Suspense,” therefore, is a game with the most popular modes of film, there is structure, designed to endanger and glority it, very little scholarly literature devoted to constituting a ver table “thrilling” of intelligibil

. a ity: by representing order (and no longer series)

explaining what exactly it is. In a book like in its fragility, “suspense” accomplishes the very Gordon Gow’s Suspense in the Cinema, on€ _ idea of language . . .5 is often at a loss to understand what princi-

ple unites the heterogeneous group of films This immensely turgid passage has many and scenes discussed —is the murder-by- — problems with it, some of which I will take default passage in The Little Foxes (1941) up later. For the moment, however, let it really an instance of suspense?! Moreover, _ suffice to note that in his concern to situate looking for guidance from scholars in related “suspense” on a continuum with (at least his

fields can also be frustrating. In Eric Rab- own very dubious idea of) narrative in kin’s Narrative Suspense,? anything that — general and with language (“the very idea of

draws the reader through a story is treated language”!), Barthes has failed to distinas a suspense element. This is too broad. — guish suspense from his own (albeit vague For example, it includes the continuation of | and bloated) concept of narrative except to a repeating motif of images under the label _ say that the former is a somewhat intense or of suspense. In discussing artworks, critics _ privileged extension of the latter. This seems

seem prone to regard any structure that neither true — some narrative forms neither involves anticipation as suspense. But thisis | engender suspense nor do they resemble the to mistake the species for the genus. Outside — structure of suspense — nor informative — art, anticipation and suspense are discrimina- | what accounts for the occurrence of privible. As Husserl points out, every experience leged moments of suspense over and above

involves anticipation to some degree.? But the mere experience of ordinary narrative experiences of suspense are much less fre- _ linkages? At times, Barthes’s supposed conquent. Likewise, when it comes to narrative | cept of suspense blends into ideas of tenart, it is advisable to keep the concept of sion, structural tension, and closure. Such a suspense more narrowly defined than that of | concept of suspense is too abstract to be

mere anticipation. useful. Thus, film scholars cannot hope to 94

Toward a Theory of Film Suspense

borrow a concept of suspense from Barthes _ by spectators without grounding them in any because it is far from clear that he hasone to documentation. Thus I question the prolif-

lend them. eration of unconscious mechanisms to acThe only fully elaborated theory of film count for what I take to be invented data. suspense that I know of is never mentioned Lé6ker’s theory posits a wealth of such in film scholarship. It was developed by — subterranean processes. And to the extent Altan Loker and it is psychoanalytic in its that these are thoroughly unsupported specorientation.* Space does not permit a de- —_ ulations, unconstrained by evidence, his tailed exposition and refutation of the — theory founders. _ theory, nor am I sure that the theory merits But a deep problem would remain with close critical scrutiny. Roughly, Léker sees — LOker’s theory even if he were able to suspense as a heightened state of ambiva- adequately show that all his various inlence in which the audience is confronted by __ trapsychic forces are clashing in the way he a dramatic conflict, staged in the film, which — says. Namely, we should want to know why

energizes an intrapsychic conflict within this intrapsychic tension and/or fear should each spectator. That is, the drama triggersa be thought to add up to the specific affect conflict between the various Freudian-type — called “suspense.” Why, in other words, forces within the self. For example, when should this intrapsychic anxiety be cashed in danger threatens a character on screen, the _—_as “suspense,” and why should it redirect its

danger may be desired by the spectator’s target (or object) from, say, the ego to the demonic id but unwanted by the spectator’s _ plight of some character? Without making superego, which, in turn, induces fearinthe — explicit the nature of the connection beego. This complex psychological state of | tween intrapsychic anxiety and the ostensi-

warring desires and fears is suspense. bly different emotion of suspense, Loker has It is not apparent to me that Loéker’s left a logical lacuna in his reductivist theory lengthy accounts of the interacting processes _ that is serious enough to disqualify it as an of his various intrapsychic forces are always — explanation of suspense. That is, without internally coherent, or that each step in said — saying why intrapsychic anxiety is phenomeprocesses is established by satisfactory ar- _ nologically and personally felt as suspense,

gument. His postulation of all manner Loker has explained nothing. of psychological operations is generally The purpose of this paper is to develop an ad hoc, and most often not compellingly |§ adequate theory of film suspense. motivated — if at all — by any evidence. For

instance, | Loker has it that part of the II. Notes on Film Narrative spectator’s conflict in watching The Stalking

Moon (1969) — a sort of Cape Fear (1962) of | Before introducing the topic of suspense the Wild West — is that the audience feels proper, it is necessary to consider certain guilt because (1) it wanted the character notions about film narrative that can be used played by Gregory Peck to help the char- to describe film suspense. The approach to acter played by Eva Marie Saint, and (2) the _ film narrative that I believe is especially action endorsed by this desire hasresultedin instructive in this regard was suggested by a series of terrible murders. No evidence for | Pudovkin,’ but has not been developed the audience’s putative guilt-feelings is ad- further by later film scholars. Perhaps the

duced, nor, given the manifest content of reason for this is that Pudovkin’s tone is the plot, does there seem to be any reason prescriptive; he is telling prospective filmfor anyone outside the world of the film §makers how they ought to construct films; to feel any blame. Loker in general as- and such overt polemicism is often shunned serts non-obvious psychological responses — by scholars. However, it is important to 95

Popular Film and TV

remember that Pudovkin, like Kuleshov,’ causal one. Earlier narrative scenes raise was involved in distilling and conceptualiz- questions, issues, or possibilities that are ing central elements of what they observed answered or actualized by later scenes. A in American cinema, (e.g., Kuleshov’s points — character robs a bank; this raises two wellabout the importance for rapid editing of — structured possibilities: he will be caught/he

succinct, uncluttered set design). That is, will not be caught. In the next scene, the Pudovkin and Kuleshov clarified and ar- police, hitherto unseen, grab him as he exits ticulated certain latent, stylistic principles — the back door of the bank. The later scene is

that seemed to determine and were exhib- _not causally implied by the earlier scene. ited in American film practice. As rec- _ Instead, the earlier scene raised a structured ommendations about how cinema should be, — set of possibilities, one of which the later Kuleshov’s and Pudovkin’s theories are open __ scene realized.!°

to question. Nevertheless, when examined Using the idea of a question to capture for their crystallizations of the tendencies the idea of raising narrative possibilities inherent in existing film practices, their seems appropriate since the most converemarks, reconceived as observations are __ nient way in ordinary language to state such often quite insightful. Specifically, I believe —_ possibilities is “Will x happen or not?” The that Pudovkin’s analysis of the approach to _—_ concept of the question, as well, enables us editing together or connecting scenes sup- _— to explain one of the most apparent audiplies us with a starting point for outlining the |= ence responses toward linear film narrastructure of one of the basic, if not the most __ tives: expectation. That is, the audience basic, linear narrative forms in the history of | expects answers to the questions the film

cinema.? raises about its fictional world.

Pudovkin suggests that the relation of Some readers may balk at the preceding

earlier scenes and events in a film narrative | account on the grounds that it does not seem

to later scenes and events can be generally plausible to characterize the spectators of understood on the model of the relation ofa narrative films as engaged in a constant question to an answer. One can grasp this by __ process of question-formation. Such spectarecalling primitive, two-shot narratives. In tors are not introspectively aware of framing

the first shot, a child might be kidnapped. questions nor are they moving their lips — This raises the question: “Will the child be silently speaking said questions — as scenes saved or not?” The next and last shot __ flicker by. So in what respect is it accurate to answers the question; the police apprehend say that such spectators are possessed of the a racially stereotyped Eastern or Southern _ kind of questions discussed above?

European, and the child is rescued. The Clearly I must say that such spectators basic narrative connective — the rhetorical frame narrative questions tacitly, and they

bond between the two scenes—is the subconsciously expect answers to them. The

question/answer. notion of an subconscious expectation — one Since most film narratives involve aseries we are unaware of until it is perhaps of actions, it may seem natural to think that —shortcircuited —- should cause no difficulty.

causation is the major connective between When we are told the plumbers will turn off

scenes in a narrative film. However, itisim- the water for an hour, we still surprise plausible to suggest that scenes follow each ourselves by expectantly walking over to the

other in most film narratives via a chain of | sink. But maybe it is thought that some causal entailments. I would guess that most — special problem arises when our subcon-

Succeeding narrative scenes are causally scious expectation takes the form of a underdetermined by what precedes them. question (which awaits an answer) rather Rather, the connection is weaker than a _ than being based on a reason or a belief. 96

Toward a Theory of Film Suspense

True, reasons and beliefs are best repre- | question/answer model is ill-conceived to sented by assertions rather than by ques- handle flashback scenes; however, the purtions. But then, of course, if anything really pose of most flashbacks is to answer (or to hinges on this grammatical point, we might offer information in the direction of an think to recast our narrative questions as answer to) questions about why characters assertions — e.g., as predictions taking a are behaving as they do, or why they are as

disjunctive form such as “either x will they are in antecedent scenes. Though happen or y will happen or x will not further qualifications are necessary, my cenhappen... .” But, in fact, to hold that a __ tral hypothesis is that the major connective thought cannot be subconscious, depending __ or logical relation in one of the most basic on the grammatical format of its representa- —_ forms of linear film narrative is erotetic. You

tion, is a highly unlikely hypothesis. can turn on your TV any night of the week Needless to say, objectorstomycharacter- _—_and find several films and weekly programs

ization of spectators as question-formers whose basic plot structure can be almost may have in mind another issue — viz., that | completely explained on the interrogatory spectators are not involved in explicit acts of — model.

questioning when watching films. But here The ways in which a question is made the error is to confuse having a question- __ salient by a scene or group of scenes is too which may be an implicit or tacit matter— — diverse to examine in detail in this paper.!! with performing a self-conscious operation. | Much of the work is done in the writing, not Not all mental processes can be equated only the dialogue and/or intertitles, but also with consciously performed processes; nor in the choice of subject and the dramatic

are all mental states—such as having a _ focus of given scenes—i.e., the dramatic question — to be equated with performing a _— organization of the scene will make clear

mental action such as that of internal that the major issue is, for example, “will x

question-posing. propose to y?” or “will z draw his gun?” When following a narrative film, I want This is not to say that nonverbal factors like

to say, a spectator internalizes the whole gesture, framing, character, and camera structure of interests depicted in the drama, __ position are not major components in lead-

and this structure includes alternative out- ing an audience to regard a certain set of comes to various lines of action which the — characters and their intentions as primary spectator must Keep track of in some sense _ nodes of interest. Obviously, a whole ensem-

before one alternative is actualized in order ble of stylistic choices, often redundant for the film to be received as intelligible. I | ones, prompt the audience to identify this or

postulate that the spectator does this by _ that issue as central in a scene. Suppose a tacitly projecting the range of outcomes as telephone is off the hook in the distant, subconscious expectations which we can blurry background of a shot while a charrepresent as questions. Thus, one argument _ acter is begging for a loan from a rotund in favor of the tacit question model is that it banker, center-frame foreground, in a wellexplains how spectators are able to regard lit, large medium close-shot. We know the

films as intelligible. Another reason is sup- question the scene raises is whether the plied by the results of subverting the postu- _ petitioner will receive the loan (or, more lated expectations. If we stop a film midway, broadly, will he get the money he needs?) the tacit questions soon surface: “Well, did and not whether the phone will be hung up. he marry the princess, or did she fly around And we expect ensuing scenes or events to

the world?” greet us when the projector answer that question.

hum dies down. Though the question/answer structure is At first glance, it may appear that the fundamental to certain linear film narra97

Popular Film and TV

tives, such narratives are not comprised opens on a confetti-strewn bed, answerbaldly of simple questions and answers. Not ing the question of scene #1. But as the every scene or event in the narrative can be man stumbles into the kitchen for break-

described as a simple question or answer. fast, he is surprised to meet a child, his Most linear narratives have scenes with new spouse’s heretofore unmentioned more complicated functions than providing son. Suddenly, the question arises as to a simple question or answer. The following whether or not this new variable will is an inductive characterization of the scenes endanger the new relationship. Several in an idealized, erotetic, linear narrative: an ensuing scenes or an entire film could be event or scene in an erotetic narrative is: built around answering this question.

1. an establishing scene —an event or a By using the question/answer model as series of events or a state of affairs that the core concept of this categorization of introduces characters, locales, etc., or — linear narrative scenes and events, I am not

that establishes important attributes of a suggesting that it is a competitor with character, locale, etc. and that, perhaps, taxonomies based on temporal relations — but not necessarily, raises a question. An e.g., parallel scenes, flashbacks, flashforestablishing scene often initiates a film wards, etc. The interrogative — will x be but one can come at any point in the film | executed? — can be articulated by two alterwhen the story involves the addition of nating questioning scenes of parallel narra-

new characters, locales, etc. tion, e.g., Intolerance (1916). The idea of

2. a questioning scene. (Any scene may, of __ parallel narration describes a temporal relacourse, introduce more than one ques- _ tion in the fictional world of the film while

tion.) the question/answer format describes the

3. an answering scene. (More than one _ rhetorical-logical relation of scenes in the question may be answered in such a __film’s structure.

scene. )!? These six functions (plus the fulfilling

4. asustaining scene. Ascene maycontinue scene discussed in note 12) give us a picture and intensify an earlier question. The _ of the basic skeleton of a great many narraquestion “will x escape,” is intensified by __ tive films. Whether a scene or an event is a subsequent scene in which we learn part of the core plot of a linear narrative film that, unbeknownst to x, he is surrounded. depends on whether it is one of these types of A scene that begins to answer a narrative scenes, 1.e., on whether it is part of the cirquestion but then frustrates the answer- _ cuit of questions and answers that powers the e.g., a detective follows up the wrong film. A scene that is not an establishing scene clue — is also a sustaining scene. is a digression if it lies outside the network of 5. an incomplete answering scene. A partial questions and answers. A digression, of answer may be given to a preceding — course, need not necessarily be something

question, e.g., “who killed Jones?” is bad; digressions may enrich the film as a partly but not completely answered when — whole, as well as detract from it. But a scene

we learn that the killer is left-handed.'3 _in a linear narrative will be a digression, for 6. an answering/questioning scene. A pre- — good or ill, if it does not perform one of the ceding question may be answered by a _ core functions on our list. succeeding scene which also immediately I hasten to add that I am not saying that introduces a new question. Aman anda _ all film narratives are or should be erotetic woman meet in such a way that in scene __ linear narratives. There are episodic nar#1 the question arises whether or nor __ rative structures, such as one finds in The

they will become a couple. Scene #2 Tree of Wooden Clogs (1978) or Amarcord 98

Toward a Theory of Film Suspense

(1973), in which scenes are generally linked, of a great many — the vast majority of? — for realistic effect, by principles of rough __ linear narratives. temporal contiguity and often geographical Yet the question/answer model may also propinquity, rather than in terms of ques- —_ represent something deeper. It may be a

tions and answers. This type of narration model of what we can call the basic film often has as its aim the desire to impart a _ narrative. It may be what most of us have in holistic sense of a given milieu by itemizing | mind when we hear the phrase “narrative

or layering details concerning life in a film.” Two considerations count in favor of certain culture or sub-culture at a given this hypothesis. On the one hand, we do time. As in literary ventures, such as Pic- perceive a difference between a mere chronitures from an Institution, the importance of _ cle film-—my home movie of my summer linear progression is deferred in favor of | vacation in which each event follows the provoking an elaborate sense of the texture next simply because it was what happened | and tempo of the “world” depicted in the next — and a film like The Lonedale Operafiction. The film does not rush us forward tor (1911). Clearly the difference between along an arc of expectations but is said to _ these different representations of human

invite us to “live in,” to appreciate the actions is one of structure.) The question/ rhythms of life of, to savor (and thereby answer model affords us one general strucunderstand) the milieu that it represents. tural differentia that we can use to distinFilms can forego a linear structure for all guish the chronicle from something that we

sorts of reasons. The scenes in Satyricon might consider a minimal narrative film. (1969) do not follow a question/answer | However, such considerations only lead us logic, but that, of course, is exactly what to regard the erotetic model as a candidate engenders the alien, mysterious quality that _ for the title “basic narrative.”

Fellini sought when he created what he The question/answer model gives us a called this “science fiction” film of the past. means of differentiating one very simple Likewise, Welles’s The Trial (1962) abruptly narrative film type from a chronicle. But shifts scenes to instill a sense of arbitrari- | why should this type be considered more ness. Fantasy films — whether supernatural basic than the episodic film narrative or the or psychological — at times have scenes that _ other narrative variations alluded to earlier?

cannot be mapped on the question/answer One reason is that to a large degree we model; the apparitions of Death in All That — understand these alternative modes of film Jazz (1979) could not plausibly answer any _ narration by comparing these modes to a

questions any spectator could have as the more basic linear structure of the sort film proceeds; they are there to signal the — described by the erotetic model. The disjuncegocentric view Bob Fosse has of himself as _—tiveness of Satyricon and the attendant

a special someone in touch with an erup- qualities we associate with it involve an tive, exclusive, transcendent reality. Mod- implicit contrast with or deviance from more ernist exercises like Last Year at Marienbad _ standard forms of conjunction — which, in (1961) and India Song (1974) defy (liter- turn, may be related to a propensity to form ally) the erotetic model — they are all ques- _ certain cognitive expectations (viz., that

tions with no answers. Consequently, be- questions will be answered). The lack, cause of these and many other types of omission, or foregoing of a structure that examples, the question/answer model does —_ evokes expectation is a pertinent stylistic not apply to all narrative films, nor is it an element or choice in a film because it is a evaluative grid with which we can measure contrast to a more basic, “normal” type in

the worth of every narrative film. But itis, | which certain connectives are expected. at least, a description of the core structure | Even with the case of the episodic structure, 99

Popular Film and TV

as it developed as a major vehicle of film § Army. In The General, these three quesrealism, we note that it was able to do soin __ tions are interrelated, of course. Gradually lieu of its divergence from the linear forms — they dovetail with each other. When they

of classical narrative cinema. That is, partof are all answered, the film is effectively the reason why an episodic structure is held —over.!7 We don’t worry about whether or

to have a special affinity with realism -—i.e., not the happy couple will have three

why it is said to project the quality of | children because that is not a question realism — is because it is said to be looser _ raised in the film. We say that a film is (“more inclusive,” and, therefore, “truer to | complete!® and that we feel a sense of reality”) than the historically dominant, | closure when all the macro-questions in the alternative mode of cinematic narration, film have been answered.!9 viz., the linear narrative film which is based The General has three macro-questions

on the erotetic model.'® but it also has a large number of micro-

My point here is not to draw absolutely | questions which connect scene to scene and clean demarcations between erotetic narra- _ fictional event to fictional event. For examtive films and other sorts. Most films will ple, in one scene the Union hijackers scatter

mix elements of different narrative types. debris on the railroad track in order to For example, a realistic film, like The Tree frustrate Johnny’s pursuit. This is undoubt-

of Wooden Clogs, though predominantly edly related to the macro-question of episodic, employs the question/answer struc- — whether Johnny will recover his engine — one

ture at crucial points; indeed, one of the might call it an instantiation of the macromost pressing issues in the film hinges onthe question — but at this point the answer to the question of whether the father will be caught |§macro-question is momentarily dependent and punished for cutting down “the tree of | on the answer to a micro-question — will wooden clogs.” Furthermore, it should be Johnny be able to handle these obstacles and noted that even if I am wrong in asserting avoid derailment? — a question that followthat the erotetic model describes the basic ing scenes or events answer. Suspense in film

film narrative, the consequences of that is generated by means of micro-questions mistake for this paper need not be disas- | and macro-questions. trous, since the suspense film certainly falls

under this mo del of the in vat model, III. Characterizing Film Suspense

whatever “basic” or “non-basic” status we

assign that model notwithstanding. We can begin to analyze suspense in film by Before leaving the topic of the question/ means of the tools set out in our sketch of answer model of film narration, a distinc- the basic film narrative. Suspense, in film, is

tion between the two types of narrative generated as a concomitant of a question questions should be drawn. I have been that has been raised by earlier scenes and emphasizing the question/answer model as _ events. The heroine is tied to the railroad

a means of linking scenes. But ques- tracks; the locomotive is steaming at her; tions are also a means for organizing will she be crushed or saved? Suspense whole narratives. Thus, it is worth draw- arises when a well-structured question — ing a distinction between macro-questions — with neatly opposed alternatives — emerges and micro-questions in film narratives. In from the narrative and calls forth an answerBuster Keaton’s The General (1926), there —_ing scene. Suspense is a state that accompaare three macro-questions — will Johnny nies sucha scene up to the point when one of Gray win his true love, will he recover his __ the competing, alternative outcomes is final-

train, “The General,” and will he eventu- ized. But saying that suspense arises as a ally succeed in enlisting in the Confederate | question in a basic plot is not enough to 100

Toward a Theory of Film Suspense

isolate suspense because, as I argued earlier, by the film are such that the outcome which the question/answer nexus is a characteristic is morally correct in terms of the values

linkage in many narratives whereas most inherent in the film is the less likely outnarrative linkages do not involve suspense. come (or, at least, only as likely as the evil They may involve anticipation, but suspense outcome). That is, suspense in films, in is a subcategory of anticipation, not the — general, is generated by combining elements whole of it. Anticipation may be anecessary of morality and probability in such a way condition for suspense, and a question/ that the questions that issue in the plot have answer relationship is a necessary condition _ logically opposed answers — x will happen/x for narrative suspense. However, more must —_ will not happen — and, furthermore, that be added to the concepts of anticipation and — opposition is also characterized by an oppo-

questioning before we can arrive ata man- sition of morality and probability ratings.

ageable notion of suspense. The possible combinations of morality/

| Suspense in life, as opposed to film, is probability ratings are as follows: not just anticipation, but anticipation where something desired is at stake — a job, admis- _i[. moral/likely outcome

sion to a school, securement of a loan, IH. — evil/likely outcome passing an exam, escaping a nasty situation. III. moral/unlikely outcome Moreover, whatever is at stake has some’ IV. evil/unlikely outcome psychological urgency partly because the outcome is somehow uncertain. Turning My thesis is that, in general, film suspense from life to film, we can see that in the occurs when the alternative outcomes — the largest number of the relevant film cases, alternative denouements of an answering the elements of everyday suspense— scene — have the characteristics of II and III desirability and uncertainty — are still in} above. When our heroine is tied to the operation; however, in the largest number __ tracks, the moral outcome — her. rescue — is

of film cases, the range of each of these — unlikely, while the evil outcome — her central elements has been narrowed so that — destruction — is probable. I claim that, as an

the subjects of film suspense are the morally | empirical matter, most suspense in film right (as the pertinent subclass of desirabil- | accords with this pattern. To summarize ity) and improbability (as the pertinent these hypotheses, I am holding that, in the subclass of uncertainty). In film, suspense main, suspense in film is (a) an affective generally obtains when the question that concomitant of an answering scene or event arises from earlier scenes has two possible, | which (b) has two logically opposed outopposed answers which have specific ratings | comes such that (c) one is morally correct in terms of morality and probability. The — but unlikely and the other is evil and likely. actual outcome —the alternative answer It is to be hoped that this formulation will which is eventually posited — is irrelevant to _ ring true for at least some simple examples.

the question of whether a scene of a film In Way Down East (1920), it is most likely involves suspense; whether the heroine on _ that the heroine will go over the waterfalls;

the tracks is saved or crushed is irrelevant to that is, as the scene unfolds, the boy’s the issue of whether the moments leading — rescue attempt — hopping from one block of

up to that outcome are suspenseful. Sus- ice to the next — seems futile. Of course, pense, rather, is a function of the structure after the scene is over, the probability of the of the narrative question as it is raised by __ rescue is one. But prior to that the prospect

factors earlier in the film. Specifically, sus- of saving the heroine is extremely low. pense in the film generally results when the Moreover, there is evil in the scene, a possible outcomes of the situation set down _ natural evil in theological jargon, since 101

Popular Film and TV

innocent human life and suffering are threat- Snatchers (1978). It will be noted that ened by implacable natural forces. The certain motifs like races, chases, rescues and moral effort — the rescue — is unlikely while — escapes are staples of film suspense. One

an evil outcome —a natural evil in this may wonder if these narrative contexts of

case — appears inevitable. themselves generate suspense without any In many cases, a moral human effort is — special issue of morality arising. Races, in

opposed not by a natural evil but by an particular, may appear able to enjoin susimmoral human effort, e.g., The Lonely — pense while remaining essentially amoral. Villa (1909). Or, in The Hills Have Eyes _ But races in films like National Velvet (1944) (1977), two teenagers plant aliquid-propane generally have some moral point. For examgas bomb in their trailer in order to destroy _— ple, in the recent Chariots of Fire (1981) a giant, subhuman maniac who is out to —_Harry’s stake in the Olympic races is con-

murder them. The giant hesitates at the nected to his desperate fight for an identity door to which the bomb is rigged; suspense — and to some kind of vindication of Judaism. arises because when the maniac suspiciously | No countervailing moral purposes are estabsniffs the air, the likelihood of success for — lished for his opponents. Indeed, in the film

the teenagers’ morally correct effort- the Americans are painted as vaguely guilty obliterating this scourge — has been under- of something that is never made explicit. mined. The finale of French Connection II Given these circumstances, Harry’s defeat (1975) provokes suspense by pitting Popeye — would be an evil, though it is, up to the end Doyle’s impossible crosstown run, righteous- _ of the race, as likely as his morally charged

ness verging on a coronary, against the — efforts to win. elegant drug dealer’s smooth escape on a If the above examples motivate a belief in conveniently situated bus and then a boat. the proposition that the alternative outThough many examples of film suspense | comes in suspense are primarily structured do hinge on whether or not a violent act will in terms of the moral/unlikely versus the occur, the crux of suspense need not be _ evil/likely pattern, then, perhaps, some furviolence. In Red Dust (1932), the philander- __ ther cases will illustrate a subsidiary notion:

ing plantation manager, played by Clark _ that suspense does not generally correlate to

Gable, wants to be noble and to trick the situations where the outcomes are strucwife, played by Mary Astor, into once again __ tured in terms of morally probable outcomes

honoring her husband. A shooting is in- _ versus evil but improbable outcomes. When

volved in the scene, but the focus of the in Dirty Harry (1971), the eponymous drama is not essentially whether the wife | super-cop stalks Scorpio in the baseball will fire but whether the husband, tramping — stadium, there is no suspense; Scorpio is

through the jungle on his way to the limping and is no match for his righteous plantation, will learn that his wife has been _=pursuer. The success of Scorpio’s evil disloyal. The plantation manager’s moral _ effort — his flight — is improbable; the odds effort seems destined to ignominious defeat are on the side of the avenger. When in while the evil, the husband’s learning of his Tarzan and the Leopard Woman (1946), the wife’s infidelity, appears unavoidable.° jungle king rescues the school teachers from Again, the actual, final outcome of a _ the rafts of the leopard people, the scene is suspense scene is not relevant to whether it more risible than suspenseful precisely beis a Suspense scene. Most often the improba- —_ cause Tarzan — a.k.a. Johnny Weissmuller —

ble moral alternative is victorious. But one _ so outclasses the villains when it comes to still has suspense even if evil triumphs, e.g., | aquatics. The last example suggests one of Von Ryan’s Express (1965), Gallipoli (1981), — the dangers in designing suspense scenes in

and the remake of Invasion of the Body films with super-heroes. The powers of a 102

Toward a Theory of Film Suspense

Superman, for example, are so great that issues arise of whether he will be wrongly much care must be taken to assure that an _ arrested or will escape, and of whether the evil effort stands a chance against him. He secret agents will or will not successfully must be matched against super-villains, or | export their ill-gotten information. These villains armed with kryptonite, or his feats | questions and their ultimate answers are must demand a level of physical effort thatis | sustained throughout the film. At points, taxing even for him — being in two places the question of whether Hannay will be almost simultaneously or circumnavigating wrongly arrested or not functions not only as

the globe in a matter of seconds. Posing a a macro-question but as an often iterated mob of gangsters, who tote nothing more _—micro-question linking sequences of scenes, than .38s, against Superman is more comical —__e.g., Hannay’s series of escapes after jumpthan suspenseful, a fact that the Superman __ ing through the sheriff’s window. Neverthe-

series with George Reeves often intention- less, the film as a whole can be seen as ally exploited. The pattern of the moral, organized in large part by suspenseful likely outcome versus the evil, unlikely | macro-questions — plus the romantic microoutcome is not generally an efficacious one question of whether Pamela will believe

for suspense. . Hannay and, then, come to love him — that If these considerations capture the phe- _—are repeated again and again until the Mr. nomenon of suspense as it generally exists in | Memory scene at the Palladium where both film, it still remains to be pointed out that | Hannay’s and Britain’s dismal plights turn in there are various ways in which this notion _a lightning reversal.

of suspense can be applied to films. If a Cases where macro-questions in a film scene is suspenseful, then itis composed ofa are suspenseful are perhaps the core inquestioning event and an answering event, | stances of the suspense film. However, a such that the possible narrative answers film may also be called a suspense film if it is are logically opposed and have the previ- made up of a large number of suspenseful ously defined morality/likelihood ratings. | scenes or sequences of scenes even if these For example, in The Gold Rush (1925), the _—_are not, in turn, strongly unified by a set of Tramp’s cabin teeters on a precipice; he is |§ dominant macro-questions; serials, e.g., epiunaware of this at first; the position of the sodes of Fantomas (1913-14), and films com-

cabin and the Tramp’s initial unawareness of _ posed of serial-like material, e.g., Spies it raise the question: will he fall to his death (1928), are often of this sort — a string of or not? These same factors make it likely | separate suspenseful adventures, escapes that an evil, the Tramp’s death, will tran- | and entrapments that are only very broadly spire, even though the final outcome of the — connected under a vague rubric like “will scene is that the Tramp does not die. If a good triumph or will evil?” sequence of scenes is suspenseful, the earlier The last and loosest reason why some scenes raise a question or set of questions _films may be categorized as suspense films is

whose alternative answers have the struc- that their final or climactic scenes or se-

ture outlined above. I have already offered |§ quences involve suspense as I have defined

several examples of this sort. it. The Birth of a Nation (1915) might be An entire film may be called sus- — considered a suspense film in this light. This

penseful — or, more normally, a “suspense __is a weak sense of “suspense film” since a film” — for three different reasons. First, its film like Cops (1922) is a suspense film in macro-question (or questions) may have a this respect. For this reason, it is probably suspense structure. Hitchcock’s The 39 Steps best to discourage this use of “suspense (1935) is an example of this. As soon as __ film” and to speak rather of films of this sort Hannay’s visitor, Anabella, is murdered, the as “suspenseful films.” However, this use of 103

Popular Film and TV

“suspense film” is not completely fanciful time, Mario’s effort is given as morally right

because final and climactic scenes have in the film in the sense that, as a European extremely forceful effects in coloring our — stranded in South America with no chance total sense of a film, and films with suspense- — of work and humiliated by the local tradesful scenes at the end, therefore, have more —__ men, driving this truck is Mario’s only, albeit

claim to the title “suspense film” than those slim, opportunity to escape. Mario’s effort films that merely have sporadic suspense as well is a result of exploitation by the oil scenes in early or middle portions of the | company which has consciously lured finannarrative. Whether one wants to call films cially desperate men by the promise of big with terminating suspense scenes suspense money to do a job that the company realizes films is a matter of stipulation. In terms of is most likely to end in death. the theory in this paper, what is important is The Wages of Fear can be used to illumithat if one decides to call such films suspense _ nate our operating concept of morality. The

films, then it is because the terminating four drivers are not moral men in terms of scenes are suspenseful according to our normal Western standards of morality.

formula. Mario and Jo, at least, are hooligans. Yet,

Now that the general theory of film within the film’s moral system, they are , suspense has been stated, time must be initially more moral than the other morally spent on clarifying certain of the central relevant forces in the town — the company concepts in the theory. First on the agenda and the manager of the store. Also, the

are “evil” and “moral.” Both these terms situation of the Europeans in the town are being used more broadly than one appears morally wrong; they cannot earn typically finds in ethical theory. Under money to go home; the suicide of the Italian “evil,” I am including natural evils— any youth underscores the hopelessness of the threats to human life and limb that result foreign community in the town. And Mario from natural causes and which need not be and Jo, though petty thieves, do at first have _ set in motion by evil agents. Films like The certain virtues — bravado and the pragmaWages of Fear (1955) and its remake Sor- — tism versus the sloth and tyranny of estabcerer (1977), are both predicated on human __lished powers — that in the absence of coun-

efforts in the face of probable natural tervailing virtues give them a purchase on disaster as trucks loaded with nitro-glycerin representing what moral virtue there is in are precariously driven over bumpy, danger- _the film. By the time the other drivers ous roads. The macro-question — will the | become subjects of suspense, they too are trucks reach their destination (in one piece) | emphasized in light of their virtue, their or not? — is repeated in scene after scene. bravery (plus Bimba’s anti-Nazism), so that

For example, in order to clearaturn,in The the suspense of the driving scenes pits Wages of Fear, Mario has to back onto a natural evil against human virtue.

rickety bridge overhanging a gorge. The Admittedly the film becomes very combridge is rotten; its wooden planks are likely plex. Jo shows himself to be a coward. to break beneath him; he backs up too far _Interestingly, when this happens, he bebecause he won’t believe his cowardly friend comes more a subject of sympathy than of

Jo’s instructions to stop, as Mario eases off | suspense. Moreover, even as Mario be_ the bridge, his truck catches the suspension comes increasingly crueler to Jo, he, Mario, cable of the bridge and tightens it until it still commands some positive moral force as

snaps; at exactly the moment the bridge a human steadfastly facing natural evil. collapses, Mario has just reached hard Perhaps some viewers even believe that ground. The probability of natural evil— Mario is meting out Jo’s just deserts. Of Mario’s death — looms while at the same course, the last scene is underwritten by the 104

Toward a Theory of Film Suspense

belief that it is a tragic wrong that after all Wild Geese (1978), a saga of mercenaries in

of Mario’s tribulations he should die so Africa, and be caught up in the suspense

carelessly. even if one is stridently opposed on moral

In analyzing suspense films, it is impor- grounds to the activities of soldiers of tant to keep in mind that the locus of fortune in the Third World.! morality is not always the ideological posi- If the protagonists are presented as postion or the ethical status of the projects of | sessing some virtues — especially if their the characters in question. Caper films, for | opponents are not presented as having any example, portray characters who are often __ virtues, or as having only negative personal involved in larceny. Their effort cannot be —_and interpersonal attributes — suspense can

described as moral in respect of extant operate because the efforts of the protagoethical codes or sets of categorical impera- __ nists will be regarded as right in the moral

tives. However, the foci of suspense are = system of the film, i.e., they have been nevertheless moral in the sense that they are marked as right. Most often the protago-

marked by certain virtues that, in the nist’s purposes will be moral according to absence of emphasis on countervailing vir- prevailing ethical norms. However, in a tues, claim our moral allegiance. These large number of standard cases where this virtues — strength, fortitude, ingenuity, brav- does not hold, the protagonist’s possession ery, etc.-— are often more Grecian than ofsaliently presented virtues will project the Christian, but they are virtues nonetheless. moral valuations of the films. Virtues are Often in Hollywood films, a character is the basic means of establishing the moral designated as good in terms of his courte- | sympathies of a film. Thus, even an antagoous, respectful, and thoughtful treatment of nist, if provided with some virtues, can at supporting characters, especially ones who __ times serve as an object of suspense.

are poor, old, weak, lame, oppressed, chil- It may be felt that a debit of my theory is dren, etc. — that is, characters who are in that what is included under the labels of some sense the protagonist’s inferiors, but “moral” and “evil” in the formula for whom the protagonist treats with consider- _—_ suspense turns out to be too broad. “Evil” is _

ation. In The 39 Steps Hannay’s kindness unpacked as human and natural evil. } and attention to the oppressed Mrs. Jordan “Moral” encompasses ethical purposes and is an increment of Hannay’s goodness asa __ efforts, virtue, and simply opposition to

character. natural evils. This is a far more extensive Democratic courtesy to one’s inferiors as = concept of “moral” than we find in ethical

well as protectiveness of the weak, and an theorizing. Nevertheless, it does, I think, overall “niceness” are key virtues in many _ capture the wide range of things that people

films — not only American ones— used to are wont to call “good” and “bad” in a cue the audience to the characters and nonpractical, nonprudential sense in everycharacters’ efforts that, within the film’s day language. And it is not surprising that moral system are postulated as “good.” We _ this expanded notion of goodness and badalso note that villains are often segregated __ ness, reflected in ordinary language, should not only in terms of vices like brutishness, — be the relevant one for a popular medium sadistic dandyism, arrogance, cowardliness, like the movies.”

weakness, etc., but also by their discourte- Let us now shift from the discussion of ous and bullying attitude toward inferiors. — the scope of “the moral” in our formula for Character, in other words, is the most — suspense to some specification of the pertiintegral factor in establishing the spectator’s nent concept of “likelihood.” First, I am

moral perspective on the action. Indeed, speaking of the likelihood the spectator this is why one may watch a film like The assays for the alternative outcomes? of 105

Popular Film and TV

scenes relative to each other before one ties if its grasp on the suspense is to remain outcome is actualized in the narrative. More- __ firm. Thus, one can narrate a suspense scene

over, I am talking about the probability of | by switching between shots that primarily the outcomes as they are presented by the add information about the relative probafilm, not as they would be in similar situa- __ bilities. Even scenes which include shots of

tions in everyday life. And I am categori- the agony of the victim of suspenseful cally excluding from the spectator’s estimate | machinations — in order to underscore the

of the relative probabilities, the audience’s moral conflict in the scene — require the knowledge of such desiderata of filmgoing = shots concerning probability information as lore as that the heroine is generally rescued — their nucleus. Suppose character x is in one

just in the nick of time. This talk of — of those rooms whose walls close like a vise; probability, I think, concretizes the essential | character y is rushing to the rescue. The truth of Alfred Hitchcock’s emphasis on the — scene would typically be set out with shots of importance of audience having knowledge __ the walls inching inwards — thereby enhanc-

for suspense (as opposed to shock) to ing with each shot the probability of x being succeed.24 What I think the audience needs _ flattened — alternating with shots of y’s ad-

knowledge about is the relative likelihoods vance blocked by various strategems —

of the alternative outcomes of scenes. traffic, motor-trouble, guards, gates, etc., The idea of probability that I have in all of which make it less probable that y will mind in this formula is a non-technical one. _ arrive in time. Shots of x’s anxiety and y’s For a spectator to believe that x is probable — exertion may be included, but they need not

or improbable is not for the spectator to be. The suspense sequence itself is most assign x some ranking or value in terms of ' often primarily concerned with adding and the probability calculus. Rather it is for the | re-emphasizing probability factors. In the

spectator to believe that ifxis probable then average case, by the time the suspense x is likely to occur, or can be reasonably | sequence begins the morality ratings are expected to occur given all the available, already in place.* permissible evidence on the screen. Nor One can easily go wrong by overadding does this imply that the audience isinitsseat improbability factors in a suspense seactively calculating probabilities of either | quence, thereby reducing the audience to the technical or non-technical sort. [see two — giddiness. In John Cromwell’s Made For cars — three feet apart and each traveling |§ Each Other (1939), the narrative alternates over sixty miles per hour — and I immedi- _ between scenes of a hospital in New York ately form the belief that a crash is likely, | City, where a child is dying for want of a

indeed highly likely. Similarly, when the — special medicine, and scenes of a flyer buzz saw is only nine inches from the _ bringing the medicine from Buffalo. Time is heroine’s neck and the hero is still in an —_—s running out on the kid. First, the flyer is anteroom battling six fulgurating ninjas, I, | caught in a blizzard, which is bad enough;

sans conscious calculation, presume that the then his plane crashes; then he crawls heroine’s moments, in all probability, are several miles to a farmhouse but he col-

numbered. lapses before he can tell the locals what to

Since the audience’s appreciation of the do with his packet. By the time the farmer relative probabilities is at the heart of — reads the address and calls the hospital in suspense, it is necessary that the coun- New York, the viewer is sobbing with tears tervailing probabilities be not just stated, | oflaughter. The contrivances of the improbabut constantly re-emphasized. The audience __ bilities and their reversals in the delivery of

must be reminded and consistently have the medicine are so overstated that they called to its attention these relative probabili- | appear unintentionally parodic. 106

Toward a Theory of Film Suspense

By focusing on the probability ratingsina say “delays” the final outcome of the narrasuspense scene, I do not mean to say that __ tive, but which more significantly makes the other factors are beside the point. Often, — rescue less likely. Also I am uncomfortable suspense is accentuated by music. Thatis,as with the idea that film suspense distends or

the narrative structure moves toward its prolongs or delays events because this imcompletion, in the form of an answer, a plies a comparison with some event — the corresponding musical system may be simul- _—_ delayed one — that is outside the film. But taneously moving toward closure so that the — with fiction films there is no such indepen-

musical resolution reinforces the dramatic dent event. The events only exist in the film. one.26 Some of the favorite motifs in film There is nothing for them to be “delayed” in suspense, like time-bombs, may seem analo- _ relation fo. gous to suspense music in one regard; they But perhaps the issue of whether probabilafford a formalized countdown system that _ ity ratings or temporal distensions are more

enhances the tension of the narrative. I, important for suspense cannot be adjudihowever, consider things like time-bombs as_ __ cated conceptually. Some empirical research

part of the probability structure of a sus- | would be desirable. But, sans research, I pense sequence; each tick makes it more — would offer as pre-scientific evidence for my

likely that an evil will occur. Unlike most conjecture a consideration of the last scene musical accompaniments in suspense films (I in Potemkin (1925). We know that it is say “most” in deference to examples like meant to be suspenseful, but neither I nor The Man Who Knew Too Much, [1956]), | the numerous film classes I have watched it time-bombs are causal constituents of, not with have found it so. Nevertheless, it does merely temporal correlates of, the events rather elaborately “delay” the answer to the

depicted in the suspense scenes. question of whether the fleet will open fire. I My emphasis on probability in suspense —_ suggest the reason for the lack of suspense in

scenes is meant to stand in contradistinction the scene is that its probability structure to the idea that the core of suspense is a _ does not include any information about the matter of temporal distension (Truffaut), or fleet during the entire detailed narration of a simple delaying (Barthes) or forestalling of | the mutineers’ preparation for battle. That the final outcome of a suspense scene. I the fleet will in all likelihood demolish the

realize, of course, that in the process of _ battle ship is never emphasized in the adding and re-emphasizing probability infor- editing. There is only a brief glimpse of the mation the narrative will most often cine- fleet at the end of the shot chain. It is simply matically distend some part of the repre- _— given that the fleet is likely to blow the sented action (in comparison tohowlongthe “Potemkin” and crew out of the water. That event might actually take), and, in some prospect along with the awesome firepower

sense it could be said that the addition of | at the fleet’s command is never visually probabilities delays the outcome of ascene. | embodied or re-emphasized or woven into

But I think that these distensions and delays, the heart of the sequence. There is a when they occur, are contingent or acciden- “delaying” of the climax in the narrative, but

tal accompaniments of the more fundamen- there is no effort to give the audience a tal procedure for generating suspense —- the _ sense of the likelihood of the Potemkin’s adding and re-emphasizing of probability destruction by repeated underlinings of the

ratings. The “delays” that are centrally | overpowering might of the countervailing important in suspense are those that figure, moral force in the sequence. Likewise, the quite literally, in the probability structure - scene in Meet Me in Saint Louis (1944) in e.g., the raised drawbridge that stalls the — which the father decides not to move to New rescuer, something that one might want to. York does not seem suspenseful. His deci107

Popular Film and TV

sion is “delayed,” but the conclusion, a distance to display his prowess. The govmoral one in terms of the film, is foregone —§ ernment’s refusal to be coerced by Jugger-

because no countervailing position—e.g.,a naut also bodes badly for the fate of the colleague visiting and extolling the financial ship. Shipboard scenes are counterposed to opportunities of New York — isincorporated — scenes in London with the police searching in such a way that the morally right alterna- for Juggernaut. His electronic savvy stymies tive seems improbable. In short, “delaying,” tracing his phone calls. The police admit if that is even the correct concept for the _ that they do not have enough time to check

prolongation of audience anticipation, is the alibis of every bomb expert in London. not, on its own, sufficient for suspense. At sea, the situation is even worse. The ship The formula that I have sketched for is beset by a storm; the demolitions crew suspense in film has immediate implications __ barely survives its air-lift to the “Britannic.”

for film research. It can be used with a given Once on board, they must attempt to film to isolate that film’s suspense structure. | dismantle all seven bombs at once without I claim that suspense generally occursin the | knowing whether all the bombs are wired context of an erotetic, dyadic structure-—a _ the same way. The bombs are puzzles and question is posed that has alternate answers __ they are booby-trapped. Two of them go off,

which in turn have contrasting moral/ _ one killing the assistant demolitions expert. probability ratings. The logical opposition of | Even the esperance of the cocky explosives the alternate answers and of the morality/ — chief, Fallon, flags. And time is running out; probability ratings is what, at the level of Juggernaut has terminated negotiations with form, gives rise to the “tension” of suspense. — the police because they attempted to arrest In approaching a completed suspense film, — his bag man.

our task is: (1) to identify the presiding The moral elements in the suspense question and to enumerate the previous _ structure are elaborated in a number of scenes and events that call for or sustain the | ways. On several occasions it is reiterated question; (2) to isolate the scenes andevents _ that the lives of 1,200 people are at stake. that establish the morality ratings of alterna- | Separate scenes are devoted to establishing tive answers; and (3) to itemize the scene, _ the virtues of representative passengers and events, and shots that inform the spectator | crew members: the garrulous politician who of the relative probability ratings. Forexam- _ surprisingly turns out to be noble as well as ple, in Juggernaut (1974), a splendid but — touchingly eloquent in his dedication to his

underrated film by Richard Lester, the marriage; the cabin boy who considers the question — will the good ship “Britannic” — ship to be his country and who sacrifices sink or not — is voiced when the extortionist, himself to save a child; the entertainment Juggernaut, first calls the steamship line and __ director who struggles to keep everyone in informs it that he will destroy the ocean- good spirits. Characters who appear comic

bound vessel unless the owners pay his are, at second glance, virtuous. The viransom fee. The greatest amount of energy gnettes given over to them function to in the film is spent trying to avert this promote the positive moral character of all disaster, but each sustaining scene, insofar — the people on the ship for whom they stand. as Juggernaut retains the upper hand, height- © Some shipboard children — who coincidenens the likelihood that the seven time bombs _ tally are the offspring of the chief investigawill go off. That is, most of the film is given — tor in London - figure often in the shooting, over to developing the likelihood that the — underscoring the innocence of Juggernaut’s ship is doomed. From the start, Juggernaut’s —_- victims. An extended ball sequence is in-

incomparable expertise is foregrounded- cluded to illustrate the indefatigable human he apparently detonates a bomb long- _ spirit and courage of the passengers in the 108

Toward a Theory of Film Suspense

face of adversity. The evil of their situa- | work is adopted, such variations and complition is not only conveyed by Juggernaut’s cations are more readily seen in bold relief. portrayal — on the telephone he sounds like I have offered a characterization of susyour basic mad-scientist — but by the repre- _ pense as it generally operates in film. My sentation of the callous, underhanded gov- _ hypothesis will be, I hope, assessable in the ernment official who is willing to let the ship __ light of film research. I claim the formula is

sink in order to show the world that Her comprehensive — that it is applicable to a Majesty’s government will not be intimi- _ very large number of films that we are pre-

dated by terrorists. theoretically disposed to call suspenseful.

In short, one could diagram the suspense The formulation should at the same time be structure of a film like Juggernaut. First, one replete, i.e., the inter-related factors I have would compose a sequential chart of the isolated as central to the system of suspense scenes and/or events in the film, designating | should provide enough categories to segre-

those scenes and/or events in the question/ gate out the core suspense elements in a answer network that terminate in the sus- _ film, and suspense films should exhibit pense scene/event —-the bomb’s ultimate elements that correspond to each of the defusing. One could then go through the factors that I have enumerated. Lastly, the film again connecting all those elements of — theory must be perspicuous enough that film character and action that contribute to the — researchers can employ its categories with

moral and probability ratings that are in _ relative agreement about the extension of tension in the creation of the alternate the basic terms of the theory. Failure along answers to the suspense questions. This any of these dimensions of evaluation are

would afford a picture of the structure of grave liabilities for this theory. : suspense within a given film such as Jugger-

naut. The formula I have presented, in other IV. Appendix A: Two Problem Cases words, can guide research into a particular

film and be used to pith its structure. When I tried out this theory on colleagues Having said this, I must hurriedly add and friends, two questions or problems that I do not think that, by introducing this —_ continually recurred: what is the relation of

formula for suspense, I have said the final suspense, on the one hand, to comedy and, word about studying film suspense. Though ' on the other hand, to mystery? Given the this formulation provides an initial inroad = frequency of these questions, some brief into analyzing suspense, many interesting | remarks seem appropriate here. discoveries may emerge when this mode of First, let us consider comedy. Suspense is

analysis is applied to individual films or often a major element in gags. A banana particular groups of films. Individual films __ peel is cast on the ground; the audience sees

may find inventive or even subversive ways it, but the character continues to walk of manipulating this structure. And it may — towards the banana peel on his way to a also turn out in studying genres or groups of __ pratfall. The problem is this: many theo-

films that there are significant sub-structures _rists say that in comedy, the audience of suspense —e.g., ways of dovetailing | suspends its ordinary modes of moral thinkprobability factors and moral factors like ing thereby taking pleasure in all sorts of Juggernaut’s connection of the family onthe __ sadistic spectacles - human beings falling,

ship and the police inspector-—that are being beaten, stepped on, hurled, etc. Thus, frequent enough to study in their own right. _ the moral sense is in abeyance when comedy

The formulation I have offered does not is at large. Therefore, the type of theory preclude all sorts of fascinating variations outlined above cannot explain comic susand complications. Rather, when this frame- pense because morality ratings are not 109

Popular Film and TV

applicable to gags. In order to meet the full — criminal will be a moral good which, due to

force of this objection, I will leave to one ‘the ambiguity of the evidence, seems un-

side the question of the truth of the likely. But this application of the suspense suspension-of-morality theory of comedy. formula does not aptly characterize what is However, even if that view is correct, we — special about mystery, or, at least, what is may still ask whether our moral sense is called classical detective mystery.’ The missidling in regard to every aspect of a gag or __ ing feature is that of the puzzle, which is the only in regard to some aspects. Many gags — central element of the classical detective seem to demand an amoral response to their mystery. My solution to this problem is to resolution — we laugh at rather than weep _ claim that the classical detective film, while with a hero who falls on his head. Our prima __ loosely in the realm of suspense, is better facie moral reaction is neutralized in the — conceived of as a category unto itself which outcome of the gag. But this does not mean _in its most important respects is distinct that other dimensions of our moral sense are from suspense. In distinguishing suspense not engaged in our response to other aspects from mystery, I am making a distinction of the gag. Specifically, our categories for analogous to that made in the analysis of distinguishing characters, situations, and crime literature by Todorov when he divides events as good or evil do not seem out of _ thriller stories from detective stories.” gear in regard to gags. In fact, a sense of the Given my formula, we can zero-in on the conflicts between goods and evils, or rights difference between suspense and mystery by and wrongs, seems requisite for identifying | considering the structure of the suspense the elements in a comic situation even question versus that of the classical mystery though with comedy we may reward what question. The suspense question has two would otherwise be an all-too-evil outcome |= competing answers. But the typical mystery with applause. That is, a man crushed by a — question — who did it? — has as many anMurphy bed is an evil and our recognizing it — swers as the film has suspects. The bulk of as such is a presupposition of a gag even if — the mystery film is devoted to introducing an

the gag also presupposes that our ultimate inventory of ambiguous leads and to a reaction to the situation will be levity rather — review of all the suspects who might have than anxiety. The suspension-of-morality | committed the crime. But the culprit, whose theory of comedy supposes that our basic _ revelation we anticipate, is not unmasked moral reactions — in terms of attitude — are —_ until a scene near or at the end of the film.

disengaged and not that our categorizations To a limited extent the character of our of characters and events as good or evil are _— anticipation is suspense at this point — we inoperative. Insofar as my theory only re- | wonder whether the criminal will be found quires the latter for morality ratings to take — or not. But at the same time, our anticipahold, the suspension theory of comedy does _ tion is less focused on an outcome and more

not present a problem for it. focused on a solution, a solution to the

The issue of mystery presents different | whodunit puzzle. Moreover, this puzzle can

conundrums. Mystery and suspense seem to. have many more than two alternative be closely related phenomena. Often, mys- = answers — it has as many potential answers tery films are treated automatically as sus- _—_as it has suspects. Thus, at the end of The

pense films. But does the preceding theory Thin Man (1934), everyone at the dinner of suspense really capture the quidity of table might be the culprit; the detective mystery? In a very broad sense, of course, it | weighs the evidence in regard to each of

does. A mystery will have a macro- them in a tour de force of speculation. Our question — will the criminal be caught or anticipation is not structured in terms of two not? Presumably the apprehension of the — possible outcomes but is distributed over a 110

Toward a Theory of Film Suspense

handful of possible solutions. In Murder on _ the sudden improbability of the success of

the Orient Express (1974), if I remember an immoral effort—Bruno’s attempt to correctly, we have ten alternative solutions frame Guy. Personally, I am not sure that before the investigator’s summing up, the _ the preceding is an apt characterization of quintessential moment in the classical detec- — the sequence. For though there is suspense

tive genre. Thus, though overlapping in in the scene, it is not clear to me that it is some respects, the suspense film and the generated simply by Bruno’s misfortune. classical mystery film might better be consid- | Guy’s tennis match is intercut with Bruno’s ered as distinct forms whose difference can _ reaching for the lighter. So the suspense in

be stated by reference to the different the scene may still be traceable to the structures of their animating questions. In obstacles that prevent Guy from saving suspense, the animating question calls forth himself. Admittedly Bruno’s momentary two contrasting outcomes, whereas in a _ loss of the lighter causes a shift in the mystery, the key question asks forasolution _ relative probabilities of the alternative out-

which is not limited to two contrasting | comes. Guy’s prospects are better than they answers but has as many different potential | were — he now has more of a fighting chance

answers as there are suspects. versus Bruno. However, it is not the case that Guy’s endeavors are made clearly V. Appendix B: The Case of Hitchcock probable by Bruno's accident. Nevertheless, the intensity of the scene is certainly conThe general theory of film suspense stated nected to the shift in the weights of the in this paper claims that suspense occurs competing probabilities. But it is not evident when a moral outcome is improbable and, _ that suspense is generated because Bruno’s conversely, that suspense does not occur — efforts are now improbable. His success, it when an immoral outcome is improbable. seems to me, is only less probable than it Though the latter claim does seem generally had been.

accurate, it may not hold universally. For However, even if the _ lighter-in-thethere are some ambiguous but troublesome — sewer-scene fails, there are more examples counterexamples to it, clustered especially | where that came from. At one point in the

in the work of Alfred Hitchcock. Hitchcock film, we are led to believe that Guy will presents (and, indeed, in the interviews indeed kill Bruno’s father. In general, the claims to have intended to present) sus- suspense in this scene is explicable by our pense in scenes where the audience worries general formula. An immoral outcome — because the success of some immoral Guy’s submission to Bruno’s mad scheme — action — “immoral” even in terms of the appears probable. Yet, there are moments in film’s point of view — is imperiled. That is, | the scene where a contrary type of suspense

Hitchcock has made, and, if he is to be _ has been claimed to arise by some viewers.

believed, he has intentionally striven to As Guy walks up the staircase, a huge, create suspense scenes where immoral out- _initially menacing dog awaits him. Some comes are improbable — scenes where there — spectators assert that they feel suspense at is suspense even though the moral outcome __ this point.”9 If this is the case, it must be said

appears likely. to occur in a context in which an ostensibly

Examples of this— though complicated immoral effort — Guy’s apparent complicity ones — can be found in Strangers on a Train inan attempt at murder — is improbable. We (1951). Bruno drops Guy’s cigarette lighter can, of course, debate whether this is in fact into a sewer. As he struggles to retrieve it, | what is at stake in this scene. Perhaps what is there seems to be suspense, though such — endangered is something moral — the time suspense would appear to revolve around _ or the opportunity Guy might be thought to 111

Popular Film and TV

need to rethink and to renege upon what pense?” In many respects, I think that the upright viewers take to be his untoward _ general theory of film suspense is a more decision to throw his lot with Bruno. But important discovery than the universal whatever our conclusion about this compli- theory, for it pinpoints the centrality of cated scene, it does, nevertheless, raise the morality in the vast majority of suspense theoretical possibility that suspense may films. Furthermore, it presents morality as a occur where an immoral act is portrayed as determinant, functional feature of most sus-

improbable. pense films, rather than as a general but What does this do to the general theory of — accidental feature of most suspense films. In

film suspense defended so far? First, it this, the general theory reveals a crucial shows that the theory is only, at best, factor about how most suspense films actugeneral — pertaining to the large majority of — ally operate. On the other hand, the univer-

cases — but that the theory is not universal. sal theory, insofar as its central term is Another related way of making this point is — broader, may in fact obscure the importance

to claim that the formula for suspense of morality ratings in normal suspense films. offered in this paper is sufficient for identify- In fact, in some ways, the general theory ing cases of suspense but that it does not — of film suspense presented in this paper is supply necessary conditions for isolating more helpful than the universal theory even cases of suspense. One way to augment the "in the analysis of the Hitchcock cases. For theory — given the Hitchcock cases — so that — the general theory gives us a picture of the it will be universal (supplying necessary con- —_— normal case of film suspense — what we may

ditions for all cases of film suspense) is to consider to be the base-line against which alter the morality component of the formula we plot deviations and subversions. With and replace it by the notion of desirability. | the general theory of film suspense in hand, Suspense then will be the affective concomi- we are able to see what is specifically tant to scenes in which — given the film— distinctive about the often commented upon desired outcomes (rather than moral ones) — Hitchcock cases, namely that they are repu-

are improbable and undesired outcomes — diations of the ordinary way of contriving

likely. If Guy’s danger on the stairway film suspense, the norms for which are results in suspense, that must be because we captured by the general theory. That is, in desire — against the immediate, perceptible general, film suspense is constructed by odds — that Guy remain unscathed. The — contrasting morality ratings with improbabil-

universal theory of film suspense will—to ity ratings and immorality ratings with deal with cases like this — be stated in terms __ probability ratings. If what is claimed for of desirability rather than morality, thereby | Hitchcock is true, then at times Hitchcock supplying necessary as well as sufficient — turns this structure topsy-turvy, making the conditions for film suspense. In order to moral probable and the immoral unlikely in

analyze suspense in film we must identify | contexts that are still suspenseful. This the features of given films which mark — subversion of the normal mode of film certain outcomes as desirable and others as = suspense gives such scenes an arresting, undesirable. And, of course, in dealing with §©memorable, and even disturbing quality. As

film suspense in terms of the concept of | subversions of the normal mode of film desirability, we are treating itinawaythatis | suspense, these scenes accord with what we very close to our idea of suspense in life | know of Hitchcock’s formalist bent — 1.e.,

(apart from art). his willingness to contravene received wisHaving sketched a universal theory of dom about cinematic form (e.g., don’t

film suspense, one may ask, “Why bother attempt to make films in contained spaces

detailing the general theory of film sus- like lifeboats). Moreover, the particular 112

Toward a Theory of Film Suspense

subversions of normal suspense in these purpose to proffer a picture of only one basic scenes are connected to Hitchcock’s moral- plot structure. Rather he intended to enumerism. Hitchcock is said to be a filmmaker ate an exhaustive account of the principles

who shows his audiences that the line that justify the insertion of a scene in a between being moral and immoral is slim narrative film. He believes a scene can be

and easily crossed. This point is under- added toa film if it is (1) an answer to a

; .;inprevious question; (2) a parallelism; (3). symscored films where what conventionally bolism: aa (5) . ; olism; (4) anisinstance of simultaneity; or

the functional position of a moral effort is a leit-motif. Only 1 and 4, I presume, are

replaced by an immoral effort. relevant to the discussion of the basic linear The full force of Hitchcock’s repudiation narrative. Tangentially, it is interesting to

of the normal method of creating film speculate that perhaps Pudovkin (mistaksuspense is Only brought into sharp focus enly) believed that film is a language because when we consider the kinds of scenes in his formulation of these principles for legitiquestion through the optic of the general mately adding scenes to a film bear a passing theory of film suspense. Thus, even in the resemblance to (recursively stated) grammaticase of Hitchcock, it may turn out that the cal rules. This is not to say that Pudovkin general theory of film suspense has more to discovered a Srammar of narrative or of film,

, or ; but thatcriticism he stated his recommendations in a offer interpretive than the univer- ae way that suggests something like a recursive

sal theory. definition for well-formed sequences — rules for licitly adding scenes to scenes.

Notes 10. John Holloway callsNarrative this and “proponing” in his Structure: Exploratory Essays 1. Gordon Gow, Suspense in the Cinema (New (Cambridge University Press, 1979).

York: Barnes, 1968), p. 43. 11. In Part V of my “Film History and Film

2. Eric Rabkin, Narrative Suspense (Ann Ar- Theory: An Outline for an Institutional Thebor: University of Michigan Press, 1973). ory of Film,” in Film Reader no. 5 (North3. Edmund Husserl, The Phenomenology of western University), I discuss what I call the Internal Time-Consciousness (Bloomington: economic-psychological method of medium Indiana University Press, 1964). On page 76, shot composition which I posit as a baseHusserl writes “Every primordially constitu- line strategy of most narrative film compositive process is animated by protentions tion. Combining the economic-psychological which voidly constitute and intercept what is model of composition with the notion of

coming, as such, in order to bring it to basic film narrative offered in this paper

fulfillment.” (along with an outline of how salience is

4. For an example of such a film critic, see achieved through editing and camera moveStephen Neale, Genre (British Film Institute, ment), I think would give us all the funda1980). On page 28, Neale unquestioningly mentals of a unified theory of the simplest endorses Barthes’s characterization of sus- form of ordinary film narration. The portrait, pense and goes on to apply it almost axiomati- of course, would be an idealization — perhaps

cally to genres like the thriller film. no existing film would satisfy every tenet of 5. Roland Barthes, “Structural Analysis of Nar- the theory — but it would reveal the underlyrative,” in Image-Music-Text (New York: Hill ing tendencies of the average narrative film.

and Wang, 1977), p. 119. “Film History and Film Theory” is included

6. Altan Loker, Film and Suspense (Istanbul, in this volume.

Turkey: Istanbul, Matbassi, 1976). 12. In some cases, the questions that are an7. V. I. Pudovkin, Film Technique and Film swered by a scene or an event may not feel Acting (New York: Grove Press, 1960). very acute. For example, the causal circum8. L. Kuleshov, Kuleshov on Film (Berkeley: stances in an earlier scene may appear so

University of California Press, 1974). implacably set out (a typhoon is heading 9. It should be noted that it was not Pudovkin’s toward an island, for instance), that we don’t 113

Popular Film and TV

have much of a question to ask. Or, a question. Were we to diagram many films in character may state emphatically what he order to outline their question/answer plan, intends to do in the next scene — “I’m going we would often discover that we would have

to the saloon to shoot Billy Ringo.” The to leap-frog, so to speak, several scenes in eventuations of such causes and intentions in order to connect question scenes with their later scenes seem better described not merely answers. The question scene still cognitively as answering scenes but as fulfilling scenes — generates the need for an answering scene i.e., scenes that fulfill what is predicted, not but the answer may not appear immediately

simply asked, by earlier scenes. Conse- after the question in the film. A question quently, one should perhaps enter a special scene may be followed by a digression, subcategory — that of the fulfilling scene — to followed by an establishing scene, followed the above list. Yet one should also recognize by another questioning scene before we get that it is a subcategory of the answering scene an answering scene that correlates with our since in film fiction it 1s always possible for first question, for example. The more leapcausal and intentional trajectories to make frogging the film involves, the more complex unexpected, hairpin turns. There is always a (and less basic) we tend to think the narrative question — will the typhoon hit? — (though structure is. By the same token, if a question

sometimes a slightly felt one) that under- is raised that is presented as important —

writes a fulfilling scene. what will happen to character x? — and it is 13. In many cases, an incomplete answering scene not answered, even via a complex process of may not be recognized as such at first glance. leap-frogging, then we tend to find the film

We may only retrospectively realize that such incomplete. And if we cannot justify that a scene gave us a partial answer to a preceding incompleteness in terms of some meaningful

question. Many of the “clues” in classical point or quality that the film is projecting, detective films function in this way. We might then we tend to see such incompleteness in a

want to call such scenes ambiguous, incom- negative light. plete answering scenes; they are ambiguous 15. Arthur Danto employs the distinction bebecause their initial significance is different tween the chronicle and the narrative in his from their retrospective significance. Analytical Philosophy of History (Cambridge 14. Pudovkin’s parallelisms, leit-motifs, and sym- University Press, 1967). The account of the bols are digressions from this point of view. basic fiction film narrative in this paper, howAlso, a saloon chanteuse singing a barroom ever, differs from Danto’s account of historiballad in a western of a certain period would cal narration. count as a digression. It would be interesting 16. For example, in Theory of Film (New York:

to investigate the types of digressions that Oxford University Press, 1960), Kracauer appear mandatory in given genres in stipu- often attempts to illustrate the nature of the lated historical periods. One might be able to episodic form by contrast to what he calls develop a list of recurring types of digressions “the intrigue” and to studio-fabricated plots. in popular film. Needless to say, digressions I am less concerned with whether Kracauer’s

in a linear narrative should not be viewed argument is sound than with the fact that mechanistically as automatic deconstructions the episodic structure/realism association is of classical cinema; they are very often part pervasive.

and parcel of the form a filmmaker is One might argue that the episodic form has

working in. the best credentials for being considered the Because of digressions, because of the basic film narrative because of its close

various types of questioning scenes, because _ resemblance to the chronicle. And undoubtof the insertion of establishing scenes after edly the episodic form is supposed to appear

the film is on its way, and because of the to be a chronicle. But, it is in fact a highly possibility of complex temporal relations mediated imitation of a chronicle rather than between scenes (e.g., parallel narration), we a chronicle pure and simple since the events it should not anticipate that answering scenes strings together are selected not because they

will always follow scenes that initiate a happened one after another but in order to 114

Toward a Theory of Film Suspense

make a point — e.g., “love is fleeting” in La that elicits the final answer. For example, Ronde (1950) — or, to evoke a quality — e.g., looking at the last scenes of Bride of Franken-

a sense of a social totality in The Tree of stein (1935), we see that they answer three Wooden Clogs. The kinds of spectator re- narrative questions: will Baron Frankenstein sponses required to properly engage such be persuaded to perform the experiment? (he episodic structures and to divine their pur- will); will the monster finally have a friend? pose is far more demanding and complex (he won’t); will the Baron and his wife than that required by an erotetic linear escape? (they do). Of these questions, the

narrative. last one is a micro-question generated by the

17. After the last macro-question is answered, specific circumstances of the experiment

and Johnny becomes a Confederate lieuten- scene. The other two questions, however, are ant, there is one more scene in the film, the alternatively the basic issues of the majority

saluting gag. From the viewpoint of the core of scenes in the film. The monster keeps structure of the linear, erotetic film plot, such searching for a friend in scene after abortive scenes are optional, though, of course, they scene — thereby reasserting the question — may greatly enrich the film as a whole. For an while Dr. Pretorius tempts Frankenstein in analysis of the thematic significance of the alternating scenes. Finally, the questions consaluting scene and its relationship to the rest of verge when the object of the experiment the film, see my unpublished doctoral disser- becomes the creation of a female, potential

tation, “An In-Depth Analysis of Buster friend for the monster. Keaton’s The General” (New York University, What I am calling macro-questions would

1976). be referred to by many film scholars as

18. The notion of “completeness” is discussed by “enigmas.” This terminology derives from Monroe C. Beardsley in Aesthetics (New Roland Barthes’s S/Z (New York: Hill and York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1958), and Wang, 1974). At best, this characterization is

in Nicholas Wolterstorff, Art in Action misleading. Most narrative questions are not (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William Erdmans obscure or unfathomable mysteries. Identify-

Publishing Company, 1980). ing them as such seems to be a rhetorical

19. In The General, the battle sequences toward gambit that enables the psychoanalytic structhe end — through which Johnny wins his turalist critic to conflate narrative questions uniform — may appear tacked on. One rea- with things that one might more appropri-

son for this is that the macro-question of ately think of as enigmas, e.g., the nature of whether Johnny will be allowed to enlist has the subject. Perhaps by calling such narrative

not been as sustained as it might have been elements macro-questions, we can make a throughout the film. The battle seems extra- contribution to short-circuiting some of the neous to the most animated questions the most flagrant arguments by equivocation that film has raised and the film might have are rampant in film scholarship today. successfully terminated when Johnny makes 20. For examples of melodramatic suspense, see

it safely to town. In retrospect, we recall that my “The Moral Ecology of Melodrama,” in his girlfriend has made enlistment a condition The New York Literary Forum, The Melofor their relationship, but as the film unravels drama Issue (The City University of New

the issue gets lost and thus gives the battle York, 1980). scenes, wherein the uniform is won, an aura 21.1 am not claiming that everyone who is

of superfluousness. politically opposed to mercenary intervention Isolating the macro-questions in a film - in the Third World will be seduced by the something most easily achieved after one has suspense in such a film. Some will feel only knowledge of the complete film — provides a outrage. Rather, I am trying to explain why

powerful perspective from which to analyse some people, who would oppose certain the entire narrative structure of a film. We activities — theft, freebooting, etc. — as crimiobserve what questions are answered last in a nal and immoral in the world outside the film, film and then back-up and enumerate all the can be induced to regard the same activities scenes that set forth and sustain the question in a film with a pro-attitude.

: 115

Popular Film and TV 22. In the above remarks, it might be noted that I tion seem very ad hoc; (3) normal viewers do have studiously avoided any reference to the not believe that they are about to be crushed

concept of identification. This omission is by a train, pushed off a building, knifed, and intentional. I do not believe that we need as so on when a protagonist is threatened — if elaborate a piece of psychological machinery they did, they would run screaming from the

as identification to account for audience theater; (4) the concept of identification is responses to suspense scenes. The idea of logically incorrect to describe the phenomemoral allegiance will do our work for us. Just non at issue since very often spectators do as we can have moral allegiance to a foreign not have or share the identical or same nation —e.g., people who espouse either emotions of the characters in question — the Arab or Israeli causes — without somehow characters are in pain or enraged and we psychologically merging with that nation, so feel suspense or, in related kinds of cases, we can agree with and root for a character in pity (that is, the logical asymmetry of the a film on the basis of shared moral commit- spectator/character relation in terms of the ments with that character. We do this on the feelings imputable to both make it impossible basis of holding similar moral values to the to characterize the relation as one of identificharacters in question. Perhaps, this is why cation); (5) the concept of moral allegiance is virtues are so important in determining the a simpler, less mysterious, and perfectly moral system of the film. For in a given adequate way of dealing with the phenometwentieth-century cultural system, we are non. Using allegiance in this context in no more likely to agree on what the positive way denies that our responses to film can be virtues are than we are likely to agree on very intense; we often have very extreme

political and moral precepts. pro-attitudes when it comes to values. For In film, I contend that what is generally those who claim that allegiance itself must be called identification is best explained in terms explained by identification, there are two of an audience’s allegiance to a given char- retorts: first, even if that is ultimately true,

acter on the ground that that character moral allegiance or value agreement might exemplifies personal virtues that the audience still be the proper description of the specific

has a pro-attitude toward. The spectator mechanism of reaction at the level of film retains his/her identity during a film, 1L.e., viewing, and, second, the burden of proof — does not somehow dissolve into the protago- that all moral allegiance can be reduced to nist, but rather is prompted to applaud the some form of identification — rests with the protagonist because that character champions identificationists. things that the spectator sees as moral goods, 23. That is, one outcome is relatively more usually of the nature of virtues. This seems to probable than the other, or one seems no me a better description of so-called identifica- more likely than the other. tion than formalist accounts that trace audi- 24. Hitchcock discusses the distinction between ence sympathy to devices such as point-of- suspense and shock in Hitchcock/Truffaut view shots in which the spectator’s vision (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1967). supposedly “fuses” with a character’s. This 25. Sometimes suspense sequences also include can’t be right since we often “see through” credibility factors, i.e., elements that make villainous point-of-view shots without taking the final, improbable denouement a little up that character’s cause, e.g., the steady- more plausible than it would be otherwise. cam shots in Halloween I and IT (1978, 1981). For example, loquacious villains often megaObviously, space does not allow for thor- lomanically rant on for just enough precious ough refutation of the concept of cinematic minutes for aid to reach our beleaguered identification at this time. My general reserva- hero. tions about the concept are that: (1) often it 26. It might be said of this paper that it is a theory

is employed in a vague way; (2) when its of narrative suspense in film rather than a workings are theorized, for example by theory of film suspense. A theory of film someone like Stephen Heath, the steps in- suspense would be a unified theory of all the volved in the putative operation of identifica- elements — music, camera placement, edit116

Toward a Theory of Film Suspense

ing, color, acting, etc. — that go into and are I should add that I believe that the formula coordinated in producing suspense film. I can for suspense offered in this paper can be used only say that if such a unified theory is by filmmakers in a relatively straightforward possible, then I believe that the narrative will way to churn out suspense scenes. I take it as be the lead element in it. That is, all the other partial confirmation of my formula that it can elements in creating film suspense will have be used routinely to simulate simple cases of to be subordinated to the functional require- suspense. ments of the narrative structure of suspense. 27. The notion of the classical detective mystery Upon hearing the preceding claim, some is developed in John Cawelti’s Adventure, critics have said that mine is really a literary Mystery and Romance (Chicago: University theory of suspense. This is to misdescribe the of Chicago Press, 1976). case. I have dwelt on the structure of narra- 28. In “The Typology of Detective Fiction, “The tive suspense. It is true that that structure — Poetics of Prose (Ithaca, New York: Cornell insofar as it is a structure of narration — can University Press, 1977). be instantiated in film or in writing. But that 29. My own personal response to this scene is not

does not mean that I am imposing a literary to feel suspense but simply utter confusion. structure on film. In fact, I believe that there Jolted by Guy’s apparent moral volte-face, I

are certain differences in the technical means feel at sea through most of the scene, of literary suspense and film suspense that concerned only that Guy change his mind. make the bald extrapolation of the former to Others, however, have informed me that they the latter problematic. In literary suspense, find the moment with the dog highly suspense-

for example, I have found that suspense is ful. Hitchcock himself cites the scene in often narrated by going into the mind of the Frenzy (1972) where the psychopath wrestles

characters to give us a direct, elaborate and the corpse for a piece of jewelry to be an extended account of what the characters feel instance wherein the audience feels suspense and of what they think their prospects are. over a scene in which the odds are against evil Characters’ thoughts, directly presented, sup- succeeding. Again, my personal reaction to ply us, for instance, with assessments of the the scene is at variance with the claim. I find likelihood or improbability of various out- the sequence a hilarious, surreptitiously obcomes. But that kind of portrayal of suspense- scene, and sustained exercise in black humor. ful scenes is awkward and ponderous in film, In this case, my laughter interferes with any and would work against conveying suspense feeling of suspense on my part. But it is likely

cinematically. that others have responded differently.

117

=

= of the quintessential American TV soap operas.

CHAPTER VII ~ And, of course, millions do stay tuned — not only to One Life to Live but also to the As the Dial Turns: | horde of other soaps that crowd the daytime Notes on Soap Operas = TV schedule, each one weaving, at a dizzy~ ing rate, its own web of personal crises compounded of marital infidelity, sudden

, ~ sickness, accidents, bankruptcy, business scams, family estrangement, abortions, job problems, love affairs, illegitimate children, envy, intrigue, betrayal, and all manner of

Tina Roberts, alienated from the affections interpersonal entanglement. of her husband Cord, is being tried for the murder of her ruthless mother-in-law, Maria. Though for most of us mention of soap There is plenty of circumstantial evidence, | operas makes us think of TV, the form

but as yet no motive. The prosecutor be- originated in radio, and to a surprising lieves that Maria was blackmailing Tina, but degree many of the features of the genre Tina denies it. He has planted a Latin Ameri- _ have persisted since the thirties. In all, the can woman in the front row of the court- soap opera has been with us for at least fiftyroom — a maneuver that unnerves Tina. The __ five years, which is quite an impressive life

prosecutor demands to Know whether Tina span, given the fickleness of popular culrecognizes the woman. Hectored, she finally ture. We hardly recall break-dancing, let breaks down and divulges asecretthat would alone most of the fads of the early thirties. make any blackmailer’s mouth water. What accounts for the tenacious grip of the The Hispanic woman was there when, as_ = soap opera on the popular imagination? I a result of going over a waterfall in South — believe that the answer has to do with the

America, Tina had a miscarriage. At the _ structure of the genre and the ways it same time, another woman, Gabrielle, had a addresses the moral life of viewers — ways, child by a man, Max Holden, who Gabrielle _in fact, that are in place in the earliest soaps.

believed — wrongly — was Tina’s husband. The soap opera, by which I generally Tina had persuaded Gabrielle to turn the =mean daily, weekday, daytime serials of child, Al, over to her care — which Gabrielle — continuing stories concerned primarily with did because she believed that in that way the —_ interpersonal problems and relations, is, as

child would be raised by its true father. noted, a product of radio. In 1929, with Tina, however, put Cord’s name on the birth Amos ‘n’ Andy, NBC Radio inaugurated certificate — in order to deflect his attentions nationally a broadcast serial story form that away from his dissatisfaction with their aired six days a week for fifteen minutes per marriage (and his girlfriend), and toward installment. Its success provided a model to

“their” new-born son. be imitated. The earliest soap operas fol-

Will this revelation turn the jury against lowed its pattern. For example, Painted Tina? Who will take custody of Al? Will Dreams, the saga of an Irishwoman and her Max, who didn’t know that Gabrielle was household, was created in 1930 for WGN pregnant, forgive his one-time lover for — by Irna Phillips (whose apprentice, Agnes depriving him of his parental prerogatives— = Nixon, later originated such TV serials as and will his new-found sense of indignation One Life to Live), while Just Plain Bill began make a better man of him? Stay tuned for as an evening program in 1932 but became a future installments of One Life to Live, one — daytime offering in 1933. By that time, there 118

As the Dial Turns

were nine daytime shows of this sort. Afew translate visually onto the TV screen, its years later, in the 1937-38 broadcast season, growth has been tenacious and steady. “Tothirty-eight such programs were available - —_ day the audience for network television soap

of which one, The Guiding Light, would _ operas is estimated to be fifty million percontinue as a TV soap starting in 1952. In sons, including two-thirds of all American their recent Sage Publication monograph = women living in homes with televisions; the The Soap Opera, Muriel Cantor and Su- — cumulative audience for soap operas over zanne Pingree observe that “The consensus _ the past fifty years is inestimable. This

is that in 1940 about 20 million women enormous audience today provides more (approximately half the women at home _ than $900 million in revenues for the three during the day) listened to two or more commercial television networks — one sixth

serials daily.” of all the profits,” notes media historian Radio soaps were unabashed exercisesin Robert Allen in his authoritative Speaking

moral didacticism. In a 1938 script from of Soap Operas. Today’s Children (also produced by Irna Phillips), Dot testifies that “...no matter The impact of the soaps can be seen on any what problems we might have to face inthe | newsstand, marked by the presence of such future, somehow I feel for the first time “fanzines” as The Best of Soap Opera, Soap

since Terry and I have been married that | Opera’s Stars, Soap Opera People, Soap we’d know how to meet them because we’ve = Opera’s_ Greatest Stories and Stars, and so experienced a similar problem and solved _ on. These specialize in interviews with and it,” while Kay identifies the source of all this | biographies of the actors who star in the wisdom in the program’s central character, | soaps — thereby providing, in a manner of

saying “Mother Moran, somehow I think _ speaking, further stories about the stories your friends should know that your wise _ that make up the soaps. Especially useful for teachings over the past five and a half years = anyone who wishes to follow the soaps is have given each of your Today’s Children a Soap Opera Digest, which carries, among foundation that nothing can destroy. You’ve _— other things, synopses of the major proshown us a road on which we know that our —_ grams, so if you miss an installment you can

footing is sure.” always catch up on the plot.

Of course, the advice these programs brokered was not merely moral but, more _—_ Like it or not, soap operas saturate our important, it was commercial, taking the — culture. One reason is simply the amount of form of advertisements that could even be _ air time they get. Whereas a prime time TV

segued into the episodes. The soaps were program presents in the neighborhood of expressly directed at female audiences, and — twenty-two episodes a year, a daytime soap

they afforded guaranteed access to the may deliver as many as two hundred and primary purchasers of household goods; the sixty. Soap Opera Digest lists twelve major

very title of the form, set by about 1939, daytime soaps, which air five days a week. attests to this: the sobriquet “soap” alludes § The number of soap operas on the air in any to some of the major sponsors— and, in — given year, of course, fluctuates. But the

certain cases, the actual producers of these stories keep coming day after day. More programs — such as Procter and Gamble. stories have been told than are in memory Radio soap operas continued until 1960, or on record. By any standard, the output but by the early fifties the shift to television of the soap opera must represent a substanas the major venue for the form had begun. __ tial proportion of our culture’s narrative And despite initial, predictable worries that _activity. the soap opera as a verbal form would not Of course, the soap opera has undergone 119

Popular Film and TV

many changes during its long history. Radio _ the prospect of AIDS) on All My Children —

soaps, for example, included much more — what Broderick refers to as a “public serauthorial intervention, in the form of com- __ vice” subplot — evolved over six months. On

ments and insinuations on the part of the — the other hand, Broderick notes, the scale announcer, than do TV soaps. Andin more and structure of soap narration does not recent years, ITV soaps have begun to — encourage the neat tying-up of loose ends incorporate action-adventure subplots such _ typical of a well-made Hollywood movie. as Jesse’s undercover police work in All My Broderick’s contrast between movies and Children and Elena’s spy network in Gen- soaps _is_ suggestive and can be further

eral Hospital, along with the more tradi- expanded in ways that not only point to tional interpersonal focus. Such changes what is characteristic about soap opera certainly reflect the need for the soaps to narration but also hint at its power of readjust to shifting circumstances inorderto attraction. For movie narratives and their sustain their appeal. But, at the same time, — standard effects are something about which,

there persists a basic design of the genre, at this time, we know a great deal, and we one that has enabled it to command such ~ can use that knowledge to illuminate the intense allegiance on the part of such alarge __less-studied soap opera form. audience for so long.

The most obvious contrast between soap

. Why do soap opera viewers go on staying operas and contemporary movies is that tuned? Undoubtedly the typical themes soap operas are serials and movies are not. of the soaps — interpersonal relations, ro- (Of course, there was a time when the serial mance, health — touch common interests. | form was a major staple of movies as well.)

But this feature alone, I think, cannot The serial form, in whatever medium, relies account for the addictiveness the form en- — on the same principle: the narrative gener-

genders. The very structure of these narra- ates certain questions that the audience tives is also a major contributing factor in expects will be answered either in the the hold that soap operas have over their present installment or a subsequent one. _ substantial audiences. That is, itis not just Will the hero, in one of those old movie the stories, but the way the stories are told— __ serials, escape from that cellar flooding with

their form — that keeps the fans coming — water, or will Casey, in As the World Turns,

back for more. fall in love again with Taylor Baldwin and In determining what is distinctive soap _—_— reject Lyla? The answer will come in some opera storytelling, an initial, intriguing clue —_ future episode.

comes from Lorraine Broderick, one of the Although movie serials are almost chief writers in charge of plotting for ABC’s — unheard-of today, the plots of feature films

All My Children. In an interview with this are still based on the question-and-answer author, Ms. Broderick remarked that a _ principle. Earlier scenes and sequences in a frequent criticism that soap writers levelata |= movie pose questions that will be answered prospective story-line is that the plot is “too — by ensuing scenes. If a film opens with a movie-ish.” From Broderick’s point of view, | murder, we expect it to be solved before the there are essential differences between soap movie ends. Moreover, the kinds of ques-

plotting and movie plotting, and some of _ tions that a movie poses have a certain them work to the advantage of the soap hierarchical order. Some of them tie toopera. For example, the format of the soap gether local actions and scenes; if the wagon

facilitates detailed development of a plot train is surrounded by Indians, we wonder over a long period; Mark’s recovery from his — whether the pioneers will be saved, and this

drug addiction (which has recently raised question begins to be answered when we cut 120

As the Dial Turns

to a sequence of the cavalry mounting up ___ interrupted. Clearly, the kind of climatic

and riding to the rescue. Call these micro- closure appropriate to the movie form questions, which elicit micro-answers. would be dysfunctional in a serial where However, movie narratives are also sus- tomorrow really always is another day. tained by larger, macro-questions, questions | Whereas the movie narrative is ideally

that animate the film as a whole. Whether — closed, the soap opera narrative must be | Jeff Bridges is a murderer is the fundamental open. Soap operas do not adhere to Arisquestion of Jagged Edge. Allthe actions and __ totle’s requirement that drama have a begin-

events in the plot, tied together by micro- ning, a middle, and an end; as Dennis Porter questions, are ultimately subordinated to notes, the soaps belong “to a separate genus delivering an answer to this question. Of _ that is entirely composed of an indefinitely course, feature films may have more than — expandable middle.”

one animating question. Watching Bringing The expandable middle characterizes Up Baby, we may wonder whether Grant soap operas but not necessarily all TV and Hepburn will become lovers, whether series. Prime time serials, such as Miami the intercostal clavicle will be found, and Vice, tend more toward the movie model in whether Grant will “open up.” In movies — temporal organization; each episode is dethe action will typically be funneledinsucha voted primarily to the solution of a domiway that these interlocking questions are all nant crime, and this promised solution

resolved by the end of the film. functions as the macro-question of the inFeature movies, in other words, have _ stallment. Where a series braids together a closure. They proceed by generating one or _—set of continuing, disparate stories and more macro-questions and then answering __ perplexities from show to show, as Hill Street

them. When a movie has answered all the Blues does, the narration begins to feel basic questions it has posed, it is over. open, like a soap opera. Of course, there are Moreover, the ending has a sense of finality also evening soaps, like Dynasty, with a or fitness about it, for everything you _ structure very like that of daytime soaps, wanted to know about the fictional world it |= even though a show that appears once a presented has been answered. At the end of | week cannot involve its audience the way Chaplin’s The Gold Rush you don’t wonder __ one that airs five times a week can.

whether he will invest in Standard Oil of New Jersey, for that question was never Movies and soaps differ not only in their posed. What happens between the Tramp — temporal structure — closed versus open — and Georgia is what the story has induced __ but in the time of their telling. Most movies you to be concerned with, and once you __last about two hours and they are (with luck)

learn about that, the story is finished. projected without interruption. The movie narrative is compact, indivisible, and inte-

Soap opera narration presents a different gral. The story as a whole is told in one kind of temporal structure, one without the sitting. Clearly the internal temporal strucfinality, climax, and closure that movies _ ture of the movie narrative, its closure, and have. In soap operas, plots and subplots — the external time structure of its narration, need not be hierarchically structured but its compactness, are related in the producmay unfold simultaneously without presid- __ tion of perhaps the most characteristic effect ing macro-questions to bond them together. | of mass movies, their narrative economy.

Although individual subplots may pretend Soaps, on the other hand, are obviously to a kind of quasiclimax — like Viki Bu- full of gaps in their manner of presentation. chanan’s return from heaven in One Life to _— Aired daily, each installment comes at least Live —- they can always, in principle, be — twenty-three hours after its predecessor. So 121

Popular Film and TV

the open narrative structure in soaps is Children —is a stinker, and that one an matched by a porosity in their mode of angel, and Melissa (General Hospital) is presentation, and taken together, these two headed for trouble if she accepts Zak’s features give soap operas a very different offer of drugs as a way of dealing with her impact from the effect that movies have on _ fears and frustrations about her mother —

their audiences. although her mother is acting in an underSome feminists have even seen the soap — standable way considering her daughter’s

Opera as a proto-radical form, arguing that behavior. Soap operas, in short, invite closure is associated with an omniscient — gossip. They encourage us to talk about the male mode of reception while the “open- rights and wrongs of the argument Robert ness” of the soap provides a feminine mode and Anna (General Hospital) are having

of viewing for a predominantly female over her career, and about what would be audience — a mode of viewing marked by __ best for baby Al and what would be just for

anticipation and by a diffusion of interest his assorted parents on One Life to Live. and tolerance that might be described as Indeed, soap operas supply an interpersonmotherly. One should hesitate over facile ally available community on which we can thematizations of narrative structures into — practice our moral and prudential skills of dubious “essentializing” categories like male | evaluation — and then they give us the time and female. Nevertheless, the openness and _ to do so.

porosity of the soap opera narrative does It is somewhat odd to think about gossipallow for qualitatively different kinds of — ing about the characters (as opposed to the responses than do the temporal structure of stars) and events in movies. What they have

movies. done and what they ought to have done The gaps in soap operas from day today appears already fixed, due to the closure

open a kind of space for speculation that is | and compactness of the form. Furthermore, effectively impossible with movies. Givenits the movie is over by the time we might start mode of presentation, the actioninthe movie — gossiping. One could argue that the characis integral and complete. We don’t really _ ters should have behaved otherwise, but the

have much time to speculate whether a fact that the book is closed makes such a character will or should do this or that, dispute a matter of swiftly diminishing rebecause as the movie converges onitsclimax, turns. Very shortly, that is, one has marwhat she does and whether, on balance, it — shalled all the relevant facts from the fic-

was correct have already been settled. Of tional world that there are to be had, and course there are moments of uncertainty in __ the discussion reaches if not agreement then virtually every film, but the degree to which _— stalemate. But the openness of the soap these may be speculatively explored is se- | opera — including the potentially continual verely limited by the pacing of the plot addition of new facts — as well as its porosity structure, which demands resolutions in one makes sustained conversation seem natural. sitting — thereby making it effectively impos- We don’t gossip about strangers, for the sible for us to debate with other viewers most part. Gossip, in general, requires most

about what will and should be done. of us to have some knowledge of the people we are gossiping about. One function of Soap operas, on the other hand, allow and _—s soaps is that they supply viewers with even encourage such speculation and discus- familiar figures about whom to gossip — sion. The time between episodes gives figures to whom they may apply standards of

viewers the opportunity to test with others character and action, and about whose their assessments of what they have seen. — circumstances they can predict likely outYes, this character — say, Erica on All My comes as well as evaluate them. 122

As the Dial Turns

Gossip performs an important function in Public’s Use of Television, R. E. Frank and the moral realm. In Moralities of Everyday M. G. Greenberg maintain that viewers Life, John Sabini and Maury Silver contend __ isolated from other adults derive a feeling of that “gossip brings ethics home by introduc- __ social integration from soaps, while Suzanne ing abstract morality to the mundane. Moral ___ Pingree’s findings indicate that viewers of norms are abstract. To decide whether some — daytime soaps are more active participants

particular, concrete, unanalyzed action is in relation to the ongoing story than any forbidden, tolerated, encouraged, or re- other type of TV viewer. The line of speculaquired, principles must be applied to the tion we have pursued so far suggests a way of case.” Gossip provides a setting in which — unifying these observations; daytime soaps individuals, in concert with others, are able | engender a sense of communal integration to understand their moral principles and _ because the activity they most invite is the practical (i.e., prudential) guidelines by — exercise of social skills related to practical connecting them to concrete situations and and moral judgement.

characters. Through gossip, that is, one comes to realize the extent of abstract moral This doesn’t mean that soap operas are rules on one hand, abstract views of the necessarily forces for moral enlightenment, vices and virtues, on the other, through a ___ particularly in their plot material. On social conversation over cases. Gossiping enables _ issues, soaps tend toward a safe liberal view, us to articulate abstract moral and practical but they also gravitate toward conventional

views in detail, thereby, in a sense, helping moral attitudes that often deserve to be us to discover our moral perceptions at the — challenged. In recent soaps I have detected

same time that we commit ourselves to a pervasive “me-generation/go-for-it” ethos them. Soaps, because they prompt gossip, coexisting uneasily with a more traditional also promote this social process, and that is | commitment to the primacy of family loy-

a large part of their attraction. alty. Thus, I would not want to defend the moral contribution of the soaps on the basis

That appeal is quite wide these days. Men _ of their explicit or implied ethical stances and women are equally drawn to gossip. Ifat | but rather for the way in which they open a one time the topics for gossip placed on the _ space for the exercise of moral perception. agenda by soaps were traditionally thought Feminists such as Ellen Seiter have sug-

of a “women’s talk,” indulged in primarily gested that women can interpret soaps by housewives, recent studies show in- against the grain, against the way in which creases in college-age and male audiences _ such stories ask to be read. I have no idea that suggest the potential for soap opera’s how many people interpret such stories sub-

appeal across age, class, and gender. versively, but I agree that the genre readily Although soaps can be avery active social affords this possibility through its formal lubricant, the intense interest they evoke is __ structure because it invites the play of active not confined to people who have the opportu- moral judgement —it invites gossip — and nity to talk about them. Soap operas are also __ this must be one of its attractions. Whether watched, avidly in many cases, by people _ the moral reactions it elicits always coincide who have little occasion to expatiate on — with the forces of light is another question.

them — for instance, the elderly who live Of course, it is not simply a matter of alone. However, even in such cases, soap _‘ form; content certainly plays a decisive role

Operas invite the exercise of moral and as well. The typical themes of the soaps — practical powers of synthesis and insight in family, romance, sex, and sickness — are of ways that afford the viewer a sense of — especial moral concern to their still predomiparticipation in a moral community. In The nantly female audiences, and so the spaces 123

Popular Film and TV

opened by the temporal structures are also to signal that the viewer regards popular filled with living issues. As well, the soaps _ representations as very like reality, then I are written with an eye to topical problems— don’t see how realism could explain the

drug addiction, child abuse, teenage sex, intensity of our response to these objects, wife-beating, abortion-that make them since most people’s encounters with reality even more seviceable as grist for ethical are marked by indifference. And in any case,

exercise. soap operas are not particularly realistic;

_ Given the contemporary critical disposi- their world is populated by too many doctors tion to explain the artifacts of mass culturein and nurses, while the rhythm of catastrophe terms of realism — artifacts ranging from is too pronounced. advertisements to detective novels — it may Though clearly artificial, soap operas are seem surprising that Ihave not attributed the no less engaging for that. Specifically, for allure of soap opera to realism. Some might many, they provide a stimulant for exercisclaim that there is a realism operating inthe ing moral skills. In a world of anonymity and soaps, rooted not only in their topicality, but fragmentation, they supply their viewers

also in their concentration on everyday life. | with an electronic front porch on Main But if “realism” in such formulas issupposed Street, a world to judge.

124

= postulation of irrational processes, when-

CHAPTER VIII ™ ever such hypotheses are redundant or ill-

, advised, the approach found in this paper

Toward a Theory of | ™ has been called “cognitivist.” I have argued

Point-of- View Editing: for the superiority of the cognitivist ap. Communication, Emotion, ™ proach elsewhere at great length.! So rather

and the Movies - than repeat those arguments here, perhaps the success of the ensuing article in explain-

= ing the ways in which point-of-view editing serves the purposes of popular art can stand

as testimony on behalf of the cognitivist approach.

I. Introduction But before taking up point-of-view editing proper, some clarification of terminology is Movies, under which rubric I include narra- _ in order. I have said that movies represent a tive TV, represent the paradigmatic popular = paradigmatic popular art. However, this may

art form of the twentieth century; each not be the most insightful way of putting the decade is memorialized in our collective matter. For, on the one hand, this formulaarchive by the images and styles of its tion traditionally suggests a contrast with distinctive movies—such as the gangster serious art, which contrast provides hardly a films of the thirties. The purpose of this sufficient contrary since something, includarticle is to analyze one of the key devices of ing certain movies, can be serious and the movies, point-of-view editing, in order popular. And, on the other hand, this way of to suggest, in the course of that analysis, characterizing the umbrella category groups something about what makes movies so movies together with rural medicine shows, popular, specifically in terms of the struc- | thereby missing what is probably the most tures, such as point-of-view editing, toward significant feature of movies,.viz., that mov-

which the movies gravitate. ieS are mass art.

Moreover, the reader who is unfamiliar Rather than referring to movies as popuwith the theoretical fashions of the cinema lar art, I believe that it is more instructive to studies establishment should be forewarned _ refer to it as mass art. In many of its typical

that the methodological approach repre- forms, mass art is thought to evolve out of

sented in this paper is at odds with the popular arts or popular entertainments, received wisdom of the English-speaking = such as vaudeville. But not all popular art academy of the present. Whereas the domi- __ has been transformed into mass art. : nant tendency in film studies, and in what is _ As an initial approximation, mass art is coming to be called “cultural studies,” relies |= popular art or popular entertainment wedupon psychoanalysis (often Lacanian psycho- = ded with a technology — such as radio, film,

analysis) as its preferred explanatory frame- or sound recording — that enables it to be work, my own work along with that of distributed on a mass scale. Moreover, given Others, such as David Bordwell, explores its potential for mass distribution, mass art the relevance of alternative areas of psychol- —_ tends to be not as class-specific as earlier ogy for answering questions about the struc- | popular entertainments were. Mass art seeks

tures of communication and reception of as large an audience as is available, and, cinema in particular and mass art in general. therefore, ideally strives to address general Furthermore, since the types of psycho- audiences. One might say that the function logical and philosophical research this work — of mass art is to command mass audiences.

favors attempts to avoid resorting to the And this function, in turn, not only influ125

Popular Film and TV

ences the content of mass movie entertain- narration, and perhaps to some extent conment, but also influences the choice of its tent) gravitate toward that which is easily structures, such as point-of-view editing, as | accessible by large numbers of untutored

well. audiences.”

Of course, not everything produced in a In terms of the major aesthetic debates of

mass medium is amass artinthe sense thatI — the twentieth century concerning high art in

use that notion. There have been and _ contrast to so-called low art/popular art/ continue to be avant-garde films, videos, kitsch, I think that the real contrast is radio broadcasts, and so forth. That is, the | between mass art and the avant-garde.? That technologies of mass media may be used to is, avant-garde art, even if it deploys a mass produce high art. But, nevertheless, we — technology, is the pertinent foil to mass art.

need to draw a distinction in terms of art For, put summarily, avant-garde art is deproduced by a mass medium (which would _ signed to be “difficult” and typically requires

include the works of Nam June Paik and _ special background training in order to be Elvis Presley) and art designed for mass — understood, whereas mass art is said to be consumption (which is also delivered by “easy” and (optimally) requires little or no means of a mass medium). The latter is the | background training. narrow sense in which I wish to employ the Movies are paradigmatically mass art in

idea of mass art. this sense. By characterizing movies as mass Such art includes the work of Elvis art, rather than merely as popular art, we

Presley but not the work of Nam June Paik. are alerted to one of their primary functions.

For even if Nam June Paik wishes he had a This, moreover, puts us in a position to mass consumer audience, he would have to — explain why certain of its central devices admit, polemics aside, that he has not yet serve the purposes of the movies so well. For

designed his video works in a way that as we shall see, point-of-view editing, for would secure such an audience in the world _ reasons to be discussed below, is especially as we know it. Some producers of mass art _—_ suited to address mass, untutored audiences

proper may also fail to elicit the mass expeditiously. Thus, starting from a funcresponse they wish because they have misap- __ tionalist perspective, which regards the eliciplied the formulas or strategies designed to _ tation of mass consumption as a central aim

entice mass followings. These artists differ | of movies, we shall illuminate the role of from Nam June Paik, however, since he not _ point-of-view editing in virtue of the ways in only chooses to eschew such formulas, but — which it facilitates this overarching goal.4 he actually experiments with strategies that

subvert them. The focus of this paper is point-of-view Mass art, then, as I would construe it is, at editing as it serves as a functional element in

least, art produced by a mass medium and mass arts, including movies and narrative designed to elicit mass consumption or with TV.> Our aim is to explain, at least in some the reasonable expectation of eliciting mass _—_ respects, its serviceability in securing the consumption. In order to elicit mass con- —__ purpose of the movies, that is, in effectively

sumption, the products of a mass medium _addressing mass audiences. aim to be consumable by a maximum num- When referring to point-of-view editing, I ber of people employing minimum effort. | have in mind minimally a structure which Stated more formulaically, xis aninstance of | involves two shots — what Edward Branigan

mass art if and only if it is (1) art that (2) is calls a “point/glance” shot and a “point/ delivered by a mass technology that (3) is object” shot. The point/glance shot is of a designed in such a way that its structural person looking, generally offscreen; the choices (modes of representation, types of — point/object shot is putatively of whatever 126

Toward a Theory of Point-of-View Editing

the person sees.? The elements of this intents. This behavior obviously has high structure can be iterated in various, ex- — survival value. And it is present in humans panded ways, and the point/glance shot may —as weil as other higher primates. We hu-

precede the point/object shot and vice- mans, of course, automatically mobilize this versa, in what Branigan respectively calls | behavior not only with respect to other prospective and retrospective structures.® species but with respect to each other. My first purpose in discussing this struc- Norbert Wiener comments ture is to attempt to explain how it is suited Suppose I find myself in the woods with an for communication (notably, for mass com-cannot . 7). a intelligent savage who speak my language munication), mn general, and for the commu- and whose language I cannot speak. Even withnication of emotion, in particular. Second- out any code of sign language common to the two arily, I will try to explain how this structure —_—of us, I can learn a great deal from him. All I fits into the overall goal of popular movie _ need to do is to be alert to those moments when narration. I distinguish my aims from those _he shows signs of emotion or interest. I then cast of Edward Branigan in his influential writ- |= my eyes around, perhaps paying special attention

ings insofar as his energies, it seems to me, to the direction of his glance, and fix in my are spent on the description of point-of- memory what I see or hear. It will not be long view editing, whereas mine are aimed at before I discover the things which seem imporexplanations. This is not said in order to tant to him, not because he has communicated criticize Branigan but only to signal that I have observed them 10 have a different, and perhaps complemen-

aes , ; them to me by language, but because I myself

tary, interest. Moreover, this tendency to explore an-

What follows is divided into three parts, | other’s glance for information about her each of which develops a different hypothe- interests appears to take hold in infancy. sis about point-of-view editing. The first | George Butterworth and Lesley Grover, for hypothesis rests on characterizing point-of- | example, have observed the relation of view editing as a cinematic elaboration of — children to their mothers in rooms full of ordinary perceptual practices. The second objects. Invariably, children follow the trahypothesis tries to show the way in which __jectory of their mother’s glance to its target

the structure of point-of-view editing is object.’ This behavior begins to manifest deployed to represent the emotional states _ itself in infants of two or three months of

of characters. And the third hypothesis, age. Butterworth and Grover’s research exploiting the observations of the earlier — concerns the conditions of verbal communitwo, speculates on why point-of-view editing — cation and one of their points is that looking serves the purposes of mass movie narration — where an interlocutor is looking is crucial.

so well. But their findings have relevance to communication and information gathering outside

II. Point-of-View Editing and Ordinary the context of verbal communication, since

Perception this virtually preprogramed response of following the glance of others is likely to be a One adaptive behavior of many animals means, perhaps bred in the bone, that (especially mammals) upon encountering humans possess for discovering the intent of another animal is to direct attention to the others. target of that other animal’s attention.’ In Undoubtedly, in certain cultures, people doing so, the mammal attempts to derive may be trained not to look at other people. information about the newly encountered But where such prohibitions are not in animal in terms of what interests it evinces force, humans gravitate toward looking at and, in consequence, in terms of its practical |§ what other humans are looking at as natural 127

Popular Film and TV

means of information gathering. A common In these cases, despite the deletion of the practical joke when I was in grammar school camera movement, we are still able to was for a group of us to look up into the recognize the structure as a representation empty sky in order to “trick” some hapless __ of a typical perceptual behavior; indeed, we

passerby into doing likewise. find it hard to resist regarding a cut from a Let us suppose, then, that itis generally a § gaze to an object as such, perhaps because

natural human perceptual behavior, in the when we naturally engage this sort of relevant circumstances, for a person x to perceptual behavior it is the endpoints of the follow the gaze of person jy to its target. It activity, and not the space between, that would appear that this is a typical way in command our attention. which we secure information about other Our difficulty in seeing this representation persons and the environment. In this re- otherwise, of course, is often exploited by spect, this tendency is clearly an adaptive avant-garde filmmakers. In Peter Kubelka’s asset that, in all probability, is innate. Mosaik im Vertrauen (Peter Kubelka, 1954 — Moreover, it is a perceptual practice that 55, Austria), for example, at different times, can be readily represented in cinema. Recall — the chauffeur and the bum appear, improbthe shot in Rear Window (directed by Alfred _—_ ably, to be looking at the crash at Le Mans. Hitchcock, 1954, USA) where the character That is, in the avant-garde film, the point-ofplayed by Jimmy Stewart observes the char- view format can be insistently used to link acter played by Raymond Burr gazing down- _ together “magically” spaces that cannot be ward intently from his window; the camera __ thought to coexist.

follows Burr’s line of vision to its target, a As a first approximation, thinking along small dog, and this sets both Stewart and us ___ the lines of Hugo Munsterberg, we might to conjecturing about the way in which this _ think of point-of-view editing as an autosmall dog’s activities figure in Burr’s practi- matization, via editing, of our own natural

cal concerns. perceptual reaction to track a glance to its

In this example, the camera movement target. This structure is readily picked up literally traces the trajectory from Burr’s and applied, virtually by reflex, because it gaze to the dog, thereby representing whatI has our own ingrained perceptual behavior have claimed to be a type of natural per- _as its prototype. It so closely simulates our ceptual behavior. What happens in point- __ perceptual behavior that we somehow take of-view editing — at least of the minimal, it as objectifying our own (would-be) percep-

prospective variety—is that the camera tual responses. movement between the gaze and the target But though this way of thinking is both

is deleted. suggestive and certainly not completely

In Rear Window, for example, a skeptical wrong, it needs some refinement. For the Grace Kelly suddenly looks surprised and __ point-of-view structure is a representation. asks Stewart to repeat his suspicions about |Wedo not take it to be the automatization of Burr. This is followed by ashot of Burrtying an act of seeing with one’s own eyes, but up a piece of luggage, a shot we regard as __ rather recognize it to be a representation of showing us what earlier surprised Kelly. Or, — perception.‘4 At the same time, it is, like in Stagecoach (John Ford, 1939, USA), just | many “mimetic” pictures, a representation after the character played by John Carradine — whose recognition is hard to avoid, since it is

drapes his coat over the body of a dead keyed in intimate ways to our perceptual women, we see him look up with concerned makeup. curiosity. There is a cut to signaling on the Structurally, it delivers the glance and the

nearby hills, which we surmise to be the target, the nodal points of our perceptual

object of Carradine’s concern.!” prototype, while functionally it serves the 128

Toward a Theory of Point-of-View Editing

congruent purpose of supplying information = prima facie communicative, a possibility that

about the agent whose gaze concerns us. is based on the fact that it is always, ex The correspondences between this cine- hypothesi, informative. That is, an informatic device and ordinary perceptual behav- mation delivering practice is turned into ior undoubtedly make it immensely accessi- an intentionally communicative practice in

ble and almost irresistible, but without point-of-view editing. Stated baldly, pointleading the viewer to mistake a communica- _of-view editing can function communicative showing for her own perceptual activity. _ tively because it is a representational elabo-

In discussions of point-of-view editing, ration of a natural information-gathering stress is often put on the importance of _ behavior. That is, point-of-view editing, of eyeline matches for this device. Undoubt- the prospective variety at least,!” works edly, there are important historical conven- __ because it relies on depicting biologically tions that emphasize eye-line matching and innate information-gathering procedures. overall geographical plausibility to point-of- | This is why the device is so quickly assimiview editing. But these conventions can be lated and applied by masses of untutored violated without notice by the spectator and __ spectators. Or so I hypothesize. Moreover, without any loss of recognition on the part this hypothesis fits neatly with empiricial of the audience of the communicative func- _ findings about the ease of comprehension of

tion of the structure. In the voyage in — edited arrays by first-time viewers such as Dracula (Tod Browning, 1931, USA), for | members of the Pokot tribe of Kenya. 18 example, there is a cut from the vampire as

he comes on deck, looking hungrily, one yy point-of-View Editing and the presumes, to a mismatched shot of the CreW Communication of Emotjon fighting a storm. But despite the sloppiness of the editing, the audience has no problem My first hypothesis concerned a claim about drawing the correct conclusions, since we _ the way in which point-of-view editing func- _ recognize that what is being represented isa __ tions in general as a medium of communica-

natural perceptual path from a glance to its ‘tion. Now I would like to develop a more target — a pathway that has internal toitthe particularized hypothesis about how this expectation that a glance will be followed by — structure communicates information about

its target. The audience’s appreciation that the emotional states of the characters, spepoint-of-view editing is arepresentation and _ cifically the characters portrayed in the thereby possibly a fictional representation is —_ point/glance shots. In the previous section,

what makes such conventionally aberrant the target was emphasized as a source of exercises such as The White Gorilla (Harry information. In this section, both the face in

Fraser, 1945, USA) possible. the point/glance shot and the target will be Our first hypothesis, in summary, is that discussed in terms of the ways they interact point-of-view editing is a representation to yield information about the agent in the

rooted in our recognition of an innate film who is doing the viewing. What I want perceptual behavior that moves from a gaze _ to develop is an account of the different to its target. This perceptual behavior occurs contributions that the point/glance shot and naturally in situations where we are gather- _—ithe +point/object shot make to conveying ing information about our environment. The information to the audience about the emohuman gaze in such situations, as encoun- __ tional state of the character in question. tered naturally, may or may not be intention- In the lore of film theory, a story, called ally motivated to communicate information the Kuleshov experiment, has been passed to us. With point-of-view editing, however, | down about how an actor with no change in the gaze and the gaze-to-target structure is _ his facial composure was taken to be express129

Popular Film and TV

ing different emotions simply by virtue of ' the photos in the experiments have been juxtaposing his glance to diverse scenes.!® — posed. This is not to say that every imagin-

When the actor’s face was correlated to a able emotion can be transculturally recogbowl of soup, for example, he was thought __ nized, but only that there is a great deal of to express hunger, while the selfsame face, | convergence across certain basic ranges of composed in the same way, but juxtaposed _ affect, including interest/excitement, enjoyto birds and clouds was thought to expressa ment/joy, surprise/startle, distress/anguish,

yearning for freedom. disgust/contempt, anger/rage, shame/humilYet if this story is true in its details, which _—iation, and fear/terror. This research lends

I doubt, it does not correspond to the typical credence to the conjecture, defended long

deployment of point-of-view editing. For ago by Darwin, that the recognition, and standard point-of-view editing uses the char- __ the expression, of emotion, at least along acter’s face to give us information about her — certain very basic dimensions, has an in-

emotional state with respect to what she nate, biologically rooted origin.” sees. That is, the character’s face is not, as Turning from psychology to film theory, it standard versions of the Kuleshov experi- | seems reasonable to suppose that where part ment claim, emotionally amorphous, merely of the function of the point/glance shot is to

awaiting emotive shaping from ensuing convey information about emotion, it is

shots. generally able to do so, at least in some

In the point/glance shot of a character measure, by engaging the spectator’s innate seeing a monster in a horror fiction, the — capacities to recognize the gross category character’s face will generally register the | into which the character’s expression falls. disgust she feels toward the creature she is That is, the point/glance shot is a device looking at: her nose may wrinkle, her designed to activate our capacities of recogupper lip is raised, her teeth are clenched, _ nition in such a way that we identify the and her head and torso start backward ina global emotional state of the relevant charwithdrawal response. That is, before we see acter. That this capacity is keyed to very the monster in the point/object shot, we _ basic emotional ranges is not a liability to have already been given information about _ postulating its activation with respect to the character’s emotional assessment of it. | movies, since in movies the emotions porThe question before us is how this can _ trayed are quite basic.”

happen. Here, of course, it is not my intention to

For nearly two decades, psychological deny that audiences may also determine the investigation into the expression of facial | emotional state of a character in virtue of emotion has amassed a compelling amount __ the narrative context but only that in addiof data to the effect that for certain basic tion to the narrative context the look of the ranges of emotional expression, there is a — character’s face is of major significance in surprising degree of cross-cultural unifor- | determining the character’s emotional state mity.2° That is, when members of different in the vast number of cases. Moreover, in cultural groups, including preliterates unfa- |= mass movies, the narrative context and the miliar with mass-media representations, are look of the character’s face will generally shown pictures of facial expressions of — provide redundant, reinforcing information emotion, they tend to agree in their categori- about the character’s emotional state. And,

zations of the emotion in the pictures at indeed, in some cases where the narrative rates far above what one would predict on — context has not yet been elaborated to any the basis of chance.”! Especially relevant to significant degree, it will be the audience’s any discussion of point-of-view editing is the — ability to discern broad emotional states that

fact that this convergence increases when _ will carry a primary burden in the audience’s 130

Toward a Theory of Point-of- View Editing

broad identification of the relevant emo- — of a person in an emotional state, such as

tional state of the character. those found in Charles Le Brun’s Confér-

If the citation of this capacity of recogni- = ence sur l’expression général et particuliére tion provides part of an explanation of how des passions,* the viewer may have a global point-of-view editing can convey informa- _ sense of the kind of emotion portrayed, but, tion about emotion, it is nevertheless not the |= as Richard Wollheim notes, there is “likely

whole story. For, as noted, this capacity to be in the spectator’s mind uncertainty, detects emotional states in terms of globalor vagueness, or ambiguity, about the corregross categories, whereas the emotions we — sponding emotion.””6 The particular emotion

find in movies are more often fine grained. __ portrayed, in other words, is somewhat The fear etched on Jimmy Stewart’s face is | underdetermined. What disambiguates or not fear simpliciter, but vertigo, in the film specifies the particular emotion for us is the of the same name. And the look of angeron apprehension of the object, which in pictothe sailor’s face when he glares at the plate __ rial representation is most often coincident he is about to smash in Potemkin (Sergei — with the cause, of the emotion. For examEisenstein, 1925, USSR) is more specifically ple, the look of fear or shock or surprise on moral indignation. So the question becomes _— Seleucus’s face in Ingres’s painting Antio-

how does the point-of-view structure get us | chus and Stratonice can be specified as a from global emotional attributions to more — shock of revelation when we connect his

fine-grained ones? glance to its cause or object, the waning Here it is important to recall that emo- _—_Stratonice.?”’

tions are characteristically marked by inten- So, the human face can give us very tionality. That is, they are directed, or, to broad, generally reliable information about speak more technically, they have objects. the emotional states of others. But this One is not simply angry; one is angry at information can be ambiguous in certain

someone or something. Often, though respects: sometimes it may be difficult to hardly always, the object of an emotion is _ differentiate closely related emotions like coincident with its cause. And with respect fear and surprise, and, in any case, when to point-of-view editing I would hazard the — one only sees the face, it will be hard to guess that the particular object of the — specify the emotion in a fine-grained way — character’s emotion is generally a cause of __ that is, to say what variety of fear or surprise the emotion. Moreover, in order to identify _ or joy is at issue. In order to arrive at a more the emotional state a person is in with any __ fine-grained and unambiguous characterizaprecision, one needs to specify the object of tion of the emotion, we depend on knowing

the emotion in question. Emotions, torevert the object or cause of the emotion in again to technical jargon, are identified § question. primarily by their objects. To determine Returning to point-of-view editing, my whether an emotional state accompanied by __ hypothesis is that the function of the point/ an accelerating heartbeat is to be identified | object shot is to supply the viewer with the as an instance of fear or amusement depends _ cause or object of the character’s emotion in

in large measure on the object of the order to specify that emotion in a fineemotion, for example, an assault rifle aimed — grained way. In point-of-view editing that is

at one’s head, on the one hand, versus a devoted to conveying the emotional state of clown taking a pratfall on the other. a character, we move from the glance to the This feature of emotions — that they have _ target in order to ascertain the particular objects that serve to individuate them -—has emotion of the character. In Vertigo (Alfred

an important bearing on the representation Hitchcock, 1958, USA) there is a scene in of emotional states. Encountering a picture — which the Jimmy Stewart character tries to 131

Popular Film and TV

overcome his affliction gradually. He climbs Given emotions are elicited by objects a short kitchen step ladder. Suddenly his that share certain general features. The face, shown in a point/glance shot, is emotion of disgust, for example, is elicited gripped by fear or terror or anguish. The by objects that the emoter regards to be point/object shot shows us what he is look- —_ noxious or impure. If we have no reason to

ing at-—the street several stories below. believe that an emoter takes an object to be With this knowledge of the object or cause impure or noxious, we will not attribute of his emotional state, we can specify it. Itis | disgust to her. This is not to say that we must not fear or anguish globally it is vertigo most — assess the object to be noxious, but that we

particularly. This, of course, is not to deny must think that the emoter does. Emotions, that the narrative context of the event plays __ that is, have formal criteria of applicability —

an extremely important role in our interpre- | what are sometimes, perhaps confusingly,

tation here. Nevertheless, the point/object called formal (as opposed to particular) shot still plays the crucial role in fixing and _—objects.”8

confirming that interpretation. Thus, when a point/glance shot sets forth The relation of the point/glance shot to a character possessed, broadly speaking, by the point/object shot, where point-of-view fear, that recognition on the viewer’s part editing is used to portray emotional states, | comes with the expectation that whatever is has a reciprocal structure. The point/glance __ eliciting the fear, of whatever sort of fear it

sets out a global range of emotions that is, will meet certain evaluative criteria: for broadly characterize the neighborhood of example, that in the subject’s view the affective states the character could be in. — object in question is believed to be harmful.

The point/object shot, then, delivers the | When the point/object shot arrives, the object or cause of the emotion, thereby viewer will survey it in terms of those enabling us to focus on the particular emo- _— features of the situation that appropriately

tion within the broad categories of the correspond to the kinds of emotion the affective range made available by the point/ _point/glance shot makes available. The glance shot. That is, the point/object shot __ point/glance shot, in other words, provides a

focuses or selects the particular emotion rough guide to what is salient, emotionally being portrayed. Using jargon we may say speaking, in the point/object shot.2? For that the point/glance shot functions as a — example, if the point/glance shot in a horror range finder, and the point/object shot func- | sequence initiates our recognition that the tions as a focuser, specifying the relevant — character is disgusted by what she sees, then affect as a particular emotion within the — when the point/object shot arrives, we will

range set forth by the point/glance shot. attend to the open sores on the zombie’s In addition to this particular reciprocal body and not to his designer jeans.

relation between the point/glance shot and One way to see the importance of the the point/object shot, there are other func- _ point/glance shot in guiding the reception of tional relationships within the point-of-view — the point/object shot is to think about the

structure. For in setting the range of the — difficulties we have in trying to follow a emotion in question, the point/glance shot film like Dreyer’s Vampyr (Carl Theodor also, again in a broad way, primes (undoubt- Dreyer, 1931-32, France/Germany). One of edly, most often, along with other elements the problems that we encounter with this

of the narrative context) the spectator’s film, I submit, is the blankness of David reception and interpretation of the point/ | Grey’s face. In point/glance shot after point/ object shot. The manner in which this _ glance shot we have no inkling of what his works relies on certain structural features of reactive affect is to what he sees, and this

emotions. leaves us at a loss about how to interpret the 132

Toward a Theory of Point-of-View Editing

point/object shots of what he sees. Of fact that along with the recognition of an course, in stressing the importance of the | emotion comes a conception of the kinds of

point/glance shot in setting up a broad features appropriate to the elicitation of the expectational horizon with respect to the | emotion. The point/object shot specifies the

point/object shot, I am not denying that emotion in question as a particularized those expectations can be subverted. This | emotion by supplying the viewer with the can be done for intentional comic effect, as | object or cause of the emotion as the target in The Return of the Killer Tomatoes (John _ of the glance as discussed in the previous De Bello, 1988, USA) when the visage of an __ section.

elderly woman in a paroxysm of horror is emotionally mismatched with a shot of a IV. Point-of-View Editing and the Movies smallish, lone tomato on a plate.

At the same time that the point/glance If the two hypotheses we have developed shot makes certain features of the point/ with respect to point-of-view editing are object shot apposite, the point/object shot persuasive, then maybe they can be further

clarifies and deepens the recognition of | exploited to advance a third hypothesis the emotion in the point/glance shot. In about why point-of-view editing is such a Gance’s Napoleon (Abel Gance, 1927, — serviceable device in movies. By movies, France), when Camille Desmoulins enters here, I mean popular commercial massthe chamber of the triumvirate with a copy market narratives in the style loosely desigof La Marseillaise, we see a shot in which — nated Hollywood International, or more his face is tinged with consternation and academically labeled the Classical Cinema.*° fear; when we see the point/object shots of | Indeed, for my purposes, as noted earlier, what he is looking at — the triumvirate in the term movies applies to the products of animated conversation—- we are able to narrative TV as well as to the products made specify Desmoulins’s look as the deferential for theatrical distribution.

fear of being intrusive. Since movies are, by definition, aimed at The point of this section has been to mass markets, movie makers are apt to

explain how information about the emo- favor design elements that will render their tional states of characters can be conveyed narratives accessible to large audiences. by point-of-view editing. By exploiting cer- That is, ideally, movies will exploit structain facts about emotion recognition and tures that make them susceptible to fast about the structure of the emotions, we can __ pick-up by untutored audiences. Elsewhere, hypothesize that character affect is repre- _I maintained that the fact that movie narra-

sented in point-of-view editing through tion proceeds, to a great extent, by pictorial reciprocal, functional relationships between representation is a particular advantage in the point/glance shot and the point/object — this respect.3! For picture recognition is an shot such that the point/glance shot sets the innate capacity that evolves in tandem with

range of the relevant emotion and guides object recognition. That the basic symbols the reception of the point/object shot while —_in movies are pictures, then, provides mass, the point/object shot focuses or specifies the | untutored audiences with virtually immedi-

particular emotion represented. The point/ ate access to the events portrayed in movglance shot is able to set the range of the __ ies. Part of the mass appeal of movies, that

relevant emotion in virtue of our innate is, results from the fact that audiences capacity to recognize certain basic, broad can apprehend the basic symbols in this emotional categories from facial displays, | mode of communication without learning a and the point/glance shot shapes our recep- _ language — like code or specialized forms of

tion of the point/object shot in virtue of the inference or decipherment. At a certain 133

Popular Film and TV

level of visual narrative action, mass audi- Moreover, since these sorts of capacities are ence spectators can follow movies because _ the sort of thing that mass audiences are of their innate capacity to recognize pic- most likely to have in common, they provide tures. This is far from the whole story of particularly expeditious means to the ends how audiences understand movies. Never- of mass movie communication. theless, our biologically rooted capacity to Put succinctly, then, our last hypothesis is

recognize pictures supplies an important that point-of-view editing serves the purelement in any explanation of how mass poses of movie narration so well because to

audiences understand movies. the degree to which it is keyed to biologiSimilarly, we have hypothesized several — cally rooted and transculturally distributed

ways in which point-of-view editing is con- _features of perception, it guarantees fast nected to very basic features of perception. pickup and a high degree of accessibility to

On the one hand, the glance to target mass untutored audiences, crucial desidertrajectory, of which the point-of-view struc- ata for the persistence of any device in the ture is a compelling representation, reca- | economy of the movies.

pitulates a very fundamental perceptual This hypothesis should not be regarded practice; it is easy to pick up and to follow as an example of biological determinism. It by mass, untutored audiences exactly be- is not our claim that movies were destined

cause it tracks information in the way we to adopt the communicative structure of naturally track information and, conse- point-of-view editing. Movies without requently, can be recognized as a representa- —_—_- course to point-of-view editing can and have

tion thereof. | been made. We do not assert that the Likewise, mass audiences, lacking any emergence of point-of-view editing was man-

special training in detecting facial expres- dated by human nature. There is, for sions, can nevertheless generally derive infor- | example, no reason to reject the possibility mation about the emotional states of charac- that point-of-view editing might never have

ters portrayed in point-of-view structures been discovered. because certain very basic ranges of emo- Rather our claim is that, given certain of tional expression are transculturally legi- our biological propensities, point-of-view ble.32. That blind children evince certain editing, once discovered, was an extremely emotional states by means of facial expres- viable and compelling means of visual com-

sions very similar to those emitted by munication in general and of emotional sighted people worldwide strongly suggests | communication in particular. For supposing

that said expressions are innate, and, in that the aim of mass movie entertainment is consequence, that would explain their cross- to engage (numerically) mass, untutored

cultural intelligibility.* audiences, point-of-view editing is a ready That these aspects of point-of-view edit- | source of communication because of the way ing can operate by exploiting and elaborat- —_—in which it taps into or exploits biologically ing biologically rooted capacities imbues the —_ rooted, perceptual behaviors.

structure with a high degree of legibility for Of course, the filmmakers who intromass audiences untrained in specialized duced point-of-view editing did not do so on codes or processes of reading or inference. __ the basis of the theoretical conception articu-

This is not to deny that the point-of-view lated in this paper. They embraced point-ofstructure is asymbolic artifact of communica- _—_ view editing because it worked — because it

tion; rather, it is a symbol system that facilitated the rapid pickup and visual underfunctions in large measure by engaging standing of their product by audiences worldgeneric human capacities of recognition. | wide who lacked any training in the so-called 134

Toward a Theory of Point-of-View Editing

language of the medium. That point-of-view temporary Film Theory and Method,” reediting is keyed to our biological makeup printed in this volume. undoubtedly enhanced the reception of the 2. This conception of mass art is defended at point-of-view structure. This is not to say greater length in: Noél Carroll, “The Nature that every successful communicative struc- of Mass Art,” P hilosop hic Exchange (1992);

ture deployed by the mass arts will be oh d we ro was At veh ae ane biologically rooted, but only that biologi- Novitz,” Philosophic Exchange (1992) mM cally rooted structures, like point-of-view 3. Noél Carroll, “Philosophical Resistance to editing, will be attractive devices, for by- Mass Art,” in Affirmation and Negation in now obvious reasons, in promoting visual Contemporary American Culture, edited by

comprehension on a mass scale. Gerhard Hoffman and Alfred Hornung (Hei-

We began by noting that movies are a delberg: Universitatsverlag C. Winter, 1994). paradigmatic mass art form. In order to 4. I have developed similar functionalist analyfunction in this way, movie structures, such ses of the roles played by pictorial representaas point-of-view editing, must facilitate the tion, variable framing, narrative, and music possibility of mass consumption. This re- in the movie system in other writings, includ-

quires that the structures be accessible to an Pa, wae Simeniae say on Movies ane international audience that has not been Music » The two aca ; vust ited. ate re.

explicitly trained in the reception of a printed 1 this volume. y language-like code. One way for movies to 5. The point-of-view format can also function in achieve this end — as exemplified by point- other media such as comic book illustration

of-view editing — is to engage generic per- and photojournalism. ceptual tendencies. For a design element 6. Edward Branigan, Point of View in the predicated on generic tendencies is, ceteris Cinema (New York: Mouton, 1984), p. 103. paribus, a likely candidate for mass con- 7. Branigan, here, intends to follow Mitry. (See sumption. Future research into the effective- Branigan, p. 103; and Jean Mitry, Esthetique

ness of mass art may benefit from this et psychologie du cinema (Paris: Editions Uni-

analysis of point-of-view editing by attempt- versitaires, Pe B P- 212), eae mor

ing to isolate further features of mass arts, panne *? f ° he ranigan , an ue

_ moos designate.

including the movies, that succeed by ex- Sipulahons for the narrow paenomenon ploiting our biological inheritances. Un- 8. Branigan, p. 111.

doubtedly, this will not provide us with the 9. This general claim about mammals has been

whole story of the reception of either advanced by Robert Gordon in his book, The movies in particular or mass art in general. Structure of Emotions (Cambridge University However, it may enable us to appreciate Press, 1987), p. 148. There is also evidence certain crucial features of mass art that have that the piping plover tracks the gaze of

been hitherto ignored due to the obsession intruders. See, for example, Carolyn A.

with codes, construed as arbitrary, that has Ristau, “Aspects of the Cognitive Ethology

hypnotized cultural studies for the last two of an Injury-Fe rene Bird, The Piping

decades. #4 Plover in CognitiveOther Ethology: The Minds of Animals, edited by Carolyn A. Ristau (Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,

Notes 1991), pp. 102-04. Perhaps indirect evidence that animals naturally track the glance of 1. See Noél Carroll, Mystifying Movies: Fads other animals for information is the way in and Fallacies in Contemporary Film Theory which some animals inhibit their attention in (New York: Columbia University Press, order to mislead other animals about their 1988); and Noél Carroll, “Cognitivism, Con- intentions. Jane Godall tells the story of the 135

Popular Film and TV chimpanzee Figan who hid so that his glance Los Angeles: University of California Press, would not give away his interest in a certain 1976), and Jean-Pierre Oudart, “Cinema and banana to Goliath, another chimpanzee. See: Suture,” Screen 18 (Winter 1977-78). For Jane Godall, In the Shadow of Man (London: criticism of the identification/suture approach Collins, 1971); Alison Jolly, “Conscious Chim- to point-of-view editing see: David Bordwell,

panzees? A Review of Recent Literature,” in Narration and the Fiction Film (Madison: Cognitive Ethology, p. 240; and A. Whiten University of Wisconsin Press, 1985); William and R. W. Bryne, “The Manipulation of Rothman, “Against the System of Suture,” Attention in Primate Tactical Deception,” in in Movies and Methods; Barry Salt, “The Machiavellian Intelligence, ed. by R. W. Last of Suture,” Film Quarterly (1978); Noél Byrne and A. Whiten (Oxford: Oxford Uni- Carroll, Mystifying Movies, pp. 183-98. versity Press, 1988). At the level of annec- 15. Here I believe that I differ from theorists like dote, I have also been told by Arthur Danto Nick Browne in the importance (or the lack of a case of a young monkey who, in order to thereof) that I place on spatial position for

flee from his elders, looked off into the understanding the point-of-view figure. See distance; when the elder monkeys followed Nick Browne, “The Spectator in Text,” in his glance to its target, the younger monkey Narrative, Apparatus, Ideology, edited by used the opportunity to run away in the Philip Rosen (New York: Columbia Univer-

opposite direction. sity Press, 1986).

10. Norbert Wiener, Cybernetics (Cambridge, 16. This is, in effect, a film composed of two

Mass: MIT Press, 1978), p. 157. films: a silent jungle adventure serial at-

11. George Butterworth and Lesley Grover, “Ori- tached to a nineteen-forties, sound framing gins Of Referential Communication in In- story. The nineteen-forties footage is segued fancy,” in Thought without Language, edited with the earlier footage through the point-of-

by Lawrence Wiskrantz (Oxford University view shots of the narrator in the framing

Press, 1988). story; what he supposedly sees is the stuff of

12. An interesting but slightly more complicated the silent jungle serial. case occurs in Carné’s Les visiteurs du soir Edward Branigan has suggested to me that (Marcel Carné, 1942, France). In the banquet a similar point might be made with respect to scene, during the dance, the character Ann the better-known film Dead Men Don’t Wear looks offscreen and her jealous suitor follows Plaid (Carl Reiner, 1982, USA). Like The her glance. Once the jealous suitor is locked White Gorilla, this film interweaves footage into the trajectory of her gaze, there is a cut from earlier movies — generally detective to Gilles returning her attention, which, in films — with contemporary footage of Steve

turn, heralds the birth of a love triangle. Martin playing a private eye. And, in some Figuratively speaking, one might say that the cases, the segue between the earlier footage jealous suitor enacts the role that this paper and the more recent footage is secured by attributes to the ordinary viewer with respect means of the sort of point-of-view structure

to point-of-view editing in general. described in this paper. For example, the 13. Hugo Munsterberg, The Film: A Psychologi- shots between Martin and Edward Arnold

cal Study (New York: Dover, 1969). (from a sequence of Johnny Eager [Mervyn 14. In stressing that with point-of-view editing Leroy, 1941, USA]) are linked via point-ofthe spectator is recognizing a representation view editing. of perception I mean to be averting the claim 17. On this account, retrospective point-of-view that some process of identification is involved editing is understood as a variation on proin assimilating point-of-view editing. This sets spective point-of-view editing. Prospective me off from contemporary film theorists like point-of-view editing seems to me to be more

Daniel Dayan and his version of suture basic. One reason that I have for suspecting theory. For statements of the suture ap- this is that very often it seems to me that a proach, see Daniel Dayan “The Tutor Code point-of-view figure that is introduced with a of Classical Cinema,” in Movies and Meth- point/object shot very often follows the point/ ods, edited by Bill Nichols (Berkeley and glance shot with another point/object shot. 136

Toward a Theory of Point-of-View Editing

This functions to establish that the frame- 22. See Charles Darwin, The Expression of work is basically that of point-of-view by Emotion in Man and Animal (Chicago: literally incorporating the prospective struc- University of Chicago Press, 1965); and Paul

ture in the retrospective structure. Ekman, “Cross-Cultural Studies of Facial 18. This point has been defended by Renee Expression.” Hobbs, Richard Frost, Arthur Davis, and 23. As are the situations — concerning life and John Stauffer. See Renee Hobbs et al. “How death suspense, and romance — that movies

First Time Viewers Comprehend Editing so often depict. Perhaps the content of Conventions,” Journal of Communication 38 movies is also influenced by the concern no. 4 (1988). Paul Messsaris and the National for mass appeal. Crude life-and-death strugInstitute of Education have also produced gles are possibly basic enough to be recoginteresting discussions of ways in which view- nized and followed by wide-ranging audiers come to comprehend edited arrays. See ences, irrespective of their different cultural Paul Messaris, “To What Extent Does One backgrounds. Have to Learn to Interpret Movies,” in Film/ 24. This assertion runs afoul of a well-known

Culture, edited by S. Thomas (Metuchen: doctrine of Hume’s to the effect that the Scarecrow Press, 1982); and National Confer- objects of emotion cannot be their causes. ence on Visual Information Processing (Wash- Grounds for suspecting Hume’s claim have

ington, D.C.: Report to the National Insti- been advanced by Helen Nissenbaum in

tute of Education, 1974). Emotion and Focus (Stanford: Center for the 19. Lev Kuleshov, Kuleshov on Film, edited by Study of Language and Information, 1985), Ronald Levaco (Berkeley and Los Angeles: pp. 15-21. University of California Press, 1974), pp. 25. As is well known, Le Brun was interested in

53-54. developing a system of emblems for the

20. Though there are debates in the literature emotions; this endeavor, with certain qualifiand though I do not subscribe to every claim cations, would not seem, in principle, comfound in the literature, there does seem to be pletely outlandish, given the findings of some agreement that there is noteworthy cross- of the psychologists cited above. See Charles cultural convergence in the identification of LeBrun, Conférence sur l’expression général basic emotions. See: Carroll Izard, The Face et particuliéres des passions (Verona, 1751). of Emotion (New York: Appleton Crofts, Stephanie Ross has also published a very 1971); Paul Ekman, Wallace Friesen and interesting in-depth discussion of Le Brun’s Phoebe Ellsworth, Emotion in the Human project. (Stephanie Ross, “Painting the PasFace (Cambridge University Press, 1972); sions,” The Journal of the History of Ideas 45 Paul Ekman and Wallace Friesen, Unmask- (January/March, 1984). ing the Face (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice- 26. Richard Wollheim, Painting as Art (PrinceHall, 1975); Paul Ekman, “Cross-Cultural ton: Princeton University Press, 1987), p. 88. Studies in Facial Expression,” in Darwin and 27. Wollheim, p. 257.

Facial Expression, edited by Paul Ekman 28. William Lyons has provided an extremely

(New York: Academic Press, 1973); Paul clear discussion of the formal object of Ekman, “Expressions and the Nature of emotion. See William Lyons Emotion (CamEmotion,” in Approaches to the Emotions, bridge University Press, 1980), pp. 99-104. edited by Klaus Scherer and Paul Edkman 29. Ronald DeSousa has provided a useful discus-

(Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers, sion of the way in which the emotion “ge1984); Paul Ekman, Robert Levenson, and stalts” a situation. See: Ronald DeSousa, Wallace Friesen, “Autonomic Nervous Activ- “The Rationality of the Emotions,” in Exity Distinguishes among Emotions,” Science plaining the Emotions, edited by Amelie 221 (September 1983); and R. B. Zajonc, Okensberg Rorty (Berkeley and Los An“Emotions and Facial Efference: A Theory geles: University of California Press, 1980),

Reclaimed,” Science 228 (April, 1985). pp. 142-43. 21. Ekman, “Expression and the Nature of 30. See David Bordwell, Janet Staiger, and Kris-

Emotion.” tin Thompson, The Classical Hollywood Cin137

Popular Film and TV ema (New York: Columbia University Press, play, as well as information about the culture,

1985). will be required by the nonnative viewer (e.g.,

31. Noél Carroll, Mystifying Movies, pp. 138-46. the European watching a Japanese film). 32. Of course, I have never maintained that all 33. Izard, p. 61. emotions are transculturally recognizable. 34. I would like to thank Richard Shusterman,

There are many that are not. In order to Edward Branigan, and David Bordwell for apprehend these, contextual features, rooted their comments in response to an earlier in the narrative, rather than mere facial dis- version of this paper.

138

a

| = mance of other functions, such as those Copland enumerates.

=.;

, CHAPTER 1x - The type of music we have in mind is quite central in popular movies; it is a basic . . use of music, if not the most basic. To . Notes on Movie Music ™ approach it, let us consider some exam-

ples. In Gunga Din (dir. by George Ste-

vens; music by Alfred Newman), there is an

- early scene where the British, led by Cary

Grant, Douglas Fairbanks Jr. and Victor

McLaglen, enter a seemingly deserted village in search of foul doings. Indeed, the Movie music often fails to receive proper — village has been raided by the nefarious attention in film analyses and film theories. Thugs, and those dastardly followers of Kali Perhaps one reason for this is that the highly —_ are lying in wait for the British. We have technical language of musical analysis intimi- | been somewhat alerted to this insofar as the

dates the film expert. The non-musically scene is initiated by the use of an oboe in trained analyst of film realizes s/he is unable imitation of the sort of double-reed into explore a movie’s music in the profession- = strument associated with snake charmers, ally preferred idiom, and, debarred fromthe thereby signaling the presence of the Thugs lingua franca of music criticism, decides to in the deserted village. There is an ambush. say nothing at all. The purpose of this short During the ensuing battle, there is a recurpaper is to supply a musically-nontechnical ring theme that is associated with the efforts

way of speaking about one use of movie of Grant, McLaglen and Fairbanks. Earlier, music, which we call modifying music. We — we had heard the same theme accompanying shall attempt to describe the structure of this their drunken brawl over a treasure map. In

sort of music, to explain how it works and — the ambush scene, an interlude of strings how it fits into the system of popular — will be followed by horns at a scherzo-like

expression called the movies.! tempo. Often this theme comes in when our There are, of course, many different soldiers of fortune gain the upper hand, but functions that music can perform in relation not always. The horns are bouncy, light and

to movies. Aaron Copland suggested five playful. The battle scene, full of death and broad functions: creating atmosphere; un- danger, could be the object of high anxiety. derlining the psychological states of charac- _—_ But the use of the horns in this theme color

ters; providing neutral background filler; the scene in such a way that we come to view building a sense of continuity; sustaining it as a lark, as a game, as comic rather than tension and then rounding it off with a sense potentially tragic. This, of course, corre-

of closure.2 These do not seem to be — sponds to one of the views of war and necessarily exclusive categories, nor do they manhood that the film promotes — i.e., war exhaust the range of functions that music _as an outlet for boyish, beamish energy. Of

can perform in movies. This is not said in course, from our point of view, what 1s order to criticize Copland, for, in fact, we important about the scene is the way in intend to follow his example. We shall which the scherzo-like refrain directs the analyze a function of movie music, freely | audience to view the mayhem as jaunty — admitting that there are others, and, more- almost comic — good fun. over, we shall not deny that this function In Rebel without a Cause (dir. by Nicholas may also be yoked together with the perfor- |§ Ray; music by Leonard Rosenman), we find 139

Popular Film and TV

a wholly different feeling associated with the |= develops because Peck believes that youth onscreen violence. Underlying theconfronta- should be a time when the imagination is tion and the fight, called the “blade game,” — given its head, before the hardships and which occurs after the visit to the planetar- —_ responsibilities of practical life force one to

lum, is atonal music, marked by odd time _ turn to sterner things. Wyman resists this, signatures and dissonant blaring brass. The — and the battle between youth and imaginause of the timpani and horns, along with the __ tion on the one hand, versus adulthood and

timing, give the music a Stravinsky-like practicality, on the other, is staged over flavor. As well, the music is sometimes Flag, the yearling from whom the film recorded low, and, then, abruptly, the record- derives its title. Throughout The Yearling, ing level is raised. The dissonance impartsa __ the use of the strings repeatedly stresses the

brooding feeling to the scene, a sense of | theme of the imagination by underscoring latent, almost muscular violence that flashes and characterizing the various spoken reverout when the brass blares or the recording ies and gambolings of characters in terms of level shoots up. The uneasy, unstable quality | an undeniable, albeit very nineteen-fortyish,

of the music serves to characterize the feeling of dreaminess. psychological turmoil — the play of repres- These examples are not alike in every sion and explosive release — with which the _ respect. The theme from Gunga Din func-

scene is concerned. tions narratively as a leitmotif, whereas the For an example not involved with vio- example from Rebel without a Cause does lence, consider the opening of The Yearling not. However, the three examples share a (dir. by Clarence Brown; music by Herbert very basic function, one which in fact Stothart). The camera displays views of the — enables the theme from Gunga Din to do its Everglades, as Gregory Peck, playing a Civil more specialized work so well. Namely, in War veteran, recalls how he came to make __ each of these examples the music character-

his home there. The score is dominated by izes the scene, i.e., imbues the scene with strings which have strong connotations of — certain expressive properties. This may be a

richness and lushness reflecting, of course, matter of enhancing qualities that are althe way in which the narrator feels about —_ ready suggested in the imagery, but it need this place. What Peck’s voice and the visuals _ not be; the music may attribute an otherwise may fail to make you realize about the — unavailable quality to the visuals. Nor does landscape, the music enables you to grasp. the expressive quality in question have to be Also, the strings have a slightly haunting = grounded in the psychology of a character; flavor and a sense of pastness which coin- in the Gunga Din example the jauntiness of cides with the appearance this film suggests | the music appears to attach first and fore-

of being swathed in memory. When we most to the action rather than to internal are introduced to the juvenile lead, Jody states of characters. And, lastly, the expres(played by Claude Jarman Jr.), the music sive qualities projected in these examples

sounds somewhat pentatonic, like an elon- are in the music. We do not suddenly gated country melody, conveying a feeling | become dreamy when we hear the strings of that is both lazy and dreamy. This not only The Yearling. Rather the dreaminess of the corresponds to what we immediately see of | music characterizes Jody as dreamy to us. If

Jody — he is playing listlessly with a toy we are pro-dreaminess, the way Gregory windmill — but to what we learn of Jody — Peck and the film are, then we are apt to feel

throughout the film, viz., that he is a sympathetic (rather than dreamy) in regard dreamer. In terms of the subject matter of — to Jody. That is, by speaking of the projecthe film, a major source of tension between _ tion of expressive qualities, we are not Peck and his wife, played by Jane Wyman, claiming that the music arouses in the 140

Notes on Movie Music

spectator the self-same expressive qualities At the same time it is often noted that

that it projects. nonvocal music — orchestral music — though We can call this use of movie music quite effective in expressing a broad palette modifying music. The music modifies the of emotions, is not the ideal means for movie. The music possesses certain expres- _ particularizing the feelings it projects. That sive qualities which are introduced to mod- _is, a piece of nonvocal orchestral music may ify or to characterize onscreen persons and _ strike us as sorrowful or even more broadly

objects, actions and events, scenes and as “down” but we generally cannot specify sequences. To use a crude analogy, one much further the kind of dolors or dumps which must be eventually abandoned, the — the music projects. Is it melancholic, neurvisual track is to a noun as the music is to an asthenic, suicidal, adolescent, etc.? That adjective, or alternatively, the visuals are to is, nonvocal music standardly lacks what

verbs as the music is to adverbs. Just as music theorist Peter Kivy calls emotive adjectives and adverbs characterize, modify — explicitness.*

and enrich the nouns and verbs to which This lack of emotive explicitness has they are attached, modifying music servesto figured in numerous debates in the history add further characterization to the scenes it of music. Some, like Johann Adam Hiller, embellishes. This is a very pervasive use of | took it as a limitation to be overcome, movie music. Let us now turn to a discussion — urging that if music is to become intelligible,

of its origin and its internal dynamics. i.e., emotively explicit, it must be combined Movie music involves co-ordinating two — with speech.° A similar view was espoused different symbol systems: music and movies, — by James Beattie, who held that “the expres-

the latter including not only visuals but — sion of music without poetry is vague and recorded sounds, both natural and dialogic. | ambiguous.”¢ Peter Kivy has brilliantly dem-

In the case of modifying music, these two _ onstrated that the development of the exsymbol systems are placed in a complemen- pressive arsenal of orchestral music, as we tary relationship; each system suppliessome- know it, was the result of solving the thing that the other system standardly lacks, perceived problem of music’s emotive inor, at least, does not possess with the same __ explicitness through text setting.’ In a differdegree of effectiveness that the othersystem | ent mood, Eduard Hanslick argued against

possesses. the expression of emotion as a goal of music Music, for example, is a highly expressive — because he believed that music cannot ex-

symbol system. This is not to say that all press definite emotions,’ while Nietzsche, music is expressive or that it should be _ staking out an altogether different position, expressive, but only that much music is _ sees the emotive inexplicitness of music as expressive. For example, that the Prelude to —_ the path to some coveted form of universal-

Tristan and Isolde is expressive of yearning ity: “. . . whoever gives himself up entirely or that the “Great Gate of Kiev” from _ to the impression of a symphony, seems to Pictures at an Exhibition is expressive of _ see all possible events of life and the world majesty are part of the incontestable data of — take place in himself.”°

aesthetic theorizing. To say that the music is The vicissitudes of the preceding posiexpressive is to say that it projects qualities tions are less important to us than their describable in anthropomorphic, emotive — recurring assumption, which we shall state terms. The symbol system of music is also —_— weakly as follows: typically, nonvocal music

sometimes thought to have more direct is expressive of emotive qualities but ones access to the emotive realm than any other __ that are inexplicit, ambiguous and broad. A symbol system. Nietzsche called music “the — theoretical explanation of why this should be

immediate language of the will.”? is also readily available. Emotions are di141

Popular Film and TV

rected, directed at persons, objects, statesof | dreaminess of a young boy prior to the hard affairs and events. Indeed, it is in virtue of lessons of life.

the objects to which emotions are directed The relation between the music and the that we individuate emotions.!°Iam afraidof | movie in the case of modifying music is being run over by atrain; you are inlove with — reciprocal. The movie —the visuals, the

Bob; we are angered by apartheid. For an narrative, the dialogue and the synched emotion to be fully explicit and particular- |§ sound — serve as indicators. At one level, ized, it must be aimed at some object. The — these elements establish what the scene is

object may be real, like South Africa, or about. They indicate the reference of the fantasized, e.g., you may be terrified of The — scene. The music then modifies or characterGreen Slime. To become explicit, thatis, the izes what the scene is about in terms of some emotion must be referred to something. To — expressive quality. In a manner of speaking, say whether the joy in the music is hysterical — the music tells us something, of an emotive

or utopian, we would have to know toward significance, about what the scene is about; what the joy was directed. And, of course, it the music supplies us with, so to say, a is this sort of reference that is most com- _ description (or presentation) of the emotive monly absent from music, that is, nonvocal properties the film attaches to the referents music. Insofar as representation is not a of the scene.

primary function of standard orchestral In our Gunga Din example, the movie music, most music of this sort will lack the establishes the subject, the battle, and the logical machinery to secure emotive particu-. music imbues it with a feeling, that of larity. This is not to say that orchestral music jauntiness. The musical element, which we cannot be representational: e.g., Welling- call a modifier, fills-in the subject matter in ton’s Victory, Honegger’s Pacific23l andthe terms of the feeling the filmmaker finds use of percussion to refer to King Kong’s — appropriate to the scene. However, at the offscreen footsteps in the film of the same same time, the movie elements, what we name.!! And where the music is representa- _ have called indicators, stand in an important

tional, a measure of emotive explicitness relation of influence to the musical compomay be achievable. However, as we have nent. The music on its own is bouncy, light said, as a matter of fact, most nonvocal and comic. When conjoined with the movie music lacks the logical machinery which — elements those feelings become further par-

emotive explicitness requires. ticularized as manly, daredevil bravado. The So far we have claimed that orchestral musical system, so to speak, carves out a music of the sort often employed in movies _ broad range or spectrum of feeling, in this is asymbol system that makes a powerful yet — case, one that is positive, lively and enerbroad and inexplicit emotive address. And _ getic. The movie elements, the indicators, this inexplicitness, in turn, is a result of the — then narrow down or focus more precisely

fact that generally such music is non- _ the qualities in that range or spectrum that referring. Movies, on the other hand, are _—_ are relevant to the action. The music no symbol systems with numerous overlapping longer signals mere energy but more prereferential dimensions, including the cine- cisely bravado. This focusing operation of matographic image, dialogue, narrative and movie-as-indicator, in turn, enables the synched sound. Wedding the musical system §_music-as-modifier to fill-in the action as a to the movie system, then, supplies the kind _ highly particularized feeling. of reference required to particularize the It might be initially helpful to think of the broad expressivity of the musical system. _ relation of the movie-as-indicator and the The dreaminess of the strings in The Yearling music-as-modifier on the model of the is specified as Jody’s dreaminess, as the — subject-predicate relation: the music says 142

Notes on Movie Music

“...1s jaunty” and the movie specifies the _ fies the impact of the music by particularizblank with “the battle.” However, though ing its affective resonance. The unnerving, suggestive, this analogy cannot be taken too shrieking strings in Psycho are cruel, painful seriously because the movie elements per- and murderous when matched with Norman

form functions other than referring and Bates’s descending knife. Here, the referfocussing, and because the linguistic notion — ence afforded by the movie elements serves of predication seems to be strictly inapplica- —_ to individuate the emotive content of the

ble to the image track in cinema (i.e., music in the way that the narrative and pictures lack discriminable subject-predicate | pantomime do in ballet, and as the words do elements and show objects with their proper- _— in a popular song or opera.

ties, all-at-once, so to speak). Thus, though Modifying music is one of the major uses modifying music resembles linguistic predica- | of music in popular movies. It may be used to

tion loosely, it should not be taken as a — embellish individual scenes and sequences,

literal example of it. or it may be integrated into leitmotif sysAnother possible avenue of misunder- tems, etc. Structurally, modifying music instanding modifying music would be an _ volves the use of movie elements — phooversimplification that regards music as ex- __ tography, narrative, dialogue, and synched clusively expressive and the movie compo- __ sound — as indicators that fix the reference of

nents as exclusively representational. Aswas a shot, scene or sequence. The associated earlier remarked, music can be used rep- musical elements are modifiers which attriresentationally. Similarly, movie elements bute expressive qualities to the referent, have myriad means of expression — not only _ thereby characterizing it emotively as, for through acting, but through lighting, camera example, dreamy or jaunty. Functionally, the movement, camera angulation, cutting, etc. | addition of musical modifiers to the scene Indeed, the generally referential soundtrack augments the expressivity of the scene, can be “musically” arranged in order to _ though this does not preclude the possibility aspire to musical expressivity, e.g., the — that the scene already possesses many non-

natural sounds at the opening of Street musical expressive devices. Nevertheless, Scenes and the dialogue in Force of Evil. music is a particularly privileged means of Thus, it is not the case that the movie is pure _—_ direct, expressive augmentation. The musi-

representation to be supplemented by means cal modifiers function to fill-in the scene of musical expression. However, inreaching — expressively, to set the expressive tone the

out for music, the movie is seeking to filmmaker takes to be appropriate to the incorporate an added, particularly powerful, scene. The music “saturates” the scene augmented means of expression along with — expressively. At the same time that the the visual, narrative, and dramatic means _ musical modifiers influence the reception of already at its disposal. The addition of music — the movie, the movie indicators also recipro-

gives the filmmaker an especially direct and cally influence the reception of the music. immediate means for assuring that the audi- — For music typically, sans referential machin-

ence is matching the correct expressive ery, projects a very broad and inexplicit quality with the action at hand. Thisisnotto range of emotive qualities. Thus, in The say that music is the film’s only expressive § African Queen, when the boat is stuck in the : lever; rather itis a notably direct andreliable canal, the slow, spaced out drum beats one. It enhances the filmmaker’s expressive project a generic, plodding feeling while the

control over the action. movie elements specify that feeling as BoIf adding music to the movie enhances _ gart’s effort, an effort charged with all his one’s expressive control over the action, itis | hopes and commitments. Thus, as the music also the case that the movie imagery intensi- _fills-in the movie, the movie focuses the 143

Popular Film and TV

emotive content of the music, particularizing | Modifying music contributes to the clarity of

and intensifying its effect which, of course, movies in several different respects. The also abets the filling-in work that the musical _filling-in function of the music modifier

modifier does. keeps the expressive quality of the scene We have attempted to explain the way in constantly foregrounded, thereby supplying which modifying music operates. Modifying a continuous channel of information about

music is not employed, of course, only in the emotional significance of the action. movies — it occurs in other sorts of films, | Unlike our quotidian experience of events, such as art films, as well as in other — the music constantly alerts us to the feeling artforms, such as ballet. As well, itisnotthe that goes with what we see. Whereas in life, only use of music found in movies. Yet, — the affect that goes with an observation is so though the relation between modifying mu- _—_ often unknown, in movies, we not only have

sic and the movies is not unique in any — some affect but also the appropriate affect sense, there is a way in which modifying _ tied to virtually everything we see, through music serves the aims of the movie symbol modifying music. The movie-world is emosystem quite expeditiously. That is, there is tionally perspicuous through and through. something especially fitting about the rela- Reciprocally, the focusing function of the tionship between the modifying music and _— movie indicators render the emotive content

the movies. Thus, we will conclude by — of the music more and more explicit, again sketching the way that modifying music enhancing clarity in yet another way. The

segues into the economy of the movies. concerted interplay of the music and the Movies are a means of popular expres- movie yields images replete with highly sion. They are aimed at mass audiences. clarified, virtually directly accessible, expresThey aspire for means of communication _ sive qualities. Thus, though modifying muthat can be grasped almost immediately by sic is not a unique feature of movies, its untutored audiences. Another way of put- —_ capacity for promoting immediately accessiting this is to say that movie makers seek __ ble, explicit and continually emotive charac-

devices that virtually guarantee that the terizations of the ongoing, onscreen action audience will follow the action in the way makes it so suitable to the presiding committhat the filmmaker deems appropriate.!"2The |= ments of mass movie communication that it

movie close-up, for example, assures the | would be a mystery had movies failed to filmmaker that the spectator is looking _ exploit it.% exactly where she should be looking at the

appropriate moment. And, the close-up guarantees this automatically. Similarly, Notes modifying music, given the almost direct 1. For a discussion of what is meant by “movies” expressive impact of music, assures that the in this paper, see Noél Carroll, “The Power of

untutored spectators of the mass movie Movies,” in Daedalus, no. 114 (Autumn,

audience will have access to the desired 1985). This article is in this volume. expressive quality and, in turn, will see the 2, Aaron Copland, “Tip to Moviegoers: Take

given scene or sequence under its aegis. off those Ear-Muffs,” in The New York Secondly, an important element accounting Times, Nov. 6, 1949, section six, p. 28. This for the power of movies is the clarity that Prendervast’s Film Music: A Neglected Art movies bestow upon the events that they (New York: Norton, 1977), Chap. 6.

. article is discussed at length in Roy M. . gastsa rium UuSIC. egtecte r

depict. In contrast to our encounters in 3. Friedrich Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy everyday life, movie events have an unaccus- and the Case of Wagner, translated by Walter tomed intelligibility and lucidity; movies, Kaufman (New York: Random House, 1967),

that is, are so much more legible than life. p. 103. 144

Notes on Movie Music

4. Peter Kivy, The Corded Shell (New Jersey: tion see Peter Kivy, Sound and Semblance

Princeton University Press, 1980), p. 98. (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 5. Johann Adam Hiller, “Abhandlung von der 1984). Nachahmung der Natur in der Musik,” in 12. For an amplification of the view of the movie

Historisch-Kritische Beytrdge, ed. by Frie- system asserted above see Carroll, “The

I, p. 524. volume.

drich Wilhelm Marpurg (Berlin, 1754), Vol. Power of Movies,” which is included in this

6. James Beattie, The Philosophical and Critical 13. Though we stress a functional relation be-

Works (Hildesheim and New York: Georg tween sound and image in movies, our

Olms, 1975), p. 463. position should not be confused with the one 7. Kivy, The Corded Shell. propounded in Composing for the Films by 8. Eduard Hanslick, The Beautiful in Music, Theodor Adorno and Hans Eisler. Our positranslated by Gustav Cohen (New York: The tion is closer to that articulated by Schopen-

Liberal Arts Press, 1957). hauer when he writes in the Third Book of

9. Nietzsche, Birth of Tragedy, p. 102. The World as Will and Idea that “Suitable 10. A source for this view of the emotions is music played to any scene, action, event or Anthony Kenny, Action, Emotion and Will surrounding seems to disclose to us its most (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963). secret meaning, and appears as the most 11. For a thorough account of musical representa- accurate and distinct commentary upon it.”

145

,= =

the physical world in accordance with the

fancy —in short, a kind of cosmic wish

CHAPTER X - fulfillment.

, Early comedy also gravitated toward

Notes on the : roughhouse and slapstick. Here the major Sight Gag theme was mayhem. Buffoons, marked by only slightly disguised clown outfits, would

, be set into exaggerated fisticuffs, discharg= ing pistol shots into each other’s behinds, jabbing each other with pitchforks, and

clunking each other on the head with bricks. Because these clowns were signaled

Although claims about “firsts” always seem to be not quite human, they could be pum-

disputable when it comes to the history of | meled, dragged, hurled, hosed, burned, film, a case can be made that the first film |§ and stomped with impunity. Their fantastic was a comedy — depending on whether one __biologies allowed the free reign of sadism in dates Fred Ott’s Sneeze as having been made __ terms of either comic debacles or sprawling

in 1889 or 1892. In any case, comedy accidents, after the fashion of the Keystone appeared early in film history. Thomas Kops. In these cases, comedy was generally Edison provided peep shows of clowns anda less a function of structure than of the kinetoscope series entitled Monkeyshines, transgression of social inhibitions about the

which, at least, suggests comic doings. In proper way in which to treat the human terms of films made for the screen, the first body. Lumiére show in 1895 contained one com- Whereas the trick film transgressed the edy, L’Arroseur Arrosé, in which a hapless laws of physics, films by people such as gardener gets a face full of water when a Mack Sennett tended to transgress the laws

prankster toys with his hose. of society, especially in terms of the norms

Comedy of a sort, of course, also figures of respect appropriate to the handling of

largely in the films of Georges Méliés— persons. In both cases, the comedy in although not comedy of the variety one question proceeded simply by displaying usually associates with gags or jokes. It transgressive material. Gradually, however, is more a matter of joy borne of marve- amore structural type of comedy became a lous transformations and physically impossi- |= major source of humor in silent film. This

ble events: bodies blown apart and then _ was the sight gag.! And it is about the sight reassembled — with unwanted fat emulsi- gag that this article is concerned.

fied. This is comedy that derives from exploiting the magical properties of cinema, The sight gag is a form of visual humor in

a comedy of metaphysical release that which amusement is generated by the play celebrates the possibility of substituting the of alternative interpretations projected by laws of physics with the laws of the imagina- __ the image or image series. Sight gags existed

tion. Méliés’s experiments gave rise to the _in theater prior to their cinematic refine-

early genre of the trick film, which pro- ment, and sight gags, although they are motes levity by animating the inanimate — regarded as a hallmark of the silent comedy, and by visualizing a fantastic physics. Here, can occur in films that are neither silent nor

the undeniably high spirits evoked seem comic. To orient our discussion, consider a less concerned with what we typically call famous example of a sight gag in Alfred humor and more involved with indulging a = Hitchcock’s The 39 Steps (1934). The char-

newfound freedom, the power of molding acter played by Robert Donat has been 146

Notes on the Sight Gag

manacled to a woman who positively hates |§ amuses us, which in turn causes the risible him. They come to an inn, where the _ sensations — laughter, for example — that we landlady takes them to be intensely affection- feel in response to humor. With sight gags, ate newlyweds. Their closeness is in fact _ the loci of the relevant incongruities are the

mandated by the handcuffs, and when alternative, generally opposed interpretaDonat pulls his prisoner toward him, this is __ tions put in play visually by the image.

in order to get more control over her. The Sight gags differ from verbal jokes. Verlandlady misinterprets these gestures as _ bal jokes generally culminate in a punchline further signs of the “lovers’” infatuation, — that at first glance is incongruous by virtue although we hear them exchanging hostili- of its appearing to be nonsense. Once the ties. The scene is shot and blocked in sucha __ punchline is delivered, however, the audiway that we not only know how things _ ence has to give it an unexpected, although actually stand between these “lovers,” but —latently predictable or retrospectively comwe also simultaneously see how someone in __ prehensible, interpretation that makes sense the landlady’s position could systematically out of the incongruity. Succeeding in this,

misinterpret the situation. Our amusement the audience is amused and the result is is generated by the fact that the scene is — standardly laughter. For example: what do

staged to show not only what is actually | you get when you cross a chicken with a going on but how that set of events could hawk? Answer: a quail. At first, this answer also visually support an alternative, and in is nonsensical until you realize that “quail” this case conflicting, interpretation. Anditis is a pun on “Quayle” and that “chicken” this play of alternative, often conflicting | and “hawk” are being used metaphorically, interpretations, rooted first and foremost in _ not literally. In order to appreciate this the visual organization of the scene, that joke, one must reinterpret the riddle in light primarily causes the amusement that attends of the punchline in a way that effectively

sight gags. amounts to retelling the joke material to

The type of humor of which the sight gag — oneself. One is initially stymied by the is a subcategory is often analyzed in terms of incongruity of the punchline, which leads to

incongruity. On this view, amusement is a reinterpretation of the joke material that provoked by the juxtaposition of incongru- makes it incomprehensible. ous elements. Comic duos, for example, are Sight gags also involve a play of interpreoften composed by pairing a very fat man tations. But with sight gags, the play of (or woman) with a thin man (or woman), or interpretation is often visually available to a tall, thin actor with a short, fat one, and so the audience simultaneously throughout the on. In the preceding example from Hitch- _ gag; the audience need not await something cock, what is juxtaposed are two incompati- akin to the punchline in a verbal joke to put ble interpretations: that of a loving couple __ the interpretative play in motion.

versus that of a hateful couple. To get a better handle on the nature of Stated schematically, the incongruity — the sight gag, let us examine some major theory of humor says that comic amusement ___ recurring types of this sort of cinematic is an emotional state. Like all, or at least humor. The following list does not pretend most, emotional states, comic amusement is to be exhaustive; nor would I claim that identified by its object. The object of comic some of these categories might not be so amusement is humor, where among the interwoven in specific cases that classifying a central criteria for what can be humorous — _ given gag neatly under one or another of my its formal object, to revert to philosophi- _—_ labels might not become daunting. In other

cal jargon — is incongruity. The perception words, I am aware of some conceptual of incongruity in an event or situation slippage in this incomplete taxonomy, but I 147

Popular Film and TV

offer it nevertheless in the hope that future | background. The ensuing medium shot iden_ researchers will use its shortcomings to _ tifies the white woolen background as Hardevelop more precise formulations. So, with- —_ old’s sweater. Lloyd cuts back to the shot of

out further ceremony, some leading types of ' the match; the sweater is starting to burn.

sight gag include the following. Back to the medium shot — the man with (1) The mutual interference or interpene- the pipe looks down and sees that his tration of two (or more) series of events (or — carelessly dropped match is burning Harscenarios). This is far and away the most _ old’s sweater. The man with the pipe bends frequent form of the sight gag. It does not __ out of the train window and slaps Harold on originate in cinema; in 1900 Henri Bergson __ the back in order to snuff out the flame. The

identified it in his book Laughter with — blow is a hard one, and it momentarily respect to theater. Nevertheless, thisformis knocks Harold off balance. By the time a staple of cinema, especially of the Golden _—_ Harold turns around to see who hit him, the

Age of Silent Comedy. The previous exam- man with the pipe has recomposed himself ple from The 39 Steps exemplifies this type and sits reading his paper. Standing behind of sight gag. One way to characterize itis to | Harold is a man previously identified as the

say that it is staged in such a way that an Dean of Tate. His back is turned toward event, under one description, canbe seenas Harold; he is talking to a distinguishedtwo or more distinct, and perhaps in some __ looking group. To Harold’s mind, we supsense mutually exclusive, series of events pose, the Dean is the only possible person that interpenetrate each other. Thus, the — who could have slapped him on the back, a

event of the couple’s seeking lodging at the slap by the way, that Harold seems to inn in The 39 Steps can also be seen as two interpret as a robust greeting. Harold hits events — one from the perspective of the — the Dean on the back, nearly knocking him

landlady and the other from the perspective over. Lloyd cuts to a close shot of the of the couple — which events interpenetrate | Dean’s face; he is astounded and enraged. each other (i.e., have overlapping elements) — Lloyd cuts to a close shot of Harold attemptin such a way that two interpretations of | ing to introduce himself. The ensuing close what is going on are comprehensible. Thisis — shot of the angered Dean, identifying himnot to say that even within the fiction both self, bodes badly for Harold’s future at Tate.

interpretations are equally sound, but only Within this single event — call it Harold that we can see how both could be plausible, — slapping the Dean on the back — there are often plausible relative to different points of — three interlocking events or scenarios, each

view. correlating with the perspective of one of Many of the most famous sight gags in _— the scene’s leading agents. There is the silent comedy fall into this category. For event of the smoker stanching the fire, the another concrete example, let uslook at the — event of Harold reciprocating a welcoming second gag depicting Harold’s arrival at — slap on the back, and the event of the Dean

Tate College in Harold Lloyd’s The Fresh- being insulted. Each of these events or man (1925). Harold, yearning to be popu- __ scenarios causally interpenetrates the others lar, has just mistaken a group of students at _in significant ways; none of the characters

the train station to be welcoming him to appears to be aware of the views of the Tate. Then a tight shot follows of aman at event alternative to his own. Indeed, none the train window lighting his pipe. He _ of the characters has the overall interpretastrikes a match along the edge of the _ tion of the event that the audience has, for window, and he drops the match out of the _ the simple reason that none of the charac-

frame. Next there is an extreme close shot ters is positioned in the fiction to see of the match landing on a white woolen — everything we see. Moreover, some of these 148

Notes on the Sight Gag

event descriptions, as relativized to charac- in his work that he never once glances ters’ points of view, directly conflict. Harold outside his narrow work area. thinks that he is making a friend just as he is Here again there is a striking incongruity making an enemy. And it is thisincongruous between two interpretations of the shot, conflict of interpretations rooted visually in —_ both of which are made visually comprehen-

the play of points of view that gives the — sible to the audience. On the one hand,

scene its humorous edge. Johnnie’s fortunes have changed dramati-

Because this particular type of sight gagis cally; he is in the grip of the enemy. On the SO pervasive, discussion and analysis of a other hand, from his perspective, which we

further example of it may be fruitful. can understand by noting the fixity of his Johnnie’s entry into Northern territory in attention, his position remains relatively Buster Keaton’s The General (1926) comes _ benign. The disparity of viewpoints, made to mind here. The scene begins with the — evident in the staging of the action, gives

title, “The Southern army facing Chatta- rise to a play of conflicting interpretations

nooga is ordered to retreat.” There isashot of the situation, and this gives rise to of Southern cavalry troops waving a retreat | amusement. signal. Then a shot of the Union spies shows Key to this Keaton gag, as to many other

them crouching in the cab of The General Keaton gags, is the character’s inatten(the hijacked locomotive). Finally we see tion or unawareness of the surrounding Johnnie. In an overhead shot over the — environment — an inattention that is palpatimber car, he can be seen cutting wood. bly portrayed in the shooting.* Often sight Keaton then cuts to a shot of the retreating gags rest on this sort of monumentally Southerners. Initially it is along shot. Then unaware character. We laugh at the clown all of a sudden the front of The Texas (the headed for a pratfall as he approaches a locomotive with which Johnnie is pursuing discarded banana peel because we see the The General) pulls into the foreground from banana peel and he doesn’t and because we

screen right. The Texas drives past the see that he doesn’t see the banana peel. This camera, revealing that Johnnie is still chop- —_— gives birth to two divergent interpretations

ping wood with his back to the battle. Thisis of the scene: one in terms of what we see is quite an ingenious shot not only inits use of _ the case and another in terms of what we see

foreground and background to set out the ‘the protagonist sees and takes to be the significant facts of the situation but also in case. This incongruity, available visually to its channeling of the relevant facts to the _ the spectator, is the source of humor in the audience sequentially, thereby effectively situation. Our amusement is not purely replicating the detailed, phased selectivity sadistic pleasure at someone taking a fall.

available in editing in the context of the Rather, the pleasure comes of a visually

realism of the single shot. motivated conflict of interpretations over

The battle ensues behind Johnnie’s back. the nature of the scene. Two different The Southerners retreat entirely, and the interpretations of an event collide, or, to put

Union troops triumphantly spill onto the — the matter differently, the actual situation or field behind Johnnie. Now he is in enemy _ event interferes with the protagonist’s imagterritory. Yet he continues to chop. At one ined picture of the event, with the net effect

point, he breaks his ax handle. But even at that the protagonist’s expectations have this rupture in his work pattern, he remains __ been reversed.

unaware that he is completely surrounded Yet another way to put this is that the by hostile Union troops. In all, it takes event progresses under two scenarios — twelve shots before Johnnie realizes his here, notably, that of the comic butt, on the predicament. He is so absolutely engrossed — one hand, and of “reality,” so to speak, on 149

Popular Film and TV

the other. For our purposes, we will require § And when its inner cogs rush about on the of candidates for this sort of sight gag that counter like so many insects, Chaplin turns there be at least two scenarios (visible inthe _ his oil can into an insecticide. Earlier in the image or image series), that these scenarios same film, Chaplin transforms doughnuts

be at odds with each other, and that the into barbells and teacups into dish towels. disparity between them portends a mishap "In such cases, humor arises through seeing (i.e., one of the scenarios interferes with the objects in their literal aspect at the very

other). same time that the miming gesticulation Generally, sight gags of the mutual inter- | enables us to see them otherwise: to see

ference of two series of events (or scenarios) — cogs as bugs or nails as turkey bones. The

variety often occur where the character’s operation here is essentially metaphorical;

view of the situation diverges from the disparate objects are identified for the reality of the situation. Thus, the relevant purpose of foregrounding similes, in this conflict of interpretations emerges from the _ case visual similes. This abets the play of disjunction of the character’s point of view — incongruous interpretations. For the selfwhich is a function of the situation being laid |= same object can be seen either literally or out in such a way that the spectator can see _figuratively.

why the character fails to see it properly — The preceding examples all hail from

and the way the situation is. Again, this Chaplin. And this is no accident. For structure differs from the standard case of | Chaplin is particularly invested in the theme verbal jokes. For with verbal jokes, our — of imagination, and it is an essential feature

second interpretation deals with the incon- of his character that he can see things gruous punchline, whereas with this sort of | differently from others, that is to say, sight gag we have two or more alternative imaginatively. But the device is evident and often conflicting interpretations before — throughout silent comedy. In Cops (1922),

us throughout most of the gag. Keaton beautifully metamorphoses an accor(2) The mimed metaphor. Silent film, of | dion extension (of the sort associated with course, employed a great deal of panto- — telephones) into an arm while also portray-

mime. Sometimes pantomime was engaged ing a ladder as a seesaw and then as a to produce a very special sort of sight gag, | catapult. This type of sight gag is probably one in which the audience came to see an more popular in silent film than in sound object metaphorically equated with some- _film — in contrast to the mutual interference thing that it was not. Mime functioned — gag, which is crucial to both — but it has figuratively to produce visual similes be- | exemplars in sound film as well. One recalls tween disparate sets of objects. In The Gold _ the house with eyes in Jacques Tati’s Mon Rush (1925), Charlie Chaplin treats a boot — oncle (1958) and the tire as funeral wreath in

as a meal. The shoe laces become spaghetti; his Mr. Hulot’s Vacation (1953);3 there is

the nails, bones; the sole, a filet. In the also the metaphor of glass as nothing in same film, candle wicks become eggs. In Playtime (1967), when the doorman with The Rink (1916), Chaplin holds a chicken only a handle to speak of, acquits his duty as

aloft in a way that suggests a bird in flight; if he had a door at his disposal. And, when the stuffings fall out of the rearand hit indeed, the very glass he has not got, a customer in the eye, it is hard to resist shattered as it is, is recycled as ice cubes. seeing them as bird droppings from on high. With the mimed metaphor, the audience And in The Pawnshop (1916), Chaplin does is invited through the prompting gesticulaa virtuoso number with an alarm clock. His _ tions of the mime to consider objects under surrounding gesticulations make the clock alternative interpretations. This is not akin seeable as a heart and then asasardine can. to the famous duck-rabbit examples dis150

Notes on the Sight Gag

cussed by psychologists, however, for we — we view this scene both literally and under can see the nail as a bone at the same time _ the aegis of the unexpected and amusing we see the nail as a nail. The humor in the —_ metaphor.‘

situation rides on the possibility of its Mimed metaphors differ from mutual simultaneous play of interpretations, which interference gags in that the alternative interpretations are nevertheless delightedly points of view need not be relativized to any

opposed, allowing and even encouraging characters, that they need not result in alternative — literal versus metaphorical— mishaps, and that they are directed more at

views. objects than at events, although as the last In speaking of mimed metaphors, a dis- | example from Keaton indicates, they may

tinction is meant to be marked here between ___ operate on situations.

what is mimed and mimes that provoke (3) The switch image. A famous shot in metaphors, that is, mimes that are implicit | Chaplin’s The Immigrant (1917) shows the similes. When Keaton’s Steamboat Bill, Jr., | Tramp leaning over the railing of a boat attempts to tell Steamboat Bill, Sr., that he = and lurching to and fro. We think he is has given him a saw, he mimes sawing off his — seasick and vomiting; but he turns around,

thumb. This is not a mimed metaphor. For and we see that he has been struggling to no object is being analogized to a disparate _land a big fish. Or, again from Chaplin —

object. This is miming pure and simple. more than once—we see his shoulders With mimed metaphors, it is important that heaving. We infer sobbing and sorrow. But the audience has before it, imaginatively — the figure seen frontally is mixing a drink. speaking, radically disparate objects that are In Lloyd’s Safety Last (1923), we initially being equated for the purpose of analogizing think that we are to be witnesses to an them in a context where the point — the very — execution, but we soon realize that we have wit in question — is that the audience appre- —_ been fooled into regarding a farewell scene

ciates the success of the analogy in the face as death row, just as in Keaton’s Cops we of its unlikelihood. Ordinarily, this will — initially think that the suitor is in prison require that we be able to identify the literal | when he is only on the other side of a gate. object and the metaphor independently and Or Tati shows us an airline terminal that we

that we speak of two objects. Chaplin’s initially think is a hospital waiting room. “sailboat” turns constitute a real problem Likewise, in Keaton’s The Boat (1921), we here. For when he pivots, throwing out his __ first take him to be caught in a storm at leg as if to shift a sail, it is not easy to sea, whereas a subsequent image shows him describe that movement literally — that is, | to be the victim of his children pulling on independently of saying it is a “sailboat” the ropes in his garage. turn. Perhaps a different category — body. In these cases, the image is given to the metaphors? — will have to be introduced to audience under one interpretation, which is

accommodate examples such as this. subverted with the addition of subsequent Mimed metaphors may also function by information. The initial image is subseevoking linguistic idioms or verbal meta- quently shown to be radically underdeterphors. In College (1927), Keaton plays a mined. At first, it seems to mean one thing high school valedictorian who speaks on the —_unequivocably in terms of its visual informa-

evils of sport. As his diatribe revs up, he _ tion, but then it means something entirely, lurches exaggeratedly from left to right and unexpectedly, other. Switch images are while standing in place. We note that the _ lessons in visual ambiguity.

assembled local dignitaries in the back- Unlike most mimed metaphors, switch ground shift position with him. Keaton is, —_ images pertain to events rather than objects,

so to speak, “swaying the audience,” and and their dual aspects are generally per151

Popular Film and TV

ceived sequentially rather than simulta- Tramp, and, aware of the cop’s presence, the neously. Unlike mutual interference gags, | Tramp’s pugilistic dodges become swaying, switch images need not be relativized to any __ waltzlike steps — as if the whole time he had character, and they may involve no mishap. __ been dancing rather than street-fighting. ‘The

Switch images may be thought of as the ‘Tramp, continuing this deception, glides interpretation of visually distinct events back into the pawnshop, and seeing the without interference. That is, the two alter- disapproving visage of his boss, he transnative interpretations of the scene—the — forms his-prancing pivot into a businesslike

| literal and the metaphorical -— are not em- _ strut. bedded in the narrative in such a way that In all these cases, the Tramp is out to disaster befalls anyone. Or, to put it differ- | deceive an authority figure by seamlessly ently, the alternate interpretations are not metamorphosing a questionable movement narrativized in a way that they causally activity into an innocent one — as if to Say,

impinge upon each other. for example: “You thought I was fighting, Switch images tend to be found at the _ but I was only dancing,” or “You thought I beginnings of films and sequences. An obvi- _ was dancing, but I am really off to work.” ous reason for this may be that at such points Such switch movements often occur in narra-

the filmmaker does not have alarge number tive contexts of deception, although they of narrative commitments and implications need not. that need to be camouflaged in the imagery.>° Switch movements are to actions as puns But, there is no reason in principle that a _— are to sentences. They derail one line of switch image cannot occur in the middle ofa — thought and send it in another direction. shot, perhaps by way of playfully deceptive The gesture or series of gestures upon which

scale variation. a switch movement pivots are like a pun in In some ways, the switchimage resembles _ that they can take different meanings in a verbal joke. For once the initial image is different movement contexts. Switching subverted, part of our pleasure involves from one meaning potential of a movement noting the way in which our first identifica- | to another provokes an alternative interpretion of the image was misguided. That is, _ tation of initial action. Just as our earlier switch images abet a limited play of reinter- | pun — quail/Quayle — plays on the aural simi-

pretation. Nevertheless, switch images are larity of two different words in order to distinct from verbal jokes in that the first | prompt interpretive amusement, the Tramp image, unlike the punchline of a joke, need —_ exploits the visual similarity of boxerly

not be absurd or incongruous. dancing with ballroom dancing to compel a (4) The switch movement. In Chaplin’s _ reinterpretation of his activity.

The Pawnshop, the Tramp spends a great That this reinterpretation is purportedly deal of time fighting with his office mate.On “forced” onto observers, like the policeman, one occasion, the boss walks in, and, midair, shows, as indicated previously, that different the Tramp’s punch changes its trajectory and types of sight gags can be segued in larger heads for the floor, where he falls to his knees comic constellations. For insofar as we and begins scrubbing. One movement —the attribute the reinterpretation of the action punch — is transformed into another — wash- _ not only to ourselves but also to the cop, this ing the floor — in one seamless line of move- __ byplay can also be seen as a mutual interferment. Or, again, the Tramp has his adversary _ ence gag.

straitjacketed between the rungs of a ladder. Switch movements are like verbal jokes He feigns high-class, dancerly boxing poses, in that they involve a sequential play of torturing his helpless opponent with tweaks reinterpretation. But they are unlike verbal on the nose. A cop appears behind the — jokes insofar as they are not prompted by 152

Notes on the Sight Gag

anything like an incongruous punchline. jokes but like mimed metaphors, the object Indeed, we start out initially unaware that analog affords a simultaneous play of we are interpreting an action, and we only __ interpretation — seeing the object literally become retrospectively aware of our initial | and metaphorically at the same time. In the interpretation when it is undercut. That is, | Chaplin example, the audience focuses on unlike a verbal joke, our reinterpretation of — the visual similarities of tubas and umbrella the gag does not begin with the perception stands while remaining peripherally aware of nonsense. Nevertheless, our amusement of their differences.

at the gag still rests on the incongruous play The object analog gag should not be of interpretation. For we are delighted by — confused with another technique common to the way in which one line of movement may much action-oriented comedy (silent and

be made to yield two, often conflicting, otherwise). Call this technique the refuncglosses, for example, the Tramp wasting his _ tionalization of objects. Very often at the boss’s time fighting versus dutifully washing _ height of an action sequence, when disaster the floor. Switch movements often reverse seems inevitable, a comic will seize upon an the interpretive meaning of an action; but object and use it triumphantly in a way that they need not. They may merely transform _— deviates from its ordinary employment. For

one action into another as when a silent example, when the back of the boat breaks comedian, beaned on the head, turns his away in College, Keaton realizes that he can doddering into a modern dance ala Isadora use his behind for a rudder. Or, for a less

Duncan. action-packed example, in The Navigator

(5) The object analog. This category is (1924) Keaton redeploys crab traps to cradle very much like the mimed metaphor. Some _ boiling eggs in the galley’s outsized caul-

readers may in fact see little point in dron. Here an object is used successfully for drawing a distinction here. A famous exam- a purpose for which it was not designed; ple of the object analog is the moment in the object is, in a manner of speaking, The Pawnshop when the Tramp drops his _ refunctionalized.

cane into the tuba as if it were an umbrella Such refunctionalizations are undoubtstand; or in the same film when he puts his — edly amusing, but I am not sure that they derby in a bird cage as if it were ahatbox; or | should be considered sight gags. For the in The Rink when he removes his coat from — object is not being redeployed in order for an oven as if it were some Kind of closet. In _ the audience to see it as something else.

these cases, one object is equated with With object analogs and mimed metaphors, another. One object, that is, can be seen _ the point of the humor appears to rest on under two aspects: one literal and the other —_ visual metaphors; refunctionalization of ob-

metaphorical. jects does not. The humor in the latter case Essentially, the comic dynamic here isthe rests on the comic’s unexpected — incongruSame as in mimed metaphors. I have not _ ous but sufficient — ingenuity rather than on

assimilated these examples to the mimed any particular visual byplay. In The Frozen metaphor, however, because they do not North (1922), when Keaton turns the guitars

seem to require mime to do their work. into snow shoes, or the snow shoe into a They do not need enabling gesticulations of | tennis racket, the point of the routines the sort that must accompany the per- (which I count as mimed metaphors) is to ception of a doughnut as a barbell. The — remark on the physical resemblances of the objects analogized bear their similarities items in question. Refunctionalizing objects close enough to the surface, so to speak, | would not necessarily have this dimension of that the metaphorical interpretation does —paraverbal wit. That said, however, let me not require much staging. Unlike verbal also admit that the refunctionalization of an 153

Popular Film and TV

object may also be yoked to the projection — of brilliance sees an avenue of escape. He of an object analog or a mimed metaphor. _ realizes that the tie on the track is straddling

At the end of College, Keaton uses a pole — one of the rails. Thus, if he can hit the supporting a laundry line as a vaulting pole |= overhanging end of the tie on the track, he

and a lamp as a Javelin. These involve not can catapult it out of the way of the only refunctionalization but mimed meta- oncoming train. He lifts the tie on his chest phors, for in the context of the film itis hard |= overhead and bangs it down on the beam on

to miss the similarity, indeed the visual the track, thus casting two worries aside similarity, that is being drawn between these _ with a single blow.

events and the earlier sporting episodes. This is an immensely amusing routine. (6) The solution gag. The discussion of — And its effect rests on the lightning reversal

the refunctionalization of objects reminds of one interpretation of the situation by me of another type of gag, albeit rare, that | means of an unexpected, economical, and appears in comic films — the solution gag. I _— effective reconceptualization of the situaam of two minds as to whether it should be __ tion. It depends on Johnnie seeing that the considered a sight gag, for like refunctionali- | beam on his chest is not a burden but a tool.

zation it concerns unexpected, indeed bril- Johnnie sees this, but the standard viewer liant, reversals based on practical ingenuity does not until Johnnie demonstrates it. The rather than play with the presentation of — reconceptualization of the situation §survisual ambiguities. But [may be too narrow- ___ prises the audience, which also would apminded in this case. So I will discuss the __ pear to derive pleasure from the situation by

structure of the gag and leave it to the _ reinterpreting the scene in light of the reader to determine whether it belongs on _ absolute fitness of Johnnie’s action. If

this list. Johnnie’s lifting the beam, rather than, say, The most famous example of what Iam __ trying to roll off the cowcatcher, strikes us as

calling a solution gag occurs in Keaton’s The initially incongruous, once the beam is General. Johnnie (aka Buster Keaton) seesa _ flung, the action strikes us as the most railroad tie strewn on the tracks in front of | perfect and neatest solution available. In him. The Union spies have thrown it there, — this respect, the solution gag is akin to a hoping to derail him. Johnnie slows his — verbal joke insofar as it enables the viewer locomotive down and runs along the side of _ to pleasurably reconceive the situation, althe engine. Carefully, he slides down the _ though the solution gag is not exactly like a cowcatcher of his locomotive. He runstothe — verbal joke because in the process of appreci-

foreboding tie, and with much difficulty, ating the gag and the sequential reconceptupulls it off the track.. Unfortunately, he has alization of the scene, the audience does not not worked fast enough. His engine has _ exercise its own wit but rather admires the inched up behind him while he struggled —_ wit displayed by Keaton.

with the tie. By the time he lifts it, his Whether this gag counts as a sight gag locomotive scoops him off his feet, and he — probably depends on the degree to which falls on the top of the cowcatcher. The beam _ one _ thinks a sight gag depends on visual he removed from the track, moreover, isso _ play. On this basis, one might reject it as a heavy that it pins him to the front of hisown _ sight gag because the gag is more a matter of engine. Suddenly, he sees there is another _ physics than of perception. Or if one takes

railroad tie on the track less than ten feet the gag to derive from a kind of visahead of him. The locomotive seems des- _ual_ thinking — seeing the situation as a tined to derail with him on the front of it. catapult - one might be prone to call it a Yet Johnnie, but not the audience, ina flash — sight gag. Moreover, if one wants to use the 154

Notes on the Sight Gag . phrase “sight gag” to denominate all the = gag to the humor of incongruity we have not recurring gag structures of the great silent explained the sight gag, we have, however, I comedians, then this sort of solution gag believe, enhanced our understanding of it by

counts as a sight gag. situating the sight gag in the appropriate Nevertheless, however one decides this | conceptual framework.

terminological point, it is important to note I began by noting that the sight gag that the solution gag does differ interest- | appears in artforms other than cinema, in ingly from the standard cases of mutual films other than comedies, and in periods interference gags. For with mutual interfer- other than that of the silent cinema. At the ence gags, it is generally some comic char- same time, however, most of us probably acter in the fiction whose interpretation of | have very strong associations between the the event is limited, whereas with solution sight gag and silent film. One reason that

gags, it is the audience whose vision is might be offered for this is that this is just limited. Moreover, with solution gags the | where you happen to find sight gags. Howplay of alternative interpretations comes _ ever, I distrust this answer. Sight gags are sequentially, whereas with mutual interfer- | everywhere in the history of film (and ence gags and switch images the audience __ television), and they recur frequently in our can contemplate incongruous alternative | own day in films such as Back to the Future

interpretations simultaneously. (1985), Big (1988), and the works of PeeWee Herman, not to mention their standard use The preceding taxonomy of sight gags is ad- _in all sorts of television comedy shows. So in

mittedly rough. It does not claim to be ex- —_ concluding, I would like to speculate on haustive, nor are the categories as precise as | whether there might be a deep thematic I would like them to be. Furthermore, itis | connection between the sight gag and silent not systematic in the sense that these distinc- _ film that underlies our sense that these tions could be deduced from an underlying phenomena, so to speak, “go together.” set of formulas. The lack of systematicity in In looking over the preceding taxonomy part derives from my method, which has of the sight gag, I see that one motif running been primarily descriptive. Whether a sys- through all the examples is what might be

tem could be developed for the sight gag called the “double (or multiple) aspect.” really depends upon getting amore compre- _ Sight gags seem to presuppose the possibil-

hensive picture of the range of variations ity of visually interpreting the image in two within this form. The purpose of advancing (or more) ways. I have argued that the this confessedly informal cartography of the | incongruousness of these interpretations is sight gag is to elicit the kind of criticism and the feature of these gags that gives rise to

refinement of terms that will foster a more amusement. But at the same time, the comprehensive and rigorous classification of | theme of the multiple aspect is relevant to

the phenomena, which may in turn allow important debates about the artistic pros-

systematization. pects for film in the silent era.

It is also important to note that this essay As is well known, early film suffered

does not pretend to say why the sight gag is ~— what might be called “the anxiety of photog-

amusing. Rather, Ihave attempted to assimi- raphy.” That is, because film is a product of late the sight gag to the incongruity concep- photography and photography cannot be

tion of humor. Thus, explaining why the art, then film is not art. The reason for sight gag is funny relies on an account of — supposing that photography could not be art

why humans find incongruity amusing. was that it was believed that photography Though by attempting to assimilate the sight could only slavishly reproduce reality. The 155

Popular Film and TV

task of silent filmmakers and of theoreti- through a kind of amoral, antisocial transcians of the nascent artform was generally to gressiveness. But this is only to speak of major

refute these charges by showing that film tendencies. Sight gags — for example, Feuilneed not slavishly reproduce reality; it could lade’s Une Dame Vraiment Bien (1908) —

also creatively reconstitute it. were certainly in evidence in early film.

Within this context, I hypothesize that Similarly, when I speak of sight gags

wae gegag, emerging form of silent comedy, I do the; sight withasitsa key exploitation ofthat the not mean to imply trick films and multiple aspects of the image, has an roughhouse slapstick ceased to be made. I especial, symbolic pride of place. For the merely wish to note the prominence that the

£p..

donneé of the sight gag is that the film sight gag form gradually assumed as it was image is open to various interpretations, refined by people such as Chaplin, Lloyd, can show more than one point of view, and and Keaton. Of course, the sight gag form is can be creatively ambiguous (albeit in a not inhospitable to either the machinations of highly structure way). In other words, the the trick film or roughhouse. The sight gag sight gag flies in the face of the prejudice often incorporates these elements in the that movies can only brutishly recapitulate kinds of structures discussed in this chapfrom a single point of view what stands ter: Keaton’s disappearance in Sherlock, Jr.

, ; (1924) is surely one of many survivals of the

before the camera. In celebrating therick ambifilm ; gag, and a film in trick the period of thej sight guity of appearances, sight Bags in effect great many sight gags are basically structured undermined the uninformed conviction that roughhouse. And, as well, films notable for cinema was capable only of mechanically, their sight gags can also employ trick devices unequivocally, and unimaginatively recy- and sadistic slapstick independently of their

cling something often infelicitously called sight gag structures. “reality.” The ethos of silent film culture — Given all these qualifications, one might its commitment to cinema as a means of begin to wonder about the point I am trying interpretation rather than of recording — to make. It is this: the sight gag, although was, in other words, the operating premise evident in very early comedy, gradually

of the sight gag. This, I submit, is the comes to be refined in such a way that it,

; . rather than comedy or slapstick reason film trick theorists have pure ;ten; ; ;silent ; and simple (the moregenerally dominant earlier

an affectionate, if sometimes unexplained, dencies), is seen as the most important form place in their hearts for the masters of the of silent comedy. This is a process that gains sight gag. At the same time, I think that the steam in the later half of the 1910s so that by rest of us may intuit some of the urgency of the 1920s the sight gag is the leading type of

this dialectic when we laugh at the great film comedy. silent clowns. That is, we feel them trying to Needless to say, the preceding historical transcend what were often perceived as the hypothesis may require even further modificaperiod-specific limitations of their medium. tion as we learn more about very early film We do not feel the same about sight gags in comedy, such as the work of the Italians. our own time, however, because we are as 2. For further discussion of the role of inatten-

Saree tion in Keaton’s humor, see Noél Carroll, An

yet unaware of our limitations. In-Depth Analysis of Buster Keaton’s The

General (New York: Ph.D. thesis for New

Notes York University, 1976).

3. Mention of Tati’s wreath gag gives me the

1. The historical claims here are meant to be opportunity to make a comment about comic quite tentative. Roughly, it seems to me that conventions, especially with respect to sight the earliest stages of film comedy were aimed gags, not discussed above. Clearly, this gag at generating laughter through an exploitation with the tire succeeds in large measure beof the fantastic capacities of cinema and/or cause we are dealing with a black-and-white 156

Notes on the Sight Gag

film. In a color film, a tire with wet leaves has available to him only the perceptual stuck to it would not be visually confused capacities that are available to the film viewer with a funeral wreath; this sight gag is with respect to the fiction — here, specifically persuasive only because the film is black and vision. In this gag, his touch receptors are

white. bracketed just as in the Tati gag the characBut this leads to an interesting point — that ters’ color receptors are bracketed. And the characters in the world of the fiction unlike real-world humans, characters in silent

insofar as they are confused by the tire film with astounding frequency seem to be appear to be seeing their world in black and unaware when other people and animals are

white. This suggests that there may be an standing behind them. We might call this implicit convention with respect to sight convention perceptual leveling. Whether gags — that the perceptual capacities of the there actually, rather than hypothetically, is

characters in silent films are presented as such an implicit convention, however, is a roughly the same as the perceptual capacities topic for further research. of the silent film audience, unless otherwise 4. For a discussion of this sort of interplay

signaled. That is, just as thd silent film between word and image, see Noél Carroll, Spectator cannot hear, smell, or feel cues in “Language and Cinema,” in this volume. the fiction, so the silent film character, unless 5. In Wild and Woolly (1917), the film begins

otherwise marked, is similarly deficient in and ends with switch images, ones with

these regards. reversed significations. In the opening we

This would explain the comprehensibility initially take Fairbanks to be on the range but of the spectacular inattention that characters then learn he is in the city; at the conclusion, in, for example, mutual interference gags we think he is in the city, but he is really out

often evince. In Fatty’s Magic Pants, a com- West. For analysis of this, see David edy of the middle 1910s, for instance, some- Bordwell, Narration in the Fiction Film (Madione sews a rope down the seam of Arbuckle’s son: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985), Slacks from behind. And he does not notice pp. 166-69, 202-03. this! Nevertheless, it seems to be accepted by 6. This is discussed at greater length in Noél the audience. Why? I hypothesize that it is Carroll, Philosophical Problems of Classical because it is being implicitly supposed by the Film Theory (Princeton: Princeton University filmmakers and the audience that Arbuckle Press, 1988), chap. I.

157

BLANK PAGE ,

a = In “Causation, the Ampliation of Movement and Avant-Garde Film” I have tried to

PART HI - explain the basis of apparent motion and apparent causation in various editing figures and to show some of the ways in which these

Avant-Garde and ™ phenomena can be and have been exploited Documentary Film expressively in certain avant-garde films. In ™ some ways the essay is more interpretive

= than it is theoretical. Moreover, I now

suspect that my concluding remarks in the essay about the limits of cinema studies are way too conservative. In “Language and Cinema,” I attempt to Students of the avant-garde cinema and the _—‘!8olate a mechanism of figuration that I

documentary film often complain that their Christen “the verbal image.” Critics fresubjects are marginalized — marginalized in quently assume the existence of such a terms of being treated apart from the mas- device in their interpretations, but the desively distributed fiction film discussed in the Vice has gone untheorized for the most part. previous section and marginalized by being The purpose of this essay is to identify this thrown together as a kind of miscellaneous, 4¢vice, to say what it is, and how it works. In catchall category, that is, as a kind of after- | Tetrospect, I think that my categorization of thought. I sympathize with their proteststhat | the device as a para-illocutionary act was they are underappreciated. I have grouped _—— Probably not a good idea. It was suggested them together, though I mean no disrespect | t© me by the late Monroe Beardsley and I

in this. [hope the range ofreferencetoavant- latched onto it too hastily and without garde and documentary films in this section Considering how badly it fit the overall will exonerate me of suspicions inthisregard. framework of speech-act theory. On the [hope that they show that Ihave beenanavid Other hand, I think that my appropriation follower of developments in these traditions. nd freestyle modification of the speech-act In fact, in my days asa journalist, my primary | 4PProach in terms of constitutory conditions

“beat” was the independent cinema. and facilitating conditions add a useful “Causation, the Ampliation of Move- dimension of precision to the discussion, ment and Avant-Garde Film,” “Language even if the phenomenon is not really profitand Cinema: Preliminary Notes fora Theory bly classified of as a kind of speech act. of Verbal Images,” and “A Note on Film However, if I were to rewrite the article I Metaphor” can be read as a continuation of | Would probably rework these conditions in the pursuit of piecemeal theories of specific the spirit of the analysis in “A Note on Film

film devices and structures that was initi: | Metaphor.” . .

ated in the previous section. Of course, the “A Note on Film Metaphor” introduces a structures discussed in this section are not _—_ theory of at least one kind of film metaphor.

unique to the avant-garde film. But since _!t may not be the only candidate for the title many of my examples come from avant- Of film metaphor, but I think that it is a fairly garde film and since figuration of the sorts ‘lear-cut candidate. As my footnotes in this discussed in these articles is generally associ- _ tticle indicate, I think that there is further

ated with avant-garde film, I have placed esearch to be undertaken in this area. these essays somewhat but not completely Nevertheless, I think that the analysis of this

arbitrarily in this section. rather straight-forward case of film meta159

Avant-Garde and Documentary Film

phor can limn the outline of an approach to __ of the errors I made in the earlier essay and

less obvious candidates.! to clarify some of my earlier contentions.

Though “Avant-Garde Film and Film As with the case of isolating devices, Theory” is centrally concerned with the mechanisms, and structures, I think that question of whether such films propound dealing with localized questions or problems theories, this essay might also be regarded __ of film practice makes film theorizing manas a contribution to the piecemeal theorizing §ageable. Compared to the more traditional of mechanisms of signification inasmuch as__ ways of constructing film theory, it relieves the attempt to come to terms with the notion __ the theorist from the onus of having to have that avant-garde films are theoretical leads an answer about every question of cinema in me to the identification and elucidation of | order to answer any question of cinema.

various structures of reference that connect Piecemeal theorizing makes film theoriz-

certain avant-garde films with theories. ing feasible, since the attempt to solve a Of course, piecemeal theorizing need not __ single problem or to explicate the operation only concern the isolation and explanation _ of a single device is less overwhelming, and of specific structures. It may also attempt to more definable a task than devising a global address certain localized problems and to — approach to cinema as a whole. And apart answer certain presiding questions that arise from eminent practicability of piecemeal out of film practice. This essay approaches __ theorizing, it also makes good sense, since the localized question of whether avant- we have no reasons to believe — and many garde films make theory — a question that reasons not to believe — that every question

was made urgent by the discourse about about film (or the moving image) is con-

. . . . Notes

avant-garde film in the precincts [inhabited _ nected.> especially in the seventies — and the essay comes to the conclusion that, strictly speak-

ing, they don’t.2 This conclusion is not

meant to disparage avant-garde filmmaking 1. For further discussion of my approach, see

aesthetically, however, since I think that Noél Carroll, “Visual Metaphor,” in Aspects

avant-garde films are interesting, even if of Metaphor, edited by Jaako Hintikka they are not really theoretical. Moreover, (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers,

from the perspective of this anthology, this 1994). If there is one imitation that T now ; ae feel with respect both to this article and “A essay 1s perhaps instructive insofar as it Note on Film Metaphor,” it is the suggestion illustrates that one can pursue a theoretical I may leave that the species of metaphor that problem independently of constructing an I discuss is the whole story. It is not, and I

entire theory of film. know it isn’t.

“From Real to Reel: Entangled in Nonfic- 2. For a continuation of the discussion of the

tion Film” is not an inquiry into operation of relation of the avant-garde to theoretical cinematic devices. It confronts a question discourse, see Noél Carroll, “Avant-garde indigenous to or localized to the practice Art and the Problem of Theory,” The Journal of documentary filmmaking. Common wis- of Aesthetic Education (Fall 1995). dom — shared by film theorists and high 3. Concerning this essay, I should like to note school students alike — assures us that it is that Tam no lon ger satisfied with the

, possible-world talk in it. What I was trying to

impossible for nonfiction films to be ob- get at in those portions of the text will need to jective.’ I argue that these conclusions be reworked and cleared up in a future essay. are precipitate. A coda — “Reply to Carol 4. Since “From Real to Reel” was written, new Brownson and Jack C. Wolf — follows “Real arguments for the impossibility of objectivity

to Reel” and it enables me to correct some in the nonfiction film have emerged. I 160

Avant-Garde Film and Film Theory address these in Noél Carroll, “Postmodern 5. That is, if we begin to compile a list of all the

Skepticism and the Nonfiction Film,” in theoretical questions we might wish to ask Post-Theory: Reconstructing Film Studies, about film, as the list grows longer (and more edited by David Bordwell and Noél Carroll diverse in its topics), the likelihood that a (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, single set of principles will be suitable for

1995S). answering them diminishes.

161

_.

a , that the ways such a film may relate to different orders of theory are also multiple.

CHAPTER XI ~ The task of this paper is to elucidate some of the relations that avant-garde films may

Avant-Garde Film } have to theories. I suspect that the paper is and Film Theory ™ not exhaustive in this regard. But I will

= attempt to be skeptical. I will argue that some of the most prevalent relations between avant-garde film and theory (especially film theory) are not adequately de-

=;

scribed by the adjective “theoretical” where this term is meant to imply that the films in

In a recent discussion with Howard question are vehicles for making theories.! I Guttenplan, director of Millennium, I sug- have no doubt that fully theoretical films gested that an issue of the Workshop’s film could be made, perhaps after the fashion of journal be devoted to the topic of film Ways of Seeing. But I do not believe that this theory. He said he thought that would be is what we encounter in the most prominent

redundant, arguing that every issue was examples of what are called “theoretical” already about theory since theory is so avant-garde films. intimately bound up with the nature of Before charting the kinds of relations that

avant-garde film. Admittedly the word hold between the avant-garde and film “theoretical” abounds in discussions of the _ theory, let me try to delineate my terms. To avant-garde. But in reading the literature say a film is avant-garde is to say something and viewing the films in question, it often about the form of a film. Specifically, it is to becomes hard to ascertain whether what is say that the form of a given film is different, described as “theoretical” in one film is the | but more importantly, that it is in advance of same type of phenomenon that is described __ existing cinematic practice. It is in advance

as “theoretical” in another film. of prevailing technique not simply because it Part of the problem is that what is called | deviates from antecedent practice but be“theoretical” in one work is often on a __ cause it in some way opposes or repudiates different level of theory than what is consid- = antecedent practice. It points to some possiered “theoretical” in another. One film may __ bility of the medium that is not only ignored

be correlated to a metaphysical theory, e.g., in prevailing practice but arguably is reabout the nature of the self, whereas an- pressed. To interpret a given film as avantother is correlated with an epistemological garde demands that one establish how it

view, e.g., about the nature of inten- deviates from existing practice and how that tionality. Or, one film may go with an deviation counts as an advance by being a aesthetic position, e.g., about the impera- _— repudiation that liberates a distinct possibil-

tive of each art to emphasize its own ity of the practice that has been hitherto essence, while another work is associated _ repressed. with a stance from film theory, e.g., about Kubelka’s Adebar, Schwechater and Arnulf

the true (read “flat”) nature of cinematic Rainer are avant-garde because they are space. Thus, the claim that a given film is predicated on (a) foregrounding rhythmic “theoretical” is ambiguous until you specify structures and (b) emphasizing the single the kind of theory you intend to correlate frame, rather than the shot, as the basic unit

with it. of film articulation. Both these stylistic deviaBut the idea that an avant-garde film is tions, but especially the emphasis on the

“theoretical” is also ambiguous in the sense __ single frame, are clear repudiations of most 162

Avant-Garde Film and Film Theory

existing forms of cinema. Likewise, Renoir’s _ level of generality. If they do not pretend to use of lateral reframing, depth-of-field and — deal with all film, then they at least deal with zig-zag panning amounted to avant-garde in _large classes of film. A film theory is not a

repudiations in the Thirties. theory of a single film though a film theoretiNeedless to say, the above formulation cian may examine a single film for the sake falls short of capturing all the films we — of illuminating a generic possibility of the would intuitively want to classify as avant- cinema. Film theories present evidence for garde. Why? Because there are avant-garde __ their positions. And they are explanatory; genres. For example there are films by — they explicate the ways in which a given young structuralist filmmakers, like Vincent _ film, technique or genre moves or communi-

Grenier and Tom DiBiaso, that someone _ cates to spectators. might argue are not really repudiations of Given these admittedly rough notions of prevailing practices but rather merely repeti- —_ the avant-garde film and film theory, we can

tions or amplifications of the existing, well- | begin to outline the kinds of relations that entrenched stylistic frameworks set forth by can exist between the two.

people like Frampton, Gehr and Snow. In First, avant-garde films can provoke short, these younger filmmakers are not — theory change. That is, a given avant-garde repudiating a prevailing practice butembrac- film can cause either the expansion or

ing one. contraction of a theory. Of these two modes, Nevertheless, I think that we want to the provocation of expansion is, I believe,

denominate developing practitioners of the | more typical. A given avant-garde film can structural film as avant-garde. Part of the — serve as counter-evidence or as a counterreason for this is that we regard the genre as = example to existing theories by manifesting a whole as a repudiation of a larger, more _a possibility or aspect of the medium hithdominant form of cinema. But I think that — erto ignored by theorists. In this role, the we also want to call Grenier and DiBiaso _ avant-garde film operates as a piece of new avant-garde because we believe that there is _ data that forces theory to expand its analytic a strong, genetic lineage (in terms of influ- framework in order to assimilate it.

ence) between them and the earlier, more This capacity of avant-garde film is wellinnovative instances of the genre. How long _ precedented in the art of the twentieth a genre like structural film can continue and — century. Duchamp’s The Fountain caused a

still be appropriately called avant-garde isa _crisis in art theory; it revealed a crucial perplexing question to which I have no component feature of what it is to be a work answer. However, for the purposes of this of art that previous theories had overpaper, I will assume what I take to be at looked—namely, the importance of the least a semi-clear characterization of an social context as a condition for an object’s

avant-garde film as one that repudiates being a work of art. The force of The prevailing cinematic practice and/or isin the Fountain is that today any plausible theory

direct lineage of such a film. of art must be sensitive to the social dimenI will not attempt to characterize film sion of the practice of art. In Godard’s

theory completely; I have tried that else- _— Pierrot le Fou we see two alternative scenes where with mixed results.? For the purposes of how the major characters could escape. of this paper, however, we need not havea _ _‘ This editing, between parallel modalities complete definition of film theory in order — rather than between parallel temporalities, to examine its relation to avant-garde film. adds a possibility to film editing which every Rather I will mention only a few features of | contemporary theory must analyze in order

film theory that seem pertinent to the — to propose an adequate theory of film.3 discussion. First, film theories presuppose a Related to provoking theory expansion, 163

Avant-Garde and Documentary Film

though rarer I think, would be the use of _ theory to which a film makes reference a avant-garde film to contract prevailing theoretical or a critical response?

theory. That is, a work by an avant-garde One way an avant-garde film makes filmmaker could operate as a reductio-ad- __ reference to theories is by exemplification, absurdum, premised on shearing off atheo- _i.e., by being a sample or example of the

retical excess. One has the feeling, for kind of film or work of art that a given instance, that this is part of the aim of Tony _ theory either endorses, implies or stipulates. Conrad’s ironic “delicatessen” pieces like To hold that a given avant-garde film exem-

Pickled Wind. Conrad treats celluloid like __ plifies a given theory is to hold that the food, on occasion cooking and processing it theory can be seen as generating the film. so that it cannot be projected. He does this, That is, the theory is seen as providing a set I submit, as a reductio-ad-absurdum of the __ of principles that determine the articulations waffling notion of “material” in film theory. — in the film. In practice, we perform such an These works might be understood as propos- _ identification by arguing that we arrive at ing that if film theoreticians really want to —_ our best explanation of the film in question talk in terms of the “material” basis of film, | when we hypothesize that the film presupthey should really be talking about celluloid poses the relevant theory.

pure and simple since it is the least ambigu- Like many structural films, Zorn’s Lemma ous candidate for the category. Thus, Con- — can be correlated with a Kantian aesthetic rad’s pranks can be interpreted as an at- _ theory. Few previous films make the tension tempt to chasten. theory by illustrating an between unity and diversity so palpable and inadequacy, excess or vagueness in theoreti- so rich. Its strong internal relations seem to

cal discourse. exemplify the idea of a form of purposiveThough avant-garde films may be called __ ness that is itself purposeless. Contempla“theoretical” insofar as they provoke theory _ tive spectatorship is virtually required by

change, I think that if one considers the _ the film. As we watch, we constantly diswork in question, one immediately realizes |= cover emergent structures of interrelations.

that this is not the primary way in which the We note that Part One has sound but no term is used. Most often films are dubbed image while Part Two has images but no “theoretical” because in one way or another sound. Part Three reconciles this dichotthey make reference to an existing theory or omy — it has both sound and image — but it

theoretical proposition. Here the theory also carries the contrastive organization to may be a theory of film, of art, or, as very | other dimensions. It can be described as a prevalent nowadays, some metaphysical “realistic” film in opposition to Part Two, theory — for example, some idea of the which is a “montage” film, as well as a subject as it is to be deciphered from what is — landscape versus a city film. The wealth of

metaphorically called the position of the disparate diverse details plus the sorts of

spectator in the text. emergent structures that bind them (includJust as there is more than one way for an __ ing the alphabetical replacement patterns in

avant-garde film to cause theory change, Part Iwo) engender a variety of cognitive there is more than one way for avant-garde — and perceptual play that corresponds to the

films to make reference to theories. But _ basis of a Kantian notion of the foundation before speculating on these ways of refer- of aesthetic experience. In terms of film ence, I want to raise an important issue — theory, avant-garde works often presuppose

about this idea. To wit, is an avant-gardist discernible theoretical stances. For inmaking theory when he or she makes _ stance, Gehr’s Reverberation appears prereference to a theory? A related question mised on the idea that film is primarily a also should be broached: Is identifying the — real object.4 In both the Frampton and the 164

Avant-Garde Film and Film Theory

Gehr cases, when we say their films are new direction in cinema. But such questions theoretical, we mean they exemplify theo- have neither been raised nor answered by ries, i.e., postulating the theory in question —_ existing avant-garde films that have exempli-

as generative gives us our best explanation _fied specific theories.

of the work. A second way that an avant-garde film One way a film makes reference to a makes reference to a theory is by literalizing

theory is by exemplification. But is exempli- —_it. For example, Bill Brand’s Works in the fication of a theory the same as the construc- _—‘ Field evokes the notion that classical narra-

tion of a theory? My suspicion is thatitisnot tive editing is a code by juxtaposing sebecause it is difficult to understand how the quences employing a random dot matrix existence of a film, especially one designed § superimposed over images with sequences with an eye to exemplifying a given theory, of a French documentary about Indochina. could ever stand as evidence for the theory The random dot matrix sequences allude in question. How would such a film argue _ (through their structure) to information for the veracity of its generative theory — theory with its very strong notion of a code. except in a viciously circular manner? How _—_ Cut against the cleanly edited documentary,

would such a film have any generality? the “coded” image section elicits the idea Identifying a certain theory as the basis _ that the editing is a code — at least for those for the organization of a given filmis apiece of us who know such a theory exists. We of criticism, not a piece of film theory. [am infer the association because the idea of a not denying that filmmakers make theory— _ code is something that has linguistic applica-

read Gidal, Le Grice, Wollen, and Sitney’s bility to both parts of the film and thereby

two anthologies for myriad examples. But serves as a perfect means for making the question is whether when they make _ Brand’s juxtaposition of the two parts coherfilms that exemplify those theories, those — ent. Brand’s alternating structure evokes a films are also works of theory. I believe that theory, virtually literalizes it, as might a they are not.° Clearly they are not evidence charade. for any general theory — one flat film would Why not say that Brand is doing theory in hardly show that all films are really flat, for | Works in the Field? First, we note that from

instance. Brand’s film we have no idea of what the It might be proposed that such exemplifi- codes of classical editing are; that is, nothing

cations are theoretical recommendations has been explained. Furthermore, in order that all films should be made a certain way. __ to divine the proposed theoretical import of Two problems arise here, however. First, — the film you would already have to have an making a flat film does not supply a reason inkling of the theory being referred to. For for making other flat films, though such a instance, you would have to know that there reason is requisite if a recommendation isto _is a theoretical posture that regards classical be theoretical. Second, if we presuppose — editing as precisely coded in a way that is that avant-garde films theoretically recom- _—analogous to the kinds of phenomena infor-

mend a specific direction of filmmaking, mation theory studies. It seems to me that aren’t we committed to admit that typical much avant-garde film that is called theoretiHollywood films are theoretical recommen- cal is of this variety; it literalizes an anteced-

dations in the same way since they will — ently developed theory but only for those exemplify certain classical theories of film of us already somewhat familiar with the and narration? This is not to suggest that theory. there are not interesting theoretical ques- Another way to argue that Brand’s film is tions here. Theory hopefully will be able to miming rather than making theory is to explain how and when a film recommends a_i point out that the film, in terms of the 165

Avant-Garde and Documentary Film

theory it literalizes, is not its own best contrasts, viz., narrative is to nonnarrative, : explanation. That is, the film in part relies as illusion is to antiillusion, as passive on prompting an associative identification | spectatorship is to active spectatorship. No between the notion of acode ininformation — Structural/Materialist film either proves or theory with the notion of what we callinthe — explains the correlation between narrative

trade “codes of classical editing.” This par- and passive spectatorship nor does any ticular type of associative operation is not — illuminate the relationship of active spectabroached in the theory as the film literalizes _torship and politics. Yet, I agree that these it. Thus, somewhat paradoxically, the film as films have the symbolic import that their

a putative theory doesn’t explain itself— polemicists attribute to them because of among other things an embarrassing way to __ prevailing theoretical associations with nar-

lack generality. rative in British film circles. But this is only It is not my intention to say that films to say that these films have a kind of

should not literalize or exemplify theories of | allegiance to a film theory, not that they film, of art, of metaphysics, of psychoanaly- _—_ produce film theory. Indeed, they are the sis, etc. My only aim is to stress that making | emblems of a set of film-theoretical preju-

reference to theories is not the same as _ dices, but they have not made film theory. theorizing. Many avant-garde films do make I do not wish to dismiss films that make reference to theories; if thisis whatcommen- _ references to theories as uninteresting. tators mean when they call such films They are theoretically significant but not in “theoretical,” it seems perfectly reasonable. the way that they are often taken to be. The problem or rather the confusion only —_ They are not vehicles for making theories in

begins to arise when commentators begin to the sense of offering arguments or evislip into presenting such films as vehicles for | dence. Rather, they attempt to incorporate

the construction of theories. prevailing theories in unique, elliptical symGenerally, films that make reference to bol systems that in some way mirror or theories presuppose audiences that are al- express the theoretical preoccupations of ready familiar with the theory in question. _ the culture or sub-culture from which they Structural/Materialist film purportedly rede- | emerge. In short, they are examples of fines the role of spectatorship, making it | something quite common across the arts — active in a way that has political ramifica- ‘the urge to reflect the concerns of a given tions. How can a film have such signifi- culture or sub-culture in the various symbol

cance? Part of the story, to use a favorite systems of each artform. That is, each adverb of one of the movement’s major — culture or sub-culture, and, for that matter,

polemicists, is that Structural/Materialist often each generation has a tendency to films vehemently eschew narrative. Further- attempt to differentiate itself by producing more, the denial of narrative is a means of | unique symbol systems that relate, in comdenying certain associated features of narra- _— plicated ways, to prevailing issues and

tive. For these British filmmakers, this presuppositions. includes passive spectatorship which is corre- Panofsky sees the structure of the Gothic lated with illusionism and ideology. That is, | Cathedral as an exemplification of monas-

the strident repudiation of narrative in tic patterns of reasoning. Likewise, postStructural/Materialist film expressively func- modern dancers, such as Yvonne Rainer, tions as a means to deny what narrative is — responded to the reductionist fervor of the most saliently correlated to in British film Sixties by literalizing the notion that dance is

culture. The associative process which lit- essentially movement to the exclusion of eralizes this supposedly new conception of, expressive gesture and choreographic comthe subject is based on a set of associative —_ position. They did this by adopting a dance 166

Avant-Garde Film and Film Theory

vocabulary composed of everyday actions means, for instance, of introducing new

and macaronic phrasing. techniques or exploiting new possibilities of

In film, we can see the Soviet montagists the cinema in its attempt to exemplify a as well as the Constructivists as opting fora theory. style that emphasizes assemblage in order to Though I think that the four categories literalize the idea of the artist as worker. outlined above describe the most important Vertov talks of his filmmaking organization — relations between theory and the avantas a “factory of facts.” The montagists in garde film, I will conclude by briefly mention-

general favored metaphors for their style ing two other candidates. Often one film that described them as artisans and engi- may be described as “answering” another neers. Their style expressed their interest, film or type of film. For instance, Robert derived from Marxist theory, in identifying Nelson’s Suite California Stops and Passes themselves as makers of a certain sort, | begins by parodying Hollywood story films. namely, workers piecing together the arti- It could be called a polemic for the diary facts of modern industry and science. Their __ film. One wonders whether this metaphor of style symbolized their theoretical allegiance “answering” implies that the film is “theoretito the proletariat. In the same way, I believe — cal.” Undoubtedly films do “answer” films.

the well-known contemporary avant-garde But again the question arises of how by films that make a reference to theories can _—_‘ simply manifesting a specific stylistic and/or

be seen as part of a more generic social _ theoretical allegiance a film would straighttendency in art towards resonating particu- forwardly constitute evidence or argument lar, pressing intellectual issues, fashions and __ for a general theory.

concerns across every Key of the culture. Lastly, some films, which do not make Successive generations ofavant-gardefilm- reference in any way to a given theory, may makers have made films which correlate with nevertheless be strongly compatible with a very different kinds of theories ranging, for — certain theory. For example, the Camera example, from Romantic poetics, Jungian § Obscura Collective champions the films of psychology, modernist aesthetics, phenome- Yvonne Rainer on the grounds of a shared

nology, different brands of film theory, the preoccupation with identity in Rainer’s philosophy of language and Psychoanalytic- | themes and those of the currently popular

Marxist-Semiology. These films have not conglomeration of metaphysics, psychomade direct contributions to the theories analysis, politics and film theory associated they refer to; however, they have symboli- — with Lacanian semiology. In this case, it is cally differentiated, and, in that sense, en- especially hard to see how Rainer’s films, riched and reinforced the cultural context which I believe are extremely important,

from which they arose. can be theoretical since there is nothing in To my knowledge, avant-garde films that — them or in the context of their production to refer to theories have not been vehicles for associate them with the specific theories that making theory. Nevertheless, they are par- = are being mobilized to valorize them.

ticularly interesting subjects for theoretical I began pessimistically by admitting that I research in terms of the kinds of processes, | would probably not be able to enumerate and contextual and articulatory structures — every kind of relation between avant-garde that make it possible for the often elliptical film and theory. I confess that if I were more symbol systems of the avant-garde film to imaginative, I might have been able to make reference to theories. Needless to say, discern some way in which we could say in making reference to theories an avant- films make theory. For the present, howgarde film frequently becomes theoreticalin ever, my provisional conclusion is that in the sense of provoking theory change by most cases, the avant-garde films that fasci167

Avant-Garde and Documentary Film

nate us are more involved in making refer- The claim that avant-garde films make ence to theories than in making theories. theory is also advanced by Edward S. Small in Direct Theory (Carbondale: Southern IIli-

Notes nois University Press, 1994). 2.In “Film History and Film Theory: An

1. In arguing that avant-garde films are not Outline for an Institutional Theory of Film.” theoretical (in the sense of making theory), I This article is included in this volume. do not mean to imply that they are uninterest- 3. Editing in terms of parallel modalities is

ing. I do not mention a single film in this discussed in my “Toward a Theory of Film paper that I do not believe is a good film. Editing,” pp. 86-87, in Millennium Film An example of a critical interpretation of Journal no. 3. This article is included in this an avant-garde film which claims that the film volume. makes theory is P. Adams Sitney’s gloss of 4. This interpretation can be found in “Program Brakhage’s The Animals of Eden and After in Notes” by Ernie Gehr in Sitney’s Avant-garde

“Autobiography in Avant-garde Film,” in Film, pp. 247-48. Avant-garde Film (New York: NYU Press, 5. Some readers of this paper have argued that 1978), pp. 220-24. Though Sitney has dis- the reason I am unable to accept avant-garde agreed with this characterization of his “read- films as theory is that I believe that theory ing,” I believe, after several re-readings, that must be linguistic rather than imagistic. I do the text can only be understood as claiming not think, however, that this is the crux of the that in the film Brakhage develops a theory of matter. Rather the problem may be that the metaphor as a process of aftering one shot by demand that avant-garde films be formally

another. innovative implies that they must be highly

Other examples of the idea that avant-garde elliptical symbol systems which are capable films make theory include the popular charge only of allusion to rather than articulation of that some works are “idealist,” which implicitly theories. For further argumentation in the indicates that what is wrong with the films vein, see Noél Carroll, “Avant-garde Art and amounts to philosophical or theoretical errors, the Problem of Theory,” in The Journal of i.e., that the theory they make is misguided. Aesthetic Education (Fall, 1995).

168

=

= interaction as we did in the case of Marvin’s

CHAPTER XII 7 defeat even though we have not seen a = representation of the fist meeting Elwood’s Causation, the Ampliation chin. . Both of these shot interpolations are

of Movement and = . . .

quite effective though neither is particularly

Avant-Garde Film distinguished. In both cases, the impression | ™ of causation in the representational array is = heightened by matching the directions of the

movements in the successive shots that stand for the cause and effect stages of the actions

at hand. The use of match cutting is quite

I. Introduction common and is a basic device for presenting cases of proximate causation in narrative In Martin Ritt’s recently released film, films. The device is so efficacious, in fact, Back Roads, there is a scene in which the - -that the matched directionality of the cut in male protagonist, Elwood Pratt, floors a our second example is capable of accentuatmoronic, gigantic heavyweight named Mar- __ ing our sense of causation even though we

vin Bleitz. The situation is comic. Before have not seen the trucker’s hand touch (or the boxing match begins, Elwood learns even appear to touch) Elwood. Here, of that Marvin, a high school dropout version course, the narrative context contributes to of Miles Gloriosus, is always late to leave — our intuition of causality. Nevertheless, we

his corner, too busy is he basking in the are all familiar with cases where matched audience’s adulation. Elwood rushes on directionality in and of itself can give rise to Marvin as, unawares, the giant turns from — the impression of causation. Undoubtedly, his public, and Elwood flattens the lummox _ this is the reason why matched directionality

in a single stroke. has become a fundamental ingredient in the The action is represented in three shots, | representation of proximate causation in

all in slow motion. The first has Marvin film.

partially in close-up in the foreground as a The psychological factors involved in the diminutive Elwood stalks him in the back- suggestion of causation by matched direcground, approaching the camera while Mar- __ tion cutting seem related to, though not

vin has his back to him. The difference in identical to, those discussed in Albert cinematic scale rehearses your basic David Michotte’s famous study, The Perception of

and Goliath theme. Next, Elwood is in Causality.1 Michotte designed a series of range of Marvin; he throws a punch that experiments in order to disprove David travels from screen right to screen left and |§Hume’s dictum that lands on Marvin’s jaw. Lastly, there is a shot of Marvin flying screen right and hitting the Suppose two objects be presented to us, of which mat. Later in the film, in the last fight scene, the one is the cause and the other the effect; it is a brawny, bearded trucker in; ays roadside pianobjects, that from we a simple of onethe or oth ofbar these shallconsideration never perceive bashes Elwood. The trucker's fist sails right tie by which they are united, or be able certainly to left but we don’t see its impact because tq pronounce, that there is a connexion between

the stunt is done in such a way that the = them2 antagonist’s shoulder shields it. In the next

shot, Elwood hits the floor in the same Against Hume, Michotte believes that in direction as the trajectory of the punch. We _ certain cases and under certain conditions,

have as strong an impression of the causal we do perceive causation. Michotte de169

Avant-Garde and Documentary Film

scribes these cases in terms of a process = of ampliation in terms of a variation on the called ampliation which he defines thusly: | Gestalt idea of Prananz. He argues that the “Ampliation is the creating or establishing subjects see causation in order to maintain of a movement onto the second object ofthe |= good continuity in their visual field. B’s already existing movement of the first ob- |©movement is amalgamated with A’s as a ject.” Michotte arrived at the concept of | matter of conservation of process,® i.e., A’s ampliation primarily through the examina- movement is conserved by seeing it evolve tion of two phenomena which he dubbed the — or become B’s. With both the Launching Launching Effect and the Entraining Effect. |§ Effect and the Entraining Effect, the subject

The Launching Effect occurs when a_ integrates the two movements into one subject views a projected object, A, say a process, seeing the movement of B as a rectangle, moving at and then touching prolongation of and extension of the moveanother projected object, B, which until ment of A-—just as one amalgamates a contiguous with A is stationary but which _ series of dots into a straight line, reducing when A arrives begins to move. At certain them to one figure for the sake of economy. speeds, movement intervals, etc. — all ex- Michotte adds that this is not a matter of haustively studied by Michotte through end- _ interpretation but of perception.’ The imless experiments — subjects report that ob- _ pression of causation results from the conserject A causes object B to move. The subjects vation of process which leads us to assimiknow that in reality there is no causation.* late two independent movements into one They know they are watching the indepen- —_ event in which A’s movement is transformed dently projected movement of two indepen- _ into B’s while maintaining its initial identity;

dently projected figures. But they report the movement, in other words, is transthat, phenomenally speaking, they see A ferred from A to B, or A’s energy is

push or launch B. imparted to B so that we see A’s movement The Entraining Effect occurs when a produce B’s. Our constitutional tendency to projected object or group of objects, A, conserve process gives rise to the imputation passes a stationary, independently projected of production. And the concept of “produc-

object, B, which begins to move when A tion,” of course, is nothing but a virtual and B are aligned. Subjects recount that A _— cognate or purely, systemic definiendum of

“picks up” B. The force or impetus for B’s causation.

movement appears to come from A. It is not at all clear that Michotte proves In both the Launching Effect and the — everything he wants. Whether he defeats Entraining Effect, in Michotte’s experi- | Hume is doubtful since in Hume’s argument

ments, there is no question of actual causa- the notion of perception is being used tion between A and B. Both are projected — epistemically in the sense of “truly perceive”

figures whose movement is completely inde- | whereas what Michotte establishes are pendent of each other — they start and stop _ merely cases of phenomenal perception. The

as the experimenter manipulates the projec- explanatory power of the gestalt-type action apparatus. Yet, the subjects report count given to ampliation, as well, is open to strong impressions of causation. B’s move- _— question as is the strictness of the concept of

ment in both cases appears dependent on interpretation in Michotte’s argument that A’s.° Here the basis of phenomenal causa- we are perceiving causation rather than tion (as opposed to actual causation) is the entering a causal interpretation in cases of apparent leap or transfer of properties ampliation. And Piaget has charged — rightly (namely movement or propulsion) from one I believe — that the idea of ampliation itself is

object to another. only descriptive and not explanatory.? But Michotte attempts to explain both forms _ these are issues for philosophers and psy170

Causation, the Ampliation of Movement and Avant-Garde Film

chologists. Film scholars, on the other hand, stances of causation, but only that by using

can still benefit from Michotte’s research matching directions and often matching because it supplies a framework for discuss- speeds film editors can accentuate their ing the impressions of causation engendered representation of causation by exploiting by shot chains such as those introducedinmy — some of the cues or conditions of ampliation opening paragraph, since these seem related —_ per se. Cinematic ampliation is the selective

to the Launching Effect. imitation of some of the necessary features

I say “related to” rather than “examples of ordinary ampliation. Like ordinary amof” for several reasons. First, Muichotte pliation, cinematic ampliation is a structure contends that the figures in his experiments that involves an approaching or launching are “real” as opposed to “representational” | movement, which can be set out in either objects; thus, he writes “... the causality one shot or a group of shots, followed by sometimes perceived on the cinema screen __ withdrawal movement in the same direction

may represent the causality exercised by nd generally at a similar speed as the one ‘real’ object on another ‘real’ object; | approaching movement. This structure has but from a psychological point of view it is | been used in conventional films since the still one phenomenal causality representing twenties and though often exhilarating, it is another.” Second, in Michotte’s experi- also quite banal. However, there is a variaments the subject is initially presented with — tion of cinematic ampliation — that has also

two objects whereas in film we often see — been with us at least since the twenties —

the objects of the represented interaction that is a bit more interesting. That is the successively.!° For example, we might see a _— suggestion of causation between reprerow of men wielding a battering ram in one — sented objects or events that could not shot and in the next shot a hitherto unseen __ possibly — given the laws of physics or the door buckles in the direction of the blows. — information in the film — be interacting causAlso, because of the synthetic nature of the _—_ ally. Here, lam not referring to the represen-

space of editing and because of the diminu- _ tation of magical causation in a horror film

tion of spatial information due to the — because such a film will posit the event as monocular viewpoint of the single shot, the lawful, maybe Higher Lawful. Rather I have necessity for spatial contiguity in cinematic in mind the use of ampliation in avant-garde ampliation is rather an ambiguous issue. film where what is represented via matched That is, in opposition to most of Michotte’s |= movement isa case of unrecuperated, imposcases, temporal succession, or simultaneity, sible causation. A man-—a _ teacher? — is matched speeds and directionality seem shot in a famous scene in Un Chien Andalou enough to cue a cinematic launching effect. and in the next shot he falls, clutching the Cinematic ampliation, therefore, is better | naked back of a woman. The impression or

seen as a derivative and modification of | suggestion of causal continuity is vivid de- __

ampliation per se. spite the fact that we firmly believe that the Of Michotte’s effects, Launching is represented event is totally implausible.

clearly the most important in casual edit- This use of cinematic ampliation — not to ing.!! The use of matched movement editing enhance the sense of causation between in order to enhance the impression of — conceivably connected events, but to create causation is straightforwardly describable as _ _— the sense of connection between palpably a case of cinematic ampliation. By using the _— disjunct events—is a staple device, one

word “impression,” I do not, of course, might even say a trope, of avant-garde film. mean to imply that spectators are deceived —- = This is not to claim that it never occurs for ideological purposes or otherwise — into _—_ outside avant-garde film; it can figure, for

believing they are witnessing actual in- instance, as a flashy scene connective in a 171

Avant-Garde and Documentary Film

stylish thirties’ narrative. But in general, this | enough, to be propelling the upward move-

use of cinematic ampliation is more amatter ment of the camera. Unlike Michotte’s

of ornamentation or decoration in most examples, here we do not have visible conventional narratives (where it appears) objects in seeming interaction, but rather while avant-gardists who tend to employ it |movements — 1.e., camera movements. Nevuse it as a basic structural and expressive — ertheless, there is still a strong impression

device. that the first camera movement has trans-

We can find a prototype for the cinematic ferred its thrust to the second and that the ampliation of impossible events in Mic- first camera movement is driving the plane hotte’s experiment #28 in which a real ball — skyward.

appears to launch a projected circle; Mi- The preceding case of the cinematic chotte notes “We know perfectly well that a | ampliation of an impossible event is a case ‘real’ ball cannot drive away or ‘launch’ a __ of strong cinematic ampliation which we can reflected image or shadow”; so Michotte — define as a case of ampliation that results in concludes that the experiment “shows that an impression of a causal push, or shove, or

the ‘status’ of the objects in no way alters energy transfer from one shot to another. the impression of causality and that the There is also, in regard to the suggestion of objects belong to different ‘worlds’... impossible events, a weaker form of cinedoes not act as a segregative element in matic ampliation which occurs when, as the

these experiments.” !? consequence of matching screen directions, An example of the use of the cinematic — the independent movements of two or more

ampliation of an impossible event can be shots appear continuous, appear to compose

found in Stuart Sherman’s Flying. The a single line of movement across tangibly second shot is of a metal railing — an airport disparate locales and/or “through” patently bannister — that runs horizontally across the — different objects. This second type of cine-

screen; on the left, a hand mysteriously matic ampliation is weak only in the sense holds a suitcase handle, sans suitcase. The that it doesn’t instill a sense of causation. camera moves rapidly along the railing from § Nevertheless, it does trigger the appearance

left to right. Then, there isa cut toashotof of a fusion or extension of an earlier a plane taking off in the same direction. | movement to a later movement. Together, This shot is executed from the perspective — the strong and weak ampliations of impossi-

of a passenger. As the camera rises at a ble events provide very standard linkage gradually expanding acute angle, the hand devices in avant-garde editing. But though

is superimposed on~the image. This is they are standard devices in one respect, an elegantly elliptical symbol for travel, — they can be used to signal unique, expressive charged by the haunting partial absence of | commitments when embedded in particular the traveler and his belongings, which, — contexts. In order to explore the expressive among other things, functions as a verbal _ potential of these devices, let us examine image! for the “absence” departure entails. | two films —- Man with a Movie Camera by Cinematic ampliation is crucial to the cre- | Dziga Vertov and Rude Awakening by Waration of this symbol. To use Michotte’s — ren Sonbert — which employ both weak and terminology, the separate movements of the strong instances of cinematic ampliation as two shots undergo a “fusion because they _ essential expressive and organizational deare kinematically similar.”!* The action of vices. (N.B.: Often in what follows I will use “rushing” to the plane becomes, or is united the simpler phrase “cinematic ampliation” with, or is transformed into, the action of | for brevity rather than the more accurate

the plane’s lift-off. More than that, the phrase “the cinematic ampliation of an energy of the first shot appears, impossibly impossible event.” However, the context 172

Causation, the Ampliation of Movement and Avant-Garde Film

should make it clear when the ampliation is _ say that there are three major strategies for

of the impossible variety. ) movement editing that Vertov relies on. They are comparative movement cutting, weak

Il. Man with a Movie Camera and strong ampliation. Each of these tech-

niques, in different ways, attempts to transMan with a Movie Camera is a filmin which form unique, localizable movements of the many of the main themes are worked out in _ film into occasions for general statements; terms of movement. The overall course of that is, they attempt to visually assimilate the the film is one from stasis through activity - movement of individuals into the movement first work activities, then leisure activities — | of society as a whole, thereby illustrating one

and, finally, hyperactivity —- by the end of ' of the film’s major ideas, viz., that all the film, the Soviet Union, as a whole it movements are co-ordinated or concrease seems, rushes breathlessly toward its future. | into one Movement under socialism.

After a prelude where we are introduced to The comparative movement editing is the the cameraman and the movie theater, the easiest to identify. The literal movements — film-within-the-film begins by showing us — of work and play -— of all different walks of

Russia at rest. We see barren streets, empty Soviet life are analogized in groups of fire-escapes, sleeping babies and all sorts of | successive shots in which the activities requiescent objects — an abacus, a typewriter, | corded either belong to the same category —

an elevator, cars, mannequins, gears, etc. e.g., washing — and/or they look alike. A There is an overhead shot of an auto _ significant proportion of these analogies is arriving to pick up the man with the movie devoted to the visual similarities of the camera; as they start off to work, the city Soviet film workers’ activities and those awakens. People dress, travel to their jobs performed by other workers. Editing is and the still objects viewed earlier are setin compared to sewing; cranking a camera is motion. The work day accelerates only to rhymed with working a cash register and halt and be replaced by an ever-accelerating massaging a scalp; turning rewinds is likened

play day. The montage and camera speed to turning the drive shaft of a sewing increase velocity, communicating an over- machine; scraping emulsion is collated to whelming sense of energy and well-being. | shaving and manicuring, etc. And throughCars, horses, pedestrians, trains, trolleys, out the film there is a motif of juxtaposing bicycles approach the camera and then turn moving square objects —- matchbooks and and hurtle away. The steam engine, a train windows — to moving film strips that symbol of modernity (and industrialization), are, of course, sectioned into frames; thus, keeps reappearing, grounding the racing _ the filmmakers’ production is also visually imagery as an emblem of progress. The analogous to that of other workers. intense movement comes to stand for The Not only does the Soviet film worker go Movement — the movement of history, the | everywhere the average Soviet citizen goes; movement of socialism toward, what prom- _ not only does he participate in every social ised to be in 1928, a glorious future. Man activity (from fire-fighting to sunbathing); with a Movie Camera attempts to picture an _—_and not only is the film worker represented

entire society —a society moving toward as involved in activities that are categorically

utopia. similar to those of ordinary workers; at the Matched movement editing is key to same time, the Soviet film worker is shown

developing the central movement metaphors _ to be engaged in work that looks just like in Man with a Movie Camera. An inventory _ the work of the ordinary citizen. The view of of all the uses of motion in the film deserves __ the artist here is not Romantic and elitist but

an essay all toitself, thoughIthinkitissafeto | egalitarian. The artist is a worker, like 173

Avant-Garde and Documentary Film

anyone else; the artist worker and his process, the rejuvenation of Russia. Since comrades in other fields participate in the _ the ultimate reference of Man with a Movie

same movement. Camera is not to individuals but to the Of course, the film not only sets forth Soviet Union — the film is “a day in the life movement similes between film artists and of the Soviet Union” — the vitality of the workers but also between a wide range of all sporting scenes stands for the vitality of the sorts of work and play. Washing in prepara- —- young socialist nation. The use of the weak

tion for work is categorically compared to cinematic ampliation of impossible events washing street hydrants and ash cans, while, not only serves to visually fuse disparate via fast motion photography, folding ciga- events in order to polemically connect them, rette boxes, running a switchboard and but it also operates as a means of cuing the typing are imbued with the same movement more generic reference of the images by qualities. Motorcycle racing and merry-go- “upsetting” the particularity of the individround riding are equated in virtue of cycloid —_ual events recorded. That is, since we realize

movement. And as Russia exercises its way that we cannot take the weak ampliations into a healthy future, the various strenuous literally - because they suggest impossible games of the body politic are reviewed in events — we must take them figuratively and rapid cutting that stresses their similarities. — generically.

Again, the effect is to promote a vision of Weak cinematic ampliation also binds Soviet life as both concerted and democratic. | work processes in Man with a Movie Cam-

Through the use of weak ampliation, era. An ax is sharpened, the blade cutting

Vertov is able to forward the theme of across the screen in such a way that its unified movement along another front. Not movement elides with that of workmen in a only are the movements from shot to shot — succeeding shot. Again, the impression of similar in Man with a Movie Camera; but at _ the blending of these movements into one points, the screen directions and compara- _impossible event is to prime the discursive tive velocities from one shot to the next are __ point that all work in the Soviet Union is of such that their movements seem to blendor a _ piece, the unity of movement heralding

fuse into each other. For example, in the a unity of purpose. Weak cinematic amsporting sequence, a man hurls a javelin __ pliation, of course, is a perfect visual device from screen right to leftin one shot. Thereis for making this assertion, substituting phea cut to a soccer goalie defending his net. As §nomenal fusion for teleology. Throughout the goalie maneuvers, it is difficult to resist the film, movements seem to merge as the the feeling that the javelin is about toskewer _ result of similar rhythms and screen direchim. When the soccer ball enters the frame, tions. A revolving door swings counterspinning screen right to left, it seems to be — clockwise and a long shot of a thoroughfare the same line of movement as the javelin. It | seems to have traffic continuing the same is as if the spear metamorphosed into a ball movement. The movement of a strip of film

in transit. And it feels as if the spear over the editing table seems to blend into the thrower’s energy powers the ball. This case | scarped movement of a train — movies are borders on strong ampliation but falls some- thus phenomenally incorporated into the what short, perhaps because of the time _ rush of progress. interval that is left between the beginning of Cases of strong cinematic ampliation are the second shot and the entry of the ball. _ statistically less frequent than weak amBut even as a case of weak ampliation, the __ pliations in Man with a Movie Camera. One cut is able to carry its rhetorical point. All — early example is quite humorous. A woman

these sports — here, specifically, hurling the rolls uncomfortably in bed and this is javelin and soccer — are part of the same matched twice with a shot of a train exe174

Causation, the Ampliation of Movement and Avant-Garde Film

cuted by a similarly “tossing” camera. The — the machines as supplying the “shove” that woman’s rustling appears literally earthshak- motivates the cameraman’s movement. He is ing. Later a case of beer swings in such a __ presented as a cog in a machine, though his way that it elides with the wobbly camera “stature” is in no way diminished by this.

movement of the next shot which reviews a These last two examples of the strong scene of churches. Phenomenally, the beer cinematic ampliation of an impossible causal seems to send the camera bobbing; polemi- _interaction are key means by which Vertov cally, the camera movement is “drunken.” — establishes his view of the nature of the

Vertov has found a stylish way through Soviet state. In the parlance of political strong ampliation to realize Trotsky’s call science, Vertov’s conception of the state is for cinema to tackle the twin intoxications of _ that it is an organic whole.!” The different

religion and alcohol.!® activities of Soviet life are presented as One of the most important instances of inextricably interdependent; the “parts” of strong ampliation occursin the sectiononthe — the new Russian society mutually interact in work day which begins with the comparisons _ chains of cause and effect. The energy of the between the beauty salon/barbership imag- — workers seems to push the hand of the textile ery, on the one hand, and those analogizing = worker and the cameraman is “moved” by shots of workers applying mud to buildings, | machinery. In a manner of speaking, we can

washing clothes, etc., on the other. This is say that Vertov is attempting to portray one of the most important sequences of the —_ instances of remote causation — like the relafilm insofar as it is Vertov’s richest and most __ tion of the cameraman to industry — as cases

condensed compendium of work. The mon- of proximate causation. That is, causal, tage picks up speed, cataloguing a wide social processes — the sorts of things that selection of work in textile factories, ciga- usually are of such a scale that it is impossible rette plants, switchboard offices, etc. Crank- —_ to see them in a single glance — are cinemati-

ing cameras, stropping razors, turning spin- — cally transformed into what appears phe-

dles, sharpening axes enter the stream of nomenally as a piece of direct causation. imagery setting up a rhythmic pulse of en- —‘ Thus, the inter-relatedness of the parts of the

ergy that gravitates to and fro but whose _ social whole is dramatically depicted; the propulsion seems directed primarily to the “organic interdependency” of distant parts right. Suddenly a group of factory or mine _and activities within the Soviet state is “made

workers is included; they heave a heavy visible.” beam to the right in a movement that seems It may strike some readers as rather to impart force to a hand in the next shot that | oxymoronic to say that Vertov’s metaphor moves the rotary of a sewing machine. The _ for the state is an organism because, on the workers’ energy, in other words, seems to __ face of it, it is obvious, just in terms of the

cross the boundaries of the frame. imagery, that Vertov is equating the state Perhaps the most famous image of the with a kind of gigantic machine whose film — that of the cameraman atthe centerof magnificently calibrated parts interlock “mia mandala of whirling machinery — likewise —_raculously” via strong cinematic ampliation.

is a case of strong ampliation. For as the And, of course, since we tend to construe cameraman turns — in the direction of the “organism” and “machine” as polar oppovortex — one can’t help but see him as being _ sites, it appears somewhat perverse to associ-

rotated by the changing machines. They ate Vertov’s vision of the state as an elegant, supply the “motor,” as it were, thatismoving ideal, powerful, synchronised engine with an him. Here, itis not simply acase ofseeingthe | organic metaphor. Yet, it is important to

independent movements as unified, but of | remember that the core element of the seeing the initial, dominant movements of | organic/machine contrast hinges on the op175

Avant-Garde and Documentary Film

position of an immanent principle versus the themes. Their full significance can be formalist application of an external princi- grasped by considering them in the context ple. Hence, as early as 1679, Dryden, in his of another form of causal representation “Grounds of criticism in tragedy,” rebukes __ that recurs often in the film but which so far

neoclassicists for their “mechanic rules.” In has not been mentioned, viz., the use of political philosophy, the organic society is | synecdoche to imply causation between preone in which the community is integrated | sumably disparate, independent events. by a common goal rather than one in which Often we see a tight shot of a lever being the citizenry is a bundle of egoistic individu- —_ pulled or a wheel being turned, followed by

als legalistically and bureaucratically gov- a shot of a machine starting. Though not a erned from above. Through the employment matter of ampliation, we nevertheless have of both the strong and weak ampliationofim- _—a strong sense that the lever or wheel has possible events, Vertov’s symbolism empha- “switched on” the machine. Or, we may see sizes the mutual, interdependent effort of | a machine rapidly whirring in manic arcs cut the Soviet people as united and asinvolvinga against the shot of the cameraman being reciprocal, co-operative, inter-related sys- raised in a cable car over a dam. It is hard to

tem of causes and effects that connect all | suppress the intuition that the machine is strata of Soviet society. If the new Russiawas —_ powering the ascent. In both these cases, we

to be a machine for Vertov, we can also say, infer mechanical causation as the linkage without contradiction, that it was to be an _ between the represented events not because organic machine, i.e., the metaphor of the — we know that the first shot is the source of machine society is mobilized to point to — propulsion for what is in the second shot, the same features that were made salient by —_ but because this format of representation is

the older organic metaphor. !® deeply associated with the conventional Causation is a major topic of Man witha _ presentation of mechanical causation in Movie Camera, one explored across many film. Indeed, in many of the pertinent cases,

different dimensions of the film. There is, | one is pretty sure that the shots are not for example, a macro-structure in the edit- | representing parts of the same mechanical

ing which traces effects to their causes, | process—the machines in question don’t moving from buses and trains to the facto- —_ look like they are designed to perform the

ries, mines and hydroelectric plants that — task at issue. But the tension between the made and/or power them. This corresponds _ implication of causation, on the one hand, to what might be thought of as a search for —_and its probable unlikelihood, on the other,

origins in the film, i.e., an answering of | enables Vertov to make the point that all the questions like “where do trolley cars come machines in the Soviet Union are, in some from?” in an effort to render mass society = generic sense, causally interrelated in the less alienating for the viewer. The didactic production of socialism; he does this by revelation of the causes and origins of the suggesting visually that machines with very film itself is a dominant motif of this overall discreet functions are “magically” bound up

preoccupation. in the same supposedly localizable process. Annette Michelson has pointed out in her In the examples of the preceding parabrilliant, pioneering article, “From Magi- — graph, Vertov is using the same structure cian to Epistemologist,” that Vertov usesthe that Eisenstein adopts in The General Line

device of hysteron proteron as a central when at the bovine wedding, Tommy means for displaying causation ina distinctly charges at his offscreen bride, followed by a

illuminating manner.!? Strong and weak cut to an explosion, followed by shots of ampliation provide equally important strate- | water churning at a hydroelectric plant. At gies for Vertov to use in his pursuit of causal one level, the explosion stands for inter176

Causation, the Ampliation of Movement and Avant-Garde Film

course and the roiling waters forsperm. But, III. Rude Awakening at the same time, the union of these events into one “fantastic” whole illustrates force- | Warren Sonbert’s Rude Awakening is a very fully the interdependency — the causal inter- | accomplished example of a strategy often dependency — of Soviet agricultural produc- —_used in avant-garde editing — what might be tivity with the industrialization of Russia, a _—_ called “polyvalent montage.” Sonbert has major tenet of state policy in the twenties.” _ relied heavily on this device since Carriage

More cattle facilitates the building of more Trade. In this mode of editing, it is particupower stations — symbolised by the land- larly important that each shot is polyvalent clearing explosion and the water-power/ in the sense that it can be combined with sperm. Eisenstein, in other words, is at- surrounding shots along potentially many tempting to represent an instance of remote dimensions. That is, this style begins in the causation, a social process, as proximate _ realization that a shot may either match or causation in order to hammer home the _ contrast with adjacently preceding or sucneedful, intimate connection between city ceeding shots in virtue of color, subject,

and country. shape, shade, texture, the screen orientation

Vertov and Eisenstein are, indisputably, of objects, the direction of camera or object the two Soviet filmmakers who are most movement, or even the stasis thereof. obsessed with jumping out of the concrete In Sonbert’s Divided Loyalties, a shot of a here-and-now of photography into the realm — group of opera singers bowing is contrasted

of essayistic generalization. Vertov, like immediately to a shot of a bridge rising Eisenstein, returns often to the use of = which is symmetrically followed by the impossible synecdoches of causation be- singer bowing again; later a shot of a single tween different units of the industrial com- _— singer bowing is matched to a shot of the plex in order to establish the theme of arm of an oil well slowly lowering. In Rude interdependency. In this light, the strong § Awakening, an image of white clouds is cut ampliations of Man with a Movie Camera to a shot of a white goat being milked. In are sterling devices for stressing the func- another shot, the camera plows past a naked tional interdependency of physically dis- | model to take the measure of the gleaming junct processes because they promote phe- — glass facades across the street; they are nomenally compelling images of proximate analogized to an arboreal pond, the forest causation. Weak ampliation, which occurs __ reflected on its surface.

in the film more frequently than strong In polyvalent montage, the linkages beampliation, projects organicism in another tween shots can be along more than one sense, the unity of movement conveying a dimension, and can simultaneously involve perceptible unity of purpose. In Aristotelian comparison and contrast. In Rude Awakenjargon — as found in both the Physics and __ ing, an animal tamer has one lion leap from the Metaphysics — strong ampliation of im- screen right to left over a host of fellow possible events affords the impression of felines; this is cut against a shot of the top of (virtual) efficient causation while weak aconvertible rising in the opposite direction

ampliation affords the impression of (vir- while the car itself starts to move ever so tual) final causation.*! Both devices, inturn, slightly to the left side of the frame. Later, promulgate an overarching vision of the — two golfers —a man in the foreground in a Soviet Union as an organic system ofrecipro- red sweater and a woman in the background cal causal processes, while also realizing the in a yellow sweater — both putt; the balls go goal of early Soviet cinema, i.e., the illustra- _left to right; there is a cut to a patch of red tion of the general via the manipulation of | and yellow tulips over which the camera

the photographic particular. pans right to left. 177

Avant-Garde and Documentary Film

Nor do the linkages in polyvalent mon- shots. Indeed, much of Eisenstein’s inventage simply hinge on comparison and con- _ tion as a critic as well as a filmmaker is a trast. A crowd of spectators looks upwards product of what we can easily identify as a in Rude Awakening; this is juxtaposed to a = compulsive concern with correlating content

plane in flight; the suggestion that the and style, i.e., with “imitative” or “exprespeople in the first shot are watching it. And, sive” form. And Vertov, if the preceding of course, I have chosen to speak of Rude analysis is correct, is similarly preoccupied, Awakening because cinematic ampliation is __ particularly in his use of cinematic ampliaa major connective tissue throughout the _ tion. The use of the polyvalent possibilities

film. of editing for the sake of imitative form

Essential to how polyvalent montage is never completely disappears in the work practiced by contemporary avant-gardists is | of contemporary practitioners, especially the tendency to incessantly shift the ratio- | Brakhage’s. But at the same time, the nale of the cutting to new associative path- importance of imitative form is less foreways, both over the course of the entire film |§ grounded in the polyvalent montage of the

and even from shot to shot. Polyvalent seventies. Instead, the play of polyvalent editing is a kind of overtonal montage in variables is probed and expatiated in a spades because either the tonal dominant is —_ reputedly autotelic pursuit of a heightened

always changing, or because there are so or refined visual sensibility. many equipotent associative links between The opening four shots of Rude Awakenthe shots that there is no tonal dominant. ing contain many of the themes of the rest of Polyvalent montage progresses as a dense the film; they provide a kind of prologue. In broken line, often pivoting, leaving behind _ the first shot, a man draws a long bow, aims

units of development of generally uneven and sends an arrow at a target on screen

proportions. right. There is a dissolve to a bridge; the Polyvalent montage has existed since the | camera is mounted, presumably in a car, and

twenties; its history stretches from Ballet it moves screen left to right toward the Mecanique and the city symphonies to works _ bridge. Next we see a parade, the most of our contemporaries from Brakhage to _ striking item of which is a float with a large Abigail Child. Certain images — like fair- statue in a yellow cloak on it; the float is grounds — are especially conducive for obvi- —s moving right to left. Lastly, there is a shot of ous reasons to polyvalent montage and they _—_an airplane wing, shot from the cabin of a jet recur with surprising regularity.22 Many of __ that is flying right to left. In terms of subject

the formal variables crucial to polyvalent matter, the motifs of sport, carnival and montage were isolated by Eisenstein in his travel are major topics throughout Rude “collision” period.” Of course, the Russians = Awakening. Moreover, in the inter-relations

most often exploit the various relations of | of the movements of these four shots, the similarity and contrast within a formal ar- = preoccupation with movement also looms.

rangement in the spirit of the rhetorical Shots one and two are analogized in their principle of decorum, perpetrating what in rightward vector while shots three and four literature Yvor Winters fallaciously decries head toward the left. In turn, these two sets as the “fallacy of imitative form.”*4Sointhe — of shots are contrasted insofar as they pull in

Odessa Steps sequence of Potemkin the — opposite directions. And finally, in each set contrasting upward/downward movement _ of shots we find that the first shot involves

emphasized in the editing mirrors the con- object movement within a static frame flict between the people and the police, followed by a moving camera shot in the while in Alexander Nevsky the rising sound- — same direction. This is of special significance

track echoes the compositional line of the for the kind of cinematic ampliation that 178

Causation, the Ampliation of Movement and Avant-Garde Film

supplies an important part of the formal Shots with simultaneous movement in

backbone of Rude Awakening. two opposite directions are also compared, As the prologue prophesies, the contrast e.g., a traffic scene is followed by an and comparison of movement providesmuch enormous game of team tag. And, shots of the “logic” of Rude Awakening. Entire — describable in related movement terms, as blocks of shots are edited in terms of alternat- well, are matched, e.g., a basketball player ing, successive screen directions — fromright driving in for a lay-up inscribes a curved path

to left to left to right —- thereby building a on the court and this is replaced by the rhythmic counterpoint. As well, different image of a ferris wheel turning round and types of movement are juxtaposed — acircu- — round.

lar movement, e.g., children revolving on a The importance of all the comparative playground wheel, with directional move- |§©movement editing in Rude Awakening for ment, e.g., a plane sailing cross-country. In cinematic ampliation should be obvious. some of these circular/directional contrasts, | Since comparative movement editing relies

there is a persuasive suggestion that the quite often on matching shot directions, it repetitive, circular movement is supplying sets out conditions in which the probability

the energy for the directional movement of the cinematic ampliation of impossible both when the directional movement is _ events is high. In fact, one might say, for this

vertical and when it is horizontal. reason, that cinematic ampliation is a “natuMovement comparisons in Rude Awaken- __ ral” wherever movement analogy is a strucing can be very subtle. A whirling shot from __ tural theme in the editing.

inside a fairground saucer ride is matched Weak cinematic ampliation recurs throughwith a fashion model turning, displaying her out Rude Awakening. After one basketball wares. The circular movement of the lithe player sinks a foul shot, another whizzes the

model is then contrasted with the shot of a ball left to right so that it can be “taken dumpy gasoline truck traveling away from out.” This matches the movement of the the camera. Symmetrically, another shot of | ensuing, yellow tinted traveling shot of a model appears. She wheels around infront Calvary Cemetery in New York. The two of the camera, her blue dungaree hot pants independent movements blend into one. dominating the center of the image. As she Likewise, a shot from a merry-go-round — a struts away from the camera, there is acut perennial favorite in polyvalent montage — back to the gasoline truck. The shots are fuses with a hand-held survey of a barbecue. connected by similar movement and by the _—At times, Sonbert cuts as many as six shots outlandishly incongruous visual equation of | of matching movement together. The viewer

the model’s bottom with the oil tank. gets the feeling of a virtual line of moveAnother example of delicate movement ment expanding through a series of dispa-

comparison occurs in a sequence of three rate shots. Sonbert may then stop the shots that begins with a shot from a car movement with a static shot and follow it moving right to left. This is followed by a with weakly ampliated movement in the shot of an artist, Robert Indiana, slowly opposite direction. outlining an “O” with his paintbrush. The Throughout Rude Awakening, there is a two movements are likened in terms of — tendency to organize blocks of shots in direction which makes their contrast in virtue of movement/direction themes. In terms of velocity feel especially sharp. Next order to understand the significance of weak a subway train leaves a station, exiting atthe | ampliation in this context, it is worthwhile to

left side of the frame. Its gradual accelera- call attention to the musicalist sensibility tion, eventuating in a speeding blur, summa- _ that subtends all of Rude Awakening. That

rizes the contrast of the two preceding shots. is, the film is predominantly structured 179

Avant-Garde and Documentary Film

around the play of correlation and contrast a red sweater and plaid pants putts away between sensuous variables like color, shape from the camera and this is followed by a

and direction. These seem to build into _ stuttered series of shots of camera move-

thematic units that are underscored by ments traveling down a country road in counterpoints. Perhaps because music is — such a way that the golfer seems to be the generally regarded as the paradigmatic non- — source of the camera’s propulsion. Later, representational temporal art in our culture, § and conversely, a man pushes his shuffle-

we tend unavoidably to depend on it to _ board stick in the direction of the camera characterize the kind of unities intuited in —_— and in the next shot the camera is rushing

Rude Awakening. Thus, Sonbert’s work “toward” the audience. Or, for yet another since Carriage Trade is sometimes called example, the dancer, Douglas Dunn, alone fuguelike. In Rude Awakening, the grouping in his studio, pushes himself, balanced on of similar sensuous qualities is easily ana- _—_ one leg, into a position where from head to logized to a melody. Moreover, the thrust of toe he is exactly parallel to the floor. As he Rude Awakening demands something akin swings into this perfectly horizontal pose,

to musical appreciation, i.e., a discerning the editing matches his movement with response to the phenomenal interplay of — that of a camera throttling across a bridge perceptual properties in terms of tempos, in a way that suggests that Dunn’s dip, an echoes, contrasts, elisions, etc. In respect to arabesque penchée a la Giselle, powered it. the rough, musical metaphor that Rude In all these cases, movement within a static Awakening rejoins, the weak cinematic frame is seen as launching camera moveampliation of impossible events serves to} ment in an ensuing shot. Moreover, the literalize the musical ideas of amovement or camera movement is launched by a “lei-

a melodic line. That is, through weak sure” activity—a gesture of play or art — ampliation the (phenomenally) same move- _—and the movement so caused is such that it

ment is distributed over shots of disparate | would require far more initiating energy events in a way that is loosely but insistently | than is supplied by the activity emanating like the distribution of athematicmovement from the “leisure” movement.

over different parts of an orchestra. The At times, strong ampliation occurs besuggestion of unified movement plus the — tween twostatically framed shots. For exam-

ostensibly non-representational motivation ple, the shot of a handball being driven for such movement, in other words, flesh against a wall is juxtaposed to a shot where a

out the musicalist conceit of the film by line of chorines, from The Million Dollar organizing many of the “movements” and Mermaid segment of That’s Entertainment, “developments” in the editing in visual dive sideways into a swimming pool as if the concatenations of shots that are appre- man’s serve is displacing them like a row of

hended as part and parcel of the same bowling pins. Even though camera move-

movement. ment is not a key element in this image, as in Rude Awakening also contains numerous __ our earlier examples, we observe a sporting instances of strong cinematic ampliation. A _activity that via strong ampliation appears to boy pushes a shuffleboard puck left to right | cause an impossible effect which, among and this concords with a cut to an airplane _—_ other things, would require far more energy

take-off, shot from inside the jet and than a handball serve even if it were moving in the same direction as the puck mechanically plausible.*®

would have, save for the splice. The result A repeated theme of most of the strong is the appearance of an impossible piece cinematic ampliations in Rude Awakening 1s of causation —the child seems to have that of a kind of magical burst of force, 1.e., launched the plane into flight. A golfer in a human effort, appears to give rise to a far 180

Causation, the Ampliation of Movement and Avant-Garde Film

more awesome physical effect, like the boy leisure, something pursued in a “disinterlaunching the plane. The strong ampliations __ ested,” “free” and relaxed way. Rude Awakportray their human agents as superhuman. ___ ening is a testament to this notion of “the

In some of our examples, the human effort aesthetic.” The strong ampliations fit within is almost casual, so thatits apparentmomen- __ this expressive context not only because tous consequences propose an arresting — they project a sense of ease and “effortless fantasy of strength but more importantly of — effort” but because the magical causation

ease. Even where the initiating action is they suggest champions a vision of the somewhat strenuous, its putative result isso | human body freed from the normal congreatly disproportionate that the implicit straints of physics and its frictions.

vision of the human body is still that of a The themes of ease, relaxedness, and source of incredible power. Where objects “effortless effort” in Rude Awakening can be

appear to be displaced by human initiating highlighted by briefly comparing it with actions, those objects acquire a tangible | Brakhage’s Western History. Brakhage, of quality of lightness. When camera move- course, is the grand master of polyvalent ment follows the initiating action, its veloc- | montage and his films often include cineity often has a very fluid character asif the matic ampliations. In Western History, there movement is flowing or streaming from the _—_are several sequences of airplane trips. Each

human action. All of these factors conspire of these comprises several shots ranging to promote a very distinct sense of “effort- from bright, blue daylight to a scorching, less effort” and ease which corresponds toa — red sunset. Most of these sequences are

| major theme of the film, i.e., relaxation. weakly ampliated’’ — the trips are repreThe theme of relaxation is developed in _ sented as a single line of movement. The Rude Awakening in several ways. The ico- second plane trip, however, is strongly nography is culled predominantly from ampliated. The camera movement from shot what, in our culture, is considered the realm — to shot phenomenally fuses and in the last

of leisure, e.g., travel, art, play, sport, aerial shot the line of movement turns popular amusements, etc. And, the kind of | downward for a landing. The camera’s attentiveness demanded of the spectator by —_ descent picks up speed. This is cut against a

the polyvalent montage is what we typically violently shaking image of the New York regard as “aesthetic,” i.e., attentiveness to skyline. The movement of the descent elides

| the formal play of elements and to the — with the visual earthquake in such a way that expressive qualities and impressions of the it seems that there has been some sort of art object. This type of attentiveness, of — collision. I have heard viewers describe this course, is also associated with leisure, with — by saying “it’s the end of the world” or “it’s the relaxed and leisurely contemplation of like a rocket hit the city.” These are colorful

the sensuous properties and design of an ways to capture the sense of causation, object. Iam not arguing here the philosophi- indeed of upheaval, that the strong amcal point that there is something called _ pliation engenders. In contrast to Sonbert’s, aesthetic attention that is distinct from §Brakhage’s strong ampliation is not instilling

ordinary attention. Rather, 1am saying that a feeling of ease but one of stress and Rude Awakening presupposes attentiveness conflict. This obviously correlates with to such things as are historically regarded to —Brakhage’s other choices throughout Westbe the targets of aesthetic attention. Noram — ern History. Where Sonbert generally favors

I denying that this variety of perceptual a clean, medium long shot, Brakhage often activity is often very exhausting. However, _ returns to a tight close shot, one that is only for all sorts of complicated historical rea- = gradually focused. In Brakhage, the process

sons, it is often touted as a form of play or of coming to visual clarity is agonic. The 181

Avant-Garde and Documentary Film

movement from visual obscurity to recogniz- __ relation to the film (they are in) as a whole,

ability is markedly dramatic, a struggle, asif | whereas in conventional film strong cineBrakhage were constantly tearing the scales matic ampliation usually has a fixed meanfrom his eyes. If Rude Awakening leaves a ing, viz., “x causes y.” Of course, in avantfeeling of effortless effort, Western History — garde film, the ultimate significance of a incarnates a sort of stressful or effortful § strong or weak ampliation will be related to effort. Where Sonbert’s camera movements _ the impressions of causation or fused moveare for the most part even Brakhage’s hand- ment that the ampliations engender. The

held shots frenetically rush hither and sense of ease in Sonbert’s Rude Awakening thither, the zoom lens played like an ab- _ results as a particular quality of causal stract expressionist slide trombone. Like- agency in the cutting. Thus, the range of wise the employment of strong ampliationin themes and expressive qualities that the each film accords with the overall expressive | cinematic ampliation of impossible events design — Brakhage is using it to enhance the can project is somewhat governed or deter-

sense of stress already apparent across mined by the basic impressions of fused several dimensions in Western History and movement and/or causation. Nevertheless, Sonbert is using it to develop a feeling of | the important aspect, quality or point of a ease that reinforces the comparatively re- _ particular suggestion of causation — its final laxed quality of the rest of Rude Awakening. meaning so to speak — depends on the larger context of the film.

IV. Concluding Remarks In concluding, it is useful to consider quickly the relation of this essay to psycholCinematic ampliation is a standard editing ogy. It should be clear that though I have device for the representation of causationin derived certain ideas from psychological conventional narrative films. From one com- __ research, this is not psychology paper. Such mercial film to another the use of this device =a paper would concern itself either with the

generally stands for causation. In avant- measurement of the comparative intensities garde films strong cinematic ampliation is of cinematic ampliation as the cues that often adopted to suggest impossible events, — constitute it are experimentally modified, or 1.e., instances of causation that defy the laws —_it would be devoted to plumbing the genesis

of physics. The significance of these cine- of cinematic ampliation. I have done neither matic ampliations is highly dependent on __ of these things. I have adapted some of the their context. In Vertov, strong cinematic | vocabulary of psychology and, in a broad

ampliation is a means to communicate way, I have defined cinematic ampliation. themes that can be easily formulated into Most of my energy has been spent in propositions, e.g., “the Soviet industrial unraveling the meaning of specific cases of worker powers the nation.” In Sonbert and ampliation. My focus has been hermeneuBrakhage, however, the meaning of the _ tics, not psychology. Certainly there is a ampliations is less susceptible to para- place for a psychology of film. But most of us phrases in the form of complete sentences. in cinema-— with backgrounds in literary Rather, the strong ampliations suggest ex- __ studies or art history — are in no position to pressive qualities that are best described by make an original contribution to such a field

single words or phrases, e.g., “ease,” | because we lack training and experimental “stress,” “effortless” and “effortful effort.” | experience. And, in the related case of Whether the ampliations of impossible — psychoanalysis, we lack clinical experience, events in avant-garde film are of the orderof — the empirical basis of that branch of psychol-

themes or of expressive qualities, their ogy. Psychology may help film scholars up to

meaning is generally a matter of their a point, but, in general, we are more 182

Causation, the Ampliation of Movement and Avant-Garde Film

concerned with charting systems of significa- Effectively, starting with the sensori-motor tion rather than unearthing causal generaliza- level, we witness the formation of a causality linked

tions. Obviously I do not mean that we to the actions of moving, pushing, pulling, balancing, etc. and therefore we can see in it a whole should forsake psychology but only that the development prior to that of operations. ... On difference between cinema studies and psy- the other hand, from the first causal behavior of chology should be acknowledged. And, if we pushing, pulling, etc., these actions constitute wish to embark on a psychology of film, we products of composition starting with prehension must ground our hypotheses in the empirical and spatial relationships. It is enough to say that in practices of that discipline. In other words, system of Schemes of intelligence and their general render unto psychology what is psychology’s coordinations, which is the first form of what will

. caer every sensori-motor causality we find at work a

and unto cinema studies what is its own. later constitute operations.”

Notes 10. Michotte’s experiments allow for a roughly analogous situation. In some cases, the 1. Albert Michotte, The P. erception of Causality launching object, A, was made to disappear

(New York: Basic Books, 1963). before reaching B, but when B moved,

2. David Hume, Treatise of Human Nature, vol. subjects still reported ampliation. On page

IT (London: Everyman), p. 161. 138, Michotte writes “. . . the movement of

3. Michotte, 143. an object is liable in some circumstances to 4. Michotte, 86. survive phenomenally the removal of this 5. Michotte calls this the hierarchy of priority, object and there is an apparent continuation which means that the object that moves first of the movement of an object which has

is the one that is seen to supply the “motor” ceased to exist... .”

for the phenomenon. 11. The Entraining Effect seems more important

6. Michotte, 227. in dance than in film. In dance, it supplies the 7. Michotte, 223. basis for a much used choreographic pattern — 8. Myles Brand, “Introduction: Defining the ensemble moves across the stage and picks Causes,” in The Nature of Causation, ed. M. up a stationary dancer or group, 1.€., they

Brand (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, suddenly fall into the movement of the ensem-

1976). ble. This use of “pick-up” is a fundamental

9. J. Piaget, Les mecanismes perceptifs (Paris: strategy in Doris Humphrey’s New Dance. Presses Universitaires France, 1961). Piaget This is interesting in relation to Vertov’s Man explains perceived causation genetically in with a Movie Camera. New Dance, like Man terms of the acquisition of operations. In with a Movie Camera, attempts to project a Understanding Causality (New York: Norton, vision of a utopian society. Both works use

1974), he writes phenomenal causation to communicate a

“As Michotte himself admits, we see nothing pass- sense of the organicity of the ideal society. ing from an active A mobile to a passive B mobile. Vertov uses the Launching Effect and HumWe do see an ‘effect’ dependent on speeds, dura- phrey employs the Entraining Effect.

tions and displacements. We shall add, then, that In terms of dance theory, the use of the this impression of production results from an el- Entraining Effect is undoubtedly a motivaementary composition according to which in the tion for Susanne Langer’s erroneous but course of transformation, what B gained A lost. If provocative argument that “. ..a realm of operations are still not involved, there is at least Powers, wherein purely imaginary beings a preoperational construction by perception on from whom the vital force emanates shape a

sensori-motor regulations and not a perception of hol ld of dynamic forms bv. their

an actual transmission. .. . These perceptive im- wars wor y ; , y

pressions would also be unexplainable if they did magnet-like, psycho-physical actions, lifts the

not come from a displacement in terms of visual concept of Dance out of all its theoretical indices, from tactilo-kinesthetic perceptions linked entanglements with music, painting, comedy, to the sensi-motor action itself. This leads us back carnival or serious drama and lets one ask

to action. what belongs to dancing and what does not.” 183

Avant-Garde and Documentary Film

From Feeling and Form (New York: Scrib- omniscience of Haghi- the evil genius is

ners, 1953), p. 184. presented as seeing (or seeming to see)

12. Michotte, pp. 84-86. everything. Lang insinuates an impossible

13. For a discussion of verbal images, see my point-of-view to make a symbolic comment. “Language and Cinema: Preliminary Notes Likewise, Vertov suggests that the editor for a Theory of Verbal Images,” Millennium watches over Russia in order that he, Vertov, Film Journal, no. 7/8/9. This essay is included can work out the organicist condensation of

in this volume. the state as an ideal artwork, a masterpiece.

14. Michotte, p. 218. 18. [ am not advocating the adoption of the 15. For a discussion of categorical editing see my organic metaphor for the state but only “Toward a Theory of Film Editing,” Millen- claiming that Vertov espouses it.

nium Film Journal, no. 3 (Winter/Spring My interpretation of Man with a Movie 1979). This essay is reprinted in this volume. Camera makes Vertov much more sanguine 16. Leon Trotsky, “Vodka, The Church and the about the Soviet Union than the interpretaCinema,” from Problems of Everyday Life tion offered by Stephen Crofts and Olivia

(New York: Pathfinder Press, 1973), pp. Rose in “An Essay Towards Man with a

31-35. Movie Camera” in Screen, Vol. 18, no. 1,

17. See Karl Mannheim, “The History of the Spring 1977. In this essay, especially in “IIB Concept of the State as an Organism: A The Film’s Theoretical Reconstruction of the Sociological Analysis,” in Essays On Sociol- Contemporary Social Formation,” Crofts and ogy and Social Psychology, by Karl Mann- Rose portray Vertov as a social critic. I beheim, edited by Paul Kecskemeti (London: lieve that they are right to a certain extent and Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1953), pp. 165- that to that extent they have added a new and 182, for a brief outline of this notion as well valuable insight to the discussion of Man with as for valuable bibliographic references to its a Movie Camera. Vertov does make a point of

development in the 19th century. acknowledging certain social problems of the In terms of Man with a Movie Camera, it is Soviet Union, including unemployment and interesting to note a correspondence between alcoholism. But, at the same time, his overall

Vertov and Schelling. Schelling thought of vision seems to be optimistic; the Soviet both states and artworks on the model of Union is pictured as heroically and robustly organisms. In fact, he analogized the ideal hurrying into the future. Crofts’ and Rose’s organic unity of the state with that of an attempts to find a more pervasive tendency artwork, conceiving of the state as in art- toward social criticism in the film seem to me work. Vertov introduces the same notion into to rest on three mistakes: First, an inability to

Man with a Movie Camera. As the film distinguish good-humored teasing from corro-

charges into its finale, there is a shot of the sive satire (e.g., their discussion of the film editor glancing downward in such a way “weightwatchers”); second, a penchant for that you take it that she is looking down or distorting the meaning of a shot chain by delooking over all the material that subse- scribing only part of it, lifting certain images quently flashes on the screen. The Soviet out of their full context so that they can be Union is presented as an artwork — a film! twisted to say what the writers want (e.g., the The device Vertov deploys here is an impossi- account of The Day’s Work Section which ble point-of-view schema rather than a cine- they fail to note also goes on to equate various matic ampliation of an impossible causal activities of the service sector of the economy

event. A similar use of editing appears in with heavy industry); and third, a bizarre Lang’s Spione. The Secret Agent discards a correlation between bad/bourgeois/capital incigarette and this is retrieved by a disguised, tensive industry versus good/proletariat/labor enemy spy. This shot is followed by a close-up intensive industry. Personally, I see no eviof Haghi that implies that he is watching the dence for a systematic connection between earlier event. Ensuing shots reveal that this is capital intensive industry and the new bourimpossible. But through this cut, and others geois class in the film. Aren’t workers going like it, Spione establishes the maleovolent to use electricity too? Also, the very idea of a 184

Causation, the Ampliation of Movement and Avant-Garde Film negative view toward capital intensive indus- 23. Sergei Eisenstein, “A Dialectic Approach to try seems sentimentalist rather than Marxist. Film Form,” in Film Form, edited and trans-

Attributing such an association to Vertov not lated by Jay Leyda (New York: Harcourt, only ignores his ebullient representation of Brace & World, 1949), pp. 45-63. such capital intensive items as hydroelectric 24. Yvor Winters, “The Experimental School in

plants but it makes Vertov sound more like American Poetry,” in Defence of Reason William Morris than the materialist Crofts (New York: The Swallow Press & William

and Rose claim him to be. Their murky Morrow and Co., 1944), p. 41. Winters’ understanding of the capital intensive/labor reasons for finding imitative form a fallacy intensive distinction reflects the fuzzy, con- include the idea that it is redundant and that fused and imprecise use of technical terms so it can lead to absurdity — the adoption, for

common on the pages of Screen. example, of a ridiculous style to ridicule a

19. Annette Michelson, “From Magician to Epis- ridiculous subject. The second objection, of temologist,” in The Essential Cinema, ed. P. course, does not show that the practice is Adams Sitney (New York: New York Univer- always in error, but that it can lead to error. sity Press, 1975), pp. 94-111. As in so many The charge of redundancy is also misguided, other things, throughout this essay I am espe- not because it misdescribes imitative form but cially indebted to my teacher, Prof. Annette because it misses one of the enduring points Michelson. She introduced me to Vertov, of poetry — to saturate itself with meaning in taught me how to think about him and showed such a way that the reader re-reads it with an me the importance of causation in his editing. ever increasing awareness of coherence.

20. After the revolution, the Soviets hoped to A more radical objection to imitative form rapidly industrialize their country. To get is offered by Dr. Johnson, in what we could capital to finance the international procure- think of as his Nelson Goodman mood. ment of heavy machinery, they intended to Alexander Pope claimed that in poetry “The increase agricultural production so that they sound must seem an echo to the sense” (“An would have something to export. Eisenstein essay on criticism”). Johnson held “sound can illustrates this plan in The General Line; not resemble not but sound” (Rambler, no. 94, 2/ only is Tommy’s “productivity” connected to 9/1751). But Johnson overlooks the fact that clearing the land, perhaps for a hydroelectric there are conventions for associating formal plant; also there is a theme of multiplication — attributes and meanings. Portraits don’t recontrasting to the divisions of the opening — of semble people except under a set of convencattle and tractors; they proliferate in tandem, tions that tell us where to look for analogies as it were. Of course, the hero of The General and where not to look. One convention of Line — the tractor — was a key element in the poetry tells us to look for form/content attempt to expand agricultural production; it correspondences where a line ends. Taking was used to entice peasant participation. In our cue from Johnson’s remarks on Berkeley, many ways, The General Line is like a wish we refute him thus fulfillment dream of Soviet planners — maybe it’s no accident that Marthe “sleeps” her way

to the state dairy. For information about A few leaded panes, old beams Soviet agricultural policy in this period see Fur, pleated muslin, a coral ring rung Erich Strauss, Soviet Agriculture in Perspec- together

tive (New York: Praeger, 1969). In a movement supporting the face, which 21. This is not to say that the strong ampliation of swims impossible events cannot also suggest (vir- Toward and away like the hand tual) final causation. In the Physics, 198a 24, Except that it is in repose. It is what it is Aristotle notes that often the formal, efficient Sequestered.

and final causes correlate to each other. John Ashbery plane rides — and images of sport are also Mirror

22. Images of travel — particularly train and Self-Portrait in a Convex

staples of polyvalent montage. (italics added) 185

Avant-Garde and Documentary Film

I am spending so much space on the issue of lated by Jay Leyda (New York: Harcourt, imitative or expressive form because if indeed Brace & World, 1942), pp. 173-216. there is something wrong with the idea then 26. Sonbert seems particularly interested in “immuch avant-garde filmmaking and even more possible images” in Rude Awakening. For

criticism is based on an error. The various example, he superimposes the sun and the uses of disjunction, from Surrealism to moon as well as fire on water. Lacanian Marxism, all presuppose the expres- 27. In “Western History and The Riddle of Lu-

sive significance of form. It is true that often men,” Artforum, 1/73, p. 68, Fred Camper the “contents” that the form refers to in seems to be arguing that the sky/city sections avant-garde film are issues or polemical of Western History assert the purity of the themes that dominate the avant-garde individual image over any kinds of abstracting filmworld rather than themes that can be read techniques or substitutions. If the section I off the work itself. This is to say that have discussed is the same one he is referring expressive form in avant-garde film is often to, and if his discussion of the completeness extended, in the sense that its thematic and independence of the “image” refers to reference is to something outside the work it shots, I think he is wrong. Especially in the appears in. Nevertheless, expressive form is a second sky/city approach, I believe that it is basic presupposition of avant-garde film prac- hard not to see the sequence as an example tice. Individual filmmakers may reject it; but of ampliation. I have also, unscientifically, is hard to conceive of the history of the avant- asked innocent bystanders what they thought garde as a whole without it. So, if expressive of the sequence, and they have concurred

form is in some way fallacious, then so is all with me. I think that in regard to this

the art that rests on it. sequence Camper may be confusing what he

25. Sergei Eisenstein, “Form and Content: Prac- knows about the shot chain with what is tice,” in The Film Sense, edited and trans- phenomenally perceptible on the screen.

186

ple, a character may complain of “falling

CHAPTER XIII ™ apart” and then do so half a second later.

, ; Nor are primed verbal images found exclu-

=.;

Language and Cinema: ™ sively in non-photographic media. In Scor-

Preliminary Notes pio Rising the song “Wind Up Toy” alerts us

| for a Theory of ™ toward seeing a biker turning a gear box as a Verbal Images | child with a toy. Furthermore, primed verbal

images can be used dramatically as well as comically. In Electric Horseman, the camera pops back for a scenic long shot while the wandering, bedraggled lovers sing “America The Beautiful.” Needless to say, the vista

I. Introduction behind them is not merely “spacious” but “purple.” The words of the hymn become

Cinema is not a language. Nevertheless, images and this at least is meant to be language plays an intimate role in several of _ patriotically inspiring.

the symbolic structures used in cinema. The In the case of primed verbal images, the purpose of this paper is to explore one such accompanying words lead us to focus on language/image relation. It has been given _ specific features of the pictures. Metaphorivarious titles in the literature, including — cally we could say that we see the pictures metaphor, literalization, literalism, dramati- through the words. With verbal images zation and concrete imagery.! Since itis not proper, however, we find the words through always clear that these names refer toexactly — the pictures. There is no accompanying text;

the same phenomenon, I will coin a new _ rather, we supply it. For example, in The phrase for it — viz., the verbal image — in the Thin Man, the police begin a nation-wide hope that by defining it anew we will get a search. There is a cut to a map of the U.S., better sense of what it is. Ido not claim to and a net shoots out of New York covering have discovered verbal images, so that what —_— the country. The image forcefully suggests

follows is hardly the first word on the matter. the word “dragnet” to the spectator.? In Nor isit likely tobe thelast. AtmostIhopeto Bigger Than Life, the central character is

say some helpful things mid-debate. suffering immense psychological pressure What are verbal images? Indeed, do they due to the wonder drugs that he gorges even exist? One way to tackle these ques- __ recklessly. As he stands in the bathroom, his tions is to consider a near relative of the — wife slams his medicine chest shut with such verbal image — the primed verbal image — _— power that the mirror smashes. The camera

whose existence is beyond doubt. notes this in an emphatic close-up of his Larry Rivers’ lithograph An Outline of — fractured simulacrum. This elicits the word

History is a primed verbal image. It is an “shattered” from the spectator which, of outline copy of John Trumbull’s well known — course, has figurative applicability to the painting Signing of the Declaration of Inde- _ character’s emotional state as well as to the

pendence that also alludes to the title of — literal condition of the mirror. Likewise H.G. Wells’ once popular book on world Apocalypse Now begins with a shot of the history. The word “outline” in the caption major character apparently “upside down” directs our attention immediately to the | asacomment on the Vietnam war. style of the picture which, in turn, gives the An example of a verbal image from an title a second meaning for us that the picture avant-garde film can be found in J. Hoberas a whole literalizes. This effect is often man’s Cargo of Lure. The film is a record of exploited in movies — in cartoons, forexam- a day’s outing on a Circle Line boat that 187

Avant-Garde and Documentary Film

tours the coast of the South Bronx. (not many of the proverbs need much translatHoberman shoots the journey in one 400 ft. —_ ing). He is a parody of courage; he is belling the

take, aiming the camera so that the shore- cat, fumbling with a bell that is incongruously line occupies the top half of the frame while ‘large. It is almost the only point at which the lower half comprises the river with Brueghel distorts the literal reconstruction just as likenesses of the waterfront shimmering on Magritte might distort it and in the same interest,

the dream-like potential of the same kind of bell. the surface. The shot summons bel og. , y belong to up the the sameword cultureThev and nothing dies

“reflection” not only as a description of ,, a4

what we see but as a theoretically charged As the associations proliferate the wall bequotation of a particular view of the nature —_ comes one side of a stone-colored dwelling for a

of cinema as a reflection of reality.* whole vocabulary of follies. The pugnacious Whereas primed verbal images give us _ cocks on the next ledge are eluding a miserable words that shape our understanding of visionary who counts his chickens before they are images, verbal images proper produce the hatched. Further on there is a cell for the duplicity recognition of the words behind the images. that speaks with two mouths; the face Is hideously

Or, to speak more directly, verbal images cleft. Then the fantasy breaks loose in a fatuous

; f images) dream. inside of an the house becomes bright proper are images (or succession ° BThe and out staggers idiot with his burden steaming

evoke or strings of words like soup: he is of bringine baskinto aye | that 7 p; hewords is bringing basketfuls light (phrases, sentences, clichés or proverbs). By day, like coals to Newcastle. The shining doorway “evoke,” I mean that the images suggest or _ig magical, like Magritte’s reversals of day and allude to specific words, that they prompt or _ night and an Italianate tabernacle is built on to

introduce the words for consideration. Ido the house to shelter the perverse associations. not mean that the images cause the words to —_— Under the pink canopy one man lights candles to

reverberate in our heads. (How this prompt- the devil; another has the devil for a confessor, ing is possible will be discussed in the fourth | andso on. As one follows the train of thought one

part of this essay.) realizes what is being represented so graphically.

Men are saddled with these formulations precisely because they are the captives of propensi-

II. The Extent of Verbal Images ties too vicious, mad or boring to be spelt out en clair. When we meet the peasant in the white shirt

Before examining cinematic verbal images _again on the right of the picture we discover the in detail, it is important to emphasize that _ practical consequence. He cannot reach from one the phenomenon is not specific to film. It loaf to another — he does not know where his next

occurs in every medium that has visual meal is coming from.?

elements. In fine art Brueghel is a rich For a possible modern instance of a source for this mode of expression. Approxi-—verpal image in fine art consider Gert mately one hundred proverbs have been — gcniff’s interpretation of Picasso’s Portrait of identified in his The Netherlandish Proverbs. Dora Maar. He writes, One can start on the proverbs anywhere; on _— Instead of merely distorting, he [Picasso] disthe left the eye is caught by the white shirt ofa — placed ever more radically the most sensitive man who runs his head against the wall. The organs — eyes, ears, noses, breasts — achieving literalness of the visual translation makes suicidal effects that can be as frightening as certain obstinacy real. The man will die in harness andhe _ manifestations of insanity. That the analogy is not

is accordingly buckled into armor. The associa- quite unwarranted can be proved by linguistic tions gather momentum; his head in its stone- _ reference: the German word for “mad,” verruckt, colored cap is halfway to wall-color and following _ has the literal meaning “displaced.” the impetus we come to the personification of

futile bellicosity armed to the teeth. Quite liter- | Of course, Schiff’s exegesis here depends on ally, for he bites on iron, on a bullet as we say _ the plausibility of presuming that Picasso 188

Language and Cinema

had knowledge of the meaning of “verruckt” In Sam Fuller’s Pick Up On South Street, there as “displaced.” But even if Schiff’s particu- is a rather extraordinary and at first pointless lar explanation is ill-founded, his willingness | camera movement in the scene when Candy to entertain this kind of interpretation indi- (Jean Peters) and Skip (Richard Widmark) first cates the assumption of the continued exis- kiss after he has knocked her down. The shot

tence of a convention of verbal image starts off in a close-up, then the camera backs

io awayin a little and travels aart. fewgs yardsae to the left making modern fine while still focussing on ; the kissing couple who Both theater and dance have important haven’t moved. In the course of the camera

visual elements including movement, sets movement a new element has entered the image: and costume that can be readily mobilized _two chains hooked together right in front of the

for the sake of verbal images. In Antony camera, vertically dividing the frame. After Tudor’s Jardin aux Lilas the young lovers __ holding this shot for a few seconds, the camera literally though demurely “incline” toward simply moves back to its starting point, the close-

each other while on pointe? and in the- up of the couple (still kissing). Although up to ater the blazing lighting — raised to full that point in the film there is little in the film to strength — evoked the theme of “blindness” Sussest that Skip and Candy are falling in love, during Peter Brook’s Lear.® In both these the hook which momentarily occupies th © Wry

the frame suggests they are “getting , .,. ;center y, ofwe must bear in min

cases, the words elicited by the visuals hooked.” Simultaneous! + bear in mind operate as annotations concerning the ongo- that Skip is “on the hook” (the police blackmail-

ing action.” ing him) as is Candy (she must retrieve the vital Turning from art in general to film, we _ piece of microfilm)." note that verbal images can be propounded

by every channel of articulation available to Verbal images may result not only as a the medium including blocking, lighting, set | function of what is in them but of how they design, camera placement, movement and are composed. Words of scale (large, small), angulation as well as editing, special effects | of movement (especially in terms of anaba-

and overall narrative organization.'° sis and katabasis) and of position (up, down) The first means for projecting verbal are linked with virtually endless resources of images involves the choice of actions and metaphoric associations that are repeatedly objects to be filmed. The kinds of actions mined through camera angulation and place-

and objects required for verbal images are ment. In The Last Laugh, high and low ones which can be literally described by a angle shots render the doorman literally word or string of words, which in turn also large and figuratively “magnificent” and, have an extended, often metaphoric, mean- _ then, literally small with the connotation of

ing. For example, in The Last Laugh, the “degradation”; in The General Line, the doorman, wearing his stolen uniform, pa- scale relationship between the rich kulak rades through his neighborhood unaware and Martha corresponds to the theme of that his fellow tenants know he has lost his domination; in Sunrise, the tininess of the exalted position. The camera faces him housewife in the boat, cowering under the frontally and in the background of this deep = camera correlates to the sense of “small” as

focus medium long shot we see people “helpless.” Moreover, these devices are not poking their heads out of their windows and _just curiosities of the “expressionist” tenden-

jeering riotously. Quite literally they are — cies of the silent film period. In a realist, “laughing behind his back,” while at the sound film, such as The Heiress, we find same time this phrase is a cliché connoting | Wyler depicting Austen’s savage evaluation

slander and humiliation. of Catherine by means of a slightly low angle Objects can function similarly. Paul shot of the father berating his daughter who

Willemen writes, in a high angle shot looks small in a way that 189

Avant-Garde and Documentary Film

literalizes her humiliation. Scale metaphors Fury, Lang’s juxtaposition of gossips with a can be mobilized through techniques other _ barnyard full of hens (“They are like hens”). than camera angle. The czar’s scale relative | These editing examples are all predicated on to that of the Russian people in the medium evoking similes — in fact, the above cases all long shot at the end of Ivan the Terrible, Part —_ picture more or less dead or clichéd metaI, makes him a “giant” -— an appropriate — phors. But editing also affords a means of

metaphor for a great historical ruler—as proliferating fresh similes. The cut in effectively as the low angle shots valorize §Brakhage’s celebratory birth film, Window Charles Foster Kane in terms of the same Water Baby Moving, from Jane’s vagina to a rhetoric. Also, the enormous close-ups of — shot of a window from the inside of his home the leading characters’ heads carry forward not only provokes the simile “her vagina is the theme of the “giant” in both Ivan and like a window” but also has original meta-

Citizen Kane. phoric impact, inviting us to grasp the Screen position can, as well, be used to _ selective affinities between the two terms of

produce verbal images; Shiva’s “higher” the cut which are both apertures and, consciousness in Inauguration of the Plea- significantly, passageways that lead out into sure Dome is signaled by placing him in the _ the hard, cruel world.

upper left quadrant of the frame. Of course, Cine-similes involve adding a shot (or there are a multitude of compositional succession of shots) of an object, action or variations — other than those relying on event that metaphorically comments on scale and position — that yield verbal im- preceding shots. But this is not the only way ages. In the opening of Red Desert, inashot that editing projects verbal images. The over the hard focussed shoulder of the qualities of a given cut may elicit a descripheroine, we see the blurred landscape, _ tion that has metaphoric applicability to the

presumably as she sees it. The lack of surrounding subject matter. In October, “focus” undoubtedly refers to her psycho- —_ Eisenstein cuts from the lowering of a

logical state. cannon from a factory rack to a soldier,

Film editing has long been acknowledged hundreds of miles away. The movement as a major mechanism for generating verbal qualities of the two shots suggest the artilimages. In Zinnemann’s The Search, a _ _ lery piece is physically “crushing” the soldier voice-over narrator asks the refugee boy, — while the figurative import is that the arms Carol, “Why don’t you speak?” This sets up —_— industry crushes the life out of the common

for a flashback which begins with a shot of | man.” “flowing” water which, of course, functions Though I began this section by observing as a metaphor for the “flow” or “stream” of — that verbal images are found in every visual

memory. Later, when Carol has been be- medium, it should be clear that film does friended by an American soldier, he is possess certain unique means for projecting confused and in his consternation he upsets ___ verbal images since film (and TV) employs

a goldfish bowl. There is a cut to aclose-up some devices that are not shared with other of the fish “floundering” out of water. The media. In Sunrise, the camera “tracks” the “floundering” is a comment on Carol’s | steaming footprints of the nefarious lovers bewilderment. These examples are of a out of the swamp. It is not only literally a piece with some of the most famous (some __ tracking shot but it suggests that the camera

say most notorious) cuts in film history: is “tracking” the plotters like a detective. from October, Eisenstein’s jump from Ke- The variables of speed, direction and shape rensky to the mechanical peacock (“Keren- in camera movement can each be exploited sky’s as proud as a peacock”); and from _ to produce verbal images; Ophuls’ circular 190

Language and Cinema

movements in Lola Montes, for example, are narrative elements. In this film the veteran “encirclements” in the sense ofentrapments. of Wavelength behaves like Sherlock Jr. A

Cinema-specific special effects also may camera with a telephoto lens approaches a yield verbal images. The obsessive opticalsin tabletop piled with breakfast fixings, imitatDeLanda’s vitriolic parody, Itch, Scratch, ing the zoom in Wavelength through camera Itch, actually “wipe out” his reprehensible | movement. The technical description of the characters, but, as well, express his deisire to optical effect such a lens has on the appear-

destroy them and what they stand for. ance of what it records is that it “flattens” or Since most of the preceding cases of “contracts” space. Snow takes this jargon at cinematic verbal images are localizable —-to __its word and the objects in the frame — eggs,

particular objects, actions, angles, cuts, an orange juice container, etc. — are crushed

etc. —I will conclude this section on the and drop laterally out of the path of the range of verbal images with cases where the — camera as if the space were really shrinking. words and phrases motivate somewhat large scale choices in the organization of a film.

The entire ending of Safety Last involves UI. Verbal Images and Inner Speech Harold — an aspiring young businessman- — Verbal images have been discussed in film climbing up the side of the Bolton Building — —_jiterature at least since the 20s. Eisenstein’s a feat that will win him both $1000 and a wile. writings offer famous examples of the device. At the barest level of narrative description, Apparently, in his classes he urged students We say that he is struggling to the top : But to find verbal solutions of this sort for visual having said this we also have uttered a clichéd problems.!4 Eisenstein, however, does not metaphor for success 1M business ~ One that offer us a theory of verbal images, 1.e., an we find immortalized, for instance, in books explanation of how they work or of why they by Horatio Alger like Struggling Upward or exist in film. In all probability, he believed Luke Lar kin's L uck -A white-collar hero for that verbal images have something to do with the BOWING SeTVICE sector of America in the the putative psychological process called 20s, Lloyd incarnates “rising prospects in @ —_ inner speech. Eisenstein refers to this con-

narrative designed to make him “climb to cept in his 1935 essay “Film Form: New SUCCESS, His tra) ectory is also the most Problems,”!> but he does not explicitly tie the

thrilling anabasis in suent comedy. In Boys votion of verbal images to that of inner Ranch, one continuing subplot involves the speech. Nevertheless, a contemporary of character Butch literally “winning his spurs. Eisenstein’s, Boris Eikenbaum does. EikenIn James Fargo’s The Enforcer, there is also baum writes, an overarching verbal image. The criminals sport a variety of army surplus weapons One more general question remains, concern(including a bazooka!) leaving no doubt that —_— ing cases when the director must give commen-

throughout the film the forces of evil are tary to the film in whole or in part, when quite literally “at war” with society. Similarly “Something from the author” must appear in a one feels that the beginning of L’Age d’Or is film over and above the plot itself. The easiest endorsed by a presiding verbal image, a method is to give commentary in intertitles, but playfully vicious this eo ncteon be ema ISI already attempts ; . ' o subversion functionof “upon by different means. havemaking in mind the rock I will build my church.” (Matthew appearance in cinema of metaphor, which some-

16:18). times even bears the characteristics of symbol. Snow’s Breakfast represents a case of an _— From the semantic point of view the introduction

animating verbal image that organizes an of metaphor into film is of particular interest entire film but that does not derive from __ because it confirms again the real significance of 191

Avant-Garde and Documentary Film

internal speech, not as an accidental psychologi- they have explained verbal images. But I cal element of film perception, but as an integral Suspect that inner speech is nothing but a structural element of film. Film metaphor is convenient theoretical carpet under which viewer can understand it only when he possesses vaguely formulated though indisputable

a corresponding metaphoric expression in his data. Or. to mix metaphors. I think that own verbal baggage. Of course, it is possible that athis P‘ ; ae . inner speech is an escape hatch in as cinema develops further it will create its own b h f semantic patterns which can serve as the basis for context, A DOSUS AlSWer to the question 0 the construction of independent film metaphors, the function of and reasons for verbal

but this will not change anything in principle. Images.

A film metaphor is a kind of visual realization In outlining my reservations about the of a verbal metaphor. It is natural that only inner speech approach, I will avoid a central current verbal metaphors can serve as material _issue, viz., is the concept of inner speech for film metaphors: the viewer quickly grasps _yjable as a scientific construct? Though I am them precisely because they are already well qubious about inner speech on this score, I known to him and because they are easily intend to dodge the responsibility of defendrecognized as metaphors. For example, the word ing my skepticism since I am a film theorist

“fall” is used in .language as a metaphor for the ; ;attack and not a psychologist. Rather, I will

road to death; because of this usage, the meta- he | h h bv vivj h

phor in Devil’s Wheel was possible. In this film t © inner spec approac y giving the the sailor Shorin chances into a tavern and joinsa _—_-‘devil its due (i.e., by agreeing to assume the

billiard game. His ball falls into the pocket. The ©XIStence of inner speech) and then by absolutely episodic quality of this scene gives the | demonstrating that even if there is someviewer to understand that it is significant not for thing called inner speech, it has not elucistory-line development, but as commentary: the dated anything about verbal images in film.

hero’s fall begins." There are four objections to the inner | What I have called verbal images, speech account of verbal images. Eikenbaum here christens “metaphors,” ar1. Inner speech, as analysed by Vygotsky,’ guing that the keypefor understanding this . ,;

. .; ;lies is portrayed as a general intermediary proprocess in the operation of inner speech ; : : ; cess between thought and action. Nonin the spectator. Eikenbaum’s speculations ot , segs .; -4.17 figurative, instrumental and utilitarian thinkhave been embraced by current theorists. OO, . ;

cas Lupe them es ing is“literalisms” mediated by inner speech. However, Paul Willemen calls in his er ; is; a ,the thesubject. thinkingHe prompted by verbal images article on offers many exam. ;mobiae , | bal j I did in th ; highly specific form of cognition that ples of ver al images, as I did in t © Premous izes metaphors. How does a generic process part this inner paper. speech He connects literalisms os about , aL:of. like explain anything

with inner speech, urging 1. :

such a specialized psychological function? It would appear, theretore, that the phenome- Clearly inner speech would have to be

nal surface of the film text, with its multiplicity of broken down into different modes — e.g., overlapping, intersecting, redoubling, continuous the inner speech of mechanical manipula-

codes ... is enmeshed within the network of tion, of quantitative analysis, of metaphor internal speech which presides over its produc- etc. — before it would be a refined enough tion while internal speech is in its turn a product concept to explain how verbal images en-

of we are to call thoughtdifferentiating work... . . . or sswhat _ gage thetempted spectator. Without

Filmic speech .is. .18 quite probably a code fj h. claim that specificinternal to the cinema. types ol inner speech, thethe claim that inner

speech is related to our responses to verbal

Both Eikenbaum and Willemen write as images is tantamount to saying that since if by invoking the process of inner speech _inner speech operates generally in tandem 192

Language and Cinema

with thinking, it must be operative in rela- | The child’s accidentally provoked egocentric tion to verbal images. But this is a perfectly utterance so manifestly affected his activity that it uninformative position posturing as anexpla- _is impossible to mistake it for a mere by product, nation. Just as asserting that every event has | 42 accompaniment not interfering with the mela cause tells us nothing about how or why a ody. Our experiments showed highly complex

given event occurred, pointing to inner changes in the interrelation of activity and inner speech, a supposedly generic component of speech. cognition, in this context, does not illumi- —_ Vygotsky explains the function of both inner nate the unique pattern of thinking involved speech and egocentric speech as means of

with verbal images. preparing for activity. But could this be the 2. resembles our first objection. Eiken- function of verbal images? Perhaps if a baum believes that the film spectator is distinction were drawn between figurative constantly involved in mental labor—he and non-figurative processes of inner speech, Says we are incessantly connecting “frames” _ the notion of inner speech as action-orienting

(though he probably means “shots”) — and could be used to explain how filmmakers Eikenbaum relates this work to a continuous come to make verbal images. But it would

burble of inner speech.” This entails that not account for why audiences respond to inner speech characterizes our constant re- verbal images with inner speech just because sponse to a film. But verbal images need not movie audiences are not typically preparing

occur continuously throughout a film. In to embark upon any other activity while general, they transpire in isolated, dis- watching a film. And yet, it is the spectator’s continuous moments — they are extraordi- response that Eikenbaum and Willemen nary events that appear intermittently be- intend to unravel by reference to inner fore the film reverts to non-metaphoric speech. exposition. How can the process that is used 4. None of Vygotsky’s examples exactly to account for our ordinary response to the match the phenomena we are calling verbal task of assimilating a film also explicate with images. Verbal images seem to evoke a any specificity our reaction to these extraor- double play of meaning whereas Vygotsky’s dinary moments? Again, without a typology cases are of words that are freighted with of inner speech, the concept sounds like a what he calls “sense” as a result of being catchall phrase indiscriminately applied to highly contextualized. These two phenomeverything. But if this is true, inner speech is ena are different though not always mututoo broad a framework to enlighten us about —_ally exclusive. Moreover, the words evoked

the unique workings of verbal images. through verbal images need not behave 3. The closest example of somethingeven _ according to syntactic laws of inner speech loosely like verbal. images that Vygotsky as sketched by Vygotsky. He writes, offers is a specimen of egocentric speech. He writes, Predication is the natural form of inner , speech; psychologically it consists of predicates

A child of five and a half was drawing a only. It is as much a law of inner speech to omit streetcar when the point of his pencil broke. He subjects as it is a law of written speech to contain tried, nevertheless, to finish the circle of a wheel, both subjects and predicates.”

pressing down on the pencil very hard, but However, the strings of words suggested by nothing showed on the paper except a deep colorless line. The child muttered to himself, verbal images may indeed take the form of “It’s broken,” put aside the pencil, took watercol- _—‘Tullly grammatical subject/predicate senors instead, and began drawing a broken streetcar tEMCES, €.g., recall “Kerensky’s as proud as a

after an accident, continuing to talk to himself | peacock” or “They’re laughing behind his from time to time about the change inhis picture. | back.” Or, for an example that doesn’t 193

Avant-Garde and Documentary Film

involve a copulative verb consider the fa- challenging, inviting, ordering, asking, etc. mous “the very stones roar” case from Central to Austin’s analysis of these utterPotemkin. Consequently, either the “laws” —ances is the concept of an illocutionary act. of inner speech will have to be modified or — An illocutionary act is what is performed in

another explanation of the response to — speaking or writing a meaningful utterance.

verbal images must be sought. The contingent effect produced in performNone of the foregoing objections incon- _—ing alocutionary act e.g., upsetting your boss trovertibly establish that verbal images can- _ by telling him “Be quiet” (an illocutionary not be explained in terms of inner speech. act of ordering) is a perlocutionary act. The Rather, they only show that unless the illocutionary act is what the utterance does in theory of inner speech is revised and re- virtue of a background of rules, conventions fined, it is of no use for the discussion of |= and conditions. I perform the illocutionary verbal images. What we would need would act of promising when I perform the locube a distinction between different processes _ tionary act of uttering “I promise to give of inner speech which in turn could be used Mary my print of The Maniac.”*5 At the same either to reductively explain or to match _ time I may also perform the perlocutionary

with responses to verbal images. If we act of infuriating Myron who always asked cannot reduce our responses to verbal im- for that print. The task of illocutionary act ages to specific processes of inner speech or __ theory is to isolate the various illocutionary

if we cannot analogize said responses to acts performed in language, to specify the specific operations of inner speech, the _ rules, conventions and conditions that make invocation of the concept is hollow. Maybe — them possible and to group these acts into some researcher will be able to overcome __ types of illocutionary acts.

these shortcomings in the inner speech I believe that we can use the machinery of model. In all likelihood, that researcher illocutionary act theory to describe the should be a psychologist. Nevertheless, asa | workings of verbal images. Some deviations film theorist rather than a psychologist, I from illocutionary act theory will, of course, believe that we can explain the how and why _ be necessary, but the general outline for

of verbal images without holding our studying performative utterances will rebreaths, awaiting breakthroughs inthe study main intact.

of inner speech. Images are not utterances in the normal

| sense of the word so each of the acts IV. An Alternate Approach: Verbal discussed in what follows should be under-

Images as Illocutionary Acts stood as having para” asa prefix. Through-

out this analysis, I will assume that the acts

A. Performative Utterances?3 of inserting verbal images into films are pictorial (para-) locutionary acts with the

The late J. L. Austin introduced the idea of —_ (para-) illocutionary force to evoke words or “performative utterances” into the study of — strings of words by means of images that philosophy of language. The acknowledg- —_ remark upon a subject of the ongoing film. I ment of “performative utterances” could be —_am attracted to illocutionary act theory as a seen as acorrective to the theory of meaning —_ way of investigating verbal images for two

espoused by logical positivists who claimed reasons. First, filmmakers seem to use that the only meaningful statements were — verbal images to make discrete, isolatable those that were verifiable.“* Austin pointed | remarks or statements. The sense in which

out that there was more to meaning than they can be said to make such “remarks” reporting truths. Meaningful utterances were strikes me as only slightly metaphorical. also made to do things like promising, Thus, it is appropriate to employ an analytic 194

Language and Cinema

framework designed to study statements. tures. I have called these pictures verbal Second, by adopting illocutionary act theory images and I am assuming that the practice

the direction our analysis must take is of making them and of recognizing them isa clearly demarcated. For any kind of il- — well-entrenched, institutionalized process of locutionary act to be generated, certain symbolization in art. Artists, spectators and conditions must be met. “I now pronounce critics have not learned about verbal images you man and wife” only performs the act of | through rule books; instead they have obmarrying if there is an institution of mar- — served others making, recognizing and interriage, if the participants of the act are of the —_ preting verbal images, and, proceeding from right sexes, appropriate ages, of the right | examples, they have gone on to make and/or legal standing, etc. To account for how a _ to recognize verbal images on their own. Yet

given illocutionary act does what it does, even though there is no rule book in one must specify the conditions that make existence governing verbal images, there do the act possible. I have claimed that verbal seem to be some basic rules or conditions images perform the act of evoking words. _ that images must meet if they are to count as My task is to enumerate the conditions a full blooded verbal images. No image is a,

verbal image must meet in order to success- verbal image as the result of an act of

fully bring off such feats. nature. An image is a verbal image in virtue I am not the first writer to attempt to of the institutionalized modes of making and apply illocutionary act theory to visual interpreting images. Meeting the conditions

representations. In general, I have been for verbal imagery is what makes verbal unpersuaded by earlier efforts. Sgren images possible. In this sense, the conditions Kj@rup’s “George Inness and the Battle at —_in question are constitutory, 1.e., they create Hastings, or Doing Things with Pictures,”*” —_ the possibility of verbal images.

for example, strikes me as an uninstructive An image is a verbal image if it meets all exercise in redescription that uses the frame- —_ of the following conditions.

work of illocutionary theory (plus Nelson _. , , ,

Goodman’s notion of exemplification) to y the image, or Image Part, Or succession of

, . ; images under consideration is literally describ-

tr anstorm virtually ever ything we are will- able by a certain word or string of words.

ing to say about pictures into statements

pictures make. Kj¢@rup does this by postulat- For example, Strangers on a Train opens ing a welter of conventions, many of which — with shots of the major characters’ feet. I find downright ad hoc. Unlike Kjgrup, I _—Bruno’s shoes are literally of a type called do not intend to apply illocutionary act “Spectators.” In retrospect, as his psychosis theory to all or even most of the questions and his homoerotic infatuation with Guy, of pictorial representation. Iam only shoot- _ the tennis player, become clearer, we realize ing for an account of verbal images; I do _ that this introductory image was a verbal not pretend to know the degree to which image commenting on Bruno’s character.

illocutionary act theory can dispel other But for this verbal image to come off it is problems about visual representation. requisite that the shoes — what I would refer

to as an image part-— must in fact be

B. Constitutory Conditions describable as “Spectators” and not, for

instance, as sneakers. It is certainly true that

The large number of examples from art in images can be described in many different general and from film in particular have — ways and by many different words. And it is been cited in order to convince the reader — equally true that getting the verbal image that there is a rather widespread convention hinges on finding the right word or kind of in our culture of getting words from pic- | word to describe the image.”8 Yet with all 195

Avant-Garde and Documentary Film

this latitude the verbal image is still condi- — the extended meaning of a description-word tion bound. If the image can’t be appropri- _ applies in virtue of our already understand-

ately described by the word in question, itis ing both the film’s subject and the film’s

not a verbal image. attitude toward the subject. Verbal images

; are, in the main, parasitic means of cine-

li) the word or string of words evoked as a matic communication.

description of the image must have some extended meanings beyond its literal meaning and _jiji) both the literal and extended meanings of the at least one of those extended meanings applies _— words or strings of words putatively evoked by

as a comment on the subject of the image. the image must exist in the language (or languages) of the filmmaker (or filmmakers).

In The Women there are close shots of two small female dogs that get into a scrap. The motivation for stipulating this condiIn a broader shot their owners, women, also __ tion is straightforward. Since I am holding begin to quarrel. This sexist verbal image is _ that films say things via verbal images, we predicated first on the fact that the dogs are —‘ must be certain that the assertion we attriliterally describable as “bitches” and second __ bute to a film is something that it could have

on the fact that “bitch” is also a slang _ said. In the previous example from painting, metaphor for an unpleasant woman. Verbal —_I worry about Schiff’s analysis of Picasso

images depend on the tendency of words or just because it is questionable whether strings of words to accrue extended mean- _— Picasso had “verruckt’ in his verbal reper-

ings above what they denote. These ex- tory. It is important to add that the basis for tended meanings include metaphoric uses, _ this condition is not a commitment to the associations attached to the words through position that an image can mean only what use in certain commonplaces and clichés as ___ its maker intended it to mean. The point is well as technical significances due to their — that we can only attribute to a film what it is

employment in special communities of dis- possible for it to signal. Support for this course. An example of such a “special condition can be marshaled by imagining an significance” is the word “reflection” ad- analogous problem from language. Suppose duced earlier in the case of Cargo of Lure. It _ there is a phrase in Martian that means “Be

is a word associated with many debates in’ my guest” but when pronounced properly film theory and it marks one polemical sounds exactly like “Yankee go home” in approach of film. Hoberman signals alle- | English. When the American exploratory giance to this Bazinian line of thought by — team reaches Mars they will undoubtedly be arranging the shot so that “reflection” as a — confused — the Martians appear very accomliteral description of the image leads us to modating and helpful but are always saying

“reflection” in the technical sense as a “Yankee go home.” Sooner or later the

marker of his position. confusion will be resolved. However, at no Verbal images are based in the shift point, neither before nor after the clarificabetween the literal, descriptive use of a tion, will it make any sense to hold that the word and an extended meaning of a word.”” ~=Martians, using their language, ever bade That extended meaning, in turn, functions _ the earthlings homeward. It simply was not as a scholium on the image, story or entire — possible that the Martians could have been film that gives rise to it. In this regard it is saying this given the rules and vocabulary of important to stress that we do not usually _ their language. Likewise, Martians landing

grasp the meaning of an image or string of | in front of American embassies in the Third images in terms of the verbal commentary World will be wrong in presuming that the it evokes but in general (there are excep- —_ crowds they observe there are full of vocifertions) we are able to find what component of __ ously inviting persons. With images, we can 196

Language and Cinema

only take them as saying x when x is some- _— of comparative editing with verbal imagin-

thing they could be saying.*° ing. To handle this, we should add an If I read Paul Willemen correctly, he auxiliary clause to condition ii) that states would not agree with the necessity for that “in cases of cine-similes and metaphors condition iii). He appears to take it that the —‘ that are generated by conventions of cinemeaning of the image or string of images is _— matic articulation, only the word or string of determined by the spectator’s response to —_ words evoked in the description as the focus

the film-text. Though I do not believe that term must have some extended meaning the meaning of the film is identical with the — that applies as a comment on the subject.”

filmmakers’ intentions neither do I believe With the addition of this codicil, we have that meaning or meanings reside in viewers’ stated the necessary conditions for a verbal reactions. At the very least, that way lies image. In order to postulate the presence of contradiction — just imagine joining all the =a verbal image in a film we must be sure that viewer responses into one long conjunction. our candidate meets these conditions. To Furthermore, it seems to me that Willemen’s project such an image, the filmmaker must position on this issue is not ostensibly coher- _do likewise, though meeting condition iii)

ent. He points out that a filmmaker may probably just comes naturally, so to speak. proffer a literalism from a language different

than the viewer’s. Willemen then argues that ; eg gs ws

this bodes badly for the idea that film is a C. Warranting/Facilitating Conditions universal language. But one wonders why Though the preceding conditions set forth Willemen makes this point when he seemsto — what an image must be to be a verbal image,

think that it is the viewer’s production of the | they in no way guarantee that an image text rather than “the first production of the — bearing these traits will be recognized as text” that is relevant to the issue of literal- | such. The constitutory conditions say what isms.*! In other words, why not say film isa makes a verbal image possible but not what universal language if you believe that whatis makes its uptake probable. To discuss this important from the textual point of view is matter I think we must introduce a further that it universally elicits inner speech? species of conditions. These can be thought Though these three conditions covermost of as warranting conditions. That is, as of the examples of verbal images we have spectators we may be confronted by an

introduced, there is one large class of image that meets all the conditions for instances that these conditions miss, viz., verbal images. Nevertheless, we may feel cine-similes of the sort found in Fury (“The nervous about attributing it to the film; the gossips are like hens.”) In such cases the _ putative verbal image may seem too strained string of words results, in part, because we _ or outlandish. We will cast about for further

have a strategy for understanding editing justification before we feel comfortable in that tells us to insert the syncategorematic asserting the presence of the verbal image. terms “like” or “as” in our description of | In other words, we will search for reasons juxtaposed shots with probable comparative that make it more probable that the verbal import.*? But nothing in the imagery evokes image we think we’ve sighted is in the film,

the word “like.” Moreover, using Black’s | communicating to us in a significant way. terminology,** in these cases the frame of | These reasons warrant our claims and are the statement (“The gossips”) does not warranting reasons. Furthermore, the types undergo the type of metaphorical shift of reasons available to us do fall into a small encapsulated in condition ii), only the focus number of definable categories that we use (“hens”) does. Here the symbolic formation again and again in our hermeneutic enteris heterogenous, combining both the trope _ prises. These categories and their use in 197

Avant-Garde and Documentary Film

interpretation have been institutionalized |§ away from the spatio-temporal co-ordinates through practice. In this respect, they canbe of the ongoing story may suffice or a simple regarded as conditions which render inter- _ break in the causal flow of a narrative. Or the pretations more plausible — theyarewarrant- —_ event or object that evokes the verbal image ing conditions. In the case of verbal images, = may be put along a compelling compositional

we refer to some of these warranting condi- _—-vector like a diagonal. In Journeys from tions in order to reassure ourselves and — Berlin/1971, the background in the shots of others that we do indeed have hold of the — the psychoanalytic session are presented in genuine article. But this is only to speak of _ the film as fields for metaphoric invention; the spectator’s terminus in the circuit of — they are given salience by being isolated as communication. Working the other side of _— discrete planes of action juxtaposed to the

the street, we can see that warranting foreground. In one scene, an oriental carpet conditions are also relevant to the filmmaker is unfurled behind the analysis — the broad since in order to facilitate the uptake of a | movement in relative stasis catches our eye, verbal image by spectators, he/she will have __ giving it salience. Next people line up on the

to make an image in such a way that _ rug, though because of the way the shot is spectators will feel warranted in identifying | cropped we onlysee their legs. Their arrangeit as a verbal image. The warranting condi- ment is very formal and they leave the frame

tions, in short, are also facilitating condi- one by one as if they were on a queue tions, i.e., conditions the filmmaker meets awaiting some off-screen interview. Literally, to increase the probability of uptake by _ they are “on the carpet” and the appearance spectators. To the artist’s question, “How _ of a queue suggests they may be figuratively

does one enhance the likelihood that the on one too. And, of course, being “on the audience will catch on to a given verbal carpet” metaphorically reflects upon the image?” we answer “by taking the warrant- predicament of the analysand. ing conditions for recognizing said images as Verbal images are common parlance in facilitating conditions for projecting them.” film comedy. For example in Lizzies of the One reason for endorsing an image that __ Field, the hero’s rival has built an automomeets our constitutory conditions as an bile whose passenger seat can shoot out, like operative verbal image is that the elements an accordion, roughly twenty feet from the that give rise to the verbalimage have formal __ side of the car. He tools down the boulevard prominence or salience in a given pictorial and when he spies a fetching woman, the array in a way that calls for an explanation. If seat flies out, scoops her off her feet, and hypothesizing the verbalimageinsuchacase zooms her back to our lurid inventor. The gives us our best explanation of said promi- _—joke is that he has “picked her up.” The nence, then we are, prima facie, warrantedin verbal image functions punningly, jolting us

presuming its presence. For example, the into a laugh. The inventor’s mechanism is close-shot of the mirror in Bigger Than Life given utmost salience so that the pun will be gives the broken glass adominanting position — grasped in a flash of surprised recognition. in the imagery. We account for this by — Because the shift of meaning can have such

postulating the verbal image as our best strong comic effect it is a staple for directors explanation of Ray’s formal choice. Close- _ specializing in sight gags. Since rapid appreups are an obvious device for delivering — hension is necessary to the laugh, the comic

verbal images because they give objects filmmaker will project verbal images with a incontestable prominence. But there are degree of salience that in other genres may innumerable other devices for establishing | seem heavy-handed. I have heard audiences salience and most of them may be used for _ chortle at the “shattered” image in Bigger projecting verbal images. A disjunctive cut Than Life. Perhaps the unexpected shift

198

Language and Cinema

from the literal to the figurative is so abrupt A similar example shows how salience that it has the force of a joke. But despite — can be regarded as a facilitating condition. the fact that some dramatic verbal images We talk to a filmmaker who remarks that he

may suffer from too much prominence -_ really hammered home that the central from being delivered too quickly and too — character in his film—a policeman -—is a emphatically — verbal images do afford a pig. We thought the character was treated useful symbol formation for dramatic films | sympathetically so we press the filmmaker and dramatic contexts can be manipulated to say exactly where he tried to convey the so that: untoward hilarity is avoided. In “pig” idea. We are told to remember a scene Potemkin disjunctive editing is used to make — where the policeman arrests a mugger in the

the famous verbal image, “the very stones foreground while traffic rumbles past in the roar,” salient, but the effectis not humorous background. We remember. Now we are

perhaps because we have by that time informed that one of those flatbed trucks already become so accustomed to Eisen- was full of pigs and for a quarter of a second stein’s metaphoric approach throughout the — you could hear them oinking faintly. We’re

rest of the film. Salience, in other words, somewhat bemused. Did the filmmaker may give rise to acomic effect but thisseems expect us to pick up so fleeting an allusion, contingent on surrounding factors. In any _ especially since it does not correspond with case, salience is a warranting condition for anything else that has been indicated about

the attribution of a verbal image to a film. the character? Next time, we urge the We can say that an image that meets the filmmaker, at least make the pigs more constitutory conditions is, ceteris paribus, a prominent if he wants uptake on that admit-

warranted verbal image if tedly not-very-inspired verbal image.

a Salience is not the only warranting condi-

a) the elements that give rise to the putative tign for verbal images. In fact, in some films

verbal image are salient and hypothesizing the

verbal image gives us our best explanation of we find a tendency to thrust the elements the otherwise unmotivated prominence of the that give rise to the verbal image into the

elements. background allowing the spectator to only gradually discover and decipher it. This is To see the force of salience as a warrant- __ the kind of use of verbal images that we find

ing condition, consider a hypothetical case — constantly sponsored in Perkins’ Film as where after a screening of The Women we Film. Writing of Carmen Jones, Perkins leave the theater with a companion who is ___ notes that the frontal view of a jeep containcomplaining that too much time and too — ing Carmen and Joe gives way to a shot from much attention was lavished on those dogs _ the side.*4 The background of the latter is

in the beginning of the film. The film is full of rapid movement and “fluid patterns” about women, not dogs, our companion _ that refer to Carmen’s mode of being-in-theargues, and just because Cukor likes dogs, | world. That Perkins applauds what might be

he/she continues, that is no reason to take called “hidden” or “camouflaged” verbal up our time with them. We would answer by _ images is consistent with his general film pointing out that the salience given to the _—_ aesthetic which is geared to the Hollywood dogs was the means for projecting the verbal _ variety of expressive realism. Film as Film is image of “bitches” and that what our friend _ really a manual of the appropriate hertakes as excessive and digressive hasaready meneutic strategies for appreciating convenexplanation. We feel, I think justifiably, that tional (especially Hollywood) narratives. our companion has misunderstood the shot Nevertheless, apart from the role that such

by not taking the salience as a cue for the “camouflaged” verbal images play in Per-

verbal image. kins’ criteria for evaluating films, it is 199

Avant-Garde and Documentary Film

undeniably true that this sort of “subtle,” — b) its postulation fits as a coherent (i.e., consis“non-demonstrative,” “unemphatic” verbal tent) remark upon the developing narrative

. oe and/or

imagery exists and plays an important part and/or

in cinematic communication. But if we c) its postulation fits as a coherent remark upon cannot use salience as a reason to argue for 2 developing character

such an image’s presence, other ; ; in; 9 d) its postulation fits aswhat a coherent remark

grounds are available: ; favor of a developing theme. One group of prize contenders for this

task are what we will call conditions of The warranting conditions for verbal iminternal fitness. In condition ii) it was ages are not mutually exclusive. A verbal proposed that verbal images comment upon _image must satisfy i), ii), iii) and may satisfy a subject. The conditions of internal fitness —_b), c), d) as well. In fact, condition a) may specify the kinds of subjects verbal images __ be satisfied along with b), c), d). In Strang-

comment upon. A verbal image can com- ers on a Train, the “Spectator” example ment on the ongoing narrative as in the meets conditions i), ii), iii) and a) and). As examples from Safety Last and The En- a general rule, we can say that for a verbal forcer. A verbal image may comment on a ___ image to be carried off successfully it must character, as in Carmen Jones or Journeys _ meet all of the constitutory conditions and at from Berlin, or it may underscore athematic _—_/east one of the warranting/facilitating condipoint as in Itch, Scratch, Itch. In each of _ tions. Of course, it can satisfy more than one

these cases, we believe that the fact that the or even all of the warranting/facilitating purported verbal image fits with what we — conditions. But it must meet at least one of

take it we know about the developing plots, them. That is, to successfully project a characters and themes gives us evidence and __ verbal image the filmmaker must assure that

encouragement to assert the presence of the it meets the constitutory conditions plus at verbal image. The verbal image, in other _ least one of the warranting/facilitating condiwords, fits with the internal structure of — tions; and for a spectator or critic to assert

meanings we already intuit in the film. the presence of such an image he/she must The problem with the earlier hypothetical show said image fulfills the constitutory example of the filmmaker’s “pig” was not conditions plus at least one warranting/ simply that it lacked salience but that it also _facilitating condition.

lacked characterological fitness. The diffi- Verbal images are not only warrantable in culty might have been overcome by augment- _ terms of salience and internal fitness but ing both the salience and internal fitness of | also by external or contextual conditions. the verbal image or merely the salience or That is, the likelihood that a given verbal merely the characterological fitness. Where —_image is present in a film may be grounded

conditions of internal fitness ground the in the fact that the words or strings of words verbal image, the verbal images “live off” | evoked are of particular moment in the

what we already know of the film rather discursive context in which the film is than being productive of new messages. produced. That the postulation of verbal images can be External fitness conditions are extremely

warranted vis-a-vis conditions of internal important to generating images in avantfitness gives us a way of grounding said _ garde films. Like the avant gardes of other hypotheses when the images are of the non- _ arts, avant-garde films tend to be elliptical salient variety. We say an image is a verbal and allusive. The ellipticality is implied by

image when it meets the constitutory condi- what it is to be avant garde. That is, by

tions and definition such films use structures that are 200

Language and Cinema

innovative and unconventional. But the inno- A related way of putting it is that with vative structures must also defy past art and most varieties of avant-garde film we presubvert the expectations about art that are = sume that one thing they are “about” 1s film

derived from more traditional styles and art itself. That is, film and art are taken as forms. So the avant-garde film is rarely self- | one of the references for such films. These explanatory. The use of structures that go —_works pledge allegiances to different posibeyond the conventional leads to films that — tions on the nature of film and art. Verbal make us feel that something has been left images are a primary mechanism for signalout — meaning can’t be teased off the surface ing such commitments. By manipulating the of the work. But these films areembeddedin visual medium the avant-garde filmmaker is rich polemical contexts. This is where allu- able to latch onto polemically charged words siveness enters. In fact, itis the other side of | and phrases from the tumultuous aesthetic ellipticality because we are able tounfoldthe arena that supplies the context for the films. initially enigmatic messages of these films by | For example, the filmmaker may submit

referring to the theories and debates that images that are literally “flat” but that rock the world of the avant garde. For description then perks:an association with example, we associate the fragmented imag- _ the specialized meaning of “flat” in recent ery of early Bunuel films with the surrealists’ | aesthetic discourse, viz., flat = real. In the triumphant acknowledgement of the uncon- |= Hoberman case earlier, the film evoked the scious; the disjointed imagery is no longer _—__ description “reflection” which connects with utterly meaningless but is an emblem of the —an extended or specialized concept in the

surrealists’ very specific revolt against bour- _filmworld to the effect that “film is a geois culture. Since the citizenry ofthe avant- __ reflection of reality.” When considering garde film culture is small, most moviegoers avant-garde films we discover that often the do not see past the elliptical structures tothe — descriptions of images in said films act as meaning of the films. Historically the avant _ trigger words that, by means of evoking garde arose to outrage bourgeois sensibili- | central words in prevailing debates, correties; the avant-garde film world remains __ late to positions about the nature of film and hermetic, a community or fellowship of film- _—_art.

makers and spectators who understand each A recent exemplar is Sally Potter’s other through knowledge of in-house de- Thriller. A British film, it can be situated bates about the nature of the medium and in the polemical context of Marxist-Psychocontending stylistic imperatives. One neces- _—analytic-Semiology. The film mixes stillSary, generic feature of the avant gardeisthat photos and moving images, emphasizing

it requires a highly developed polemical that it is a “construction” from single background. It is this context thatenablesits frames. It includes reproductions of a elliptical symbol systems to acquire meaning. performance of La Bohéme, thereby em-

In terms of verbal images, we approach phasizing its “artifice” and it is quite avant-garde films knowing the prevailing de- _ literally a “mystery.” These words, in the bates and theories of film and art that shape = context of the regnant theories in British this community of discourse. The vocabulary _ film culture, are polemically loaded, locked of those debates and theories supplies us with —_in a skein of interrelated propositions, e.g., a framework for scrutinizing the works. The _ that film is constructed, that the ego is

situation is somewhat like that of primed — constructed, that the film constructs its verbal images except that no specific words — subject (its spectator’s position) while the need be supplied by the film though arange — subject reciprocally constructs the film,

of vocabularies is by the context. that films and subjects are artificial or 201

Avant-Garde and Documentary Film

made things and that pondering the nature _ e) its postulation fits the discursive context of of the self (and its construction) is The the film’s production and it does not contradict Mystery. The film itself does not yield the overt meanings internal to the structure of the

these propositions directly but when in- film. formed of the context of the film we can

see that Potter is telegraphing her commit- In the subtitle to this essay, I call it ments by producing images that hook onto “preliminary notes.” The disclaimer is the words used to set out crucial articles of | meant not only to acknowledge that the faith of the milieu of the film’s creation. — theory as stated needs tightening in a numThis example should also indicate that the — ber of spots but also because I suspect that avant-garde film does not only allude, by _ there are more warranting/facilitating condiway of verbal images, to theories of art _ tions than I have proposed. Future research

and film. Theories from psychology, eco- should aim at unearthing and clarifying nomics, philosophy, etc. are also in its _ these as of yet unidentified conditions. But reach as nodes of reference just because it even with the addition of further warranting is Often characteristic for the avant garde — conditions, I would conjecture that their as a community to combine speculations — role in relation to the constitutory condifrom many diverse sources in its discourse. _—_ tions will remain approximately the same.

Thus, in IJnauguration of the Pleasure ‘That is, an image will be a verbal image Dome, it is possible for Anger to communi- __ when it meets all the constitutory conditions cate the idea that the ego is split by means _and at /east one of the warranting/facilitating

of a Janus-faced image of the Scarlet conditions.*° This leaves open the possibility Woman composed on a “split” screen. The — that an image may meet all the constitutory film does not say that the ego is split but —_ conditions and two or three or even all of the given its historical context, in which the — warranting conditions. proposition was nearly a commonplace, the I claim that by outlining the conditions an provoking of the descriptive term “split” |§ image must meet to be a verbal image and to

opens the way to the attribution of the _ elicit uptake that I have offered an account of associated, specialized application of the |= howverbal images are projected by filmmakterm as it figured in contemporary slogans. — ers and recognized by spectators. I hazard The polemical context beckons us to look that some readers will balk at my presumpfor literalizations of words of some cur- tiveness, complaining that I have not in any rency in the given community of discourse. | way explained how verbal images are made. Where attributing the extended meaning of _ That is, I have not supplied a recipe with

a verbal image does not contradict any- directions showing how the filmmaker thing else in the film we feel it is legiti- | should choose this specific object or image if

mate. Though the discussion of external he/she wants to evoke this or that specific fitness conditions so far has been exclu- word. On this reckoning, very little has been sively of avant-garde film -— where context said except to note the proclivity of images of

is generally extremely important—con- scale, height, ascent, descent, movement, ventional narrative films can also project — etc. to prompt metaphors. I have also offered verbal images based on prevailing catch- =a wide variety of other kinds of verbal images words in surrounding cultural spheres.* — which the filmmaker might use as examples

For both avant-garde films and more con- _for inspiration. But it is true that we don’t ventional ones we can say that an image in __ have anything approaching a set of rules —

a given film is a verbal image when it like a verbal/visual dictionary — for solving meets the constitutory conditions and the problem of what image will get exactly 202

Language and Cinema

the right word in a given context. This to analyze verbal images — that I’ve missed question will be grappled with at the level of — the whole point of speech act theory.

practice — of fiddling about until the film- By discussing warranting conditions — maker feels he’s got it. In general, it is | what makes uptake probable —I am liable probably easier to begin with the word or _ to the charge that what I am calling the phrase and then arrange and rearrange one’s __ illocutionary force of the verbal image is cinematic material until the word “screams _ really a matter of perlocutionary force. I out.” But obviously the story could go the — cannot answer this accusation here in deother way. The word or phrase may “lurk” in tail, nor do I want to engage the nettle-

the filmmaker’s materials and suddenly some issue of whether a sharp boundary “leap” at him. The precise process of choice can be drawn between illocutions and that leads the filmmaker to use a givenobject —_perlocutions. But I do think there is a or image to elicit a given wordisamatter of difference between the uptake of a verbal discovery and creativity and as such is not image -— which is guided by conventionalrule-bound in the strictest sense. But though ___ ized interpretative strategies — and the an-

the process of finding the right word is not — ger that results when a student orders a reducible to a single formula or set of — teacher to leave the room. That is, verbal formulae the matter of projecting and recog- images seem more of the nature of convennizing such verbal images is not the result of — tionalized communications than of causal pure happenstance either. We can tell film- effects and to the extent that they resemble makers what conditions the image must meet _ the former it appears appropriate to view in order to be a verbal image — apart from __ them as illocutions.

what it is an image of. Also, we can tell the I do not contend that I have sharply filmmaker how to assure uptake of hisimage — focussed the objections that a speech act by noting what institutionalized expectations theorist might bring against me nor do I

spectators need to be satisfied in order to think I have conclusively rebutted such reassure themselves that they have hold ofa — objections. It is an open question whether verbal image. And this is an account of how __ illocutionary act theory is the correct concep-

the verbal image works as an institutional- _ tual apparatus to apply to the phenomenon

ized means of communication. of verbal images. I think the approach is Before concluding the discussion of ver- defensible but also invite disgruntled readbal images as illocutions, a word of warning _ ers to start here in criticizing me.’ is pertinent. The introduction of warranting

conditions is a departure from traditional speech act theory. 1 feel that it is justified. D. Why Verbal Images?

Indeed, I believe that if we are to import Even if the preceding formulation is adespeech act theory to certain problems of |= quate as an account of how verbal images aesthetic communication, the idea of war- —_ function communicatively (in light of certain

ranting conditions is particularly germane __institutionalized conditions), it does not because it acknowledges the operation of | explain why verbal images exist in art in interpretation and judgment in aesthetic general and film in particular. Several reacommunication whereas the more ritualized sons immediately suggest themselves as speech acts — such as “I promise” —can be likely explanations. To the extent that they explicated solely in terms of constitutory do not contradict each other — or can be conditions. But a speech act theorist could shown to be relevant to definably distinct

respond that that is the very reason that I cases—I am prone to accept them all as should not attempt to use speech act theory _ factors contributing to the persistence and 203

Avant-Garde and Documentary Film

pervasiveness of verbal images. Why presup- _ the explanation in terms of aesthetic play, pose that a symbolic structure perseveres as _ this notion of reinforcement accords with

the result of a single cause? the observed redundancy of many verbal The first purpose that verbal images may _ images but it posits an instrumental role to

fulfill is to revivify dead metaphors and the images. We understand the perilous clichés. Hackneyed phrases — like “laughing emotional condition of the leading character behind someone’s back,” or, from The Trial, in Bigger Than Life before we get the verbal

being “lost” in the legal system — become image of the “shattered self.” The verbal vivid again and their aptness shines forth image underlines the character’s straits; when pictorialized. We experience the cliché —_ perhaps it even increases the probability of afresh, as it were. This motivation for verbal spectators describing him as “breaking up” images is Somewhat opposed to their use in __ or being “shattered.” The verbal image does

comic contexts where the cliché, proverb or not add new information but underscores, dead metaphor is parodied, i.e., reduced to. condenses, galvanizes and summarizes what absurdity through the risible combination of is already known in one crystallized image.

gestures, postures and props it takes to The concept of reinforcement raises the

visualize them. question of whether or not all the verbal Previously it was noted how often the images projected by films are compre-

identification of a verbal image depends on __hended consciously. It appears more plausiknowing that it is appropriate to a given film — ble to suppose that much of the reinforce-

because we already understand that the film ment that goes on via verbal images is evinces the position or prejudice rehearsed — subliminal. After all, only critics and film by the verbal image. In this regard, verbal _— students talk about literalizations; for the images generally seem somewhat redundant _ mass of filmgoers, verbal images seem to do in terms of what is communicated, and the their work “silently.” Yet, if this is the case explanations we offer for them should ac- — with reinforcement, what of the claim that

commodate this tendency. verbal images are regulated by a set of One explanation that meets this require- _institutionalized conditions? That is, how ment is the construal of verbal images as a __— doess the conventionalist thrust of our ac-

form of aesthetic play. That is, the film- | count square with the subliminal reception maker adds the verbal image to the work as __ of many verbal images? Obviously, I have to an elaboration, along another dimension, of hold that both the conventions ruling verbal

something already in the film, and the images and, in some cases, the recognition spectator discovers this complication, this of verbal images are tacit. Viewers are not echo, in the course of his/her own interpre- able to expound the rules for recognizing tive or hermeneutic game. The presence of ' verbal images nor can they pinpoint the the verbal image thereby intensifies the origin in the imagery of the metaphors reward of the spectator’s cognitive and (derived from verbal images) that they use perceptual play. In other words, recognizing to describe what’s going on in a film. verbal images may be an end in itself, or | Nevertheless, it is still reasonable to say that better, a self-gratifying exercise like recog- __ they are subscribing to tacit conventions just

nizing a recurring pattern in visual art or a _as few of us are able to localize the kinesic

recurring motif in music. signals we receive in terms of discrete Though there are undeniable cases where _ gestures even though those gestures are verbal images act solely to instill aesthetic | conventional.*®

play, probably the most frequent motivation Lastly, it might be argued that if the for them is to reinforce some concurrently — conditions for recognizing verbal images are

evolving dramatic or thematic point. Like primarily tacit - which they must be if this 204

Language and Cinema

paper justly claims originality for formaliz- too far while I was deep in thought; when I ing them — how did anyone — whether artist realized it, I turned back and tried to catch hold or spectator — ever manage to learn them? of the phantasy in which I had been absorbed. I

Sarcastically, one might cavil “by osmosis.” found that I was irritated by a (phantasied) But is that so wide of the mark? I would say ““illcism of my writings in which I was rethat we learned to make and to respond to proached with always “going too far. This ; had verbal images through examples and by now ites by the not very respectful “climbing

practice, by talking and reading about art some’

and images in ways that implicitly presup- And Freud is well aware of the importance pose the projection and recognition of ver- of the play of meaning in his examples. He

bal images. We pick up on verbal images in says ,

the course of learning the institutionalized , interpretive strategies of aesthetic discourse. . . . falling, stumbling and slipping need not

The theory of verbal images herein is only a always be interpreted as purely accidental miscarrational reconstruction of reasoning patterns riages of motor actions. The double meanings

we already, albeit tacitly, respect. that language attaches to these expressions are

? ? enough to indicate the kind of phantasies involved, which can be represented by such losses

V. What About Psychoanalysis?” of equilibrium. I can recall a number of fairly mild illnesses in women and girls which set in

Some readers may have read the earlier after a fall not accompanied by any injury, and sections of this essay surprised and maybe — which were taken to be traumatic hysterias annoyed that no reference was made to resulting from the shock of the fall. Even at that psychoanalysis. For surely what I have time I had an impression that these events were called verbal images seem intimately related differently connected and that the fall was alto a species of unconscious thought that ready a product of the neurosis and expressed the Freud noticed more than once. Writing of same unconscious phantasies with a sexual conFerenczi, Freud observes in a footnote tent, which could be assumed to be the forces

, operating behind the symptoms. Is not the same

One day, however, he (Ferenczi) was blaming thing meant by a proverb which runs: “When a himself for having committed a technical errorin __ girl falls, she falls on her back?”*®

a patient’s psychoanalysis. That day all his former

absent-minded habits reappeared. He stumbled Unquestionably, there is some relation several times as he walked along the street (a | between these cases and verbal images. But representation of his faux pas [false step-blunder] | can we explain verbal images by extrapolat-

in the treatment). . . .4 ing from what Freud says about these Freud also reports a similar parapraxis of his examples? ; thi nk we cannot. First, Freud

own. says precious little about how these word/ action interpenetrations operate aside from

There is a house where twice every day forsix noting that they ride on double meanings. years, at regular hours, I used to wait to be let in At one time, Freud was interested in exploroutside a door on the second floor. During this ing the possibilities of a technique of “free

long period it has happened to me on two imagery” but he dropped the practice and occasions, with a short interval between them, stayed with free association as his basic that I have gone a floor too high—1i.e., I 44 Perh © Freud had tinued “climbed too high.” On the first occasion I was me thod. erhaps - POU Da CONNIE enjoying an ambitious day-dream in which I was with “free imagery,” he might have had “climbing higher and higher.” On this occasion] ™0re to add about the specific structures of even failed to hear that the door in question had word/image interpenetrations of the sort we opened as I put my foot on the first step of the | are discussing. But as it is, he’s done little third flight. On the other occasion, I again went more theoretically than to note their exis205

Avant-Garde and Documentary Film

tence; of course, therapeutically, he used his verbal imaging in art probably has the kinds knowledge of their existence with unparal- = of word/image associations Freud considers

leled brilliance. as rough psychic prototypes — or as dis-

Current researchers are again interested tant ancestors, to wax metaphoric. Like in “free imagery” techniques.* But they many conventionalized symbolic practices,

seem less concerned with pithing the inter- —_ verbal imaging may have originated in and

nal structure of the mental processes in- evolved from a “natural” psychological volved in “free imagery” than they are with — process. But two things must be borne in other questions — for example, what causes mind. First, though it is pleasant to know more anxiety, free association or “free imag- |= where a symbolic practice hails from, that

ery?”46 They have not elaborated on the does not guarantee additional understandworkings of word/image associations beyond ing of the process because once instituadopting what is already available in tradi- _ tionalized the process is likely to change, tional texts. Thus, nothing would be pur- _ especially in terms of the purpose it serves. chased about the workings of verbal images Even if verbal images are sometimes “hidby indenturing clinical psychology because den,” they are in works of art to be found that field appears not to have much to say as a means of enriching aesthetic experi-

about them. ence; the word/image associations ferreted

Of course, clinical psychology does offer out by clinical psychologists are “hidden” ideas about the role that word/action and more unyieldingly and designedly so. Sec-

word/image interpenetrations play in our ond, though it makes sense to discuss lives. They function as vehicles of disguise verbal images in terms of warranting/facilithat enable unconscious thoughts, fantasies tating conditions — just because they are and impulses to elude psychic censorship. public means of communication — it is ludiBut can we requisition this account of — crous to suppose that our rollicking ids play word/image interpenetrations in dreams and __ by any rules, and certainly not by any rules parapraxes for a theory of verbal images in that would make their ruminations more art? No. Recall the example from Pick-up on lucid. If born of dreams and parapraxes, South Street. It is absurd to think that Fuller verbal images in art have drifted away from and his crew rolled a heavy studio camera _ the old sod and picked up new habits. And across a sound stage to that hook without full it is the new habits that it is the task of awareness of what they were doing. The aestheticians to investigate. notion that the kinds of verbal images we’ve Does this commit us to the position that discussed in this paper result from repressed, | psychology has no place in the study of unconscious thoughts ducking a censor and __ verbal images in art? Not at all. By discrimi-

welling up onto the screen just doesn’t nating the types of interpretive thinking that harmonize with the data. It strains credulity go into making and recognizing verbal imto envision Cukor inafunk whenhe arranged ages, we have segmented the psychologist’s that verbal image in The Women. Atthe very data, offering him/her in gross outline some least, it’s difficult for a parapraxis to pass _ identifiable patterns of institutionalized reaunnoticed before an army of producers, soning whose subtending mental processes it

writers, actors and technicians. is his/her job to differentiate.

The problem with commandeering the psychoan alytic explanation of word/image VI. The Frontiers of Verbal Images association for a theory of verbal imaging is

that verbal imaging in art is to a large It has not been my intention to argue that degree conventionalized an, thus, outin the the verbal image is the only or even the most open, so to speak. I would not gainsay that — central type of symbolic formation in film. It 206

Language and Cinema

is one symbolic form among many. We have _ certain experiences rather than to invoke spent some time trying to say what itis. In —_ the nominal labels of those experiences.”

conclusion, we will turn to what it is not, Verbal images sit between iconographic examining two of its neighbors, surveying images and expressive qualities on the map boundary lines as a further means of clarify- | of symbolic formations in the visual arts.

ing our subject. Their relation to verbal language is more To the north of verbal images are icono- _ fluid than that of iconographic images but graphic images. These are visual images that more dependent than that of expressive have a one-to-one correspondence with an = qualities. Though the verbal image can established meaning. During the Middle function in concert with other varieties of Ages, for instance, ostrich eggs symbolized symbolic structures, it is a specific mode man’s forgetfulness of God.*’ Deciphering of symbolic communication in the visual the meaning of an image of such an objectin arts — one whose surface has barely been a work of art is a matter of what Panofsky scratched. calls “iconographical analysis in the narrower sense.”*§ These images have a fixed = noes association with an abstract idea or concept.

The represented object, such as the ostrich 1. In my own writings I have made frequent egg, is correlated to the phrase “forgetful of reference to this type of symbolism. For God” as a word is paired with its dictionary exampl ©» See Mind, Metaphor and Medefinition. But verbal images are connected dium,” Film Quarterly, Vol. 31, no. 2 (Winwith a given word OF string of words not Reader 3; “The Cabinet of Dr. Kracauer,” because of an established or fixed or invari- Millennium Film Journal 2; “The Gold

_ ter, 1977/78); “Welles and Kafka,” Film

ant bond between the represented object Rush,” Wide Angle, Vol. 3 no. 2. In my and the word but because the word or string “Toward A Theory of Film Editing.” Millen-

of words evoked fits the context of the nium Film Journal 3, I attempted, somewhat image. Iconographic images are to verbal unsuccessfully, to describe how this symbolic images as context-independent, fixed asso- structure operates in editing. This last essay is

ciations between words and images are to reprinted in this volume. a

context-sensitive hypotheses to the best 2. I am aware that not all the examples in this

verbal fit between word and image. paragraph operate in precisely the sapie way

; but aimages taxonomy of primed images To the south of verbal are expres. anotherverbal would require paper.

SIVe labels. We often communicate our 3. Hopefully some of my examples should have

reactions to all kinds of works of art, already indicated that I do not believe that including films, by means of such anthropo- the production of a verbal image is necessarmorphic predicates as “melancholic,” “fanci- ily a major aesthetic achievement. I am using ful,” “spritely,” “adventurous,” etc. Since the term — verbal image — to isolate a specific we use these metaphors in our description of symbolic structure. It is a descriptive term not works of art the temptation arises to think of a commendatory one. There are good and

them, where visual art is at issue, as some bad, eloquent and forced verbal images. sort of overarching verbal image. However, Nowhere in this essay am I implying that it is important to realize that though we use simply by having used a ve rbal meee has an expressive labels to synopsize aspects of our artist done anything of artistic merit. a ; 4. See Jonathan Buchsbaum’s review of Hoberexperience of artworks, it 1S not the point of man’s work in Millennium Film Journal 6. an artwork to elicit expressive labels from 5. Lawrence Gowing, “Brueghel’s World,” in us. It is the purpose of a verbal image to Narrative Art, ed. by Thomas Hess and John evoke a word or string of words. But it is the Ashbery (New York: Macmillan Co., 1970)

purpose of expressive qualities to engender pp. 16-19. 207

Avant-Garde and Documentary Film 6. Images of Horror and Fantasy (New York: 10. Though it does not always result in what we

Abrams, 1978), p. 65. are calling verbal images, sound, in film —

7. The ballet is described in Margaret Lloyd, The including verbal language, music and noise — Borzoi Book of Modern Dance (New York: can be used to evoke words and literalizations. Dance Horizons, 1949), p. 328. The dance is 11. Paul Willemen, “Reflections on Eikenbaum’s

in the repertory of the American Ballet Concept of Internal Speech in the Cinema,”

Theater. in Screen (Winter 1974/75), pp. 64-65.

234. editing.

8. Described in Margaret Croyden, Lunatics, 12. See my “Welles and Kafka” for an extended Lovers and Poets (New York: Delta, 1974), p. examples of this kind of verbal image in

9. Though literature is not a visual art, and, 13. Alain Silver notes a similar use of camera therefore, cannot project verbal images as movement by Lang as a result of the new such, literature, because it describes visual technological possibilities of the 50s. He

scenes, can use language in a way that writes “Fritz Lang in discussing the camera resembles verbal images in the visual arts. movement in The Blue Gardenia, asserted That is, a novelist can describe a scene by that the film’s fluid tracking shots, which words whose use evokes a literalization. In relentlessly pursue (italics added) his guiltSade’s Juliette, Saint Fond has Juliette lick his ridden heroine, could not have been executed

anus; the scene turns into a literalization of without the compact crab dolly.” in Film the metaphor, sycophancy = coprophagy, Noir, ed. by Alain Silver and Elizabeth Ward when Saint Fond proclaims “Kneel and face (Woodstock, N.Y.: Overlook Press, 1979), it; consider the honour I do in permitting you pp. 2-3. to do my arse the homage an entire nation, 14. V. Nizhny, Lessons with Eisenstein (New no, the whole world aspires to give it!” I York: DaCapo Press, 1979), pp. 103-104. choose a ribald example, here, because the 15. In Film Form, trans. and edited by Jay Leyda

very structure of such obscenities often lends (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, itself to literalization not only in literature but 1949), pp. 122-149. in everyday speech and, of course, verbal 16. Boris Eikenbaum, “Problems of Film Stylis-

jokes. tics,” trans. by Thomas Aman, in Screen Digressing somewhat, it is worthwhile to (Autumn, 1974), p. 30. point out that writers often design their texts 17. See Ronald Levaco, “Eikenbaum, Inner to evoke specific words. These words need Speech and Film Stylistics,” and Willemen,

not be literalizations. Consider this stanza “Reflections on Eikenbaum’s Concept of

from Denise Levertov’s “The Secret”: Internal Speech in the Cinema,” Screen (Winter 1974/75).

I who don’t know the 18. Willemen, 61. secret wrote 19. L.S. Vygotsky, Thought and Language, trans.

the line. and edited by Eugenia Hanfman and Gertrude Vakar (Boston: MIT Press, 1962).

Ending the first line as she does prompts the 20. Eikenbaum, 14. question “what?” which, of course, corre- 21. Vygotsky, 17. The “broken” wheel in this sponds to and headlines the very next word, example is not really a case of what we have

accentuating its impact. Levertov achieves been calling a verbal image because, even if this by eschewing certain conventions for the picture elicited the literal description line-endings in free verse, including seg- “broken” for either a spectator or its creator, mentation of a sentence syllabically, accen- the word would not spark any further connotually or at units of syntax. By doing this she tative associations about the picture. To use raises a special fermata at the end of the line. Willemen’s nomenclature, no “literalism” is

Music can also be used to evoke definite involved.

words; ascending and descending scales are 22. Vygotsky, 145. often dragooned into literalizing — e.g., The 23. The bibliography for speech act theory is large

1812 Overture. and continually growing. The locus classicus is 208

Language and Cinema J. L. Austin’s How to do things with words Language Notes (Oct., 1976); Terry Eagleton, (Boston: Harvard University Press, 1965). A “Ideology, Fiction, Narrative,” Social Text

truncated, starting list of other relevant (Summer, 1979). sources includes: J. R. Searle, Speech Acts 24. See A.J. Ayer’s Language, Truth and Logic (Cambridge University Press, 1969); Searle, (New York: Dover, 1935) for a statement of “A taxonomy of illocutionary acts,” in Lan- the logical positivist view of meaning. guage, Mind and Knowledge (Minnesota Stud- 25. For an account of promising as an ilies in the Philosophy of Science 7), edited by locutionary act see Searle, Speech Acts, pp. K. Gunderson (Minneapolis: University of 57-62, or Searle, “What is a Speech Act,” in Minnesota Press, 1975); Searle, “A Classifica- The Philosophy of Language, ed. by J. R. tion of Illocutionary Acts,” in Proceedings of Searle (London: Oxford University Press, the Texas Conference on Performatives, Pre- 1971), pp. 46-53. suppositions and Implicature, edited by A.H. 26. See David Novitz, “Picturing,” Journal of Rogers, B. Wall and J. P. Murphy (Arlington, Aesthetics and Art Criticism 34 (Winter, Va.: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1977); P. 1975); S¢ren Kjgrup, “George Inness and the

Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds.), Speech Acts Battle of Hastings, or Doing Things with (Syntax and Semantics 3) (New York: Aca- Pictures,” The Monist 58 (April, 1974); Séren

demic Press, 1975); Zeno Vendler, Res Kjgrup, “Pictorial Speech Acts,” Erkenntis Cogitans (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 12 (January, 1978). 1972); Jerrold Katz, Propositional Structure 27. The Monist 58 (April, 1974). and Illocutionary Force (Boston: Harvard 28. I distinguish between “right word” and “right

University Press, 1980). kind of word” here because with many verbal In terms of aesthetics, literary theory has images it is not necessary that only one

been a major center for the application of specific word be evoked but rather that a kind speech act theory. A handful of titles from of word be evoked — namely, a kind of word this burgeoning enterprise includes: J. R. that belongs to a class of words with roughly Searle, “The Logical Status of Fictional Dis- the same reference, and, more importantly, course,” in New Literary History VI (Winter, the same connotations. In the case from 1975); Barbara Herrnstein Smith, “Poetry as Bigger Than Life either “broken” or “shatFiction,” in New Literary History I (Winter, tered” will describe the mirror and comment 1971); Herrnstein Smith, “Actions, Fictions metaphorically on the character. and the Ethics of Interpretation,” Centrum 3 29. To work out the “logic” of this shift, it is

(Fall, 1975); Martin Steinman and Robert helpful to consider L. J. Cohen and A. Brown, “Native Readers of Fiction: A Speech Margalis, “The Role of Inductive Reasoning

Act and Genre-Rule Approach to Defining in the Interpretation of Metaphor,” in The Literature,” What is Literature? ed. by Paul Semantics of Natural Language, edited by G. Hernadi (Bloomington: U. of Indiana Press, Harman and D. Davidson (Dordrecht: 1979); Martin Steinman, “Perlocutionary Reidel, 1972), pp. 722-740. Acts and the Interpretation of Literature,” 30. I do not wish to be understood as saying that Centrum 3 (Fall, 1975); Richard Ohman, if a filmmaker wishes to literalize a figure of “Literature as Act,” in Approaches to Poetics, speech he/she knows from a language he/she ed. by Seymour Chatman (New York: Colum- doesn’t otherwise speak that this is impossibia University Press, 1973); Monroe Beards- ble. On such an occasion, I would construe ley, “The Concept of Literature,” in Literary the figure of speech as part of the filmmaker’s

Theory and Structure, ed. by Frank Brady, language. John Palmer and Martin Price (New Haven: 31. Willemen, 66-67. Yale University Press, 1973); Beardsley, “Aes- 32. There are also superimpositions and dissolves

thetic Intentions and Fictive Illocutions,” in where we conveniently insert the word “is” What is Literature?; Michael Hancher, “Un- between the “represented objects” collated in

derstanding Poetic Speech Acts,” College the array. This can be the “is” of identity, English 36 (Feb., 1975); Stanley Fish, “How e.g., the superimpositions of the different to do things with Austin and Searle,” Modern faces of the master criminals in both Dr. 209

Avant-Garde and Documentary Film

Mabuse, The Gambler and Fantomas, or of nal fitness condition. But perhaps what is at Pat’s face over the horse in Pat and Mike. issue here is not salience but some notion of Likewise, the “is” of metaphor is available, minimal perceptibility. e.g., the heads of the spies over those of their 37. Monroe Beardsley has suggested to me that animal personifications in Strike. Metaphoric reference is an important ingredient in verbal superimpositions and dissolves appear in very imaging and that my warranting conditions early films — Nymph of the Waves — as well as are really constitutory conditions that make modern film — the vulture/helicopters in Cap- referring possible.

ricorn I. Since there are conventions for 38. Subliminal reinforcement sounds like perinferring “like,” “as,” and “is” in regard to locution but I hold out for illocution because cinematic contexts, cinema can create meta- the event seems somewhat rule regulated. phors that are unprecedented in verbal lan- 39. The idea of reasoning patterns that we guage. Eikenbaum, on page 30 of his essay, tacitly respect is not so strange. We could seems to be saying that film metaphors must say of a student in an introductory logic class correspond to metaphoric expressions al- that he/she is about to learn modus ponens, ready in the spectator’s verbal baggage. He a reasoning pattern he/she has practiced all says this principle remains true even if film his/her life and tacitly respected. develops its own semantic patterns. But given 40. In this section I do not address the attempt to

conventions for inserting “like,” “as,” and weld together Vygotsky’s idea of inner speech “is,” I don’t see how in any straightforward and Lacanian psychoanalysis. I should say, sense filmmakers are restrained from coining however, that I find that, on the face of it,

Original metaphors and similes. Perhaps this project is curious because it seems Eikenbaum has something more complicated contradictory. Vygotsky, as I read him, seems

in mind. He may believe that since lit- to believe that there is thought without eralization hinges on words having extended language, whereas Lacan appears to believe meanings in existing language, all film meta- that all thought is linguistic, e.g., Lacan’s

phors just repeat possibilities that already Ecrits: A Selection, trans. Alan Sheridan exist in verbal language. But this throws the (New York: Norton & Co., 1977), p. 148. baby out with the bathwater; surely it is too 41. Sigmund Freud, The Psychopathology of strong an argument. For it would compel us Everyday Life (New York: Norton & Co., to say that there can be no original metaphors 1960), pp. 156-157. in verbal language since all verbal metaphors 42. Freud, 164-165. already exist in the semantic, componential 43. Freud, 174-175. structure of the focus word in the metaphor. 44. Joseph Reyher, “Free Imagery: An Uncover33. Max Black, “Metaphor,” in Philosophy ing Procedure,” Journal of Clinical PsycholLooks At The Arts, edited by Joseph Margo- ogy 19 (1963), p. 454. lis (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 45. E.g., Jerome L. Singer, Imagery and Day-

1978), pp. 451-457. dream Methods in Psychotherapy and Behav-

34. V. F. Perkins, Film as Film (Harmondsworth: ior Modification (New York: Academic Press,

Penguin, 1972), pp. 79-80. 1974).

35. Of course, as previous examples attest, the 46. Joseph Reyher and William Smeltzer, “Unverbal images in avant-garde films need not covering Properties of Visual Imagery and always be affiliated with polemical debates. Verbal Association: A Comparative Study,” For example, “on the carpet” in Journeys in Journal of Abnormal Psychology 73 (1968),

From Berlin refers to a character and not to pp. 218-222. By the way, “free imagery”

an artworld context. wins.

36. This formulation may be a bit too neat. A 47. Millard Meiss, “Ovum Struthionis: Symbol

dissenter might argue that all verbal images and Allusion in Piero della Francesca’s require some degree of salience since we must Montefeltral Altarpiece,” in The Painter’s light upon the elements that give rise to the Choice: Problems in Interpretation in Renaisputative verbal image before we can decide sance Art (New York: Harper and Row, 1976)

whether it meets either an internal or exter- p. 107. 210

Language and Cinema

48. Erwin Panofsky, Studies in Iconology: Hu- George Suci and Percy Tannenbaum (Urmanistic Themes in the Art of the Renaissance bana: University of Illinois Press, 1957), and

(New York: Harper and Row, 1939). Cross-Cultural Universals of Affective Mean49. Some useful ideas for working out a “logic” ing by Charles Osgood, William May and of expressive labels can be found in The Murray Miron (Urbana: University of Illinois Measurement of Meaning by Charles Osgood, Press, 1975).

211

||

a = enormous turbines at the foot of the machine and an awesome stairway, rising beCHAPTER XIV = tween rows of work stations, leads up to an

open space dominated by some sort of . umping levers. A Note on Film Metaphor ™ i The maachine explodes and the scene is ~ swathed in smoke; as it clears, we not only seen maimed workers but — again through a

= point-of-view shot-— we see the machine

| transformed into the monster Moloch. Via superimposition, the stairs become Moloch’s tongue, while the space at the top of

The purpose of this note is to propose a the stairs is Moloch’s mouth and throat. In

theory of what I take to be the most one shot, the turbines are replaced by straightforward type of film metaphor. What Moloch’s paws, though in subsequent shots has provoked me to compose such a theory _ we see the turbines as turbines, suggesting,

is the fact that in his recent, excellent perhaps, modernist versions of outsized study — Metaphor and Film — Trevor Whit- __ votive candles.

tock advances a series of useful analyses of a The machine, or at least parts of it, has whole battery of cinematic tropes, none of — been transformed into parts of a monster, which, oddly enough, is the most obvious Moloch. Nevertheless, the machine is still and clearcut example of filmic metaphor.! recognizable as a machine. The monster Moreover, an examination of the relevant elements and the machine elements are literature convinces me that the structure co-present — or homospatial —in the same that I think is the best candidate for the title figure. Moreover, the co-present monster of film metaphor has not been identified as | elements and machine elements intersuch by theorists of the relation of metaphor animate in such a way that we grasp the and film.* Consequently, this paper will point of the image to be that the machine is attempt to construct a case for acentraltype | Moloch, or, more broadly, that such modern of film metaphor, one which heretofore has — factory machines are man-eating monsters.

been untheorized. That is, we take the modern factory maIt is probably useless to haggle over the chine to be the target domain in the

term “metaphor.” It has been used to _ structure, and Moloch (or man-eating mondescribe a wide range of phenomena in film. ster) to be the source domain in the strucThus, I shall not claim that other theorists — ture, and then we selectively map aspects of are wrong in their applications of the term |= what we know about the source domain nor that my usage is the only correct one. _—onto the target domain — or, more colloqui-

Instead, I will simply claim that what 1am ally, we see modern machinery as mancalling film metaphor is a central case — if eaters.> Or, yet once more, we use what we not the most central case — of film meta- know of man-eating monsters — that they phor, as well as the case which has the most devour people —to selectively focus our

compelling credentials for the title. understanding of modern machinery. What is the type of metaphor that I have Further, famous examples of this structure in mind? Let some famous examples initiate in film include Vertov’s superimposition in the conversation. In the third scene of Fritz © Man witha Movie Camera of the eye over the Lang’s silent film Metropolis we see a huge —cameralens — therebypropounding the metamachine through the point of view ofthe son __ phor that the eye is a camera (or that the eye of the ruler of Metropolis. There are two should be a camera);* and Eisenstein’s sug212

A Note on Film Metaphor

gestion in Strike, through gradual dissolves, film Videodrome, where it is an element of

wipes and superimposition, that one of the an overarching theme that insinuates that spies is amonkey and that anotherisafox.In | modern societies are being programmed by Man with a Movie Camera, the point is that ‘TV. In effect, Cronenberg’s visual metaphor what we know (or, what Vertov thought we _— says “people nowadays are no better that knew) of the camera (or cinema) — that itis | video recorders, their minds being video

the microscope and telescope of time-— tapes produced elsewhere.” serves as the source domain through which Furthermore, there are techniques bewe filter our understanding of what the yond superimposition, drawing and makehuman eye (or consciousness) either is now up-— including video-image processing, or (more likely) is to be — viz., that whichis | computer-generated imaging, set design, temporally transcendent; while inthe caseof costuming, and so on-— which facilitate Strike, Eisenstein proposes that one of the the production of the sort of film metaspies is a monkey and that another is a fox, phors exemplified above. For what the thereby encouraging us to apply what we __ previous cases have in common is that they know of the source domains— monkeys, are all composite figures — machine/monfoxes, and their associated commonplaces — __ ster, eye/camera, fist/hammer, person/video-

to focus and filter our understanding of the | player — and one can construct composite objects in the target domain — the two spies, _ figures by means of an indeterminate num-

respectively.° ber of techniques.

Though the examples cited so far have all But what is it about such composite

involved superimposition, the structure un- _ figures that leads us to call them metaphors?

der discussion can be contrived by other ‘To state my case succinctly, first, verbal means. Think of all these Popeye cartoons metaphors are most frequently advanced by where after Popeye eats his spinach, the fact | grammatical structures that propose identity that he has regained his strength is signalled —_ relations — such as the “is” of identity or, by images where his biceps become an anvil apposition — and the film metaphors I have or his fist becomes a hammer. Clearly these —_ introduced likewise depend upon visual deare metaphors. His muscles are an anvil; his _—— vices that portend identity — viz., what I fist is a hammer. In both cases, the source __ have already called “homospatiality.” Sec-

domains suggest that we selectively re- ond, verbal metaphors generally turn out to conceive Popeye’s muscle and his fist to be __ be false when taken literally, whereas what I incredibly hard; or, to put the matter more am calling film metaphors have an analogous technically, we map an attribute of the property, viz., physical noncompossibility.°® source domain — the hardness of anvils or — That is, it is not physically compossible with that of hammers — onto the target domain- __ the universe as we know it that muscles be

Popeye’s muscle or his fist. anvils, that people be cassette recorders or Likewise, make-up can also be used to __ that spies be foxes.

provoke this variety of metaphorical compre- To expand: just as verbal metaphors hension. For example, if you believe that most often signal some sort of identity the relevant scenes in David Cronenberg’s between the objects they relate or some Videodrome are hallucinations, then the intersection between the categories they scene in which the character played by mobilize - e.g., “man is a wolf unto man” — James Woods has a video cassette insertedin the relevant composite images in film de-

his body propounds the metaphor that ploy homospatiality to suggest identity; people are video cassette players. However disparate elements (calling to mind dispaungainly this metaphor sounds in spoken rate categories) are visually incorporated or language it is nevertheless appropriate inthe | amalgamated into one spatially bounded 213

Avant-Garde and Documentary Film

homogeneous entity. Elements are fused in in fact, categories that are not physically a composite, but nevertheless self-iden- | compossible inthe same entity. A human arm tifiable, construct thereby visually indicat- | could not support that big hammer that has ing that these elements are elements of the | become Popeye’s fist. You can’t replace a self-same entity.’ Verbal metaphor proposes camera lens with a human eye and get a identity by means of various grammatical working anything.

devices. Film metaphor rides on the pro- Moreover, there is a consensus among posal of identity as well, though by means _ researchers in the field that, generally, verbal

of homospatiality which, in turn, may be — metaphors are either false or not literally secured by an indeterminate number of true. Film metaphors, of course, cannot be devices, cinematic (e.g., superimposition) _ false or literally not true because they are not

and otherwise (e.g., make-up). propositions. However, our film metaphors The elements in such metaphors are fea- do possess a feature that roughly corresponds tures of the self-same entity in virtue of to falsity or apparent falsity. Namely, through inhabiting the same space-time coordinates -— — homospatiality, our film metaphors identify in virtue of inhabiting the same body —1.e., | disparate objects and/or link disparate catebeing within the same continuous contour, or — gories that are not physically compossible, in perimeter or boundary. The elements inthe — terms of what we know about the universe, in visual metaphor — machine parts and mon- _ thesorts of entities thereby concocted. While

ster parts — are fused or superimposed or — verbal metaphors are generally marked by otherwise attached as parts of arecognizably _ falsity or apparent falsity, film metaphors

integrated or unified entity. represent homospatial entities comprised of Homospatiality is a necessary condition features that are not generally physically for the type of film metaphor about which I —compossible.

am talking. Homospatiality provides the In addition to homospatiality, the physimeans to link disparate categories in visual cal noncompossibility of the elements in the

metaphors in ways that are functionally putatively unified figure is also a necessary equivalent to the ways that disparate catego- condition for film metaphors of the sort

ries are linked grammatically in verbal that I am isolating. And, of course, the metaphors. Where verbal metaphors ap- analogy between the falsity or apparent pear to assert identity between distinct, falsity of verbal metaphors, and the physinonconverging objects and/or categories, | cal noncompossibility of the elements of the visual metaphors,’ of which film metaphors _ kind of film metaphors I am talking about are a subclass, suggest categorical identity provide me with another important reason

by presenting nonconverging categories as for me to call these filmic figures metainstantiated in the same entity. Indeed, itis | phors. Indeed, it is in virtue of these close the way in which homospatiality plays the structural affinities between images of the role as a visual equivalent to the appear- machine/Moloch variety and linguistic meta-

ance of asserted identity in verbal meta- phors that leads me to claim that these phors that supplies us with one of our images have the most compelling claim to reasons for speaking of certain kinds of film __ the title of film metaphor.

images — such as machine/Moloch — as film With verbal metaphor the palpable fal-

metaphors. sity or apparent falsity of the putative

Through homospatiality a figure is pre- assertion, among other things, encourages sented that is a recognizably unified entity, the listener to reassess it in order to make it but, nevertheless, in film metaphors certain __ relevant to the rest of a conversation. One of the elements that comprise the structure __ strategy is to take the utterance as a way of come from discernibly disparate categories— getting the auditor to use it as an opportu214

A Note on Film Metaphor

nity to rethink the target domain — to focus which the composite, homospatial, physiand filter it —in light of a source domain. — cally noncompossible film examples dis-

Or, to put the matter more directly: con- cussed previously can be assimilated into fronted with an obviously false statement the model of metaphor as a mapping from the auditor searches for some other signifi- | source domain to target domain that procance that it might have —such as meta- vides me with yet another reason for calling phorical or ironical significance-—in ac- these images film metaphors. cordance with Gricean-type principles of Given the way in which the play between

cooperation in conversation.’ physical possibility and physical noncomSimilarly, since the homospatially linked possibility figures in the communication of elements in film metaphors are physically film images, I suspect that film metaphors noncompossible, the spectator ofsuchasym- must be what I call visual images — that is, bol explores alternative strategies to render intentionally made, human artifacts of the the image intelligible, apart from relying on sort whose reference (or putative referthe laws of physical possibility. In the cases ence) is recognized simply by looking, at hand, I conjecture that the spectator en- rather than by some process of reading, tertains the alternative that the physically | decoding or the like. Watching Moby Dick, noncompossible elements in the filmic array the spectator looks at the screen and refer to the categories to which they belong _ recognizes that a whale is represented; the and that those disparate, nonconvergent = spectator looks at the top of the whale and categories (or, to be more exact, members __ recognizes that the whale has been jabbed thereof) have been fused or connected ina with harpoons. way that defies physical possibility, not in Visual images, needless to say, are symorder to represent a state of affairs in the — bols. But they are a special type of symbol world of the fiction, but to interanimate the insofar as their comprehension does not categories the image brings to mind. Thatis, | require codes nor could there be anything the viewer or, at least, the ideal viewer like a dictionary which would enable one to considers the possibility that the categories decipher or read such images. Rather, the in question have been introduced in order _ audience looks at the screen and recognizes for her to focus on aspects of one of the that which the images represent — at least categories in terms of aspects of the other whenever the spectator is capable of recogcategory. And when doing this is reward- _ nizing the referents of the image in what ing — thatis, when anintelligible correspond- might be called standard perception (i.e., ence obtains — the viewer regards the filmic | perception not mediated by coded symbols).

array metaphorically. Because film metaphors are visual imThe physical noncompossibility of the ages, the audience is initially geared to

homospatially fused but disparate elements taking the putative referent of the image to in the visual array entices the ideal viewer be some physically possible thing or state of to comprehend the image not as a portrayal affairs. Encountering something that is of some physically possible state of affairs, | physically noncompossible instead, the specbut as an opportunity to regard one of the __ tator is encouraged to search or to explore categories as providing a source domain for | some other way in which the symbol before

apprehending something about the other her may be taken in order to make sense. category, the target; or as an opportunity And this leads her to test various metaphorifor regarding each of the categories as cal interpretations of the array. mutually informative (as alternatively the So far, I have argued that a film metasource and the target domain for each _ phor is a visual image in which physically other). And, of course, it is the ease with noncompossible elements co-habitate a 215

Avant-Garde and Documentary Film

homospatially unified figure which, in turn, — physically noncompossible elements that are

encourages viewers to explore mappings _ saliently posed which are patently not film

between the relevant constituent elements metaphors. For instance, in horror films and/or the categories or concepts to which — there are many examples of creatures that

the constituent elements allude. Neverthe- are physically noncompossible — like the less, more is required than these features, if | animal/vegetable in Pumpkinhead or the we hope to identify a film image as a film _—_insect/humanin The Fly — but, given the nar-

metaphor. rative context and the genre of the film, A film metaphor is a visual image. This along with the evident intentions of the

means that the figure as a whole is recogniz- _‘ filmmaker, the spectator does not count able perceptually — recognizable by look- — these composite figures as metaphors. For ing — and that the elements that the specta- _—_ given the narrative context of the film and tor uses in her metaphorical interpretations the genre, such composite figures are comare recognizable perceptually as well. But, — possible entities in what might be called the obviously, in order to grasp a film meta- — world of the fiction, or the world intended phor, the spectator must not only be able __ by the narrator.

to recognize the relevant elements; her We can imagine the machine/Moloch attention must also be drawn to them. The figure as a denizen in a fictional context in relevant elements must stand out; they which itis, by dint of science fiction, a fleshy

must be visually salient; they must be robot out to conquer the world. In that prominent. Of course, we cannot theoreti- context, the viewer would take the image as cally predict all the ways in which filmmak- _ intended to be physically compossible in the

ers may secure salience. But we can argue — world of the fiction. Consequently, if the

theoretically that in order for a film meta- audience is to interpret a figure like phor to be identified by a spectator, all | machine/Moloch metaphorically, the audithings being equal, the film metaphor and _ ence must at least have grounds for believits pertinent elements must be salient. ing that the filmmaker is presenting some-

These elements are parts of homo- thing that she intends to be taken as

spatially unified figures. But these spatially = physically noncompossible and not as some

bounded wholes strike the spectator as physically possible entity in a fantastic, anomalous, since certain of the saliently fictional world, ruled by physical laws at posed elements in the homospatial array variance with our own. In order to explore a defy our conception of physical possibility. | composite entity like machine/Moloch for A man cannot have an anvil embedded ina ~=—metaphorical insight, the spectator must working arm; he could not move his hand, if have reason to suspect that she is confronthe did. However, in determining whether ing a physically noncompossible entity, not the elements in the image are physically — one that is physically possible fictionally. noncompossible, the spectator cannot rely Needless to say, an apparently physically simply on what the image in isolation shows noncompossible entity may be introduced to and on what she knows about science and _ serve intentions other than fiction making.

the world. She must also consider the A composite entity might be religiously context in which the image figures as wellas § motivated. Perhaps a devotional, Christian

the likely intentions of the filmmaker in _ film presents us with the figure of Satan as

presenting the image. part man and part goat. Here, though goat The reason that the spectator has to men are physically noncompossible, we will consider the filmic context and the film- not interpret the image as a film metaphor if maker’s likely intentions is that there are — we suspect that some fundamentalist, Chrishomospatial figures in film with apparently tian filmmaker is portraying the devil in the 216

A Note on Film Metaphor

way that his religion maintains that one — must believe that the filmmaker believes that

correctly conceives the look of the devil. | machine/Moloch is a physically noncomThat is, our hypothesis that the filmmaker possible entity and that the filmmaker is does not intend to present us with a physi- = presenting machine/Moloch as_ physically cally noncompossible entity, but one that his §noncompossible and not as some existing religion avows is physically compossible monster, some sci-fi monster, or as some god with higher truths than are available to our —or demigod. sciences, restrains our metaphorical explora- If the filmmaker intends a film metaphor,

tion of the image. then the filmmaker believes that her juxtapoA film metaphor rests on the shared _ sition of physically noncompossible elerecognition on the part of the filmmaker and ments in a homospatially unified array will

the pertinent spectators that the disparate serve as an invitation to the viewer to elements fused in the homospatially unified = explore the ways in which the noncom-

entity on the screen are physically non- possible elements and their corresponding compossible. In order to ascertain whether — categories illuminate each other when they the homospatially fused image on the screen _—_are interpreted as source domains and target

is to be taken as representing a physically | domains that are related by mappings onto noncompossible state, several, crucial condi- each other. That is, the filmmaker must

tions must be in place. intend that the homospatially unified figure First, the filmmaker must believe that the — and its noncompossible elements have what

film image represents a physically non- Ina Lowenberg calls heuristic value. compossible object or state of affairs and, The filmmaker, in other words, intends also, the filmmaker must expect that in the spectator to take the image as a proposal presenting her image, she is producing the to consider the referents of the nonrepresentation of something that is physi- | compossible elements and their related catecally noncompossible, rather than some- gories as interacting in an illuminating way. thing that is physically possible, religiously §_In creating the image, the filmmaker expects actual, fictionally possible, and so on. And _ that the juxtaposition of elements will insinufurthermore, if the filmmaker intends her ate a relation or comparison or fact and will image to be taken metaphorically, she must | beckon or prompt the audience to notice or believe, as well, that the standard, intended focus upon that relation or comparison or spectator also believes that the image repre- _ fact. The film metaphor has heuristic value sents a physically noncompossible state of — in the sense that it facilitates the spectator’s

affairs. apprehension of the putative relation, or Moreover, it probably goes without saying |= comparison or fact.

that for a film metaphor to succeed — for it to In creating a film metaphor, the filmsecure uptake — the standard intended spec- maker believes that her image has heuristic

tator will in fact believe that the state of | value. This does not mean that the image affairs or object represented by the visual maker antecedently knows all of the disarray is physically noncompossible and thatit | coveries that spectators may make in the is intended to be taken as physically non- —_— process of exploring the image. Indeed, compossible, rather than as arepresentation audiences may find more connections beof some supernatural actuality or asastateof | tween the elements in the film image than affairs that obtains in the context of some _ the filmmaker imagined, just as in the case fiction that abides by some laws alternativeto of linguistic metaphors, where there may be those found in the universe as we know it. _—_an indefinite number of resonances that no

Thus, if a spectator takes the image of — reader, including the author, ever fully machine/Moloch to be a film metaphor, she —_ appreciates. 217

Avant-Garde and Documentary Film

The filmmaker invites the spectator to physically noncompossible; (7) the typical, make these discoveries by saliently posing intended spectator does believe that it is physically noncompossible elements. The physically noncompossible; (8) the typical, juxtaposition of physically noncompossible intended spectator also believes that the elements prods the spectator to attempt to _ filmmaker believes that the image is physimake the image — as a communicative act-— _—_ cally _noncompossible; (9) the filmmaker

intelligible. Though recognizable perceptu- _— believes that posing the noncompossible ally, the relevant film image cannot be taken — elements saliently in a homospatially unified to be a realistic representation. Thus, onthe _ figure has heuristic value in terms of poten-

presupposition that the image has been tial mappings of the referents of the eleproffered for the sake of making some ments and/or their related categories onto _ point, the spectator will try to comprehend _ each other; (10) the filmmaker intends the it by means of another sort of interpretation. | spectator to take the image as an invitation In film metaphors, the saliently posed juxta- —_— to consider the referents of the physically

position of the noncompossible elements, | noncompossible elements and/or their realong with something like conversational lated categories in terms of their heuristic

principles of charity, give the spectator value, and the filmmaker also intends the reason to explore the image in order to see __ spectator to realize that she, the filmmaker,

whether it affords metaphorical insight. intends this; (11) the spectator believes that Though the filmmaker guides the explora- __ the filmmaker intends her to take the image

tion of the image in many respects, the as an invitation to consider the referents of invitation that she extends to the spectatoris — the physically noncompossible elements and a fairly open one. The audience expands the __ their related categories in terms of mappings metaphor through its own interpretive play. | onto each other.

The spectator tests to see whether the Composite figures that meet all these metaphor is only to be expanded in terms of — conditions can be successfully identified as

the referents of the noncompossible ele- film metaphors. In my view this variety of

ments in the figure or in terms of the filmic metaphor has the best claim to the categories or concepts to which the non- _ title of film metaphor because, as I hoped I compossible elements belong. And, asisthe have shown, it bears extremely close struccase in verbal metaphor, the audience ex- tural affinities to linguistic metaphor. For plores what Lakoff and Turner call the example, it is closer structurally to linguistic various “slots” of the source domain schema metaphor than the juxtaposition of two

to see if they have any bearing on the target shots of similar objects for the sake of domain. Moreover, where the slots “click,” comparison, since such cinematic juxtaposi-

the spectator is apt to derive heuristic value. tions carry no suggestion of an identity Summarizing our theory of film metaphor _ relation, whereas linguistic metaphors and then, I contend that a filmmaker successfully | what I call homospatially fused film metapresents a film metaphor if and only if (1) _ phors do. Thus, I surmise that the sorts of she makes a visual image in which (2) atleast _ filmic figures that I have been writing about two physically noncompossible elements are —_ represent a central case of film metaphor or

(3) saliently posed in (4) a homospatially | what I would hazard to call strict filmic unified figure; (5) the filmmaker believes metaphor or core filmic metaphor."

that what the figure represents is physically Upon hearing me christening what I’d noncompossible and presents it as being like to call strict film metaphor, some may physically noncompossible; (6) the film- be perplexed, because they believe that they maker believes that the typical, intended have reason to suspect that there can be no spectator will believe that the figure is such thing as film metaphor, whether strict 218

A Note on Film Metaphor

or Otherwise. Thus, insofar as such preju- the concreteness argument is also false. dices are common, let me conclude by Though every film image may be an image discussing the most likely objections to the — of a particular in the sense that (putting to

proposition that there are film metaphors one side the complexities of chemical and (of which strict film metaphors are the most __ electronic processing) it is an image of a

central case). particular object, it is false that every film There seem to be three main objections image refers to particulars. The image of a to the existence of film metaphors: (1) the | Ford motorcar in an advertisement does not concreteness objection, (2) the asymmetry _ refer to that particular Ford motorcar, but to objection and (3) the essentialist objection. | Ford motorcars, or to some class of Ford

Let me deal with each of these in turn. motorcars in general. Thus the second pre(1) The concreteness objection.* This ar-_ —_ supposition of the concreteness argument is

gument begins with the presupposition that false, along with the first, and, moreover, the film image is always concrete in the _ given that the premises of the argument are sense that it is always the representation ofa — so flawed, the concreteness objection has particular. However, it is then noted that little to recommend it.

metaphors require abstraction insofar as Of course, a friend of the concreteness metaphors interanimate the relations be- argument might claim that I have misintertween classes or categories. Thus, the argu- _ preted it. The argument, it may be said, ment continues, metaphors supposedly re- —_ concerns psychology. The idea is that meta-

quire that audiences free themselves from _ phor requires abstract thinking in terms of

the apprehension of particulars and play ‘the interanimation of categories, but the imaginatively with categories. For example, particularity of film images blocks abstract in the metaphor “death is deep sleep,” one — thinking by keeping the spectator mired in is invited to map generic features of the _ the perception of particularity. This may not source domain, deep sleep, onto deaths in __ be a totally unreasonable piece of armchair general. Therefore, inasmuch as filmimages psychology. But I see no compelling grounds are concrete and particular, film images are _ for accepting it.

incapable of serving as vehicles for meta- For I have already conjectured a rival phors, which, by their very nature, are hypothesis. I have argued that there is some

abstract. mechanism in certain film images that But clearly, the presumption that meta- prompts the audience to abandon their

phors are abstract, in the sense in which itis attempt to regard the image as a representa-

presupposed in this argument, is absolutely tion of a particular and to attempt to false. Many linguistic metaphors refer to reinterpret it in terms of the interaction of particulars. For example, one insider trader — categories. I claim that the physical nonmay say admiringly of another “When it compossibility of the disparate elements that

comes to corporate takeovers, Jones is have been fused homospatially invites and Attila the Hun.” This is a perfectly un- even prompts the spectator to find a way to problematic instance of metaphor, but note assimilate the image as something other that both its target figure and its source than the representation of a particular. I figure are particulars. Nor is this feature take it that this scenario is at least plausible. only evident in invented examples. When Therefore, unless some flaw can be found Americans say that “George Washington is — with my hypothesis, the burden of proof lies

the father of our country,” they are referring with the skeptic to show that film imagery to particulars as does Romeo when he _ thwarts abstract, metaphorical thinking. identifies Juliet with the one and only Sun. (2) The asymmetry objection. Linguistic In addition, the second presupposition of | metaphors are unidirectional. When I say of 219

Avant-Garde and Documentary Film

a past king of England that “Richard is a our musings in both directions. And finally, lion,” putatively I am saying something _ if “business is business” is a metaphor, then about Richard and nothing about any lions. the asymmetry claim does not look comI am not, for example, saying that some lion __ pletely universal.

is Richard or even that some or every lion is The friend of unidirectionality not only

like Richard. On the other hand, film assumes that all linguistic metaphors are images have no resources for fixing direc- | asymmetrical, but also that none of our film tionality. The genuine metaphors that we metaphors are. But this doesn’t seem right. know from language are asymmetrical; they | Given the context of Metropolis, “the macannot be flipped. “Juliet is the Sun” cannot — chine is Moloch” or “the machine is a living

be reversed as “The Sun is Juliet.” monster” seems correct, but “Moloch ts a Film images have no way of guaranteeing machine” or “the monster is a machine” unidirectionaltiy. Putative film metaphors — seems an unlikely metaphorical communica-

can be flipped — Vertov’s “The eye is a tion. This is not because “Moloch is a camera” might just as easily be compre- machine” could not possibly be a metaphor;

hended as “The camera is an eye.” There- if someone says that their spouse is a fore, since it is premised that genuine machine, that is an acceptable, if unfortumetaphors have undirectionality orasymme- _=nate metaphor. But “Moloch is a machine” try as an essential feature, and our putative is not the operative metaphor in Metropolis film metaphors do not, then our candidate is = because it doesn’t make much sense given

surely not an authentic metaphor (nor are the overall film, while “the machine is all the other film candidates, all of which Moloch,” given the Luddite animus of the also fail the unidirectionality test). rest of the fiction, fits perfectly in context. Of course, it is at least controversial Moreover, this is analogous to the linguiswhether all linguistic metaphors are unidirec- __ tic case. If we do not read “Richard, the tional or not. If we take metaphors to be —_ Lion” as “the lion is Richard” or “the lion is

abbreviated similes, as Aristotle did, then like Richard” but as “Richard is a lion” or there would appear to be the potential to} “Richard is like a lion” that is probably flip all metaphors, for if “this book is _ because in the relevant contexts this reading garbage” is really an abbreviated way of | makes the most sense. If we are talking saying “this book is like garbage” then the about King Richard, then it is more intelligi-

saying might also suggest “garbage is like — ble to think of the phrase in terms of this book.” But, of course, in response the Richard, the lionlike, rather than Lion, the asymmetry theorist may maintain that thisis | Richardlike. But, in any case, if some of the

a reason to deny that metaphors are abbrevi- examples that I contend are strict film

ated similes. metaphors are asymmetrical — such as “the Nevertheless, might it not at least be |= machine is Moloch” —- then there are some plausible to read some metaphors as bi- film metaphors, even strict film metaphors. directional? If I say “See the winter in his Furthermore, another strategy for dealbeard,” I am asking you to see hisold agein ing with the unidirectionality argument light of winter, and its associated common- _— might be to say that even if most linguistic

places, but isn’t it also the case that the metaphors are asymmetrical, this might not statement may intelligibly guide you to _ be an essential feature of film metaphors. recall that winter is the oldest, final stage of | Perhaps Vertov’s imagery leads us to think

the year. We think of lives in terms of | of cameras as eyes and of eyes as cameras. seasons in part because we think of yearsin Maybe film metaphors always invite the

terms of lives. Thus, I would find it spectator to explore them by, among other unsurprising that one metaphor might draw _ things, testing to see whether the putative 220

A Note on Film Metaphor

target domains and source domains can be _ trait of D.A.F. de Sade (oil on canvas). It is flipped. Or maybe film metaphors just invite | dominated by a composite image in the

this bi-directional exploration more fre- foreground: the head of de Sade and his quently than linguistic metaphors. But this shoulders. Moreover, as we inspect the might only be a difference between film image closely, we notice that the figure of de metaphors and linguistic metaphors, not Sade is composed of stones — some of which grounds for disallowing the very possibility | are cracking. These stones, furthermore, are

of film metaphor. the same sort of stones that comprise the Conceding that film metaphors may in- _ walls of the Bastille, a building which we see volve more frequent bi-directional explora- _—_ burning in the background of the image.

tions than do linguistic metaphors does not, De Sade is clearly a composite figure; a of course, concede that there are nounidirec- human and a wall are fused in one homotional metaphors in film. For exploring an _ spatial unity which proposes a physically image like the machine/Moloch figure may noncompossible being whose metaphorical result in one’s conviction, given the contex- _ significance is something like “De Sade is a

tual constraints of the fiction, that the prison, bursting apart.” What has been re-

metaphor is asymmetrical. pressed is smashing out of De Sade.

Whether a film metaphor is symmetrical This example meets all the criteria stated or asymmetrical depends upon whether the —_ above for identifying a successful film metaviewer can produce a suitably constrained __ phor, but the example is not a film metaphor,

interpretation of the image that renders it since itis a painting, not a movie. This is true. intelligible when the source domain and the Whatit shows is that my first condition above target domains are reversed. There is no _ has to be rewritten as “she [the filmmaker] reason to suppose that this procedure will makes a visualimage in film. .. .” And once not produce many asymmetrical film meta- __ this phrase — “in film” — is added, the theory

phors. Thus the asymmetry objection is — will only identify visual metaphors that are wrong at least for some of the candidates for _film metaphors.

strict film metaphor that I advance. More- Undoubtedly, the essentialist critic will over, since there seems to be little structural not be satisfied by this adjustment. For he or functional'* difference between my asym- _— expects that if there is anything worth metrical film metaphors and the symmetri- — calling a film metaphor then that will be cal variations, I maintain that we have more something whose metaphorical structures reason to ignore the proponents of the — themselves are uniquely cinematic. And this asymmetry argument than to heed them. is not the case with the decisive structures Let us call such images strict film metaphors for film metaphor — such as homospatialwhether they are asymmetrical or symmetri- _—ity and physical noncompossibility — that I

cal, for this will economize our theoretical have identified.

activity. However, at this point in the dialectic, I (3) The essentialist objection. |havetalked must simply admit that I reject the essenabout strict film metaphors. Butinresponse, __ tialist’s expectations. The metaphors that I

a critic might argue that there is nothing have isolated are film metaphors because essentially cinematic about these metaphors they are visual metaphors that occur in at all. Metaphors just like these — rootedin films. I see no reason to expect that film homospatiality and physical noncompossibil- | metaphors will possess some uniquely cine-

ity — can be found in media other than film matic features that distinguish them from and, therefore, have no rightful claim to be _ visual metaphors in other arts.

called film metaphors. Melodramas in theater and melodramas Consider Man Ray’s 1938 Imaginary Por- in film employ the same melodramatic 221

Avant-Garde and Documentary Film

structures. An informative analysis of a film image of the pistons superimposed over men melodrama will point to the same melodra- stoking furnaces from John Grierson’s Driftmatic ingredients the theater analysis will ers as a metaphor; it also counts as inclusion: point to in a play. There are no unique ciné- superimposition. See Clifton, The Figure in

melodramatic characteristics — i.e., charac- Film.

teristics that appear not only in no other >. The notions of focusing and filtering above

. : . are adapted from Maxfilm Black’s classic article media, also in Proceedings no other genre. Film “Mi . ae ; but etaphor,” of the Aristotelian

analysis is no less effective for isolating Society, N.S. 55 (1954—55), pp. 273-94. melodramatic structures in films that are 6. I have added the qualifier generally above

also found in theater. since some commentators have argued that

Likewise, film metaphors belong to the some metaphors are literally true. One examlarger family of visual metaphors which can ple that has been proposed is “Business is

encompass examples from every existing business.” artistic medium that deals in visual images, 7. Note that the requirement here is that the including not only film, but painting, sculp- physically noncompossible or disparate ele-

ture, photography, video, theater, dance, ments be literally co-present in the same and so on. But this is not a problem. For in object. This is to exclude certain cases that

; ; .case, people may be tempted to call film the metathis as in every other can think Loa. phors, like Ithe famous bootof, sequence .in.

film theorist benefits from thinking about Chaplin’s The Gold Rush. Due to Chaplin’s what film has in common with other arts, miming, one may be inclined to entertain the

just because we are able to bring to bear thought that Chaplin’s shoe laces are spawhat we know of the other arts to the study ghetti. However, since the lace elements and

of film.! the spaghetti elements of the image are not literally co-present in the object, the image is

Notes not strictly the sort of metaphor that I am talking about. For no spaghetti elements are 1. Trevor Whittock, Metaphor and Film (Cam- ever actually fused with shoe lace elements.

bridge University Press, 1990). Of course, there is a relation between

2. The literature that I have in mind includes: N. Chaplin’s miming and what I call visual

Roy Clifton, The Figure in Film (Newark: metaphors. In both cases, two or more University of Delaware Press, 1983); Louis objects are “superimposed;” but in visual Gianetti, “Cinematic Metaphors,” Journal of metaphor the fusion is literal, whereas in the Aesthetic Education 6, no. 4 (October 1972); Chaplin case, it is not. Rather than calling the Calvin Pryluck, “The Film Metaphor Meta- Chaplin case one of visual metaphor, I prefer phor: The Use of Language-Based Models in to call it a case of mimed metaphor. For an Film Study,” Literature/Film Quarterly no. 2 analysis of mimed metaphor, see: Noél Car(Spring 1975); and Calvin Pryluck, Sources of roll, “Notes on the Sight Gag,” in comedy;

| Meaning in Motion Pictures and Television cinema/theory, edited by Andrew S. Horton

(New York: Arno Press, 1976). (Berkeley: University of California Press,

3. For a discussion of the distinction between 1991). This article is also reprinted in this

source domains and target domains, see volume. George Lakoff and Mark Turner, More Than 8. I present my theory of visual metaphors, of Cool Reason (Chicago: University of Chicago which the theory of film metaphor in this

Press, 1989), p. 38. article is an application, in Aspects of Meta-

4. This image is recognized by N. Roy Clifton, phor, edited by Jaakko Hintikka (Dordrecht: but he categorizes it as “inclusion:super- Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994). imposition” (see p. 160). He does not count 9. This notion is adapted from H. P. Grice,

it as a metaphor, probably because it does “Logic and Conversation,” in The Logic of not have to be “completed” by the spectator Grammar, edited by Donald Davidson and (see pp. 87-88). Nor does he recognize the Gilbert Harman (Berkeley and Los Angeles: 222

A Note on Film Metaphor University of California Press, 1975). See 14. Here I have in mind the cognitive function of

also, Edward Bendix, “The Data of Semantic the figures to encourage insight into the Description,” in Semantics: An Interdisci- concepts put forward for comparison by the plinary Reader, edited by D. Steinberg and metaphor. That is, Vertov’s figure invites us L. Jokobovits (Cambridge University Press, to think about correspondences between eyes

1971). and cameras in the same way that it invites us

10. See Ina Lowenberg, “Identifying Meta- to think about the way in which cameras are phors,” in Philosophical Perspectives on Meta- like eyes. phor, edited by Mark Johnson (Minneapolis: 15. This paper has offered an anlysis of strict

University of Minnesota Press, 1981), pp. film metaphor. One reason I have used the 175-6. Let me acknowledge that this section label strict is because there are many examon the identifying conditions for film meta- ples of phenomena very much like the phor has been enormously influenced by Ina metaphors I have analyzed, but which also Lowenberg’s account of the identification of lack one of its central features. What I have

linguistic metaphor. in mind are images like the ones in Roger 11. In an earlier paper, I identified a phenome- Corman’s film Gas, where the football playnon that I referred to as verbal imagery — ers are partially attired in Nazi regalia. The film images predicated upon encouraging point of this imagery seems clear, if unflatterthe viewer to think of the action in terms of ing: “Footballers are Nazis.” At the same

linguistic phrases, often commonplace time, however, this cannot count as a strict phrases. For example, in my Popeye exam- or core film metaphor because, though there

ple, the audience may think of the image in is homospatiality, there is not physical terms of commonplace phrases like “fists of noncompossibility. For though it is implausi-

steel.” Obviously some film metaphors can ble that the footballers should have Nazi be verbal images in the sense developed in uniforms available to them, it is not physimy earlier paper, viz., those visual meta- cally impossible. phors that rely on homospatiality and that, What I want to say is that such cases are at the same time, illustrate commonplace not cases of strict film metaphor; they are metaphors. On the other hand, verbal im- not central cases. They do bear a strong ages that illustrate commonplace metaphors, family resemblance to central cases, howbut not by means of homospatiality will not ever, and in virtue of that we may call them count as film metaphors. And, of course, film metaphors, though not strict film metamany verbal images have nothing to do with phors. Physical noncompossibility, it seems

metaphor because the linguistic idioms, to me, tracks the central or core cases of phrases or sayings that they evoke do not film metaphor, though in certain compelling

involve metaphor. For an analysis of verbal cases, it may be that incongruously or images, see: Noél Carroll, “Language and implausibility juxtaposed elements which are Cinema: Preliminary Notes for a Theory of nevertheless physically compossible elicit Verbal Images,” Millennium Film Journal, metaphorical thinking. This suggests that

nos. 7/8/9 (Fall/Winter, 1980-1981). This further research should be done into the

paper is also reprinted in this volume. type of incongruous, or implausible, or 12. This position is often attributed to Siegfried unlikely juxtapositions that, when saliently Kracauer; see his Theory of Film (Oxford: posed, can function like physical noncomOxford University Press, 1960). The argu- possibility. Or, perhaps salience alone can ment is discussed in the already cited texts by elicit metaphorical thinking in some cases.

Pryluck, Giannetti and Whittock. But these are questions that may possibly

pp. 117-18. paper.

13. Pryluck, “The Film Metaphor Metaphor,” require another theory and certainly another

223

| = within ideology, both in their forms and

CHAPTER XV contents; that the posture of objectivity = itself is a pose, indeed an ideologically

From Real to Reel: motivated one; and that documentaries be-

. longin to the of social fiction. Some Entangled = genus ; commentators go so far as to suppose that

Nonfiction Film - because any cultural event, photographed or not, is structured (according to roles and

= folkways), recording one merely captures

7 the ideological “fictions” of a given time, place and people. Perhaps the most extreme denial of the boundary between fic-

I. Introduction tion and nonfiction film has been voiced by Christian Metz — he suggests that all films

Over the past twenty years, the nonfiction are fiction (purportedly) because they are film has achieved a level of prestige and — representations, i.e., because, for example, prominence unequaled in any other periodof _ the train you see on the screen is not literally

its history. Yet, for all the recent energy, in the screening room.? thought and discussion devoted to this enter- To further complicate matters, there is a prise, the nonfiction film remains one of the = minority opinion that has it that all fiction

most confused areas of film theory. Argu- films are actually documentaries;* Casaments of all kinds challenge the very idea of blanca is about Humphrey Bogart in front of nonfiction film. The nonfiction filmmaker, it a camera as well as being an archaeological

is observed, selects his or her materials, fragment of American mores and styles of manipulates them, inevitably has a point of _ the early forties. In fact, at least one theorist, view and, therefore, cannot pretend to offer | a proponent of Jacques Derrida’s notion of us anything but a personal or subjective différance, advances the nonfiction-is-reallyvision of things. Objectivity is impossible if _ fiction approach while simultaneously insistonly because the medium itself— due to ing that fiction films are documentaries.°

framing, focussing, editing — necessitates the The central concepts as employed in inescapability of choice. Whether or not an many of these arguments — including objecevent is staged, the act of filming involves tivity, subjectivity, fiction, document — are structuring so that what resultsisaninterpre- fraught with ambiguities and downright mis-

tation rather than the Real. The problem, conceptions. But before examining these according to this subjectivity argument, is —_ problems critically, it is worthwhile to specunot simply that the filmmaker can’t jump out _late about the way in which, historically, the

of his skin, one can’t jump out of the film discussion of nonfiction film reached its

medium either. present state.

A related set of arguments worries the I think that the most important influence

distinction between fiction and nonfiction. on the way that nonfiction film is currently On the one hand, it is charged that the — conceptualized was the development of dinonfiction film shares narrative, dramatic rect cinema (sometimes called cinema verité) and aesthetic devices, like parallel editing, in the sixties. The movement — associated - climaxes and contrastive editing, with fiction with the work of Robert Drew, the Maysles films and that, consequently, it presents its Brothers, D. A. Pennebaker, Richard Leasubjects fictionally.! Or, in a variation onthe — cock, Frederick Wisemen, Allan King, Chris strategy behind the subjectivity argument, it | Marker and others — proposed a new style of

is proposed that filmmakers are trapped documentary filmmaking that repudiated 224

From Real to Reel: Entangled in Nonfiction Film

prevailing approaches to the nonfiction film. tantly, a similar, and, in fact, related debate These filmmakers eschewed, among other — emerged in the somewhat narrow discussion things, the use of scripts, voice-of-Godnarra- _ of ethnographic film. Anthropologists who

tion, re-enactments of events, and staging opted for filming in order to avoid the and direction of any sort. They employed subjectivity of their field notes quickly found new, light-weight cameras and sound equip- _‘ themselves confronted by arguments about

ment in order to immerse themselves in selection, manipulation and eventually, by events, to observe rather than to influence, | arguments about the inescapability of ideolto catch life on the wing. Many ofthe aimsof ogy. In regard to the anthropological debate direct cinema parallel the avowed objectives _ especially, but also in regard to, direct cinof the species of cinematic realism sponsored ema, it was stressed that the very act of by André Bazin. Techniques and approaches _ filming changed or was highly likely to

were adopted that encouraged the spectator influence the outcome of the events reto think for himself, to take an active role corded. In order to grapple with both the toward the screen, toevolve hisowninterpre- arguments from subjectivity and related argu-

tation of what was significant in the imagery ments about camera intrusiveness, some rather than have the filmmaker interpret it filmmakers, like Jean Rouch and Edgar for him. The new spontaneity of the film- | Morin in Chronique d’un Eté, included themmaker and spectator correlated expressively — selves in their work, acknowledging their with some sort ofnew “freedom” incontradis- —_— participation, their manipulation and their

tinction to the “authoritarianism” of tradi- intervention. In general, filmmakers and tional documentaries. Often the new style —_ proponents of direct cinema now guard their was promoted as an epistemological break- — claims. They have become the first to admit through for cinema. Critics concerned with _ that they have a point of view, maintaining

and, at times, participants in the direct — only that they are presenting their “subjeccinema movement spoke as if the new _ tive reality,” i..e, their personal vision of techniques guaranteed the filmic representa- __ reality as they see it. For example, Frederick

tion of reality. Wiseman merely insists on the veracity of an Of course, previous documentary film- honest, first-person statement for his work makers, such as John Grierson® and Dziga = when hesays “The objective-subjective arguVertov,’ had never denied that they were ment is from my view, at least in film terms, a involved in interpreting their subject matter. lot of nonsense. The films are my response to

But for advocates of direct cinema, at their a certain experience.”® most polemical, that allegiance to interpreta- With the rise of direct cinema, two major tion, to telling the audience what to think, wrinkles were added to the dialogue con-

violated their conception of whatitistobea cerning the nonfiction film. First, direct documentary. As a result, upholders of | cinema repudiated large parts of the tradidirect cinema evolved a style designed to tion of nonfiction film because it was minimize the types of control exerted inthe interpretive. Then, like a boomerang, the

older styles of nonfiction film. dialectic snapped back; direct cinema, it But no sooner was the idea of cinema _ was alleged, was also interpretive and, a verité abroad than critics and viewers turned fortiori, subjective rather than objective the polemics of direct cinema against direct (and, for some, fiction rather than nonficcinema. A predictable tu quoque would note __ tion). The combined force of these maneuall the ways that direct cinema was inextrica- vers within the debate was to stigmatize all

bly involved with interpreting its materials. nonfiction film, both the traditional and Direct cinema opened a can of worms and __ direct cinema varieties, as subjective. Thus, then got eaten by them. Almost concomi- —_we find Erik Barnouw concluding his his225

Avant-Garde and Documentary Film

tory of documentary films with remarks commentators to reclassify such films as

such as these: subjective. Yet, if these arguments have any To be sure, some documentarists claim to be force, t hey will ; not Sump ly demolish the objective —a term that seems to renounce an subjective/objective distinction in regard to interpretive role. The claim may be strategic, but nonfiction film; the lectures and texts of it is surely meaningless. The documentarist, like history and science will be their victims as any communicator in any medium, makes endless well.

choices. He selects topics, people, vistas, angles, Historians, for example, are characteristilens, juxtapositions, sounds, words. Each selec- cally concerned with making interpretation is an expression of his point of view, whether _ tions, presenting points of view about the he is aware of it or not, whether he acknowledges past, selecting certain events for consider-

itor not. . . ation rather than others, and emphasizing Even behind the first step, selection of atopic, — sgme of the selected events and their inter-

there a motive. Loa. , connections. That’s what doing . . .isItis in selecting and arranging hisjust findings . . , history . oer

that he expresses himself; these choices are, in is. Thus, if the nonfiction film is subjectiv © effect, comments. And whether he adopts the for the above Teasons, then so is historical

stance of observer, or chronicler or whatever, he | Writing. Nor is science unscathed. It is hard cannot escape his subjectivity. He presents his | to imagine an experiment without manipula-

version of the world.? tion and selection, or a theory without emphasis and interpretation. In short, the

More quotations could be added to arguments against objectivity in nonfiction Barnouw’s, which represents one of the fim are too powerful, unless their propomore or less standard ways of coming tO nents are prepared to embrace a rather terms with the polemics and rhetorical thoroughgoing skepticism about the prosframework engendered by direct cinema. —_ pects of objectivity in general. The defense

But that Barnouw’s position rebounds SO of such a far-ranging skeptical position naturally from the direct cinema debate is would, of course, have to be joined on the part of the problem with it, because, asI pattlefields of epistemology rather than in hope to show in the next section, the the trenches of film theory. Indeed, if such a presuppositions of that discussion are irrepa- skeptical position were defensible, the

rably flawed. reclassification of the nonfiction film as

subjective would simply be a footnote to a II. Nonfiction Films Ain’t Necessarily So larger campaign. I mention this because I do not think that commentators who conclude

A. Nonfiction Film and Objectivity that the nonfiction film is subjective intend

their remarks as a mere gloss on the notion

Though many of the preceding arguments that everything is subjective. But that, I appear to be designed to deal with issues _ fear, is the untoward implication of their line specific to the nonfiction film, a moment’s _ of attack.

deliberation shows that they are far more At the same time, another danger in generally devastating in their scope. The _ collapsing the distinction between the sub-

possibility of objectivity in the nonfiction jective and objective is that we will still film is denied because such films involve have to distinguish between different kinds selection, emphasis, manipulation of materi- of endeavors —in film, for example, beals, interpretation and points of view. In tween Frederick Wiseman’s Hospital and fact, these features lead commentators not Maya Deren’s intentionally personal At only to withhold the possibility of objectivity | Land — even if they are all said to be under

from nonfiction film; they also prompt the enveloping bubble of subjectivity. But 226

From Real to Reel: Entangled in Nonfiction Film

how will these boundaries be drawn? Most filmmakers’) personality whereas there are

probably by reinstating something very certain protocols and stylistic canons of much like the subjective/objective distinc- | exposition in history and science that enable tion. Perhaps Wiseman’s film would be practitioners of those disciplines to subdue if called “subjective-objective” in contradis- not totally efface their personalities.

tinction to Deren’s “subjective-subjective.” Bela Balazs, for one, seems to hold a But two points need to be made here. First, position on composition in the single shot the nonitalicized “subjective” and “objec- (which he calls the set-up) that is like the tive” represent the basic concepts which are above, proposing that a representational indispensable in this particular context of | image can’t be made without conveying a classification; if they are momentarily dis- | viewpoint that is the self-expression of the missed, they must inexorably return; and filmmaker. He writes, concerning fiction this provides a good reason not to dismiss _and nonfiction film alike, that them in the first place. Second, the italicized “subjective” is conceptually lazy; it Every work of art must present not only does no work, and it serves little purpose. objective reality but the subjective personality of It is all-inclusive, so lamentably, it is not the artist, and this personality includes his way of exclusive. For if there is no _ italicized looking at things, his ideology and the imitations cot gt 989 . . of the period. All this is projected into the picture, “objective to counterpose against it, the even unintentionally. Every picture shows not italicized “subjective” is trivial. It is a piece only a piece of reality but a point of view as well. of excess theoretical baggage, easily dispos- —_— The set-up of the camera betrays the inner attitude

able because it says nothing more than the of the man behind the camera.!!

obvious, namely, that all research and communication is man-made. But more on _ For Balazs, a personal point of view in every

this later. shot is unavoidable. But will this wash? I As an initial response to my opening suspect not, for several reasons. |

objections, a subjectivist vis-a-vis the nonfic- To begin, the idea of point-of-view in film tion film might try to argue that there is _ is really a bundle of ideas, which are often something special about film that makes it _ literally unrelated. “Point-of-view” can refer

inevitably subjective in a way that history to a specific kind of editing schema (a and science are not. Thus, when it is said — character looks off screen, there is a cut to that Hospital is “subjective-objective,” the what he sees, and then there is a cut back to italicized “subjective” is being meaningfully — the character); it can refer to the position of

contrasted to the objectivity of the texts and the camera (the camera’s viewpoint, or lectures of history and science. But what is _ point-of-view, or perspective); or it can refer that “something special?” One of the candi- to the narrator’s and/or the authorial point

dates is the notion that every shot in a of viewor both — i.e., to the perspective of a nonfiction film perforce involves a personal _— character commenting on events in the film viewpoint or point-of-view whether the film- —_ and/or to the implied perspective of the film

maker is aware of it or not; in other words, a toward said events — or it can refer to the life history of attitudes, feelings and beliefs —_ creator’s personal point-of-view. Undoubt-

determine where the camera is positioned — edly there are shots in which all five conand aimed, what lens is chosen and how itis __ cepts of point-of-view can be applied simulta-

set. Consequently, all film, including the neously; John Wayne’s Green Berets would nonfiction film, is necessarily personal, “suwb- | probably be a good place to search for jective,” in a way that historical and scien- | examples. Nevertheless, these concepts are tific writing is not. That is, each image is _— quite discrete. And this suggests that at the indelibly imprinted with the filmmaker’s (or heart of the position — that a shot is, eo ipso, 227

Avant-Garde and Documentary Film a point-of-view — lies the fallacy ofequivoca- —_ without having any ideas about or attitude

tion. It is true that each representational toward what is happening. shot, save those where the image is drawn One could attempt to assimilate these on the film, has a point-of-view or a view- cases by means of a rather extreme psychopoint or a perspective in the sense that the logical theory, arguing that when shooting camera must be placed somewhere. This — wild the cameraperson is in something akin might be thought of as the literal meaning of | to a trance, unconsciously selecting and the cinematic point-of-view, i.e., the cam- _—_ expressively framing exactly the details that

era’s vantage point. A personal point-of- accord with subterranean interests. Howview is yet another matter; indeed, calling it | ever, this sounds ad hoc, imbuing the a “point-of-view” is at root metaphorical, | unconscious not only with a kind of omniusing the language of physical position to science but also of omnipotence. Freud is characterize the values and feelings of the — clearly correct in saying that some apparfilm’s creator toward the subject depicted. ently random gestures reveal hidden moProponents of the omnivorous point-of-view __ tives, wishes and attitudes, but no one has

school conflate two separate ideas, falla- | shown that all gestures are meaningful ciously moving from the necessity of a signals of the psychopathology of everyday camera viewpoint in each shot to the neces- _ life. It seems to me an indisputable fact that sity of a personal viewpoint, suppressing the =a cameraperson can set up and move camfact that the two phenomena, though bear- _ eras with random attention — precisely like a

ing the same name, are distinct. remote-control video monitor in a bank — The debate, of course, does not end and that the result need not develop into a here. Rather, the charge of equivocation coherent personal viewpoint. In regard to can be met with the claim that the two adverse circumstances, like constraining posenses of point-of-view really are the same _lice barricades, it might be argued that the because the personal point of view deter- | cameraperson will always take up the posimines the camera’s view(ing) point in such tion, out of all the available ones under the a way that the resulting image is invariably — circumstances, that best suits his personal and reliably symptomatic of the creator’s point-of-view. This — like the “trance” soluunderlying viewpoint. The viewing point _ tion to “wild shooting” — is ad hoc. In both inevitably betrays the personal viewpoint cases, what are we to make of complaints and, hence, is always revelatory. But this, it that the results of shooting were not what seems to me, is implausible. Cameras can _‘ the cameraperson wanted or needed? One

be turned on accidentally, and their opera- might say that they got what they really tors can leave them running without realiz- |§ wanted (without knowing it), but one says ing it, thereby recording events upon which __ this at the cost of making the original

the creator has no opportunity to in- hypothesis suspiciously unfalsifiable. Needscribe his personal viewpoint. Likewise, less to say, a filmmaker could successfully unexpected events can intrude into the attempt to make either a fiction or nonficviewfinder —e.g., Lee Harvey Oswald’s _ tion film in which every shot communicated assassination — before there is time for a a personal attitude. But it affronts credulity personal viewpoint to crystalize, that is, | to purport that every shot in every film is unless we wish to ascribe lightning omni- __ necessarily of this variety. science to the cameraperson’s unconscious. Another problem with the set-up = per-

Camera positions can also be determined _ sonal vision approach is that often the by circumstances, like a police barricade, “creator” of the film is neither the camand a cameraperson pressed for time can — eraperson nor the editor: so whose personal shoot “wild,” hoping to “get something” — vision is being conveyed? And, more impor228

From Real to Reel: Entangled in Nonfiction Film

tantly, in both fiction and nonfiction film, | example, The Fall of the Romanov Dynasty directors and writers are typically assigned has no difficulty turning whatever positive preordained points-of-view. Can’t an atheist sentiments czarist cameramen might have shoot and cut a reverential life of Christ, and — expressed in their footage of the royal family

can’t a Blakean make an industrial film into criticism of the monarchy, criticism that about computer technology without a glim- does not seem describable as subjective.

mer of repugnance in any of the shots? The argument that nonfiction film is subFilmmakers, that is, can not only not have __ jective hinges not only on confusions about

an attitude toward their assignment, but the concept(s) of point-of-view but also even if they have an attitude, it can be about the concepts of subjectivity and objecsuccessfully repressed. There is a shot in _ tivity. The charge of subjectivity, as leveled at Kinesics where the cameraman, accordingto _ the nonfiction film, appears to mean one of the commentator, perhaps out of ingrained _ two, often elided, things: first, that a film is modesty, pulls away from the scene of aman ___ personal, or stamped with a personal view-

making a pass at a woman. But this is point; and second, that a film is not objecneither evidence that all shots are under tive. When considering the first meaning of such guidance nor that the cameraman, subjectivity, we must ask whether the way in

contrary to his ordinary disposition, could which a film is said to be personal is not undertake a documentary film made up __ problematic to the status of nonfiction film as exclusively of squarely centered shots of — objective as well as whether nonfiction films public attempts at seduction. Perhaps it will are personal in a way distinguishes them from be proposed that in the latter case atrace of _—_ nonfiction writing.

disapproval or irony will always be visible, If by saying the nonfiction film is personal

there to be unearthed by a complex exege- we mean that any assertions or implied sis. But such exercises in interpretation may — statements made by such films are epistemo-

actually be no more than face saving. The logically on a par with statements like “I positioning of a shot is just not as indicative believe that x,” then we would be tempted of a filmmaker’s authentic point-of-view as __ to reclassify the nonfiction film as subjective

some film theorists let on. in the sense that its assertions and implied

Lastly, even if the shot = a personal statements are only to be evaluated as

vision approach were true, it would pertain honest or dishonest. But the mere fact that

only to shots and not to films in their selection and interpretation are involved ina entirety. A theorist who moves from the nonfiction film does not entail the first putative fact that every shot in a given person status of its claims — no more than nonfiction film represents a personal point- those features suggest that all historical of-view to the conclusion that every nonfic- writing is subjective. We have intersubtion film is a personal vision commits the jective criteria for evaluating the selections fallacy of composition. For even if each shot and interpretations in both cases.

were personally inscribed with a decision Undoubtedly because film is a visual that fused the values and attitudes of a medium, commentators are enticed (incorlifetime, such shots could be assembled and _ rectly) into identifying the imagery (and even combined with each other and withcommen- __ its flow) as a simulacrum or reproduction of

tary in ways that neutralize the attitudes what its filmmaker saw; and they jump from inherent in the single shots. Most compila- ___ this to the proposition that “That’s how the

tion films demonstrate that the supposedly filmmaker saw it” (where seeing is nonintrinsic personal points-of-view in original —_ veridical and involuntary), which, in turn, is individual shots don’t add up to the point-of- —_ regarded as something indisputable and subview of the entire film that they inhabit. For —_jective. They also seem to treat shots as a sort 229

: Avant-Garde and Documentary Film of celluloid sense data. This plays into the For example, in The La Guardia Story, a confusions over the point-of-view of the shot | David Wolper production for his TV series

and personal vision. As a result the film- Biography, the Little Flower’s first election maker is left in a doxastic cocoon. But there — as Mayor of New York is presented solely as

is no reason to conceive of shots in film as a consequence of his attack on the corrupcelluloid sense data -— either passively re- tion of Tammany Hall. On the basis of the

ceived or as unavoidable results of uncon- information on the screen, the implied scious structuring — nor does the camera’s _ interpretation is that the people of New point of view necessarily have tocorrespond York, appalled by the perversion of the to a personal vision. The confusion rests with § American system, carried their indignation comprehending photography as nonveridical _— to the polls and overthrew the bosses. But vision and the camera as an eye ~ with the __ this interpretation excludes a key factor in result that each shot is to be prefaced with “I La Guardia’s election—- one that doesn’t see”. Though a nonfiction filmmaker might —_ accord nicely with the civics lesson idealism adopt this metaphor — consider Brakhage’s of Wolper’s account: namely, La Guardia’s The Act of Seeing with One’s Own Eyes— _ victory was an important part of an ethnic films are not typically made under this rubric — conflict between Jews and Italians, on the

nor are they presented in ways that necessi- one hand, and the Irish, on the other, for tate the camera-eye (I) metaphor in orderto political, social and economic power in be understood. The Act of Seeing with One’s | New York; in other words, many voted for

Own Eyes is an astonishing film in part La Guardia out of ethnic self-interest. We because the camera strains for some sort of | are not compelled to accept the rosier verequivalence with the filmmaker’s percep- sion of La Guardia’s election as indisputably tion. Such a film may lead us to speak of lyric- | Wolper’s personal vision and leave it at that.

nonfiction; but it does not force ustosay that | We can also ascertain the objective weak-

all nonfiction films are subjective. ness of the interpretation on the basis of In most cases, I believe, certain miscon- _intersubjectively available facts and modes ceptions about the photographic component __ of reasoning of exactly the same sort that we

in film supply the primary grounds for | would employ when reading a scholarly jour-

convincing some that nonfiction film is nal ora magazine article. problematically personal in a way that ver- At times, some commentators seem to bal exposition in history and science is not. argue that nonfiction film is subjective not These notions arise (mistakenly) by equat- _ because said films are unavoidably personal ing the camera to nonveridical, involuntary but because they are not objective. The logic perception. Without these presuppositions— _ here is that anything that is not objective

camera point-of-view = personal vision, and must fall into the only other operative shooting = seeing — we are left with ele- category; the subjective becomes the catchall ments like editing, narration and commen- _sfor everything that doesn’t suit the criteria of tary as the possible sources of the putative — the objective. But what is objectivity? In film special subjectivity of film. Yet, the selectiv- | debates, three notions seem to determine the

ity and interpretation involved in these — course of the discussion: First, “objective” processes seem no different and no more means “true”; second, “objective” means subjective than the practices of nonfiction “representative of all-—or at least all the writers, since we can challenge the selec- | major — viewpoints on the subject at hand”; tions, exclusions and interpretations of non- and third, “objective” means “having no fiction filmmakers by means of the same viewpoint — personal, political, theoretical, considerations that we use to evaluate the — etc. — whatsoever.”

nonfiction writer. These three different concepts of objectiv230

From Real to Reel: Entangled in Nonfiction Film

ity do not fit together neatly, though in the — offer objective reasons — perhaps based on

course of an informal discussion after a statistics — for the conjecture that there is nonfiction film disputants may slip willy- intelligent life on other planets and, neverthe-

nilly from one to another. The second less, it could turn out that we are alone in the concept of objectivity sounds more like a universe. In such an instance, my problem political principle of tolerance — “let every — would be that I was wrong and not that I was

voice be heard” — than an epistemic crite- overly subjective.

rion. And save for cases in which there is Though objectivity is not equivalent to only one uncontested and incontestable truth, the two are related in an important viewpoint, or those in which unavoidable way. In any given field of research or indeterminacy rules (or those in which we _—_ argument, there are patterns of reasoning,

have ascended to the lofty position of routines for assessing evidence, means of Spinoza’s god), the conjunction of all per- | weighing the comparative significance of

spectives on a given topic amounts to different types of evidence, and standards cacophony, and contradiction rather than for observations, experimentation and for

truth. Moreover, the second and third the use of primary and secondary sources senses of “objective,” as outlined above, are that are shared by practitioners in that strictly incompatible with each other. field. Abiding by these established practices Nor does any one of these concepts of _ is, at any given time, believed to be the “objectivity” appear viable in and of itself. | best method for getting at the truth. With Canvassing every opinion on a subject may — continued research, these practices undergo

exemplify some ideal of fairness but histori- changes—for example, after Marx ecoans can be perfectly objective in their discus- | nomic evidence became more important in

sions of Hitler’s career without mentioning the study of history than it had been Heinrich Himmler’s assessment of the Fith- previously. Yet, even while some practices rer. The idea that objectivity coincides with are being revised, others are still shared. presenting a topic from no perspective what- Thus, in virtue of their shared practices, soever runs afoul of objections from two _ researchers still have a common ground for different directions. First, assuming a liberal debating and for appreciating the work of

notion of a perspective, it is impossible to their peers. We call a piece of research conceive of a subject totally unstructured by — objective in light of its adherence to the any conceptual framework; there is no ut- _ practices of reasoning and evidence gatherterly “given”; the unadorned facts are both ing in a given field. It is objective because it “unadorned” and “facts” relativetoaconcep- _—_can be intersubjectively evaluated against tual schema or point-of-view. In other words, — standards of argument and evidence shared it is self-defeating for us to demand that a __— by _ppractitioners of a specific arena of nonfiction film be “untouched by human _ discourse.

hands.” Second, in some fields a string of With this in mind, we can untangle some supposedly unadorned facts unsystematized of the conceptual knots that tether the by a theory would be the paradigm of nonfiction film. The nonfiction film is not random, subjective observation. Thus, Lu- _ necessarily subjective; like nonfiction writ-

cien Goldman attacks Chronique d’un Eté ing, it is objective when it abides by the exactly because itis uninformed byatheoreti- norms of reasoning and standards of evically based principle of selectivity.'* Finally, | dence of the areas about which it purports to

objectivity cannot be equivalent to truth. impart information. This is not to say that a Such a requirement is far too strong. The nonfiction film is one that always abides by history of science is littered with false theo- —_ said standards; that would be tantamount to

ries which nonetheless were objective. can proposing that the nonfiction film is neces231

Avant-Garde and Documentary Film

sarily objective. Rather, we should say that “Nonfiction” is a term that is used in a nonfiction film is, at least, one that must contradistinction to fiction but it would be a be assessed against the norms of objectivity mistake to think it pertains only to one type

that are practiced in regard to the type of of exposition. There are many different information the film presents to its specta- areas of nonfiction-—each with its own tors. Some may feel that this is not a very methodological routines — and, therefore, helpful definition; how will we pick out the — there are a variety of types of nonfiction nonfiction films from the fictions, on the one film, each beholden to the restraints emhand, and the purely lyrical films, on the — ployed in processing the kind of informa-

other? tion the film presents. A nonfiction film can In defense of my partial definition, let | be mistaken; that is, it ain’t necessarily so.

me lead off by postulating that we can Yet, such a film can still be objective never tell merely by looking whether or not _—_insofar as its mistakes do not violate the

a film is a piece of nonfiction. This is standards of reasoning and evidence that because any kind of technique or verbal constitute objectivity for the area of nonficassertion that is characteristic of a nonfic- — tion which it exemplifies. To be a nonfiction

tion film can be imitated by a fiction film means to be open to criticism and filmmaker — The Battle of Algiers and Da- — evaluation according to the standards of

vid Holzman’s Diary are famous examples objectivity for the type of information of this. Both are fiction films but both — being purveyed. Interpretation, selectivity, imitate the look of documentaries for ex- etc, are, therefore, appropriate insofar as pressive purposes. In Battle of Algiers the they heed intersubjective standards. documentary look helps to heighten the Where does this lead us? Does it imply —

gravity of events and thereby stokes the as suggested by Rouch and Fernando viewers’ outrage at French colonialism. In Solanes and Octavio Getino — that nonfic-

David Holzman’s Diary, the documentary tion films must not traffic in aesthetic conceit underscores the contemporaneity effects? Not at all. Nelson Goodman’s and specificity of the subject - the movie- philosophical writings are full of playful crazy sixties in New York at a time when _ alliterations and puns, and Edward Gibbon the distinction between film and life passion- in the The History of the Decline and Fall of ately blurred for many. A spectator might the Roman Empire employs semicolons to

be confused and believe, for a moment, create very dramatic pauses within long that these films were nonfiction. But, like a sentences. Yet, despite these effects, nei-

sentence, a film cannot be classified at a ther Goodman nor Gibbon are writing glance as fiction or nonfiction. Rather, fiction. Similarly, the elegant juxtapositions films are indexed!3 by their creators, pro- in Song of Ceylon and the monumental ducers, distributors, etc. as belonging to | compositions of The Plow that. Broke the certain categories. When a film is indexed Plains do not disqualify those works from

as nonfiction then we know that it is the order of nonfiction. Art is not the appropriate to assess it according to the antithesis of nonfiction; a nonfiction film-

standards of objectivity of the field of | maker may be as artistic as he or she which it is an example. Different nonfiction chooses as long as the processes of aesthetic

films, of course, correlate to different sorts elaboration do not interfere with the of nonfiction discourse —- newspaper arti- genre’s commitment to the appropriate cles, newspaper editorials, human interest | standards of research, exposition and argustories, science textbooks, instruction manu- ment. For example, a nonfiction filmmaker als, anthropological field notes, psychologi- cannot invent new events or eliminate ones

cal case studies, historical narratives, etc. that actually occurred for the sake of 232

From Real to Reel: Entangled in Nonfiction Film

securing an aesthetic effect where this | between nonfiction and some historical ficfalsifies history. Imagine a documentary _ tion, especially cases like The Rise to Power called The Pearl Harbor Tragedy in which — of Louis XIV. In this film, great pains were the filmmaker changes history a bit by _ taken to insure the authenticity of detail as

having a PT boat with a broken radio well as using actual memoirs and written racing to Hawaii just behind the approach- documents of the period as a basis for ing Japanese air fleet in order to warn of dialogue. Yet, The Rise to Power of Louis the impending assault. Undoubtedly with XIV is still fiction because its creator, Roenough crisp parallel editing, this invented —_berto Rossellini, has invented a number of

episode could produce a great deal of — events in which historical personages mouth suspense. But I think that no matter how _ their writings at meetings and in imagined much suspense is achieved in this way, we situations for which there is no historical would not accept the aesthetic effect as a evidence. In this way, Rossellini animates justification for changing history. A nonfic- history, making the writings “come alive” tion filmmaker must be accountable to the — supplying visual interest via intriguing backfacts and the prospect of heightened effects ground detail and character movement. His-

does not alter that accountability. This, of | tory, in other words, is rearranged and course, is a major difference between fic- _aitered for aesthetic effect. tion and nonfiction. In fiction, the past can The nonfiction filmmaker’s commitment always be rearranged in order to enhance _ to objectivity does not disallow the use of aesthetic effects; but, though aesthetic ef- devices like composite case studies. That is,

fects are legitimate in nonfiction, accuracy one can make a nonfiction film of the cannot be suspended in the name of art. experiences of the average army recruit, of A nonfiction filmmaker is committed by _ the characteristic behavior of a schizoid, a

the genre to conveying the literal facts, representative case study of the plight of an where “literal” is defined by the objective | unemployed (but composite) teenager, a day procedures of the field of discourse at hand. __in the life of a medieval serf, and so on. The

Another way of saying this is that the dramatization of corruption in Native Land nonfiction filmmaker makes reference to is perhaps arguably an example of this sort segments of possible worlds,'* albeit ones of generalization. Such generalizing devices that, at times, closely resemble the actual project theoretical entities meant to summa-

world. rize the normal tendencies and types of Despite Vertov’s caveats against staging, | events found in the kind of situation dethere is no reason why nonfiction films picted. These devices are used in areas like cannot employ re-enactments -—like the journalism, history, sociology, and psycholpostal sorting in Night Mail — orevenhistori- ogy, and they are legitimate in nonfiction cal reconstructions of types of events from _sfilm to the extent that they abide by the the past — e.g.,aminuetin Baroque Dance -— —_ same constraints in their construction that or even reconstructions of a specificevent-— analogous devices in nonfiction literature e.g., the car robbery in Third Avenue: Only _ respect. Moreover, such devices are rooted the Strong Survive. Likewise, re-enactments in the attempt to portray the literal truth

of the surrender at Appomattox, the Scopes since they are generalizations subject to Monkey Trial, the repeal of Prohibition, etc, | objective criteria in terms of intersubcan all be accommodated within the frame- _jectively accessible facts.

work of the nonfiction film as long as such Throughout the preceding discussion I reconstructions are as accurate as possible have relied on the idea that the nonfiction given the state of available evidence. This film can be objective, indeed that it is raises questions about the boundary line committed to objectivity, where objectivity 233

Avant-Garde and Documentary Film

is defined by the standards, routines and _ tines of different disciplines, I do not connorms of evidence of particular disciplines ceive of these as static and unchanging.

and modes of exposition. To adopt this Rather, these standards and routines are strategy, however, is to invite a predictable often revised, sometimes in response to rebuke from Cine-Marxists who would claim discoveries within the field, sometimes in that the disciplines I am invoking — both in __ response to changes in adjacent fields and

terms of their content and their meth- sometimes as a result of innovations in odologies — are themselves so shot through, — general epistemology. Such revisions them-

or, better yet, so contaminated with ideol- _— selves are open to intersubjective debate ogy that their purchase on objectivity is | and can be evaluated in light of factors like

extremely tenuous. the added coherence they afford both within The argument from ideology, like many a given field and with other fields, in the arguments in film theory, is often underwrit- = increased explanatory power they provide, ten by such inclusiveness in its central terms — the degree to which they block certain likely

that it borders on vacuity. For many film avenues of error, etc. In reference to the scholars, ideology is virtually synonymous ideology argument, I would hold that an with culture; any nonfiction film is a cultural important part of the Marxist perspective item — in semiotic jargon both in its signified has been introjected into the practices of and signifiers — and, therefore, itis unavoid- __ history and social science to the extent that

ably suffused with ideology. Clearly, under — social scientists are aware as a matter of these assumptions, everything is ideological routine of the threat of ideological distorand, consequently, the concept of ideology __ tion, and are, in principle, able to correct for is open to the same variety of criticism we ideological error. It is always fair game, in

leveled earlier at the italicized concept of | other words, for one social scientist to subjectivity. Furthermore, were one to em- _— examine the work of another for ideological

ploy a narrower notion of ideology, itis not prejudices. This is not to say that all social clear that we would be easily convinced that science is free of ideology, but only that every existing institution for the acquisition _ social scientists, as a matter of course, must and dissemination of knowledge is irretriev- | answer charges that their work is misguided

ably and necessarily ideological. because of its ideological presumptions. Another problem with the Ciné-Marxist Thus, the existence of ideology does not approach is that it tends to proceed asthough preclude the possibility of objectivity since there were two social sciences, the Marxist cognizance of it is built into the practices of variety and the capitalist, andit assumesthat __ the fields where it is liable to emerge.

these two schools are completely disjunct, The issue of ideology, of course, raises sharing no common ground. In the case of _ that of propaganda. I have argued that the ideology, some Marxists speak as if only nonfiction film is such that its practitioners Marxists were aware of the distortive poten- are responsible to the norms of reasoning tial of ideology. Yet, non-Marxist social and standards of evidence appropriate to scientists have embraced Marxistideas about their particular subject matter. What of ideology and, in turn, they scrutinize each propaganda films—like Triumph of the other’s findings for the possibility of errors _ Wi// — that intentionally suppress all manner due to ideological bias. That is, non-Marxist — of facts — such as the purge of the S.A. — in historians and social scientists are sensitive to | order to endorse a given political position? the dangers of ideology and it is part of their | Such films appear to be counterexamples to

methodological framework to be on guard my characterization of nonfiction film, since against ideologically determined mistakes. they are expressly designed to violate stanWhen I refer to the standards and rou- _—_ dards of objectivity, using every rhetorical 234

From Real to Reel: Entangled in Nonfiction Film

trick in the book to sway audiences to their may be unsettling. They might feel that viewpoint; and yet works like Triumph ofthe — propaganda as such is inimical to objectiv-

Will are classified as nonfiction. ity. There are at least two possible origins To handle these cases we must distinguish __ for this sentiment. The first harkens back to

between two senses of “propaganda.” The a concept of objectivity already discussed, first is derisory. We call something “propa- __ viz., objectivity amounts to representing all

ganda” if it callously twists the facts for points of view on a given subject. But, polemical ends. But “propaganda” can also _— propaganda, by definition, champions one be thought of as the name of a quasi-genre, viewpoint, excluding contending positions.

cutting across the categories of fiction and Therefore, propaganda cannot be objecnonfiction, devoted to persuasion, especially — tive. Secondly, one may feel that propapolitical persuasion. When “propaganda” is = ganda deals primarily with values rather

used in this second sense it need not be than facts, and further hold that the realm pejorative. A film may be successfully persua- of values — ethical, political, sexual, so-

sive without bending the facts; I think that cial—is subjective rather than objective. Battle of Chile and The Selling of the Penta- Again, the consequence is that nonfiction gon are examples of this. Nevertheless, itis | propaganda cannot be objective. true that many films that are “propaganda” The first of these positions is questionable in the second sense are also “propaganda” in ___in respect to its concept of objectivity; it is the first sense; unquestionably thisiswhythe __ really a principle of fairness rather than a abusive meaning of the word took hold. But _ principle with epistemic import. The second etymologies notwithstanding, itis important objection also seems mistaken in its presup-

to note that propaganda films would only _ positions. Morality and, in the case of serve as counterexamples to my characteriza- § propaganda, politics are objective areas of

tion of nonfiction film if nonfiction propa- = discourse since they are governed by inganda films in the secondsense werenecessar- __ tersubjectively established protocols of rea-

ily propaganda in the first sense. That is, soning. I do not say that we can easily nonfiction propaganda films are problematic _ resolve all our ethical (and meta-ethical) for my position only when the two senses of _— disputes, but we can pursue our disagree“propaganda” are conflated; by saying that ments objectively. Obviously, I cannot here nonfiction filmmakers are committed to ob- __ satisfactorily develop an attack on the view jectivity, I have not implied that all of them __ that questions of value are inevitably subjecrespect that commitment; some lie, giving _ tive. But to the degree that that position is rise to the unsavory connotations ofthe word debatable, the argument that objective pro“propaganda”; but, in fact, itis only because — paganda is impossible is unconvincing.

it is possible to make nonfiction films of Besides propaganda, there are other political advocacy that are objective-—a genres of nonfiction that do not, on the face subclass of “propaganda” in the second ofit, appear well characterized by my formusense — that we bother to have the sordid lations because the issue of objective stanname “propaganda” in the first sense. Asa _—_ dards for evaluating their claims does not genre, nonfiction propaganda films are tobe — seem relevant to the kinds of work they are.

evaluated against objective standards just Two such genres are commemorations of like any other nonfiction film. Whenthey are — events and people — like The Eleventh Year, caught out playing down and dirty with their §= Man with a Movie Camera and Three Songs

materials, we castigate them as “propa- of Lenin — and autobiographical films — like ganda” in the disdainful sense of the word. _—_ Lost, Lost, Lost. But are these films beyond For some, my attempt to connect nonfic- — the bounds of objective criticism in terms of tion propaganda as a genre with objectivity | the knowledge claims they make? In the case 235

Avant-Garde and Documentary Film

of commemorations, and, for that matter, criteria that are met by nonfiction writing. I sponsored travelogues, I think it is perfectly have not broached the problem that the reasonable to say that they are flawed as standards of objectivity in any given area are nonfiction when they overlook unpleasant not always easy to formalize nor have I facts. One thing that is particularly attractive | offered a conclusive argument against the about Man with a Movie Camera is that it skeptical objection that my so-called stancelebrates the progress and potential of pre- dards of objectivity are really chimeras. But Stalin Russia while at the same time acknowl- __ to attempt to grapple with these questions — edging persisting social problems like unem- _— important as they are — is beyond the scope

ployment and alcoholism. of this paper, for these are issues about the Nor are ciné-autobiographies epistemo- possibility of objectivity in any form. My

logically incorrigible. If we observe that point is simply that there is no special Jonas Mekas is perfectly at home in the _ problem of objectivity confronting nonficUnited States, that, according to reliable tion film because the concept of objectivity eye-witness testimony, he never evinced any __ is the same for nonfiction film as it is for

sense of loss, and was a satisfied bourgeois, other nonfiction discourses. In fact, the we would be in a position to raise objections _— standards of objectivity relevant to nonfic-

against Lost, Lost, Lost. That is, there are tion film are bound to those of other modes objectively accessible facts that we could use __ of nonfiction exposition. to take the measure of the film. Of course, it

| might turn out in such a case that the purpose of the film was not to report Mekas’ B. Nonfiction Film and Fiction experience but to image the way a melan- The arguments purporting to show that the cholic Lithuanian might respond to immigra- _ponfiction film is really or even necessarily tion and displacement. But then we are no fiction resemble previous maneuvers in the longer dealing with a lyric nonfiction but — arguments about subjectivity. As such, they with a pure lyric, which some commentators manifest many of the same weaknesses. A would argue is in the province of fiction —_very liberal set of features, including manipu-

proper. lation, choice, structure, coding, the influ-

I have been falling back on the notion ence of ideology, is implicitly assumed or that there are standards of research, argu- explicitly employed to define “fiction” in ment, evidence and interpretation incorpo- ss quch qa way that it is difficult to imagine

rated in the routines and practices of the anything that is not fiction. Jean-Louis different fields of knowledge production. I Comolli, for example, virtually retreads have further argued that these constitute earlier arguments, exchanging “subjectivobjectivity in a given area of discourse and ity” for “fiction” in his assault on direct that nonfiction films can be and are sup- — Ginema. He writes: posed to be objective in the same sense that nonfiction writing is. Such films, that is, are In reality the very fact of filming is of course responsible to whatever objective standards already a productive intervention which modifies are appropriate to the subject matter they and transforms the material recorded. From the are dealing with. This is not to say that moment the camera intervenes a form of manipunonfiction films are always true or even that lation begins. And every op eration, even when contained by the most technical of motives — they always meet the relevant standar ds of starting with the cameras rolling, cutting, changobjectivity. But I do deny that nonfiction jing the angle or lens, then choosing the rushes films are intrinsically subjective, as many and editing them — like it or not, constitutes a

film theorists claim. I deny this precisely manipulation of the film-document. The filmbecause nonfiction films can meet the same maker may well wish to respect that document, 236

From Real to Reel: Entangled in Nonfiction Film

but he cannot avoid manufacturing it. Itdoesnot | other versions of the fiction argument so

pre-exist reportage, it is its product. that, pari passu, we can demonstrate that A certain hypocrisy therefore lies at the origins arguments based on manipulation, choice, of the claim that there is antinomy between direct coding, structure and the like lead us down

cinema and aesthetic manipulation. And to en- the same garden path until at the end we gage in direct cinema as if the inevitable interven- discover the shrubbery growing wild and still tions and manipulations (which produce meaning, . ,

effect and structure) did not count and were needing to be separated into patches of

purely practical rather than aesthetic, is in fact to fiction and nonfiction respectively. Perhaps demand the minimum of it. It means sweeping the argument that all films are fictional due aside all its potentialities and censoring its natu- | to ideological contamination is a bit more ral creative function and productivity inthe name | complicated since it generally not only of some illusory honesty, non-intervention and assumes an expansive definition of fiction,

humility. 1.e., fiction = ideology, but also an expanA consequence of such a productive principle, sive definition of ideology, i.e., ideology = and automatic consequence of all the manipula- culture. Yet even with this addition, the tions which mould the lilm-document is a CO- moral of the story is the same; by theorizing efficient of nonreality”: a kind of fictional aura ith such undifferentiated concepts, nothing attaches itself to all the filmed events and facts.!” ar whatsoever is said. Even the argument that The sort of argument attempts to have its nonfiction films are fiction because they cake and eat it too. It posits the celluloid | employ the same narrative devices as fiction reproduction of a ding-en-sich as the goal of — suffers this liability. For narration is comnonfiction, notes the impossibility of the mon to types of both fiction and nonfiction,

task and declares all film fictional rather and not a differentia between the two

than starting off with the obvious premise — categories. To say nonfiction films are fic-

that in some sense all films are mediated tions because, for example, they use flashand, then, attempting to ascertain which of _ backs, is to sweep much historical writing these cases of mediation belong to fiction into the dustbin of fiction. and which to nonfiction. In and of itself, Many of the apparently paradoxical confollowing the above approach — that all films — clusions film theorists seem to derive result

are fictional because they are produced-— from the use of ill-defined and overblown gives rise to the same vexations rehearsed in concepts. The declaration that all nonfiction regard to the subjectivity argument. The __ films are really fictions is a sterling example.

only difference is that now we will be To rectify the confusion requires a clarificaspeaking of “fictional fictions” and “fictional _ tion of the central terms of the discussion.

nonfictions.” Nonfiction films are those that we evaluate To see the line of counterattack in bold — on the basis of their knowledge claims in relief, recall Metz’s assertion that all film is | accordance with the objective standards fictional because it represents something appropriate to their subject matter. Producthat is not actually occurring in the screening ers, writers, directors, distributors, and ex-

room. But if representation is a sufficient hibitors index their films as nonfiction, condition for fiction then Cyril Falls’ book, thereby prompting us to bring objective The Great War 1914-1918, is fiction because — standards of evidence and argument into there is no mustard gas in it. Metz’s theory, — play. We don’t characteristically go to films taken at its word, implies that there are no about which we must guess whether they are

books, or films, or speeches left that are not _ fiction or nonfiction. They are generally

fiction, thereby making the concept of fic- | indexed one way or the other. And we

tion theoretically useless. respond according to the indices, suspendThis counterattack can be generalized to —_ ing objective standards if the film is marked 237

Avant-Garde and Documentary Film

as fiction but mobilizing them if it is called category they are intended to belong to is

nonfiction. public knowledge before they are screened. Moreover, these responses are grounded’ A film is billed as a documentary, or an

in an ontological distinction between the two _—_ adaptation of a novel, or as (only) based ona

forms of exposition. Nonfiction refers to the true story, or as a romance, etc. Indexing a actual world. Thus, in principle, there could _film as a fiction or nonfiction tells us what be evidence for each of the knowledge claims the film claims to refer to, i.e., the actual that such a film makes. Fiction, however, world or segments of possible worlds; and refers to segments of possible worlds. Insofar indexing tells us the kind of responses and as many of the entities in fictions do not exist, | expectations it is legitimate for us to bring to

there is no evidence that could serve to _ the film. In short, insofar as indexing fixes establish knowledge claims about them; the attempted reference of a given film, hence, the issue of knowledge claims is indexing is constitutive of whether the given

generally dropped altogether. film is an instance of fiction or nonfiction, Furthermore, the possible worlds re- = which amounts to whether it is to be conferred to by fictions are incomplete: there __ strued as fiction or nonfiction.

are questions that might be asked about Because issues of evaluation hinge on fictions — like the notorious “How many indexing, one would think it in the interest of children has Lady Macbeth?” -— thatin prin- —_ producers, and distributors to be scrupulous

ciple have no answer, even within the in this matter. Since mistakes and errors are fiction. It is impossible to deal with such — defects in documentaries, calling Star Wars questions because fictional worlds are not nonfiction, a piece of intergalactic history, fully articulated. Fictions do very often might have disappointing results in its critical contain correspondences with actual per- — reception. Yet, it does seem that there are

sons, places and events, but they also — cases in which we are tempted to say that contain descriptions of ontologically incom- _films are indexed improperly. For instance, a plete possible persons or places or events, or nonfiction propagandist may stage an imag-

of variations on actual persons or places or ined enemy atrocity in order to drum up events, that transform all the entities in the | support for his country. Here we may feel fictional world into ontologically incomplete __ that it is best to describe the initial indexing

possibilities. We cannot know who, for as incorrect and that it should be indexed as example, was the landlord of Sherlock’s __ fiction. But I think that once it is indexed as

Baker Street digs in the film Pursuit to nonfiction, it is more appropriate to say that Algiers; although we know the address of _ the attributed atrocity is unfounded and that the apartments, we can say little of their — the film is being used to lie. The original

history, save what Watson tells us. Because indexing of a film is crucial; inaccurate fictions are by nature ontologically incom- __ nonfiction films cannot be rechristened as

plete it makes no sense to evaluate them fictions in order to gain a second hearing, according to objective standards of evi- | though a documentary director may take a dence; no fiction is designed to be entirely long, hard look at the available footage and answerable to the canons of proof that are —_ decide to cut it in a way different from what applied to discourses about the actual world. | was planned and, then, initially index the Thus, we disregard such standards of evi- _ result as fiction. From my perspective, the dence tout court because fictions are not the only time it is correct to speak of improper kind of objects to which such canons are indexing would be when a comedy of mixed-

pertinent. up film cans results in something like Logan’s A word or two about indexing isin order. Run being inadvertently screened on Nova. In the main, films are distributed so that the —_ But in this case, we speak of that event as an 238

From Real to Reel: Entangled in Nonfiction Film

instance of improper indexing because Lo- _and that the desire to entertain was strong gan’s Run has antecedently and originally | enough to encourage a high degree of poetic been indexed as fiction by its creators and _ license on the part of its creators. Undoubt-

promoters. edly, this decision was motivated by educa-

Films like Citizen Kane and The Carpet- _ tional as well as economic considerations, baggers are indexed as fictions, but critics and it is true that education is often faciliand viewers discover they bear strong analo- _ tated through entertainment. But the fact gies to the biographies of actual people. that You Are There is in part educational With such films it is easy to imagine a does not entail that it is nonfiction. People

plaintiff suing for libel and winning. Here, — can learn things from fiction. That is, people one may be disposed to say that though the — can acquire new beliefs from fictions; what

film was indexed as fiction, the verdict they cannot do is appeal to the authority of a shows it is nonfiction. But am not sure that _ fiction as a basis for justifying those beliefs.

we are driven to this conclusion. Rather, we In regard to the relation between fiction might merely say that the film is libelous and nonfiction film I have stressed two basic instead of claiming it is nonfiction where points. First: the concepts of fiction em“libelous” means that the film, though ployed by film theorists to show that nonficfiction, affords a highly probable interpreta- __ tion films are really fiction are unconvincing.

tion, based on analogies, that caused or Like the arguments for the necessary subjectends to cause the plaintiff public injury or __ tivity of film, the arguments about fiction are

disgrace. What the trial proves is not that advanced on the backs of overly broad the film is nonfiction but that the film concepts that deny the possibility of nonficproduced damages of a certain sort. tion in every medium and field of discourse. Ambiguously indexed films, certain docu- Second: I have tried to sketch briefly a dramas like the TV series You Are There, narrower picture of the boundary between also seem to raise problems for the attempt _ fiction and nonfiction in order to sustain the to differentiate fiction from nonfiction. In — distinction between two kinds of film. Whatthis series from the fifties, a fictional re- | ever inadequacies beset this latter attempt do

porter would travel into the past to in- not reflect on my first point; I may be wrong terview famous personages embroiled in about the proper formulation of the concept momentous historical events, e.g., Washing- _ of fiction and still be right that film theorists ton at Valley Forge. Both the interview and like Comolli need a much narrower concept the interviewer were completely invented, — than the ones they now employ. and their introduction renders the referents

of the show incomplete. gs . ole i.ontologically ; III. Exposition and For Evidence

example, it is in principle impossible to

answer the question of whether the inter- _—‘ The first section of this essay proposed that

viewer had previously met Washington, say current confusions over nonfiction film in 1756. Consequently, I am inclined to say _— arise from polemics about direct cinema. that though ambiguously indexed asahybrid And though it is true that the debates about

of fiction and nonfiction, You Are There is _ direct cinema brought these issues to a fiction. This may strike some as perplexing head, many of the presuppositions that because the program seems obviously de- _ energize the discussion are deep-rooted and signed to offer information about the actual long-standing.

world and it also in some sense succeeds in One source of the invention of cinema its purpose. But in response, we must note _ was science, e.g., certain breakthroughs in

that the very use of the interview indicates the development of the motion picture that the series was also designed to entertain camera resulted from work like Marey’s in 239

Avant-Garde and Documentary Film

the recording of motion. Thus, the idea of | record, document or bear evidence about film as a recording device has been with the the world. medium since its inception. Early detractors In order to deal with some of the problems dismissed cinema as a mere reproduction or — that muddy thinking about nonfiction film it automatic reproduction of reality. This dis- —_is profitable to consider the basic modes of missal was the béte noir of silent filmmakers — representation in film. Adopting some of and film theorists alike; in deed and word Monroe Beardsley’s terminology,”! we note

they strove to show that film could artisti- that each shot in a representational photocally rearrange the world rather than just graphic film physically portrays its source. In slavishly and mechanically duplicate it. But} Gone with the Wind, the shots of Rhett with the influential writings of André Bazin Butler physically portray Clark Gable. Every the dialectic took a new turn.'!® The record- —_ shot in a representational photographic film

ing aspect of film was again seen as central, physically portrays its source, a definite only this time around it was praised as a object, person or event that can be named by positive virtue rather than chided as a _ asingularterm. This is the point that Bazin is limitation of the medium. For Bazin, the |making when he says that film re-presents the crucial feature of film is mimetic photog- past; the shots in a representational photoraphy which is defined as the automatic graphic film, whatever our account of reprere-presentation of the world. Every film — sentation, physically portray the objects,

image is a trace of the past. It is this persons and events that cause the image. If viewpoint on the nature of film that leads __ shots are only used to physically portray their some of the theoreticians cited previously to sources, they are recordings in the most basic claim that all film is nonfiction; Gone with sense of the term. When we speak of films as the Wind yields evidence about Clark Gable — evidence we primarily have physical por-

insofar as it re-presents or is a trace of the _ trayal in mind. The problem with various man. For Bazin, it is the nature of filmtore- realist approaches to film theory is that they

present the world. sometimes appear to propose that physical Bazin’s position and its various reincarna- __ portrayal is the only use of shots, or that it is

tions face stiff problems, which have been _ the essential or most important use. forcefully stated by Alexander Sesonske, in But at the same time that a film physically accounting for fiction film and animation.!’ portrays its source (some specific object or But the position nevertheless has a special event) it also depicts a class or congeries of

attractiveness for nonfiction film. The no- objects. A shot from Gone with the Wind tion of the automatic reproduction of reality — physically portrays Clark Gable but it also as part and parcel of the essence of film, for | depicts a man; likewise a shot of the White

example, enjoined Caesare Zavattini to | House physically portrays the White House envision the ideal film as a storyless record- —_ but also depicts a house. Each representaing of ninety consecutive minutes of adayin tional shot in a film physically portrays its

the life of an ordinary man.” source and depicts a member of a class Without question, the naivete of the describable by a general term —a man, a view that the essence or destiny of film is fire, a house, etc. Thus, in a given film, a to automatically reproduce reality pro- §shotcan be presented via its context in a way voked the subjectivity and fiction argu- — that what is discursively important about it is

ments reviewed already. But the problem not what it physically portrays but what it with these responses is that in attempting depicts. In Man with a Movie Camera there to show that cinema does not automatically —_is an image of a hammer thrower. What is reproduce reality they go too far, insin- _ discursively significant about it is that it is an

uating that cinema can never faithfully image of a Soviet athlete, not that it is an 240

From Real to Reel: Entangled in Nonfiction Film

image of a particular Ivan. Because film — can clarify some of the great debates of film images depict classes as well as physically — theory. Realist theorists tend to overemphaportraying individuals, they can be used to _ size the importance of physical portrayal in

stand for kinds in communication contexts film. Montagists, on the other hand, are where their relation to their specific sources = proponents of nominal portrayal, especially

is irrelevant. : of the way editing can function as an agency Depiction, so to speak, pries the individ- for this type of representation. The mon-

ual shot from its specificreferent andindoing __ tagists did not invent nominal portrayal in SO opens up another possibility of cinematic _ film but they did aggressively conceptualize representation. The shot physically portray- _its relationship to editing. If the montagists ing Clark Gable depicts aman, and giventhe _ erred, itis probably in their extreme deprecacontext of Gone with the Wind, it alsorepre- __ tion of the photographic component in film. sented Rhett Butler. This form of representa- At times, in their enthusiasm, they seem to

tion, which we may call nominal portrayal, be not only denying the importance of occurs when a shot represents a particular physical portrayal in film but also claiming person, object or event different than its that a shot can be made to depict anything photographic provenance, due to its context | whatsoever (depending on its position in an as a result of factors like commentary, titles, | edited sequence). But it is hard to imagine, an ongoing story or editing. In light of film given existing symbol systems, how any

history, nominal portrayal isthe mostimpor- amount of editing could make a clean, tant use of shots. Obviously it is the sine qua medium long shot of Lenin depict an ice non Of fiction films. But it is also indispens- cream soda. In fact, what a shot depicts able in nonfiction films, even those other — guides the montagist’s selection of what shots

than historical re-enactments. The use of — will be chosen to nominally portray the stock footage, for instance, of strike breaking persons, objects and events that comprise the in Union Maids or naval bombardments in _ subject of the film. Nevertheless, historically,

Victory at Sea, is based on shots that depict the Soviets in de-emphasizing the imporpolicemen and battleships sothattheycanbe — tance of physical portrayal were more right contextualized in order to nominally portray about the direction of the cultural use of film the specific events the film discusses. Fur- _ than the realist theorists.

thermore, a shot of the Capitol Building The distinction between different modes taken in 1929 might accompany asoundtrack — of cinematicrepresentation also enables us to

that states that such and such a bill was — characterize a number of beliefs that sustain passed in 1934. Strictly speaking, thisisacase | conundrums about nonfiction film. On the of nominal portrayal since it represents the — one hand, those who claim that every film is Capitol Building at a time other than that nonfiction do so on the basis that every shot of the making of the shot. We do not take __ physically portrays its source. But it does not this use of such a shot (which is common _ follow that whole films made up of such shots in nonfiction production) to be a matter are physical portrayals. Casablanca is comof lying — unless the commentary explicitly posed of shots that individually portray claims the shot was taken at the moment the Bogart, Bergman, Raines, Lorre, Dalio, bill was passed — because we understand that —- Veidt, and Henreid, but it is not a recording shots can not only be used as recording units of these people: to see Casablanca as a record but also as expositional units. And nominal _— of Bogart in front of acamera is as inappropri-

portrayal is the representational practice that ate as seeing a Catholic priest at the Offer-

most facilitates cinematic exposition. tory of the Mass as a toastmaster. By distinguishing between physical por- Arguments denying the possibility of obtrayal, nominal portrayal and depiction, we _ jective nonfiction also often proceed from 241

Avant-Garde and Documentary Film

overemphasis on physical portrayal. These — represent, so we are best advised to greet theoreticians presuppose that fora filmtobe | such images as nominal portrayals. Howan objective nonfiction means that the film ever, this is not to say that films do not often will be a physical portrayal of its sources. present footage as a physical portrayal of its Thus, they immediately suspect any use of | source, i.e., as straightforward recording. nominal portrayal or depiction in a putative | Where footage is proffered as a recording it nonfiction film. Moreover, though it is easy _—_is open to questions about its authenticity. In

to think of individual shots as re-pre- this regard it is no different than any other sentations (in the sense of physical por- document. Ultimately, some questions will trayal), the concept is not readily adaptable —_ not be answerable in terms of what is on the

to whole films. This is one reason why _ screen but will require recourse to producediting presents problems to many nonfic- __ tion records and witnesses. But the fact that tion theorists, i.e., they beginto wonderhow __ it can be difficult to tell on the basis of the

films can be said to genuinely re-present film itself whether or not it is a legimate (physically portray) the past, given the recording does not pose problems for the ellipses of editing. Their problem, in part, is _ possibility of using footage as a record, since

that they are using the individual shot, there are other means for authenticating its understood as a physical portrayal, as a origins. model for what a nonfiction film should be, In some instances, footage will be used to and then they find all the candidates want- __ provide arrecord of a specific event as well as

ing. It would be better to drop the intuition evidence in support of an assertion about that the shot as physical portrayal is the the situation it refers to. Here the footage is

paradigm of cinematic nonfiction. again open to questions about whether it is The typical nonfiction film mixes physical good evidence for the claims it is supposed portrayal, nominal portrayal and depiction. —__to support. In Chariot of the Gods we are

A film is not nonfiction in terms of the shown an image of a Mexican frieze that is modes of cinematic representation it does or meant to persuade us that Central Ameridoesn’t employ, but in terms of its commit- cans had knowledge of spaceships prior to ment to the standards of argument, evidence —_ the European invasion. The frieze depicts and exposition that are appropriate to the | some whooshes sculpted onto the back of a type of information it presents. My key _ chariot. But this is hardly enough to substanpoint in this regard is that what is important __tiate familiarity with interplanetary space but sometimes forgotten about nonfiction — vehicles, even if the footage is authentic. films is that in general they are expository, Where sequences of footage are spliced

and are to be evaluated in light of the — together and are presented as reliable reassertions they are used to make. Thisisnot — cordings of events, questions of authenticity to deny that films and footage can also be _—_ arise again. The way the footage is edited evidential in the sense that the shots within _—_can be open to dispute; the adequacy of an the film are all used to physically portray | edited recording may be challenged in terms their sources and that their sequencing is __ of witnesses and, as occurs in legal contexts, presented as a reliable record of an event. — by a review of the out-takes.

But this type of nonfiction film is neither the In short, whether a nonfiction film is whole of the genre nor a privileged or primarily expositional and uses its footage to

central instance thereof. nominally portray events or whether it In many nonfiction films, it is impossible —_ presents its footage as physical portrayal, it

for the viewer to tell by looking whether the is still responsible to established standards footage is a literal physical portrayal of the of objectivity, though in the latter case the

objects, persons and events it purports to film will be open to further criticism if it 242

From Real to Reel: Entangled in Nonfiction Film

illicitly claims its footage is a physical tees truth. For any film technique or set of

portrayal of its alleged subject. techniques can appear in either a fiction or nonfiction film. Some techniques may be IV. Digression: Realism and Nonfiction historically associated with documentaries; but they can always be incorporated for So far, I have stressed the shared rhetoric of expressive effect in fictions, e.g., grainy, fast the defense of deep-focus realism — the cine- _ film stock. Deep-focus realism, in fact, is an

matic style of Renoir and the Neorealists, | ensemble of techniques that coalesced in advocated by Bazin -and that of direct fiction films, a strange place for a style that cinema. Indeed a recent anthology, Realism is truth-preserving to evolve.

and the Cinema, at times shifts seamlessly The confusion between realism and truth from pieces on nonfiction to pieces on is grounded in a misconception of what it realism. The relation between the deep-focus means to consider a style of filmmaking style of realism and direct cinema, of course, __ realistic. In most writing, if an author calls a is one of influence; practitioners of cinema- __film or a style realistic, this is taken to signal

verité adopted and adapted Renoir’s (and a two-term relationship between the film Bazin’s) conceptions of framing, of the im- _and reality. Realism is thought of as a transportance of camera movement and of the __ historical category inclusively denominating

value of spontaneity.*? The interplay of the any film or film style that corresponds to theory of deep-focus realism and documen- reality. Hence, if the deep-focus style is tary practice gives the impression that there __ realistic, then it corresponds to reality, and is a link between one style of filmmaking and _ insofar as the nonfiction filmmaker is com-

truthfulness, and that in virtue of that link mitted to corresponding to reality, he is one style of filmmaking is more appropriate — urged to employ this style.

to nonfiction film than any other. But realism in film or in any medium is The style of deep-focus realism is de- notasimple relationship between a represenfended because it encourages spectators to tation and reality. First and foremost, realparticipate more actively in the construction ism designates a style and in this role it of meaning in a film than, for example, the _—_— points to a difference between contrasting

style of montage filmmaking. Directorial films, paintings, novels, etc. To call a film or control appears to be relaxed so that the a group of films realistic is to call attention

spectator appears free to assimilate the to some feature that the items in question succession of imagery in his own way. This __ have that other films don’t have. Rules of the

freedom is called realistic because it is | Game, for example, employs a series of analogous to the kind of choice and freedom _multi-plane compositions that induce the we experience when we scan everyday real- spectator to scan the frame for dramatic ity for information about how things stand. __ details and inflections. This differs from the Purportedly, this style of realism enables us _—_— type of composition found in Soviet mon-

to make up our own minds rather than tage or in the soft-focus of Hollywood films molding the world according to the film- of the thirties. The term “realism” marks maker’s preconceptions. And, of course, the — this contrast. But why is “realism” used to

notion of presenting the world without do the marking? Because spectator scanpreconceptions is particularly alluring tothe _ ning, a possibility inhibited by Soviet mon-

practitioner of direct cinema. tage or the soft-focus style, is taken to be Yet, the idea that the style of deep-focus more like our normal perceptual behavior realism is truthful or has a special potential than our reaction to the composition in for re-presenting reality is problematic. No _ alternate styles. But deep-focus realism does cinematic technique in and of itself guaran- _— not correspond to reality. Rather it is more 243

Avant-Garde and Documentary Film

like some aspects of reality when compared whether the regime of that institution is to alternate approaches to filmmaking. A __ barbaric and irresponsible, on the one hand, film or film style is realistic when it deviates or curative and caring on the other. The from other specified films or styles in sucha relative freedom of the spectator and its way that the deviation can be construed as __ precondition, the relative slackening of overt like some aspect of reality that was hitherto —_ evaluation on the part of the filmmaker, may

repressed or merely absent in previous films suggest one sense of objectivity — namely or film styles. Realism is not a simple _ that of makinga place where all opinions may

relation between films and the world but a flourish. But this is a political —in fact relation of contrast between films that is historically liberal — concept of objectivity, interpreted in virtue of analogies to aspects not an epistemic one. And indeed it is as an of reality. Given this, it is easy to see that | expressive emblem of egalitarianism, a mathere is no single Film Realism — no trans- —_— jor preoccupation of the sixties, that direct

historical style of realism in film. Rather cinema’s adoption of the Bazinian creed is there are several types of realism. There is most significant. Soviet realism which because of its mass hero and details of proletarian life deviated V. Concluding General Remarks

from the individualism and glamour of Hollywood narratives in such a way that My overall strategy in this essay has been to aspects of reality, class action and lower argue that there is nothing special or essenclass living conditions, were foregrounded. tial to film as a medium that raises unique Deep-focus realism emphasized yet another problems for the notion of nonfiction film. I dimension of reality in film. Its arrival did have constantly compared nonfiction film not force us to stop calling the Soviet films — with nonfiction writing in order to answer realistic but only to recognize that another __ the charge that in some way the inevitability

variety of realism had been introduced. of the modes of selection, manipulation, Because “realism” is a term whose applica- _—etc., endemic to cinema produce special tion ultimately involves historical compari- = problems for film in regard to nonfiction.

sons, it should not be used unprefixed-we |My approach, here, is part of a larger should speak of Soviet realism, Neorealism, conception of cinema. I believe that film,

Kitchen Sink and Super realism. None of | perhaps because it is a recent medium, these developments strictly correspond to or invented within living memory, has develduplicate reality, but rather make pertinent oped primarily by imitating and incorporat(by analogy) aspects of reality absent from _ing preexisting cultural practices and conother styles. Furthermore, once we abandon ' cerns. Cinema has been adapted to make the correspondence conception of realism, narrative, to make drama and to make art as

there is no reason to presume that one well as nonfiction. The medium, in short, cinematic style is correct for all nonfiction discovers itself in the process of enlisting

film. and assimilating previously established strucThis is not to deny the importance of direct —_ tures, forms, goals and values. Understand-

cinema’s espousal of the Renoir/Bazin ethos ing film, therefore, most often depends on of deep-focus and camera movement. The applying the concepts and criteria appropriexpressive effects of this choice were (and ate to the broader or older cultural projects still are) far reaching. The spectator’s rolein _‘ that cinema mimes.

relation to the screen was redefined, encour- By urging this perspective I am going aging in us the active and spontaneous playof against the grain of much traditional film opinion, judgment and decision. In a film — theory which centered on discovering and like Warrendale, it is left up to us to decide —_ elucidating what is unique to film — what is 244

From Real to Reel: Entangled in Nonfiction Film

peculiarly (and essentially) cinematic. The features of the medium that dictate failure in notion that subjectivity flows from the spe- = advance.

cial processes of the film medium is, in fact, To underscore film’s indebtedness to a variation, though a negative one, on this __ broader cultural enterprises for its marching

traditional theme; rather than outlining orders and to abandon the quest for the film’s peculiar, positive potential, it means cinematic is not to deny that there is an to acknowledge film’s special limitations. important area of study called film theory. My position on the nonfiction film, in Questions still remain about how film is able contradistinction, is that nospecialepistemo- to incorporate and implement the larger logical problems result from the distinctive cultural frameworks that it is heir to. For features of the medium. On the issue of the | example, how does narrative editing funcessential nature of film, I hold that film has tion as a system of communication? Furtherno essence, only uses, most of which are more, as film develops, pursuing the aims of derivative and subject to analysis andevalua- _— projects like art, nonfiction and narrative, it

tion according to the categories that apply to | evolves new means of expression whose their sources — art, drama, narrative, nonfic- operation it is the task of film theorists to

tion, and so on. illuminate. At certain junctures, like the

In emphasizing the relatedness of film to rise of direct cinema, the onset of new larger cultural projects, I am not claiming _ stylistic options precipitates a dialogue or that there are no differences between film dialectic with traditional forms of filmmakand the other media in which those projects ing that the theorist must unravel and are pursued but only that in comprehending clarify. Film does not have a unique destiny, film as, for example, art, or nonfiction, the set by its essential possibilities and limitaconceptual frameworks of those institutional- —_ tions. But it does have a unique history as it

ized endeavors are more fundamental than is used to articulate the enterprises of questions about the nature of film as film. | twentieth century culture. And the rhyme Undoubtedly, the vivid portrayal of time and —_and reason within that process is the topic of process in Fishing at Stone Weir, theimmedi- _film theory. ate intelligibility of the construction of the igloo " Nanook of the North, and the revela- VI. Postscript: Miscellaneous Arguments tion of the intimate interplay of the rhythm,

economy and society of the !Kung Bushmen Since this article was completed several in The Hunters would be difficult, if not arguments against the nonfiction film have practically impossible, to duplicate in writ- | come to my attention which I had not enten accounts. Sometimes a picture is wortha — countered before, or which [ had forgotten. I thousand words, though, of course, some- _—_— would like to review three of the arguments

times a single word can do the work of a briefly because they are much in use at thousand pictures. The upshot of this is not _ present.

that some topics categorically belong to I will approach two of the arguments by cinema and some to language and that these examining a passage from Stephen Heath’s can be antecedently plotted by establishing influential, recent book Questions of Cin-

the unique potentials or limitations of the ema. The quotation pertains to making medium. There is no subject or project that historical nonfiction films. Heath believes it

is inherently adverse to cinema. Rather is an idealist fallacy if such films pretend to some films fail and others do not. Films can _—_ depict the past accurately. Historical nonfic-

be artistic, objective, dramatic, etc. Or they — tion films cannot achieve such a goal (1)

can fail in these attempts. But this is a because they are trapped in hermeneutic matter of individual cases and not of unique __ circles — 1.e., such films always perforce are 245

Avant-Garde and Documentary Film

locked in a present standpoint, trapped in will be overlooked. We cannot accurately the needs and concerns of the now which _ retrieve the past. We are frozen in the distorts while determining the picture of the — present and our historical films really reflect

past that such films masquerade as portray- contemporary preoccupations more than ing truthfully — and (2) because such histori- —_ anything else.

cal films are in fact merely constructions of The first point to be made against this

the past. Heath writes: mode of argumentation is that historical films are not supposed to be replicas of the

What needs particularly to be emphasized = a+ Indeed, what it would take to be a

here is that history in cinema is nowhere other . . . than in representation, the terms of representing replica of the past 8 unclear. Would it have

proposed, precisely the historical present of any to be a rep resentation of the past and past film; no film is not a document of itself and of its events depicted exactly as they were seen, actual situation in respect of the cinematic | ©Xperienced and cognized by peoples in the institution and of the complex of social institu- | past? If so, then history clearly has little to tions of representation. Which is to say that the | do with such replicas. For history need not automatic conjunction of film and history as- _ be restricted to the purview of the past. Just theme, as past to be shown today, the strategyfor because the Allies at Versailles in 1919 a cinema developed to recover ‘popular mem- _ failed to foresee the consequences of the ory,” is an idealist abstraction, an ideal of film and stern terms of the treaty does not mean that an ideal of history. The present of a film is always nonfiction filmmaker should not make the

historical, just as history is always present — a . . . .

fact of representation not a fact of the past, an appropriate causal connections in his one

elaboration of the presence of the past, a matic account of the rise of the Third

construction in the present, for today. . . .4 Reich. In fact we might even want to argue that historical films — as opposed to mere As I have already noted, there are atleast records —in general are expected to contwo arguments in this dense passage. One of —nect past events and actions to conse-

these holds that the researcher’s point-of- | quences that the historical agents who view, rooted as it isin the present, blocks an —_ performed the actions were often unaware accurate view of the past. This is an argu- _—_ of. History — as opposed to chronicling — is ment from selection of a type with which we about making connections between events are already familiar. Historians and filmmak- and in many cases the later events being

ers who make historical films select and connected to earlier events are unbeinterpret. They screen out certain facts and knownst to the historical actors. This connect others. In doing this screening out, doesn’t disqualify a film as accurate history this selection and this interpretation, they — even if the film is not a mysterious someare governed by the interests of the present. thing called a replica.

Thus, the films they give us are not replicas If history is a matter of making connecof the past but are perspectively skewed tions between events and if often earlier representations of the past, indelibly im- — events are connected to events in the present, printed by the issues of the present. More- — we have still not shown that historical films over, we are ensnared in such views because _—are necessarily mired in the epistemologiwe have no access to the past save through __ cally suspect present. For even if past events

the optic of the present. The historical are selected and combined with other events filmmaker offers theses about the past from _—_in line with present concerns, it is not the case the concerns of the present and also selects __ that the claims made by histories and histori-

his evidence for these theses on the basis of cal films are substantiated on the grounds that the concerns of the present. Countervailing they satisfy present preoccupations. Whatevidence, not sensitive to present concerns, — ever causal connections or threads of events 246

From Real to Reel: Entangled in Nonfiction Film

that a historical film purports must be sup- —_ answer is: “rather than the very events — ported by evidence. Satisfying the needs of __ historical or otherwise — that the film repre-

the present, that is, does not warrant a sents.” Of course, this is true. Indeed, it is historical claim. Only evidence will support so obvious that one wonders why the point whatever claims a historical film makes. Nor has to be made — acknowledged — within is it true that the only evidence available tous the film itself. Often nonfiction films do, in is the evidence that we will select because of fact, refer to the process of production our present interests. Forevenifonourown ~ which resulted in the film we are seeing —

we could only find such evidence as our e.g., the arduous trip to such and such a present needs and concerns guide usto, there |§ mountain village is underscored. But even is nevertheless a vast accumulation of un- — where this does not occur, wouldn’t things

avoidable evidence that has been _ be- like the title credits, advertisements, requeathed to us by past generations of histori- views, etc. tell normal viewers (as if they ans whose “present” interests led them to _—_ normally needed to be told) that the nonfic-

amass the many details that our historical tion films in question are constructions? accounts — filmed or written- must gibe Why, that is, is it necessary to represent or

with. (Moreover, I must also object- to acknowledge the process of the film’s hermeneutic circles notwithstanding — thatit | construction within the film itself? It simply is possible for researchers to imaginatively is not the case — as some film theorists might transcend their ties to the presenttoconceive — hold — that viewers take films without such

of the past from alternative viewpoints— acknowledgments to be something other both those of different times and of different than constructions. And, as I have already

cultures). pointed out, such films conventionally an-

The second argument found inthe Heath _—_nounce they are the construction of a team passage does not apply only to historical films — of filmmakers — who employed processes of

but to nonfictions in general. Films are said — production like editing — by means of the to be constructions, specifically representa- _ credits.

tions. Within contemporary film theory, this, When many contemporary film theoin combination with the fact that such repre- rists, like Heath, refer to a film as a sentations do not internally acknowledge — construction or a production, they have in their status as constructions entailsthatafilm | mind not that most films have been prois a deception. A nonfiction film of this sort | duced by a team of filmmakers — a fact the necessarily could not be objective because it films supposedly mask and which must be is necessarily a lie. That is, nonfiction films _ reflexively revealed -— but that films are

that do not acknowledge that they are — constructed by spectators who make sense constructions thereby mask the fact that they out of the films. Sometimes this process of

are constructions. This is thought to be a making sense is called suture.* This suturdeception that amounts to falsification. ing is unacknowledged or not represented Though this argument is very popular — within the film. Consequently, it is thought among contemporary film theorists, it is that this aspect of the film’s construction is somewhat obscure. All films including non- hidden from the spectator. Again, the fiction films are seen as falsifications unless — charges of deception and falsification loom.

they acknowledge that they are construc- The spectator thinks the film makes sense tions by means of representations internalto | when in fact the spectator makes (or the film (in the manner of the Godardian constructs) sense out of the film. An edited avant-garde). What does this mean? All nonfiction film like Turksib is constructed films are constructions, it is said. “Construc- by the spectator comprehending the meantions,” one asks, “rather than what?” One ing of and making connections between the 247

Avant-Garde and Documentary Film

shots in the film. However, the film does via cognitive processing — of intelligibility, not acknowledge that the spectator is per- obviously has a spectator’s portion. So why forming this operation. Therefore, the film § must this be acknowledged within the film? lies, deceptively masking that it is a con- Moreover, the legitimate though different struction. The film’s veracity is called into and compatible sense of “meaning construcquestion because the film does not remind tion” (the message sense), which refers to the spectator — through some process of — the structure or arrangement of a film’s representation internal to the film-—that he materials, does not imply that the specta-

is deciphering the meaning of the film. tor’s cognitive processing of meaning is in This argument seems to rely on a false —_ any way effaced or hidden.

dichotomy, viz., either the film constructs its I was reminded of the final argument meaning, or the spectator does. It is also against nonfiction film while watching the assumed that if the spectator’s interpretive | recent movie Lianna by writer-director John activity, his suturing, is not emphasized by __ Sayles. In this film, there is a portrayal of a the film, then the film deceptively insinuates college cinema class, circa, it seems to me, that the film, not the spectator, is construct- 1970. The lecturer repeats a point that was a ing its meaning. But clearly itis inappropri- popular slogan in regard to documentary ate to hold that there is a univocal sense to _film in the sixties and early seventies. He the phrase “construct meaning” suchthatwe notes that quantum physicists discovered must decide a competition between mutu- __ that by observing sub-atomic events they ally exclusive alternatives such as “either | changed the course of the events they were films or spectators construct meaning, but — studying by introducing unforeseen but necnot both.” A film is meaningful, intelligible, | essary disturbances into the situation. Sci-

etc. in virtue of its structure. That is, the ence shows, the lecturer in Lianna claims, arrangement of its materials determines that observation always alters the situation it whether it has successfully “constructed strives to capture objectively. This general-

meaning” in what we can think of as the ization is then applied to film. Once a message sense of that phrase. The spectator, | camera is introduced into a situation, the in turn, in response to the film might be said _ situation changes. People begin to behave

to “construct meaning” where this signifies for the camera, for example. Thus, the the operation of a cognitive process. We principle that rules the observation of the might call this the message-uptake sense of | atom applies equally to the act of filming the phrase. Thus, it is compatible for the | humans. No film can be objective — i.e., can film to appear meaningful — to be the source render an event as it is typically, sans of meaning — while it remains for a specta- | camera — because filming always changes

tor to impute meaning to the film by _ events. This is, moreover, just one instance mobilizing a cognitive process. That the film of a law that applies to every aspect and is meaningfully structured does neither pre- order of being in the physical universe.

clude nor hide the fact that a spectator Observation must alter the behavior of actively derives meaning from the film, i.e., | whatever is observed.

“constructs meaning” (according to this This argument dubiously assumes that mode of speaking). And surely every specta- whatever holds as a matter of law at the subtor knows that meaning in the sense of the — atomic level applies to every level and mode spectator’s recognition of meaning (i.e., | of experience. Therefore, since our presence message-uptake) requires a spectator’s dis- can be felt drastically on the atomic level, it is cerning and comprehending the structure of — hypothesized that it is also always felt drasti-

a film. That is, “the construction of mean- cally on the macroscopic level. In fact, ing,” where that refers to the experience— however, the presence of an observer has 248

From Real to Reel: Entangled in Nonfiction Film

little palpable physical effect at all on the 2. Michael Ryan, “Militant Documentary: Maimacroscopic level. But this is not the most 68 Par Lui,” in Ciné-tracts, no. 7/8. On pages

damning point to raise about the argument. 18-19 Ryan writes

For the argument proceeds by extrapolating .

from the physical effect of observation on an What Mai 68 demonstrates is that even ‘natural’ . . life is highly technological, conventional and instituatom to a putative behavioral effect that a tional. Its content and form is determined by the camera has on the people it films. But even if technology of language and symbolic representaa camera did have some almost undetectable tion. The so-called natural world of Mai 68 is as

physical influence on every object in its much a construct as any fictional object. . vicinity, it need not have an influence on For example, the various actions of the dit-

. ferent groups involved in the events — workers,

every person it films. The camera may be students, police, union hacks, etc. — all fall back very far away or hidden, so that its subjects upon what can be called a ‘scenario,’ that is, are unaware that it is observing them. Thus, highly over-determined set of conscious and unconit has no behavioral repercussions. Or per- scious prescriptions, inscribed in language, modes haps the subject of the camera is habituated of behaviour, forms of thought, role models, ; . clothing, moral codes, etc., which give rise to and to the camera’s presence and the subject acts mark out the limits of what happened and what naturally as a result. Maybe the subject is would have happened in May 1968. There was an emotionally carried away and just doesn’t unwritten rule that the students would not use modify his behavior because he doesn’t care arms. Likewise, the workers could not storm the that the camera is nearby. These and hun- National Assembly. Otherwise, the rule forbidding the police from mowing them all down would have dreds ot other reasons can be offered to show been legitimately forgotten. The homes of the

that in many cases the presence of an bourgeoise were not to be broken into. The battle observing camera does not necessarily was to be limited to the streets and the factories, change the event from the way it would have the prescribed scenes of revolution. The city was

been had the camera been absent. Nor can not to be set on fire. . . . .

. . Limits on action are determined by, among

the discovery of the physical effects of other things, role-giving concepts. The concept (in observation on particles in quantum mechan- conjunction with the reality) “police” determines ics be used to support this claim. For even if the behaviour of the men hired to carry out that

the presence of the camera resulted in some epithet. ... oo . -

physical changes in the situation, two adulter- The role of ‘fictional’ constructs in determining

. ‘real’ history is not clear in terms of institutions and

ous lovers unaware of the private eye across of language. . . .

the alleyway will not change their behavior The events of Mai 68 then, even if they can, ala despite the fact that a battery of cameras is limite, be called a real referent, are themselves pointed their way. I am not denying that the constituted as a play of representations. They are presence of a camera in a Situation might real, but not ‘natural’ and uncontrived. History,

. . but a history which is constructed. At the limit of

change it. I am denying both that the nonfiction is another form of fiction, just as the presence of a camera must necessarily goal or limit of fiction (in film) is a seemingly change a situation at the level of human nonfictionalized event. . . . behavior and that the claim that cameras My point, then, is that the presence of real

must change human behavior can be gleaned history and objective fact which documentary from discoveries of the physical effects of constituted by representations. Fictional represen-

. . . supposedly renders is itself comprised of and

observation upon atoms. tation is shown to be historical. This would be the gesture of reducing fictional film to documentary. It

is the Marxist ideology-critical moment of the

Notes analysis. The deconstructive equivalent of this moment is to show that the supposedly natural 1. This argument was made from the floor at the referent of non-fictional film can be itself described conference, “Film, the False Sociology,” at as a kind of fiction, a complex set of presentations —

New York University, 1980. political, social, institutional, conceptual, physical, 249

Avant-Garde and Documentary Film linguistic - whose reference one to the other in 7. Dziga Vertov, “Selected Writings,” in Avant-

history is open-ended. Garde Film, edited by P. Adams Sitney (New York: New York University Press, 1978). On

3. Christian Metz, “The Imaginary Signifier,” page 5, Vertov writes “My road is toward the Screen, Vol. 16, no. 2 (Summer 1975). On creation of a fresh perception of the world.

page 47, he writes “At the theater Sarah Thus, I decipher in a new way the world Bernhardt may tell me she is Phedre or if the unknown to you.” play were from another period and rejected 8. Frederick Wiseman, an interview in The New the figurative regime, she might Say, as in a Documentary in Action, by Alan Rosenthal

type of modern theater, that she is Sarah (Berkeley: University of California Press,

Bernhardt. But at any rate, I should see 1977), p. 70. Sarah Bernhardt. At the cinema she could 9. Erik Barnouw, Documentary (New York: make two kinds of speeches too, but it would Oxford University Press, 1974), pp. 287-288. be her shadow that would be offering them to 10. See for example Peter Graham, “Cinema me (or she would be offering them in her own Verité in France, Film Quarterly, 17 (Sum-

absence). Every film is a fiction film.” mer, 1964); Colin Young, “Cinema of Com4. Richard Meran Barsam attributes this view to mon Sense,” Film Quarterly 17 (Summer, Andrew Sarris in Nonfiction Film: A Critical 1964); Young, “Observational Cinema” in History (New York: E. P. Dutton and Co., Principles of Visual Anthropology, edited by

1973). _ Paul Hockings (The Hague: Mouton Publish-

5. Michael Ryan, “Militant Documentary.” ers, 1975). In these articles the authors,

Derrida’s concept of différance holds that two though arguing that film is necessarily subjec-

polar opposites when examined closely, de- tive, do not turn this into a rejection of the constructed, reveal traces of each other such prospects of documentary filmmaking.

that the dichotomy collapses as the terms become 11. Bela Balazs, Theory of Film (New York: each other (or manifest elements of each other). Dover Publications, 1970), pp. 89-90. This is a function of the common origin of the 12. Lucien Goldman, “Cinema and Sociology,” terms. In Of Grammatology, Derrida writes “This in Anthropology — Reality — Cinema, edited

common root, which is not a root but the my Mick Eaton (London: British Film Insticoncealment of the origin and which is not tute, 1979), p. 64.

common because it does not amount to the same . ; .

thing except with the unmonotonous insistence 13. A somewhat similar, though not identical,

of difference, this unnameable movement of concept of indexing is used in regard to difference-itself, that I have strategically nick- artworks in “Piece: Contra Aesthetics” by named trace, reserve or différance, could be called Timothy Binkley in Philosophy Looks at the writing only within the historical closure, that is to Arts, edited by Joseph Margolis (Philadelsay within the limits of science and philosophy.” phia: Temple University Press, 1978). Jacques Derrida, Of Grammatology, trans. Gayati 14. The idea of segments of possible worlds Chakravorty Spivak (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins derives from Nicholas Wolterstorff, “Worlds

University Press, 1974), p. 93. In Positions, of Works of Art,” Journal of Aesthetics and Derrida defines différance as “a structure and a Art Criticism 35 (1976). ' movement which cannot be conceived on the basis 15. L recommend that film theorists use a nar-

of the opposition presence/absence. Différance is , ;

the systematic play of differences, of the spacing rower sense of ideology than they presently (espacement) by which elements refer to one use. I would call an assertion — like “Those

another.” who are unemployed have only their own

laziness to blame for their problems” — Ryan wants to use this concept and the ideological when (1) it is false and (2) it is method of deconstruction to show that fiction used to support some relation of social films blur into nonfiction and vice-versa. See domination or oppression. Film theorists, of

the last paragraph of note 2. course, also want to describe entire symbol 6. See Grierson on Documentary, edited by systems — like cinema or language — as ideoForsyth Hardy (London: Faber and Faber, logical. Such systems are not true or false.

1979). But if an entire symbol system could be 250

From Real to Reel: Entangled in Nonfiction Film

characterized as ideological, I think it would apply epistemological criteria to evaluate the be because it (1) excludes or represses the work. ... The common practice of discrediting representation of certain social facts or re- ideas by reference to their social origin is not what lations and (2) is used to support social is meant by this critique. Questions of validity are

oppression in virtue of the exclusions it always involved. We can learn a good deal here

entails. from s own practice. His procedure is to first , . of Marx all establish by theoretical analysis, argument

Some Marxists have also disapproved of and evidence, an account of whatever is in contenthe global concept of ideology used by film tion. He then goes on to show precisely in which theorists. In their criticisms of the Althusser- respects a rival theory falls short of explanatory ian tendencies of Screen, Kevin McDonnell power. Only then does he attempt to relate those and Kevin Robins write that ideology should specific errors to class alignments and the class become “a less total phenomenon than it is struggle. An example of this method is to be found

for Althusserians who identify it with the in Vol. III of Capital where he considers the cultural or symbolic as a whole. We take evidence given by bankers in the Report of the ideology to be an abstract concept, referring Committee on Bank Acts of 1857. He assesses this

only to the fetishised forms assumed by evidence m ter ms of its internal Inconsistencies, . wee and its theoretical and empirical inadequacies. He thought which uncritically confronts the nee- then goes on to argue that these views are to be essary constraints of capitalist social real- expected from bankers within that structure of

ity... .” in “Marxist Cultural Theory” in One social relations because of the form which social Dimensional Marxism (London: Allison and relations take in general under capitalism, and Busby Limited, 1980), p. 167. Though I dis- because of the particular position of bankers within agree with much of McDonnell and Robins’s that structure of social relations and the interests position, I think their consternation with the which that position generates. His argument is, in reigning, inflated idea of ideology is correct. effect, ‘this is indeed how money and banking Since the completion of this essay I have would appear to people so situated, and these are discovered another voice raised against the the categories they would require in their day-today conduct of their business activities. . . .’ This bloated concept of ideology used by film procedure is exemplary, but is seldom followed by theorists — Terry Lovell, Pictures of Reality people wishing to explore the ideological underpin(London: British Film Institute, 1980). Like nings of their opponents’ thoughts.” McDonnell and Robins, Lovell is a Marxist

who is attacking the Althusserian mandarins It is to be hoped that this invocation of the of British film theory — apparently a sport of master will shame Ciné-Marxists into adoptgaining popularity in England. Lovell’s book ing a more rigorous approach to the analysis is a mixed blessing. The account of trends in of ideology than the guilt-by-association (usu-

philosophy of science is not only turgid and ally free association) tactics that are so questionably metaphoric but inept and rid- prevalent nowadays. dled with error. For example, the definition In my own writings I have sometimes used of induction offered on page 11 is philosophi- a looser, Leninist concept of ideology in cally incorrect. On the other hand, Lovell has which “ideological” is interchangeable with some salutary things to say about ideology. “political.” This is an acceptable, common Lovell argues that ideology “may be defined usage. Under this variant, a Marxist might as the production and dissemination of erro- speak of “the communist ideology.” Neverthe-

neous beliefs whose inadequacies are socially less, I think that the sense of ideology motivated.” (page 51) Lovell also provides a outlined in the preceding paragraphs is the useful service by showing that this concep- most fundamental and correct. It is probably

tions of ideology dictates the form that best to keep the critical edge to the concept. ideological analysis should take, one which is One should, therefore, announce that one is

reflected in Marx’s method. using the Leninist concept when one adopts it in an analysis.

“To establish that a given body of ideas or theory 16. Monroe C. Beardsley, The Possibility of serve class interests is always insufficient to justify Criticism (Detroit: Wayne State University the label ideology. It is always necessary first to Press, 1970). 251

Avant-Garde and Documentary Film 17. In Realism and the Cinema, edited by Christo- University Books, 1969) especially Chap-

pher Williams (London: Routledge and Ke- ter II.

gan Paul, 1980), p. 226. 22. Op. cit. 18. See especially vol. I of André Bazin’s What Is 23. In Cinema Verité in America (Boston: MIT Cinema? translated and edited by Hugh Gray Press, 1974), Stephen Mamber writes “Cin-

(Berkeley: University of California Press, ema verite adopts Renoir’s idea of the cam-

1967). era and uses it as a recording tool, so that the ter 1974). become the standard we use to judge the

19. “The World Viewed,” Georgia Review (Win- events themselves, ‘the knowledge of man,’

20. According to Eric Rhode in “Why Neo- film.” (p. 18).

Realism Failed,” Sight and Sound, 30 (Win- 24. Stephen Heath, Questions of Cinema (Bloo-

ter 1960/61). mington: Indiana University Press, 1981), pp. 21. Monroe C. Beardsley, Aesthetics (New York: 237-238. Harcourt, Brace and World, 1958), espe- 25. For analysis and criticisms of the concept of

cially Chapter VI, section 16. Also see suture, see Noél Carroll, “Address to the Goran Hermerén, Representation and Mean- Heathen,” October, no. 23 (Winter 1982), ing in the Visual Arts (Lund: Scandinavian sections IV and VI.

252

=

= Velocity is not fiction but it does not have an

CHAPTER XVI accompanying set of standards for epistemic = evaluation. Throughout the essay, I gener-

Reply to ally use “nonfiction” to refer to various

Carol Brownson = oe . and Jack C. Wolf slip into talk of a homogeneous genre of genres of films of putative fact (journalistic reports, historical films etc.). But at times I

= aneer

: ™ nonfiction films which I suggest that I can partially define, when, indeed, all I actually

7 should be claiming is that films of putative fact can be adjudged objective in terms of the prevailing standards of epistemic evalua-

I tion of the types of knowledge claims that the films that make said knowledge claims

Let me begin by commenting on some points present. Also I am making the related Carol Brownson makes that I think are generalization that this “genre” of nonfiction correct and which have helped me to clarify _ films makes reference to the world. Brownfor myself the nature of my own project. She — son’s remarks on my confusions here are says, “Rather than giving a partial definition —__ very useful.

of nonfiction, he has described a reasonable On the other hand, I have great difficulty and respectable standard of evaluation appli- |= understanding Brownson’s points about ob-

cable to films that lay claim to objectiv- jectivity. She urges us to drop the objecity... .” I think Brownson is right that I __ tivity/subjectivity dichotomy in discussing should steer clear of attempting to define | documentary film but never really explains nonfiction for the very reason that itis nota | why we should do this. She suggests that I homogeneous class of things but a bunch of have redefined the concept of objectivity in things lumped together only because they are —_ terms of adherence to intersubjectively as-

not fictions. sessable practices of reasoning and evidence In my paper, I really had in mind using _ gathering. But I am not sure that I have nonfiction as a label for all sorts of films of | introduced a new meaning of “objectivity.” purported fact — historical films, anthropo- Admittedly I do not mean by “objectivity” logical films, films of current events, etc. I “self-evident certainty.” But nor do many wanted to say, contrary to many contempo- _—s contemporary theorists. The contemporary rary theorists, that such films of purported concept of objectivity, dating back to Peirce fact can be objective as well as having certain and Husserl, it seems to me, centers on other features in common —e.g., reference the notion of intersubjective validation. I to the actual world. But I made these points —_haven’t redefined “objectivity” but have emby speaking as though nonfiction film was an —_ ployed one major prevailing conception of it.

essentially unified class, when it is not. I Brownson also thinks that I am wrong in should have made my points by saying — thinking that most commentators who con“historical films can be objective,” “anthro- clude that film is necessarily subjective are pological films can be objective,” “sociologi- _ restricting their arguments to film. She holds

cal films can be objective,” etc. rather than that indeed such commentators believe by speaking of nonfiction films tout court. | more broadly that all knowledge claims are My argument is really that films of putative | subjective. There is no way to finally adjudifact can be objective and not that everything — cate this controversy save by counting cases. that is not fiction has some epistemic stan- —_ But in my favor I would point out that many

dard of evaluation — Ernie Gehr’s Serene — of the theorists who hold that nonfiction 253

Avant-Garde and Documentary Film

films are subjective are Marxists. And Marx- _— about things in front of the camera? What ists, One supposes, can’t hold that all knowl- —_ does the fact that the camera lens has to be

edge claims are subjective insofar as their adjusted —i.e., that the camera does not theory is proposed as being scientifically and operate entirely automatically but requires

objectively verifiable. some human manipulation — have to do with Much of Brownson’s discussion of objec- — whether or not the reference of the shot is tivity is preoccupied with sketching two ar- __ referentially transparent or opaque?

guments (that ultimately collapse into one) Brownson takes the supposed intensional that she thinks might be leading commenta- _ dimension of film to support the claim that it tors to claim that the nonfiction filmissubjec- _ is language-like. This seems to be very slim tive. These, moreover, are arguments thatI —_‘ grounds for accepting a language/film anal-

failed to foreclose. Both these arguments ogy. And, of course, even if we do accept have as their crucial premise the notion that __ the language/film analogy, I doubt that sense

language is subjective. Thus, insofar as film | can be made of the claim that language is is language-like, it too is always subjective. — subjective.

Frankly, neither of the arguments per- Brownson’s second argument charges suade me, specifically because Idonot know _ that I attribute too simplistic an error to what to make of the idea that “language is — those who believe that films have points-ofsubjective.” Language is a shared tool of a view. I argue that theorists are led to this cultural community. A language does not belief either by equivocations on the conexist solely in an individual’s mind. Indeed __ cept of “point-of-view,” or through a fallacy

Wittgenstein has proven that a private lan- of composition — every shot has a literal guage is impossible. What could it mean to __ p.o.v., therefore, the film as a whole has a say that language is subjective otherthanthat | viewpoint. Against my accusation of equivoit is in the province of a single consciousness? — cation, she says that the different applica-.

Indeed, I doubt the idea that language is tions of the concept of point-of-view are subjective can be intelligibly interpreted. related by metaphoric expansion. I agree. Thus, I do not believe that either of the | Indeed, some of the expansions are very arguments that Brownson invents are avail- nice metaphors. But what difference does able for film theorists since both require the — this make? One can still not jump infereneither unintelligible or impossible proposi- __ tially from a literal to a metaphoric sense of

tion that language is subjective. “point-of-view” and act as though one is still The first argument states that since films speaking univocally.

do not mechanically mirror reality, they are In answer to my argument that theorists intensional. If they are intensional, they are commit a fallacy of composition when they language-like. If they are language-like, they | move from the literal p.o.v. of the shot to

are subjective. I have already rejected the the claim that the film as a whole has a last proposition in this series as unintelligi- | personal vision, Carol Brownson suggests I

ble. But I don’t understand the earlier parts have misconstrued what theorists really of the argument either. [am notsure thatthe have in mind. They actually hold her first fact that films don’t automatically “mirror” argument — films are not mechanical; thus, reality shows they are “intensional.” Indeed, they are language-like; thus they are subjecI am not sure that I understand the meaning __ tive because language is subjective. Again I of the word “intensional” here. Isitthat films — think that the latter claim is unintelligible. I must be understood as somehow analogous __ have rejected the claim that films are signifito referentially opaque contexts. But why? — cantly language-like elsewhere as have other Don’t some film images warrant inferences _ theorists.! And lastly, I think it is a mistake 254

Reply to Carol Brownson and Jack C. Wolf

to treat “mechanical” and “language-like” _ fiction” = “true.” Thus, he is worried that a

as logical contraries that exclusively carve producer empowered to index a film as

up the field of inquiry. nonfiction is being licensed to declare the Brownson criticizes my approach be- film “true,” as if merely saying something is cause I do not allow for gentle criticism in so could make it so. Wolf says if we can show cases such as The Graduate where the _ the film is false, then it is fiction — no matter character is going in the wrong direction on _ how the producer indexes it.

the Golden Gate Bridge. I am tempted to But I do not correlate nonfiction with the respond that in the fictional world of The _ truth, nor do I believe that it is advisable to Graduate the relation between the fictional equate fiction with falsity. It is not false that Berkeley and the fictional San Francisco is = Scarlet O’Hara lived on a plantation called opposite that customarily experienced by Tara. It is only — well — fictional. Nor does

California drivers. the fact that Chariot of the Gods is nonficFinally, Brownson seems worried that my — tion make it true. It only makes Chariot of

way of treating the distinction between the Gods acandidate for evaluation in terms fiction and nonfiction suggests an endorse- _—of_ literal truth or falsity - something the ment of a cleavage between pleasure and __ proposition “Scarlet O’Hara lived on Tara” knowledge. I don’t see why she fears this. At _is not.

several points in the essay I make clear that I We can call the use of the fiction/nondo not believe that nonfiction writing and _fiction dichotomy to commend or to disparnonfiction film must eschew aesthetic orna- age items as true or false the normative

mentation and elaboration. sense of the dichotomy. That is, it honors or

ranks or grades the true and the false by

I means of the appellations “fiction” and “nonfiction.” Throughout his comments One of Jack Wolf’s biggest problems with Wolf has the normative use of these terms in

my paper is his fear that I give film mind. And given this he is upset because he producers too much authority when I assign __ thinks that I am giving filmmakers the right

them full responsibility for indexing films as _ to establish that their films are true no “nonfictional.” At this point, Wolf com- matter what the rest of us clearly know the plains “I do not agree with Carroll’s posi- facts to be. Certainly Wolf is correct to tion that the label of the producer is the reject sucha prospect. But I don’t think that one and only criterion acceptable for deter- | my paper opens this particular Pandora’s

mining the category of [a] film. If the Box. producer says the product is true to ‘actual For I do not use the fiction/nonfiction reality’ and it is demonstrably false to that — distinction in the normative sense. I do not ‘actual reality,’ then it is fiction, an untruth, think that in indexing a film as nonfiction the

and the label should be rejected.” Jack filmmaker declares that it is true but only Wolf’s dissatisfactions in this matter, I that it is to be evaluated against the stanbelieve, underwrite the reservations he dards of truthfulness. Indeed, when meavoices to my approach throughout his re- _ sured against those standards, a film that has sponse. But [ am not so sure that there is | been indexed as nonfiction may turn out to an outright disagreement between us rather __ be false. At that point, moreover, I am not

than simply a misunderstanding. disposed to re-label the film as “fiction” as Woif uses the terms “fiction” and “nonfic- | proponents of the normative usage might. I

tion” differently than I advocate. For him am contented to say simply that the film is “fiction” = “false” or “untrue,” while “non- _ false. 255

Avant-Garde and Documentary Film

I would identify my use of the nonfic- and not the normative sense, I think he tion/fiction distinction as classificatory not might withdraw some of his objections. For, normative. To index something as fictional of course, I agree with him that it is utterly

classifies it as belonging to a category of absurd to believe that a filmmaker can things to which truth and falsity do not _ establish the truth of a documentary simply pertain. In saying something is fictional Ino __ by asserting that it is true (or by saying it is

more mean to chastise the film for being “nonfictional,” where this, inadvisably, is false than I mean to commend the truthful- — regarded as synonymous with “true”’). ness of other things by calling them “nonfic-

tion.” “Nonfiction” only signals membership in the class of things to which standards Note of truth or falsity can be apphed; the badge, 1. Noel Carroll, “Toward a Theory of Film

nonfiction,” does not prejudge the out- Editing,” Millennium Film Journal, no. 3

come of such appraisals. (1979). Also see Christian Metz, Film Lan-

If Jack Wolf were to review my approach guage (New York: Oxford University Press, with the recognition that I use the nonfic- 1974). “Toward a Theory of Film Editing” is tion/fiction distinction in the classificatory reprinted in this volume.

256

=:‘

=

specificity theory, tended to be totalizing. Where earlier theorists spoke of the essence

PART IV = of cinema,think contemporary film theorists of film in terms of a central function or role, viz., the propagation of ideology

Ideology ™ through subject positioning. And where - earlier theorists referred all their analyses back to the unique nature of the medium,

= contemporary theorists refer every analysis

of a device or cinematic structure back to the ideological function of cinema. Indeed, contemporary film theorists tend to append The birth and growth of the institution of film the same scenarios about subject positioning studies in the United States is coeval withthe to every filmic device, imbuing their theory

cultural revolution of the sixties and its with a great deal of unity, if not monotony. vicissitudes. Many graduate students of my Contemporary film theorists argue, in efgeneration developed their passion for film fect, that film — at the level of its structures and their passion for radical politics simulta- of articulation -—is inherently ideological, neously. Understandably, they sought tofuse —_ irrespective of narrative, imagistic or the-

these two passions into one. This was un- matic content. If the Russians argued that doubtedly abetted by their conviction that __ film was essentially montage, contemporary everything is political, and, in any case, the _ film theorists maintain that film is essentially proposition that film has some ideological ideological, which, for them, means that film

implications would appear hard to deny no form intrinsically possesses an ideological matter what one’s political stripe. Asaresult, | content which is to be unpacked in the light of ideological analysis, of which feminist analy- the laws of subject positioning. Film theory Sis is a major subdivision, has dominated film | becomes a matter of showing the way in

theory for over two decades. which each cinematic device or structure

The view that still prevails in most gradu- exemplifies the laws or universal pattern of ate departments of film is that the ideological — subject positioning. And this yields a singular operation of film is best conceived in func- __ theory of film, since every cinematic device is tionalist terms where the ideological function |= subsumed under the same patent of subject

of film is to position or to construct or to — construction.

suture subjects (and where the instantiation I have never been a friend of subject of the so-called male gaze is also a case of __ position theory. One reason for this is that I

subject positioning). Psychoanalysis has have never been convinced that film form is been the preferred vocabulary for describing inherently ideological. I remain wedded to these processes. Under this dispensation, — the view that ideology is not a matter of form, film structures — from the perspectival im- but of content. I find it paradoxical to court age, narration, and point-of-view editing to the proposition that film form is intrinsically the very conditions of film projection- are ideological, since I believe that it is evident psychoanalyzed to show how each triggersa that there are some films which are not series of psychological processes that culmi- _—_ ideologically pernicious, but whose formal

nate in the positioning of viewers as subjects structures and devices are congruent with for the purpose of oppressive social systems _ films that are ideologically pernicious. But

like capitalism and patriarchy. this would be impossible if films were ideoAs I have argued elsewhere at length,! logical at the level of formal articulation. contemporary film theory has, like medium- Nor, though I am a child of the sixties, am 257

Ideology

I persuaded by the slogan that everything is _—_idea of the image of women in film in order political. What I think the sixties may have __to provide a framework for talking about the

taught us is that it is always prudent to ways in which films may promote sexism. consider whether politics is playing a role One of my leading points in this essay is behind the scenes. But this is consistent with that, appearances notwithstanding, femithe finding that once we investigate for nism need not be linked to psychoanalysis in subterranean political machinations, we — order to interrogate cinema. Undoubtedly, may discover none. One cannot simply | psychoanalytic feminism may look like the define everything to be political Some only game in town. But there is no reason to things are political as a matter of fact; some = suppose that a scholar cannot depart from are not. You have to look and see. And I _ reigning fashion and remain committed to think that if you look and see, you will find feminism - at least in any politically meanthat it is vastly implausible to believe that ingful sense of that term.

cinematic structures, like point-of-view edit- In “Film, Rhetoric, and Ideology,” I ing, are inherently or intrinsically ideologi- © summarize some of my objections to the cal. The use of point-of-view editing in a dominant Althusserian-Lacanian model of particular film may serve ideological pur- __ political film theory. Rather than conceiving poses. But the structure itself is ideologically of film as inherently ideological, I consider

neutral. the dissemination of ideology in film to be a

I reject the notion that film forms are matter of rhetoric, and I go on to isolate inherently or essentially ideological as I some of the rhetorical devices, such as the earlier rejected the notion that certain de- one I call the “narrative enthymeme,” which

vices of film were essentially cinematic, and _[ think explain how films dispense ideology. I reject the totalizing theoretical approaches _‘ This essay, like the preceding one, is some-

which each of these parallel prejudices what programmatic. But I hope that both encourage. However, I would not wish to _ essays at least suggest the plausibility of a deny the obvious fact that films in particular —§ piecemeal approach to the analysis of ideoland moving images in general are frequently — ogy and film.

involved in the dissemination of ideology Throughout my career as a film theorist, I and that explaining the ways in which films, have been denounced as a formalist. But if

indeed many films, can play this role is a formalism is the doctrine that film has legitimate theoretical ambition. However, I _ nothing to do with politics, then I cannot be

regard this type of theorizing as best pur- thought to be an acolyte of that persuasion. sued in a piecemeal fashion, attempting to _ For the articles in this section agree that film

isolate the structures that facilitate the | can be connected to politics and attempt to dissemination of ideology in film and analyz- show that we can begin to theorize that ing the way in which they work. The essays —_ connection. So I am not a formalist.

in this section are meant to initiate ways of On the other hand, if one is putatively analyzing some of the strategies that account — guilty of formalism if one does not believe

for the ideological effects of film. that film is inherently political in its every In “The Image of Women in Film: A aspect, then I suppose that since I think Defense of a Paradigm” I criticize one of the — certain film devices are ideologically neuleading psychoanalytic accounts of the way tral, I could be called a formalist; though I in which sexism is advanced by the narrative | would immediately want to add that this is cinema. But the essay is not merely nega- _an inflated and, I think, question-begging tive. I also suggest how certain concepts conception of formalism. For even if everyfrom the contemporary theory of the emo- __ thing might be political, it remains to be tions may be joined to the early-seventies | shown that everything is political. That is as 258

Introduction to Part IV

true of film as it is of interpersonal relations. tion the statistical accuracy of certain genAnd just as I believe that many aspects of _ eral claims about the depiction of women in our personal relations are not political, so I © Hollywood film is to invite torrents of selfdeny that every aspect of film is inevitably _ righteous political rage.

ideological. Theorists, it would appear, can say anyIn film studies, the charge of formalism is thing, no matter how preposterous, as long

generally an exercise in political correctness. —_ as they are perceived to be on the right side

To call someone a formalist is to say they are of the barricades. Thus, though I have politically incorrect. As I have already indi- attempted in this section to make theoretical cated, I do not think that I am a formalist contributions to the political analysis of film, because I acknowledge that film has political I predict that I will be rebuked once again and ideological repercussions and that they for being a formalist, since I am not percan be studied theoretically. But I also do —_— ceived to belong to the right (academic)

not believe that it is politically incorrect to party. Perhaps the evidence will be that I analyze the operation of film metaphor complain about political correctness. But I without reference to its putatively inherent confess that I find the prevailing political ideological implications. Metaphor in lan- correctness in film studies intellectually selfguage can be used for ideological effect or serving, complacent, and smug. It not only not, and the same holds for film metaphor. _—__inures the doctrines of the allegedly politiTo castigate or impugn a theorist for suppos- __ cally correct from criticism, it represses any ing this on what are alleged to be political original thinking on any terms that are not grounds does nothing to help the oppressed, _its own. It stamps out diversity in the name

if that is one’s aim. It only impedes the ' of difference. It is not a policy likely to acquisition of knowledge about film. promote the growth of understanding. Unfortunately, there is no area in acade-

mia that is more subject to the repressive reign of political correctness than film stud- Notes ies. In film studies, political correctness is 1. Noél Carroll, Mystifying Movies (Columbia

wielded not only to suppress intellectual University Press, 1988). dissent, but to protect shaky thinking. To 2. Though I hasten to add that these devices are criticize Lacanian psychoanalysis or to ques- not uniquely cinematic.

259

= often the options for depicting were strongly

CHAPTER XVII ™ structured by the dichotomy of the mother

, versus the whore. Insofar as the ways of

The Image of ™ representing women in popular media in Women in Film: - some way influences or reinforces the way

, A Defense of real women may be construed, the study of a Paradigm = the recurrent imagery of women in film, especially where the relevant options were = either impoverished and/or distorting, pro-

vided an inroad into one of the sources, or, at least, resources of sexism in the broader society. !

I. Introduction Clearly, the study of the image of women in film could proceed without commitment Feminism is the most visible movement in _ to psychoanalytic theory. However, that is film criticism today, and the most dominant _not what happened. As a participant in the trend in that movement is psychoanalytically | evolution of film theory and history, my informed. Psychoanalytic feminism came to —_ own sense is that the project of studying the this position in film studies at the very latest image of women in film was superseded by

by the early to mid-eighties. Before the — psychoanalysis due to a feeling that this consolidation and ascendancy of this particu- project, as practiced by early feminists, lar variety of feminism, earlier approachesto — suffered from being too naively empirical.

the study of women and film included the It appeared to involve meandering from search for a suppressed canon of women _ genre to genre, from period to period, and filmmakers — a feminist version of the auteur —_even from film to film, accumulating a mass

theory — and the study of the image of — of observations which however interesting, women in films, primarily the image of — were also thought to be theoretically ragwomen in films by men. Neither of these — tag. Psychoanalysis, in contrast, provided a approaches mandated a reliance on psycho- means to incorporate many of the scattered analysis, though, of course, one could pursue _— insights of the image of women in film these research programs while also embrac- approach (henceforth, generally called sim-

ing psychoanalysis. ply “the image approach”), while also My particular interest in this essay is to — sharpening the theoretical direction of femidefend the study of the image of women in __ nist research. That is, psychoanalysis could

film, regarding that project as logically provide not only a theoretical framework independent from the resort to psychoanaly- = with which to organize many of the dissis. In speaking of this approach to feminist —_coveries of the first wave of film feminism,

film criticism, I have in mind writing on but also a powerful program for further cinema from the early seventies like Molly _ research.

Haskell’s From Reverence to Rape which This, of course, is not the whole story. paralleled research in literary studies such as = Many film feminists were also interested in

Kate Millett’s Sexual Politics. the origins and reinforcement of sexual

Work of this sort called to our attention difference in our culture, and in this rethe ways the imagery of women in our _ spect, psychoanalysis, as a putative scienculture recurringly portrayed them through __ tific discipline, had the advantage of having a limited, constraining, and ultimately op- —_ theories about this, albeit theories whose

pressive repertory of characterizations. For patriarchal biases would require modificaexample, in film, it was noted that very _ tions by feminists. 260

The Image of Women in Film

The purpose of this paper is to attempt to ment of feminism carries with it a theoretical defend feminist film studies of the image of | commitment to psychoanalysis.

women in film approach, where that is understood as having no necessary commit- II. Mulvey, Psychoanalysis and Visual

ment to psychoanalysis. In order to carry Pleasure out this defense, I will try to sketch some of

the shortcomings of the psychoanalytic At present, as already indicated, it appears model, but I will also attempt to indicate fair to say that the most active area in that the image approach can be supplied feminist film studies is psychoanalytic in with a respectable theoretical basis drawn _ orientation. Moreover, there are subtle dif-

from the contemporary philosophy of the ferences and debates between the major, emotions. My strategy will be to consider = feminist-psychoanalytic film critics. As a psychoanalytic feminism and the image ap- _ result, it is impossible in a paper of this scale

proach as potentially rival research pro- to chart all the positions that might be grams; and I will try to show that the _ correctly identified as feminist-psychoanalpsychoanalytic approach has a number of _ytic film criticism, nor could one hope to liabilities which can be avoided by the image develop objections to every variation in the

approach, while also attempting to show field. Consequently, in this section of my that the image of women in film model need __ paper, selectivity is unavoidable. Specifinot be thought of as irredeemably sunk in _ cally, in developing my objections to psy-

atheoretical naivete.? choanalytic-feminism in contemporary film

The first section that follows will outline — studies, I shall focus on Laura Mulvey’s some of the shortcomings of psychoanalytic | seminal essay “Visual Pleasure and Narrafeminism in film studies, and the sectionthat — tive Cinema.”

follows it will propose some theoretical I have chosen this paper for several credentials for the image of women in film __ reasons. First, it can lay claim to being the

model. I will not address the purported inaugural polemic of feminist, psychoanaadvantage of psychoanalysis to provide a_ lytic film criticism. Second, it is widely theory of sexual differentiation. That would — reprinted and widely taught. If someone involve a discussion of the adequacy of — knows just one essay of the psychoanalytic psychoanalysis as a scientific theory of devel- —_ school, it is likely to be this one. And, even opment, and I obviously do not have the — though many feminist film critics have regis-

space to enter that issue. Consequently, the tered objections to it and have tried to objections I raise with respect to psycho- qualify and expand it, it remains perhaps the analytic-feminist film criticism will not de- |§major introductory text to the field. One pend on contesting the scientific pretensions _—_ charge that might be made against my choice

of psychoanalysis, though I should addthatI of this essay for scrutiny might be that it is am very skeptical about them. Nevertheless, | somewhat dated in its specific claims. How-

I shall try to restrict my objections to ones ever, in response, I would maintain that that can be adjudicated within the bounds of = many of the theoretical tendencies which I

film theory. intend to criticize in Mulvey’s essay continue Furthermore, I want to add that my to plague psychoanalytic film feminism,

opposition to the psychoanalytic model in — even in those cases where other psychoana-

feminist film criticism in no way implies _ lytically inclined feminists may explicitly either logically or as a matter of fact any — wish to modify Mulvey’s approach.‘ opposition to feminism as such. The issue is The uncontroversial premise of Mulvey’s between different models of feminist film essay is that the Hollywood cinema’s success criticism. I do not believe that an endorse- involves, undoubtedly among other things, 261

Ideology

the manipulation of the audience’s visual — possible logical flaws, empirical shortcompleasure. Moreover, Mulvey hypothesizes ings, or relative disadvantages with respect

that the visual pleasure found in movies to other theoretical frameworks. In this, reflects patterns of visual fascination in the they follow Mulvey’s lead. However, culture at large, a culture that is patriarchal. though I will not dwell on this issue now, I And she argues that it is important for — believe that this methodological oversight, feminists to identify those patterns of visual in the opening moves of psychoanalytic-

fascination, particularly in order to chal- feminism, with respect to theory choice, lenge them. Here it is useful to recall that | compromises feminist-psychoanalytic film Mulvey is a leading feminist filmmaker. So criticism fundamentally.°® her meditations on the resources of visual From psychoanalysis, Mulvey inherits the pleasure in Hollywood film are explicitly | observation that scopophilia is targeted at motivated by an interest in developing a — the human form. To this, then, she adds an counter-cinema, one in which the patriar- | empirical generalization, presumably one chal levers of visual fascination exercised by independent of psychoanalysis, that in film

Hollywood will be subverted. there is a division of labor in terms of the According to Mulvey, one place to look portrayal of the human form.’ Men are for a theoretical framework that will enable | characterized as active agents; women are an interrogation of patterns of visual fascina- objects of erotic contemplation — so many tion is psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis has a _ pin-ups or arrested images of beauty.

theory of visual pleasure or scopophilia; so Women are passive; men are active. Men it is at least a candidate for answering — carry the narrative action forward; women questions about cinematic visual pleasure. are the stuff of ocular spectacle, there to However, it must be noted that Mulvey’s _ serve as the locus of the male’s desire to embrace of psychoanalysis seems to be savor them visually. Indeed, Mulvey mainunargued. Rather, she announces the need __ tains, on screen, women in Hollywood films for theoretical vocabularies and generaliza- —_ tend to slow down the narrative or arrest the

tions, and then she endorses psychoanalysis action, since action must be frozen, for simply because it has them. She does not example, in order to pose female characters

ask whether there are rival theoretical so as to afford the opportunity for their frameworks to psychoanalysis which might _ erotic contemplation. For example, a female

also serve her purposes; she does not _ icon, like Raquel Welch before some prehisconsider any problems concerning the scien- _ toric terror, will be posed statue-like so that

tific status of psychoanalysis; she does not male viewers can appreciate her beauty. weigh the shortcomings of psychoanalysis | Backstage musical numbers are useful deagainst the advantages of competing mod- vices for accommodating this narrative exiels. Her acceptance of psychoanalysis ap- —_ gency, since they allow the narrative to pears almost uncritically pragmatic: we need proceed — insofar as the narrative just ina theory of visual pleasure; psychoanalysis volves putting on a show — while lavishing

has one; so let’s use it. attention on the female form.

This unquestioning acceptance of the For Mulvey the female form in Hollyscientific authority of psychoanalysis is a wood film becomes a passive spectacle continuing feature of epistemologically du- | whose function is, first and foremost, to be bious merit in contemporary feminist film seen. Here the relevant perceiving subject criticism.° Where psychoanalytic hypothe- may be identified as the male viewer, and/or

ses are not marred by obvious sexism, the male character, who, through devices psychoanalytic feminists tend to be willing like point-of-view editing, serves as the to accept them without exploring their delegate, in the fiction, for the male audi262

The Image of Women in Film

ence member (who might be said to identify creates that impression, such terminology is

with the male character in point-of-view unfortunate. editing).® This idea may be stated in terms of Women in Hollywood film are staged saying that in Hollywood film, women are and blocked for the purpose of male erotic

the object of the look or the gaze. contemplation and pleasure. However, at What appears to be meant by this is that this point, Mulvey hypothesizes that this scenes are blocked, paced, and staged, and __ pleasure for the male spectator is endan-

the camera is set up relative to that gered. For the image of the woman, set out blocking in order to maximize the display for erotic delectation, inevitably invokes potential of the female form. Undoubtedly, — castration anxieties in the male spectator.

as John Berger has argued, many of the | Contemplating the woman’s body reminds

schemata for staging the woman as a_ the male spectator of her lack of a penis, display object are inherited from the tradi- — which psychoanalysis tells us the male takes

tion of Western easel painting, where an as a sign of castration, the vagina purportelaborate scenography for presenting fe- | edly construed as a bloody wound. Unlike male beauty in frozen moments was devel- male characters in Hollywood cinema, oped.’ Calling this scenography, which does © whom Mulvey says make meaning, female function to facilitate male interests in erotic | characters are said to be bearers of meancontemplation, “the look” or “the gaze,” ing: specifically they signify sexual differhowever, is somewhat misleading since it | ence, which for the male spectator portends suggests that the agency is literally located __ castration.

in a perceiving subject, whereas it is liter- The male scopophiliac pleasure in the ally articulated through blocking, pacing, female form, secured by the staging techand staging relative to the camera. What is _ niques of Hollywood film and often chantrue, nevertheless, is that this blocking, | neled through male characters via point-ofpacing and staging is governed by the aim __ view editing, is at risk in its very moment of of facilitating the male perceiving subject’s —_ success, since the presentation of the female

erotic interests in the female form which form for contemplation heralds castration could be said to be staged in a way that anxiety for the male viewer. The question, approximates maximally satisfying those then, is how the Hollywood system is able to interests. And it is in this sense —that the | continue to deliver visual pleasure in the

image of the woman in Hollywood film is face of the threat of castration anxiety. constructed through scenography, blocking, | Here, the general answer is derived from pacing and so on in order to display her for psychoanalysis, as was the animating probmale erotic contemplation — that feminist, lem of castration anxiety. psychoanalytic critics invoke when they say Two psychic strategies, indeed perverthat the gaze in Hollywood film is mascu- sions, that may be adopted in order to come line. Indeed, these practices of blocking — to terms with castration anxiety in general and staging could be said to impose a male are fetishism and voyeurism. Similarly, gaze on female spectators of Hollywood Mulvey wants to argue that there are cinefilm, where that means that female specta- matic strategies that reflect these generic

tors are presented with images of the psychic strategies, and that their systematic female form that have been staged function- mobilization in Hollywood films is what ally in order to enhance male erotic appre- __ sustains the availability of visual pleasure —

ciation of the female form. However, as male scopophiliac pleasure — in the face of

already indicated, this is not simply a castration anxiety. matter of camera positioning, and to the Fetishism outside of film involves the extent that talk of the look or the gaze — denial of the female’s lack of a penis by, so 263

Ideology

to speak, fastening on some substitute ob- —_cock’s Vertigo and Marnie come particularly

ject, like a woman’s foot or shoe, that can to mind, films in which voyeuristic male stand for the missing penis. Mulvey thinks characters set out to remake “guilty” women that in film the female form itself can be — characters.

turned into a fetish object, a process of Needless to say, Mulvey’s exemplification fetishization that can be amplified by turn- of the general strategies of fetishism and ing the entire scenography and cinematic | voyeurism by means of von Sternberg and image into a fetish object; the elaborate | Hitchcock is persuasive, at least rhetorically, visual compositions of Josef von Sternberg, for these are directors whom critics have in Mulvey’s view, are anextreme example of '| long discussed in terms of fetishism and a general strategy for containing castration voyeurism, albeit using these concepts in a anxiety by fetishization in the Hollywood nontechnical sense. What Mulvey effec-

cinema. tively did in her essay was to transform those A second option for dealing with male _ critical terms into psychoanalytic ones,

castration anxiety in the context of male — while also implying that cinematic fetishism scopophilia, Mulvey contends, is voyeurism. |§ and voyeurism, represented in the extreme Apparently, for Mulvey, this succeeds by re- __ cases of von Sternberg and Hitchcock, were enacting the original traumatic discovery of ' the general strategies through which male

the supposed castration of the woman-_ visual pleasure in the cinema could be though I must admit that ’m not completely — sustained, despite the impending threat of clear on why re-enacting the original trauma castration anxiety. And, as well, these cinewould help in containing castration anxiety matic strategies — if psychoanalysis is true — (is it like getting back on a horse after you’ve __ reflect patterns of visual fascination in patri-

been thrown off of it?). archal culture at large where visual pleasure

In any case, Mulvey writes: in the female form depends on either turn-

The male unconscious has two avenues of escape ing her into an object or subjugating her by

from this castration anxiety: preoccupation with other means.

the re-enactment of the original trauma (investi- In summary, Mulvey situates the visual gating the woman, demystifying her mystery), | Pleasure in Hollywood cinema in the satisfac-

counterbalanced by the devaluation, punish- tion of the male’s desire to contemplate the ment, or saving the guilty object (an avenue female form erotically. This contemplation typified by the concerns of the film noir); or else _ itself is potentially unpleasureable, however,

complete disavowal of castration by the substitu- since contemplation of the female form tion of a fetish object or turning the represented raises the prospect of castration anxiety. figure itself mto a fetish so that it becomes Cinematic strategies corresponding to fetishreassuring rather than dangerous (hence over- ism and voyeurism — and emblematized respectively by the practices of von Sternberg If von Sternberg represents an extreme and Hitchcock — provide visual and narraand clarifying instance of the general strat- tive means to protect the structure of male egy of fetishization in Hollywood film, the visual pleasure, obsessively opting for cineradical instance of the voyeuristic strategy is | matic conventions and schemata that are located in the cinema of Alfred Hitchcock. — subordinated to the neurotic needs of the

valuation, the cult of the female star).!° ; ;

Here, one finds cases like Rear Window male ego. Feminist film practice of the sort which other commentators have often de- | Mulvey champions seeks to subvert the scribed in terms of voyeurism; moreover, — conventions that support the system of visual Mulvey associates voyeurism with the urge —_ pleasure deployed in Hollywood filmmaking

for a sadistic assertion of control and the and to depose the hegemony of the male subjugation of the guilty. And here Hitch- gaze. 264

The Image of Women in Film

[have no doubt that there areconventions _ beefcake side to their star personae. Obviof blocking and of posing actresses before the — ously, there are entire genres that celebrate

camera that are sexist and that alternative male physiques, scantily robed, as sources of

nonsexist styles of composition are worth visual pleasure: biblical epics, ironically pursuing. Moreover, as noted earlier, I will enough, as well as other forms of ancient and not challenge Mulvey’s psychoanalytic pre- — exotic epics; jungle films; sea-diving films; suppositions, though I believe that this can _— boxing films; Tarzan adventures; etc. and ought to be done. For present purposes, Nor are males simply ogled on screen for the only comment that I will make about her _ their bodily beauty. Some are renowned for invocation of psychoanalysis is that, as al- _ their great facial good looks, for which the ready noted, it does not seem methodologi- _action is slowed down so that the audience cally sound. For even if psychoanalysis, or § may take a gander, often in “glamor” closespecific psychoanalytic hypotheses are genu- ups. One thinks of John Gilbert and Ru-

ine scientific conjectures, they need to be dolph Valentino in the twenties; of the tested against countervailinghypotheses.Nei- young Gary Cooper, John Wayne, Henry ther Mulvey nor any other contemporary — Fonda and Laurence Olivier in the thirties; psychoanalytic feminist has performed this of Gregory Peck in the forties; Montgomery rudimentary exercise of scientific and ra- Clift, Marlon Brando, and James Mason in tional inquiry and, as a result, their theories the fifties; Peter O’Toole in the sixties; and

are epistemically suspect. so on.!? Nor is it useful to suggest a constant Moreover, apart from her psychoanalytic — correlation between male stars and effective

commitments, Mulvey’s theory of visual activity. Leslie Howard in Of Human Bondpleasure rests on some highly dubitable age and Gone with the Wind seems to have empirical suppositions. On Mulvey’s ac- succeeded most memorably as a matinee count, male characters in cinema are active; —_ idol when he was staggeringly ineffectual.

females are passive, primarily functioning to If the dichotomy between male/active be seen. She writes that a male movie star’s images versus female/passive images ill-suits

glamorous characteristics are not those ofan the male half of the formula, it is also erotic object of the gaze. It is hard to see — empirically misguided for the female half. how anyone could come to believe this. In’ Many of the great female stars were also our own time, we have Sylvester Stallone = great doers. Rosalind Russell in His Girl and Arnold Schwarzenegger whose star Friday and Katherine Hepburn in Bringing vehicles slow down and whose scenes are Up Baby hardly stop moving long enough to blocked and staged precisely to afford spec- | permit the kind of visual pleasure Mulvey tacles of bulging pectorals and other parts. asserts is the basis of the female image in Nor are these examples from contemporary Hollywood cinema. Moreover, it seems to film new developments in film history. Be- me question-begging to say that audiences fore Stallone, there were Steve Reeves and do not derive visual pleasure from these Charles Bronson, and before them, Johnny —_ performances. Furthermore, if one comWeismuller. Indeed, the muscle-bound char- plains here that my counterexamples are

acter of Maciste that Steve Reeves often from comedies, and that certain kinds of played originated in the 1913 Italian specta- | comedies present special cases, let us argue

cle Cabiria. about The Perils of Pauline.

Nor is the baring of chests for erotic After hypothesizing that visual pleasure

purposes solely the province of second-string —__ in film is rooted in presenting the woman as

male movie stars. Charlton Heston, Kirk passive spectacle through the agencies of Douglas, Burt Lancaster, Yul Brynner — the conventional stylization, Mulvey claims that

list could go on endlessly —all have a __ this project contains the seed of its own 265

Ideology

destruction, for it will raise castration anxi- _— out, if it can be intelligibly specified at all, to

eties in male spectators. Whether erotic be a question-begging dodge that makes it contemplation of the female form elicits plausible to regard such events as the recastration anxiety from male viewers is, I enactment of the battle of Waterloo as a suppose, a psychoanalytic claim, and, as private event. such, not immediately a subject for criticism Also, Mulvey includes under the rubric in this essay. However, as we have seen, of voyeurism the sadistic assertion of conMulvey goes on to say that the waysin which trol and the punishment of the guilty. This Hollywood film deals with this purported — will allow her to accommodate a lot more problem is through cinematic structures that filmic material under the category of voy-

allow the male spectator two particular eurism than one might have originally avenues of escape: fetishism and voyeurism. _—_ thought that the concept could bear. But is

One wonders about the degree to whichit | Lee Marvin’s punishment of Gloria Grais appropriate to describe even male viewers hame in The Big Heat voyeurism? If one as either fetishists or voyeurs. Indeed, Allen answers yes to this, mustn’t one also admit Weiss has remarked that real-world fetishists that the notion of voyeurism has been and voyeurs would have little time for | expanded quite monumentally? movies, preferring to lavish their attentions One is driven toward the same conclusions on actual boots and furs, on the one hand, — withrespect to Mulvey’s usage of the concept and living apartment dwellers on the other.’ of fetishism. Extrapolating from the example

Fetishism and voyeurism are literally per- of von Sternberg, any case of elaborate versions — involving regression and fixation scenography is to be counted as a feat an earlier psychosexual stage-—in the tishization mobilized in order to deflect Freudian system, whereas deriving visual anxieties about castration. So the elaborate pleasure from movies would not, Itakeit, be | scenography of a solo song and dance numconsidered a perversion, ceteris paribus, by _ ber by a female star functions as a containing practicing psychoanalysts. Mulvey can only _ fetish for castration anxieties. But, then, be speaking of fetishism and voyeurism — what are we to make of the use of elaborate metaphorically.'* But it is not clear, from the — scenography in solo song and dance numbers

perspective of film theory, that these meta- by male stars? If they are fetishizations, what

phors are particularly apt. anxiety are they containing? Or, might not

In general, the idea of voyeurism as a the elaborate scenography have some other model for all film viewing does not suit the — function? And if it has some other function data. Voyeurs require unwary victims for — with respect to male stars, isn’t that function

their intrusive gaze. Films are made to be something that should be considered as a seen and film actors willingly put themselves —_ candidate in a rival explanation of the func-

on display, and the viewers know this. The tion of elaborate scenography in the case of fanzine industry could not exist otherwise. female stars? Mulvey claims that the conventions of Holly- In any case, is it plausible to suppose that wood film give the spectators the illusion of | elaborate composition generally has the looking in on a private world. But what can — function of containing castration anxiety? be the operative force of private here? In The multiple seduction jamboree in Rules of what sense is the world of The Longest Day _ the Game, initiated by the playing of Danse private rather than public? Surely the inva- | Macabre, is one of the most elaborately sion of Normandy was public and it is | composed sequences in film history. It is not

represented as public in The Longest Day. about castration anxiety; it is positively Rather one suspects that the use of the _ priapic. Nor 1s it clear what textually moticoncept of private in this context will turn vated castration anxiety could underlie the 266

The Image of Women in Film

immensely intricate scenography in the _ all, a film that receives an Academy Award nightclub scene of Tati’s Play Time. Thatis, can’t be considered outside the Hollywood there is elaborate scenography in scenes system.)!® where it seems castration anxiety is not a Of course, the real problem that needs to plausible concern. Why should it function — be addressed is Mulvey’s apparent compuldifferently in other scenes? If the response is —_ sion to postulate a general theory of visual that castration anxiety is always anissue, the — pleasure for Hollywood cinema. Why would

hypothesis appears uninformative. !° anyone suppose that a unified theory is Grounding the contrast between fetishis- | available, and why would one suppose that tic and voyeuristic strategies of visual plea- —_‘it would be founded upon sexual difference,

sure in the contrast between von Sternberg = since in the Hollywood cinema there is and Hitchcock initially has a strong intuitive pleasure — even visual pleasure — that is reappeal because those filmmakers are, pre- mote from issues of sexual difference.

theoretically, thought to be describable in It is with respect to these concerns that I these terms—indeed, they come pretty — think that the limitations of psychoanalytic close to describing themselves and their film criticism become most apparent. For it interests that way. However, it is important is that commitment that drives feminist film to recall that when commentators speak this _ critics toward generalizations like Mulvey’s way, or even when Hitchcock himself speaks that are destined for easy refutation. If one this way, the notions of voyeurism at issue accepts a general theory like psychoanalysis,

are nontechnical. then one is unavoidably tempted to try to Moreover, the important question iseven apply its categorical framework to the data

if in some sense these two directors could be _ ofa field like film, come what may, irrespec-

interpreted as representing a contrast be- tive of the fit of the categories to the data. tween cinematic fetishism and voyeurism, Partial or glancing correlations of the catedoes that opposition portend a systematic — gorical distinctions to the data will be taken dichotomy that maps onto all Hollywood as confirmatory, and all the anomalous data cinema?!” Put bluntly, isn’t there a great — will be regarded as at best topics for further deal of visual pleasure in Hollywood cinema __ research or ignored altogether as theoretithat doesn’t fit into the categories of fetish- _—_ cally insignificant. Psychoanalytic-feminists

ism and voyeurism, even if those concepts tend to force their “system” on cinema, and

are expanded, metaphorically and other- to regard often slim correspondences bewise, in the way that Mulvey suggests? — tween films and the system as such that one

Among the things I have in mind here are can make vaulting generalizations about not only the kind of counterexamples al- how the Hollywood cinema “really” funcready advanced -— male objects of erotic tions. The overarching propensity to fruitcontemplation, female protagonists who are _less generalization is virtually inherent in the

active and triumphant agents, spectacular attempt to apply the purported success of scenes of the Normandy invasion that are — general psychoanalytic hypotheses and disdifficult to connect to castration anxieties — —_—‘tinctions, based on clinical practice, to the

but innumerable films that neither have local case of film. This makes theoretical elaborate scenography nor involve male — conjectures like Mulvey’s immediately probcharacters as voyeurs, nor subject women ___lematic by even a cursory consideration of characters to male subjugation in a demon- _sfilm history. One pressing advantage, theostration of sadistic control. One film to start ___retically, of the image approach is that it to think about here might be Arthur Penn’s __ provides a way to avoid the tendency of The Miracle Worker for which Patty Duke _ psychoanalytic film feminism to commit (Astin) received an Academy Award. (After itself to unsupportable generalizations in its 267

: Ideology attempt to read all film history through the — throughout life and the emotions that they

categories of psychoanalysis.” define become more refined and more culturally dependent. Learning to use emo-

III. The Image of Women in Film tion terms is a matter of acquiring paradigm

scenarios for certain situations; 1.e., matchThe investigation of the image of women in _ing emotion terms to situations is guided by film begins with the rather commonsensical _ fitting paradigm scenarios to the situations

notion that the recurring images of women __ that confront us. Paradigm scenarios, it in popular media may have some influence _— might be said, perform the kind of cognitive

on how people think of women in real life. ‘role attributed to the formal object of the How one is to cash in the notion of “some emotion in preceding theories of mind.?! influence” here, however, will be tricky. In | However, instead of being conceived of in fact, it amounts to finding a theoretical terms of criteria, paradigm scenarios have a foundation for the image of women in film dramatic structure. Like formal objects of model. Moreover, there may be more than — given emotions, paradigm scenarios define one way in which such influence is exerted. | the type of emotional state one is in. They What I would like to do now isto sketch one _—_ also direct our attention in the situation in

answer that specifies one dimension of such a way that certain elements in it influence that recurring images of womenin become salient. film may have on spectators, especially male Paradigm scenarios enable us to “gestalt” spectators, in order to give the model some situations, 1.e., “to attend differentially to

theoretical grounding. However, though I certain features of an actual situation, to elucidate one strut upon which the model _ inquire into the presence of further features may rest, it is not my intention to deny that of the scenario, and to make inferences that

there may be others as well. the scenario suggests.”*2 Given a situation, Recent work on the emotions in the an enculturated individual attempts, generphilosophy of mind has proposed that we ally intuitively, to fit a paradigm scenario learn to identify our emotional states in from her repertoire to it. This does not mean terms of paradigm scenarios, which, in turn, that the individual can fully articulate the also shape our emotions. Ronald de Sousa _ content of the scenario, but that, in a broad

claims sense, she can recognize that it fits the my hypothesis is this: We are made familiar with situation before her. This recognition ¢nthe vocabulary of emotion by association with ables her to batten on certain features of the paradigm scenarios. These are drawn first from situation, to explore the situation for further our daily life as small children and later re- correlations to the scenario, and to make the inforced by the stories, art and culture to which inferences and responses the scenario sug-

we are exposed. Later still, in literate cultures, gests. Among one’s repertory of lovethey are supplemented and refined by literature. scenarios, for example, one might have, so to Paradigm scenarios involve two aspects: first a speak, a “West Side Story” scenario which situation type providing the characteristic objects — enables one to organize one’s thoughts and of the specific emotion type, and second, a set of feelings about the man one has just met. characteristic or “normal” responses to the situa- Furthermore, more than one of our scenarios tion, where normality is first a biological matter may fit a given situation. Whether one reacts

and then very quickly becomesto aa situation cultural one.”? . . ; oer . of public recrimination with Many of the relevant paradigm scenarios anger, humility or fortitude depends on the are quite primitive, like fear, and some are choice of the most appropriate paradigm

genetically preprogrammed, though we con- _ scenario.”

tinue to accumulate paradigm scenarios I will not attempt to enumerate the kinds 268

The Image of Women in Film

of considerations that make the postulation situations in which a married man is conof paradigm scenarios attractive except to fronted by a woman who refuses to consider note that it has certain advantages over their affair as easily terminable as he does. competing hypotheses about the best way to Armed with the Fatal Attraction scenario, characterize the cognitive and conative com- __ which isn’t so different from the Crimes and

ponents in emotional states.*4 Rather, Ishall | Misdemeanors scenario, a man might “gepresume that the notion of paradigm scenar- __ stalt” a roughly matching, real life situation, ios has something to tell us about a compo- _ focussing on it in such a way that its object,

nent of emotional states in order to suggest correlating to Alex (Glenn Close), is, as how recurring images of women in film may Dan (Michael Douglas) says, “unreasonhave some influence on spectators, which able,” and “crazy,” and, as the film goes on

influence is of relevance to feminists. to indicate, pathologically implacable. One Clearly, if we accept the notion of para- might use the scenario to extrapolate other digm scenarios, we are committed to the elements of the scenario to the real case; notion that the paradigm scenario we apply one might leap inductively from Alex’s to a situation shapes the emotional state we protests that her behavior is justified (you are in. Some paradigm scenarios — forexam- wouldn’t accept my calls at the office so I ple, those pertaining to the relation of an called you at home), which are associated in infant to a caretaker -— may be such that the film with madness, to the suspicion that recognition of them is genetically endowed. a real-life, ex-lover’s claims to fair treatment

But most paradigm scenarios will be ac- are really insane. Like Dan, one guided by quired, and even those that start out rather — the Fatal Attraction scenario may assess his primitively, like rage, may be refined over __ situation as one of paralysing terror, persecutime by the acquisition of further and more _ tion and helplessness that only the death of complex paradigm scenarios. There will be the ex-lover can alleviate.

many sources from which we derive these I am not suggesting that the Fatal Attracparadigm scenarios: observation and mem- ___ tion scenario causes someone who matches

ory; stories told us on our caretaker’s knee; it to a real life situation to kill his ex-lover, stories told us by friends and school teach- though embracing it may be likely to proers; gossip, as well, is a rich source of such mote murderous fantasies, in terms of the scenarios; and, of course, so are newspaper = response component. In any case, matching articles, self-help books, TV shows, novels, it to a real life situation will tend to demote

plays, films and so on. the ex-lover to the status of an irrational These scenarios may influence our emo- __ creature and to regard her claims as a form tional behavior. Male emotional responses __ of persecution. This construal of the woman

to women, for example, will be shaped by as persecutrix, of course, was not invented the paradigm scenarios that they bring to — by the makers of Fatal Attraction. It finds those relations. Such paradigm scenarios precedent in other films, like Play Misty for may be derived from films, or, more likely, Me, and stories, including folklore told films may reflect, refine, and reinforce | among men in the form of gossip. paradigm scenarios already abroad in the Fatal Attraction provides a vivid exemplar culture. One way to construe the study of | for emotional attention that reinforces prethe image of women in film is as an attempt _—_ existing paradigm scenarios. However, even

to isolate widely disseminated paradigm if Fatal Attraction is not original, studying

scenarios that contribute to the shaping of the image of the woman Alex that it

emotional responses to women.” portrays is relevant to feminists because it The recent film Fatal Attraction, for illuminates one pattern of emotional attenexample, provides a paradigm scenario for tion toward women that is available to men, 269

Ideology

which pattern of emotional attention, if to allay that misgiving by suggesting that the made operational in specific cases, can be _— program fits nicely with one direction in the

oppressive to women, by, for example, — theory of the emotions. From that perspecreducing claims to fair treatment to the tive, the study of the image of women in film status of persecutory, irrational demands. might be viewed as the search for paradigm That a paradigm scenario like Fatal Attrac- scenarios that are available in our culture tion is available in the culture does notimply = and which, by being available, may come to

that every man or even any man mobilizes shape emotional responses to women. This

it. But it does at least present a potential aspect of the project should be of special source or resource for sexist behavior. That interest to feminists with regard to negative

such a potential even exists provides a imagery since it may illuminate some of the reason for feminists to be interested in it. | sources or resources that mobilize sexist One aspect of the study of the image of | emotions. Obviously, the theoretical potenwomen in film is to identify negative, tials of the image of women in film model recurring images of women that may have __ need to be developed. What I have tried to some influence on the emotional response of _ establish is the contention that there is at men to women. Theoretically, this influence least a theoretical foundation here upon can be understood in terms of the negative, — which to build. recurring images of women in film as supply- This, of course, is not much of a defense of ing paradigm scenarios that may shape the ' the image approach. So in my concluding emotional responses of real men to real remarks I shall attempt to sketch some of the

women. advantages of this approach, especially in Recurring, negative images of women in comparison to some of the disadvantages of film may warp the emotions of those who _ the psychoanalytic model discussed earlier.

deploy them as paradigm scenarios in sev- First, the image of women model seems eral different ways. They may distort the better suited than the psychoanalytic model way women are attended to emotionally by | for accommodating the rich data that film presenting wildly fallacious images such as history has bequeathed us. It allows that the “spider woman” of film noir. Or, the _ there will be lots of images of women and problem may be that the range of images of _ lots of images of men and that these may women available is too impoverished: if the — play a role as paradigm scenarios in lots of repertoire of images of women is limited in emotional reactions of all kinds. One need certain cases, for instance, to contraries like not attempt to limit the ambit of emotional mother or whore, then real women who are __ responses to fetishism or voyeurism.

not perceived via the mother scenario may Of course, the image of women model find themselves abused under the whore may take particular interest in negative scenario. The identification of the range of images of women in film, for obvious ways in which negative images of women in __ strategic purposes, but it can also handle the

film can function cognitively to shape emo- case of positive images as well. Whereas tional response is a theoretical question that | Rosalind Russell’s character in His Girl Fridepends on further exploring the variety of | day may be an inexplicable anomaly in the logical/functional types of different images psychoanalytic system, she can be compre-

of women in film. That is a project that has hended in the image approach. For this

hardly begun. Nevertheless, it seems a model allows that there can be positive

project worth pursuing. images of women in film which may play a I began by noting that the image ap- role in positive emotional responses to real proach might appear to some to be without | women.*® It is hard to see how there can be proper theoretical credentials. I have tried anything of genuine value in Hollywood film 270

The Image of Women in Film

in Mulvey’s construction. The image ap- it might be countered that Mulvey’s theory is proach can identify the good, while acknowl- about the pleasure taken from Hollywood

edging and isolating the evil. cinema, and the image approach, as deThe image of women in film model is less __ scribed so far, says nothing about pleasure.

likely to lead to unsupportable generaliza- So though it may be a rival to Mulvey’s tions. What it looks for are recurring images model with respect to attempting to isolate of women in film. It has no commitments — the way in which Hollywood cinema funcabout how women always appear in film.?” _— tions in patriarchal society, it has not anRather it targets images that recur with — swered the question of how it is pleasurable.

marked frequency. Moreover, it makes no One admittedly programmatic response claims about how all viewers or all male to this objection is to note that insofar as the viewers respond to those images. It tracks image approach is connected with engaging images of women that reappear in film with | emotions, and insofar as indulging emotions some significant degree of probability and, _—_in aesthetic contexts is generally thought to

where the images are negative, itcan eluci- be pleasurable, then the proponent of the date how they may play aconstitutive rolein image approach can explain the pleasure to the shaping of oppressive emotional re- — be derived from Hollywood films in virtue sponses to women. It is not committed to — of whatever its defender takes to be the best

the kinds of specific causal laws that Mulvey theory or combination of theories that must accept as underlying her account. It accounts for the pleasure we take from can nevertheless, acknowledge causal effi- exercising our emotions in response to cacy to some paradigm scenarios—indeed, artworks, popular or otherwise. That is, it can acknowledge causal efficacy to para- | where the rivalry between the image apdigm scenarios of all sorts, thereby accom- proach and Mulvey’s approach is about

modating the richness of the data. pleasure, the supporter of the image apIndeed, it is interesting to observe that proach has a range of options for developing the image approach can accommodate cer- __ theories. tain of Mulvey’s insights in a way that does On the other hand, I wonder whether the not provoke the kind of objection Mulvey’s _ interest on the part of feminists in Mulvey’s position does. It can acknowledge that itis theory is really in its account of pleasure the case that there is a recurring image, of | rather than in the way that it provides a undoubtedly unnerving statistical frequency, | means for analyzing the way film functions of women in film posed as passive specta- _in patriarchal society. And if the latter is the cles. Not all images of women in film are of real source of interest, two things need to be this sort; but many are. Unlike Mulvey, the said: (1) the question of pleasure is only of proponent of the image approach can point _ interest insofar as it illuminates the function to this as a Statistical regularity without of film in abetting sexism, and (2) the image claiming any over-reaching generalizations, | approach is a competing perspective in and then go on to show how this sort of _ relation to that question, even if it makes imagery reinforces a range of paradigm the issue of pleasure less central to feminism scenarios which mobilize a wide variety of | than does Mulvey’s approach.

oppressive emotional responses by men Lastly, consonant with the preceding obtoward women, encountered on the beach, _—jection, it may be urged that Mulvey’s on the street, and in more ominous circum- theory is a theory of visual pleasure, and

stances as well. though we have spoken of images, even if One objection that might be raised here, | we could advance a theory of pleasure, it of course, is that I have presented the image — would not be specifically a theory of visual approach as a rival to Mulvey’s theory. But _— pleasure, for images in the sense we have 271

Ideology

used it are not essentially or necessarily ideology. However, at the same time, I have visual. Here, two points need to be made. no reason to assert dogmatically that a film First, it is not clear that Mulvey herself is could never invent ideology. If this happens, I always talking about uniquely visual plea- suspect that it happens very, very rarely. But I sure, nor that it is possible, with respect to have no investment in claiming that it could

Hollywood film images, to suppose that we never hap pene .

. 2. I say can find some substratum of interests thata

“potential rival” because, as already noted, one could marry the study of the

are exclusively visual in nature. image of women in film with a psychoanalytic

Second, Mulvey’s putative answer to the perspective. Thus, the theoretical rivalry that riddle of how viewers can take visual plea- I envision in this paper is between a study of sure in the female form in cinema presup- the image of women in film that is neutral poses that there is a riddle here to be solved, with respect to psychoanalysis and psychoanawhich, in turn, depends upon the conviction lytically informed film feminism. that the image of a woman on screen, in 3. This essay first appeared in Screen in 1975. It some lawlike fashion, provokes castration has been reprinted often, most recently, with anxiety in male viewers. There is no prob- respect to the writing of this essay, In Laura lem of visual pleasure without the supposi- Mulvey's collection of her own writings enti-

; . tled Visual and Other Pleasures (Indiana ; ; y Press, ). All page references anxiety with respect to visual emphasis on to this article pertain to that volume.

tion of regularly recurring male castration University P 1989

female form. So if, like me, you are skepti- 4. It should also be noted that Mulvey herself cal about this supposition, then Mulvey has has attempted to modify, or, perhaps more not solved the problem of visual pleasure, accurately, to supplement the theory that she for there was no problem to solve in the first put forward in “Visual Pleasure and Narrative

place, and, therefore, no pressure on rival Cinema.” See, for example, her “After-

theories to address the issue. thoughts on ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Moreover, if, again like me, you are Cinema’ inspired by King Vidor’s Duel in the

worried about accepting generalizations that Sun” in Visual and Other Pleasures, pp. 29— are derived from psychoanalysis and treated 37. The latter essay, while not denying the wae . analysis of male pleasure in the former essay, like laws by film critics, then the image of offers a supplemental account of female women in film approach has the virtue of pleasure with respect to narrative film. Space providing means for analyzing the function does not allow for criticism of that supplemen-

of film in the service of sexism without tal account. However, it is interesting that its necessarily committing one to the still con- structure is analogous to the structure of her troversial tenets of psychoanalysis. This, of psychoanalysis of male pleasure insofar as course, 1S hardly a recommendation that I Mulvey attempts to “deduce” female pleasure expect committed psychoanalytic film critics at the movies from an earlier stage of psychoto find moving. I offer it, without further sexual development whose masculine phase argument, to concerned third parties.28 film narratives may, supposedly, reactivate. 5. I stress that what is accepted without suffi-

cient critical distance in this matter is the scien-

Notes tific viability of psychoanalysis. Feminist film critics, including Mulvey, are aware of and

1. The distinction between sources and re- seek to cancel the patriarchal biases of psysources above is meant to acknowledge that it choanalysis. But unless the elements of the is generally the case that popular film more theory show sexist prejudices, they tend to often than not reinforces rather than invents accept its pronouncements on matters such as ideology, sexist and otherwise. Thus, film is psychosexual development and visual pleaprimarily a resource rather than a source of sure without recourse to weighing psychoana272

The Image of Women in Film

lytic hypotheses against those of competing the male ego is, at least, in our culture, theories or to considering the often com- inevitably and essentially neurotic. And I am mented upon theoretical flaws and empirical not convinced that this is the way that clinical

difficulties of psychoanalysis. psychoanalysts would use the idea of neurosis 6. I have discussed the tendency in contempo- as a technical classification. Nor would the rary film theory to embrace theoretical frame- classification be of much scientific value if it

works without considering rival reviews at applied so universally. Furthermore, Freud some length in my Mystifying Movies: Fads himself, in his study of DaVinci, talks of and Fallacies in Contemporary Film Theory sublimation as an alternative formation to

(Columbia University Press, 1988). perversions like fetishism. Why has sublima7. Indeed, John Berger makes such a dis- tion dropped out of Mulvey’s list of options tinction — between the male as active and for visual pleasure? the female as passive — with respect to the 15. Mulvey, “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cin-

iconography of Western easel painting with- ema,” p. 17. out invoking psychoanalysis. See his Ways of — 16. Christian Metz, perhaps the leading psycho-

Seeing (London: Penguin, 1972), especially analytic film theorist, appears to hold such a

chapter 2. view. For arguments against this hypothesis,

8. Like many contemporary film theorists, see the second chapter of my Mystifying

Mulvey appears to believe that through Movies.

point-of-view editing Hollywood film masks 17. Here one might object that Mulvey is not two other “looks” — those of the camera on committed to regard the fetishism/voyeurism the profilmic event and of the spectator on dichotomy as systematic; so I am attacking a the finished film. Point-of-viewing editing, in straw position. But I think she is committed this respect, functions to abet what contempo- to the notion of a systematic dichotomy. For rary film theorists call “transparency.” I have if the problem of castration anxiety with challenged the overall advisability of hypothe- respect to the female form is general, and ses of this sort in my Mystifying Movies; see fetishism and voyeurism are the only re-

especially the discussion of suture. sponses, then where there is no castration

9. Ibid. anxiety, won’t that have to be a function of

10. Mulvey, “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cin- strategies of voyeurism and fetishism? Per-

ema,” p. 21. haps Mulvey does not believe that there is 11. Ibid., p. 20. always castration anxiety in response to the 12. Other commentators have also questioned female form. But then we would have to

Mulvey’s generalizations in this regard. See know under what conditions castration anxiKristin Thompson, “Closure within a Dream? ety will fail to take hold. Moreover, we will

Point of View in Laura” in Breaking the have to ask whether these conditions, once Glass Armor (Princeton University Press, specified, won’t undermine Mulvey’s theory 1988), p. 185; and Miriam Hansen, “Plea- in other respects. Of course, another reason sure, Ambivalence, Identification: Valentino why one might deny that Mulvey’s claims and Female Spectatorship,” Cinema Journal involve a systematic dichotomy between fe-

25 (1986); 6-32. tishistic and voyeuristic strategies is that she 13. Allen Weiss in the introduction to his unpub- believes that there are other strategies for lished doctoral dissertation on the films of containing castration anxiety. But then the Hollis Frampton (New York University, burden of proof is on her to produce these as

1989). yet unmentioned alternatives.

14. Mulvey may reject this interpretation of her 18. This film was, of course, based upon a highly

essay. She may think that she is using these acclaimed Broadway production. So, it is a psychoanalytic terms literally. In the “Sum- counterexample that should also be considmary” of her essays (p. 26), for example, she ered by theater critics who wish to apply the speaks of the neurotic needs of the male ego. generalizations of feminist film critics to the But this seems tantamount to implying that study of their own artform. Likewise, TV 273

Ideology

critics, with the same ambition, should want 21. E.g., Anthony Kenny’s Action, Emotion and to ponder the relevance of this example to the Will (London: Routledge, 1963). successful remake of the theater and film 22. Ronald de Sousa, “The Rationality of Emo-

versions of The Miracle Worker for TV in tions” in Explaining Emotions, p. 143. 1979 by Paul Aaron where Patty Duke 23. This example comes from Cheshire Cal(Astin) plays the Anne Sullivan role. houn’s “Subjectivity & Emotions,” The PhiloAlso, it should be obvious, contra Mulvey, sophical Forum 20 (1989), p. 206. that not all visual pleasure in film is rooted in 24. See the de Sousa citations above for some of

sexual difference. Consider the visual plea- the relevant arguments. | sure derived from recognition, from detail, 25. Of course, there could also be a research from shifts of scale, and, more specifically, program dedicated to studying the image of from machinery, from casts of thousands, and men in film for the same purposes. so on (I owe these examples to Cynthia 26. Kristin Thompson, in conversation, has

Baughman). stressed that determining whether a paradigm

19. There is another line of argumentation in scenario is positive or negative may crucially Mulvey’s essay that I have not dealt with hinge on contextualizing it historically. above. It involves a general theory of the 27. Whereas psychoanalytic-feminism, given its way in which cinema engages spectators in avowal of the general laws of psychoanalysis, identification and mobilizes what Lacanians is tempted to say how woman must always call “the imaginary.” The sort of general appear as a result of deducing film theory theory that Mulvey endorses concerning from a deeper set of “scientific” principles. these issues is criticized at length in my 28. This paper was read at the 1990 Pacific

Mystifying Movies. Division Meetings of the American Philo-

20. Ronald de Sousa, The Rationality of the sophical Association where Laurie Shrage

Emotions (MIT Press, 1987), p. 182. The idea provided helpful comments. Other useful of scenarios is also employed by Robert criticisms have been offered by Ellen Gainor, Solomon, “Emotion and Choice” in Explain- Kristin Thompson, David Bordwell, Sally ing Emotions, ed. Amelie Rorty (University Banes, Peggy Brand, Carolyn Korsmeyer,

of California Press, 1980). Sabrina Barton, and Cynthia Baughman.

274

=

| expression).

= bly artistic function (such as, for example,

CHAPTER XVIII = Thus, for much of its history, film theory

operated within an essentialist framework.

Film, Rhetoric, _ = Theorists, of course, disagreed over what and Ideology they took to constitute the essential features = and powers of cinema: for Arnheim it involved the expressive reconstruction of

= reality, while for André Bazin it was a matter of the objective re-presentation of reality. However, until the late sixties and

early seventies, most of the conversation of

Introduction what might be called classical film theory gravitated toward securing the artistic value Until recently, the major recurring question __ of film by means of identifying its essentially

of value that confronted film theorists was cinematic capacities.4

whether film could be an art, and, thus, a But, as the sixties turned into the sevensource of artistic value. In the earliest stages ties, the essentialist project in film theory of film theory, this worry was made urgent by _ found itself embattled from two directions: a

the existence of certain anti-mimetic preju- neo-Wittgensteinian suspicion of essences, dices with respect to photography. For pho- on the one hand,°? and semiotics, of an tography was regarded to be a purely me- _ implicitly anti-essentialist sort, on the other. chanical process of recording, and, hence, These pressures, along with a rising sense essentially inartistic. Consequently, film, — that film theory should leave off its primary whose central constituent is photographic, preoccupation with aesthetics, and examine likewise found its artistic credentials under the role of cinema in society, spelled the

fire. demise of at least one sort of film theory. As a result, the self-appointed task of | From the early seventies onward, film theory

members of the first generation of film | became less concerned with the aesthetic theorists, like Rudolf Arnheim,! was to — value of cinema and more obsessed with its demonstrate, often at length, the ways in — social value. Moreover, the primary social which film could diverge expressively from __ role that film theorists came to attribute to what was thought of as the mere reproduc- _film was negative. Film, particularly but not tion of reality. For in showing the ways in _ exclusively the mass entertainment cinema, which cinematic devices creatively recon- was regarded as predominantly — and for structed pro-filmic events,* an inventory of | many (ironically enough) essentially® — an

artistic structures was enumerated. agency of ideological manipulation, a means Moreover, the task of establishing the by which ostensibly oppressive systems, notaartistic potentials of film proceeded under __ bly capitalism, sustain dominion. Thus, the certain constraints. For it was thought thatif leading hypothesis amongst contemporary film had genuinely artistic potentials, they __ film theorists is that film is an instrument of

would have to be of a uniquely cinematic ideology, and their research program is a variety. That is, film would not be shown to matter of identifying the relevant levers of be an art were it simply mimicking theater. ideological manipulation that cinema afRather, it had to be established that film had fords. As a result, the central preoccupation some range of essentially cinematic effects, of film studies in the United States today possessed by no other art forms, which, at concerns the ideological effect of cinema on the same time, performed some demonstra- _its audiences. 275

Ideology

Film studies in the United States becamea _ be said about the presuppositions of the widespread and established academic disci- Althusserian film theory. There are two pline in the seventies. Its preoccupation with fundamental tenets of this theory. The first is ideology is a reflection of the conviction of — that ideology in film is not simply a matter of the academic generation of the sixties and __ the content of films. Rather, ideology is, so to

seventies that everything is political. Within speak, built into the very instruments of contemporary film studies, it is typical to cinema: the camera, especially in terms of invoke a contrast between research into the __ perspective,® and the projection apparatus.? ideological dimensions of film andaconcern Moreover, narrative structure as well as the with aesthetics — of the sort one finds in — customary figures of film editing — such as earlier generations of film theorists - where, point-of-view editing’ — are also taken to be

furthermore, a concern with aesthetics is inherently ideological.'' Thus, the first tenet often regarded as not merely old-fashioned, of Althusserian theory maintains that what

but potentially reactionary. others might tend to call the formal condi-

Moreover, not only are contemporary — tions and formal structures of cinema are film scholars generally agreed that ideology themselves ideological. In this sense, of is their central topic; they are also convinced — course, using the word “formal” itself is a

that they have at their disposal a theoretical | misnomer, since these structures are, ex framework for analyzing the ideological hypothesi, primary disseminators of ideol-

effect of the cinema. For the sake of ogy. This tenet of Althusserian film theory convenience, I will call this framework can be summed up by saying that cinema 1s Althusserian.’ My purpose in this paperisto essentially or inherently ideological.

suggest a rival approach to the analysis of The second tenet of Althusserian film ideology in cinema, to that of the dominant theory concerns the ideological effect of Althusserianism of contemporary film theo- — what I call, perhaps tendentiously, the forrists. Unlike contemporary film theorists, I mal elements of film. This effect is a matter do not think that aesthetics is either beside __ of instilling in the film viewer the impression the point or pernicious. But I do agree with _ or illusion that he or she is a unified and

them that film is (often) a vehicle for | autonomous subject. That is, film theorists conveying ideology and that itis worthwhile — believe that certain structures of cinematic to attempt to get some general (theoretical) | representation, such as perspectival repreunderstanding of the ways in which cinema _ sentation, impart or reinforce the viewer’s

performs this function. That is, I do not faith in his/her identity as what contempowant to suggest that we abandon questions __ rary film theorists label (dubiously, I think) of aesthetic value with respect to film. But a Cartesian subject or ego.

we may, at the same time, accommodate the What does regarding oneself as what concerns of contemporary theorists with the | contemporary film theorists call a Cartesian ideological operations of film. Indeed, I — ego have to do with ideology? Presumably, hope to introduce ways of thinking about — sucha subject considers itself to be free. But the ideological operation of film —in terms contemporary film theorists think that this is of the notion of rhetoric — that are superior, — false. Individuals are shaped by the cultures theoretically, to what the reigning Althus- —_in which they are raised and their choices —

serian model proposes. including those which appear to them as free choices — are socially mandated. Given this,

. imparting the impression of freedom, it is

The Althusserian Model thought, has a function for the status quo. It In order to set the stage forthe rivalapproach = encourages the impression that the choices

that I wish to advocate, something needs to __ dictated by the culture at large are free 276

Film, Rhetoric, and Ideology

choices, thereby encouraging the subject in of the way in which we might think of the

the illusion that the roles, choices, and ideological operation of film. beliefs that are imposed upon her by the The first tenet of the Althusserian theculture are really her own. The dominant ory —that film is inherently ideological — social system functions smoothly, that is, by | seems to me suspect. Undeniably, many films

instilling the conviction in its subjects that may function ideologically to celebrate the their decisions are freely made, whereas, values and assumptions of the status quo. For under the Althusserian dispensation, they | example, many cavalry films of the forties are, in reality, completely constructed bythe and fifties valorized the conquest of the social system in the interests of the domi- American West while dehumanizing the

nant order. claims of the indigenous, native populations. All cultural life turns out to be ideological | However, it seems equally possible to make a in this framework. If something is cultural, it _ film from an oppositional position that mobiis ideological or, what amounts to the same _lizes the resources of conventional cinema

thing, it is socially constructed. A primary and that at the same time contests the function of ideology is to obscure the opera- _ ideology of the status quo. However, if the

tion of social construction. Of centralimpor- film employs cameras and projection in

tance, in this regard, is inspiring the belief standard ways; if it tells a story with a or, in the jargon of film studies, the mis- beginning, a middle and an end; and if it recognition on the part of the subject that advances that story by means of continuity she is a unified, free agent rather thanacon- editing, it will, according to contemporary summate social construction. Cinema partic- _film theorists, be ideological. Thus, John ipates in this central function of ideology by _—_ Sayles’s film Matewan could not avoid being deploying structures — such as the perspecti- ideological once certain decisions were made

val image, narrative closure, point-of-view about designing it to be accessible for general editing, a certain type of projection arrange- — audiences. It would appear that any film that ment — all of which are claimed to enhance is not an exercise in modernist reflexivity is

the spectator’s conviction that she is a unavoidably ideological (though, of course,

unified, free subject. many contemporary film theorists are also Space does not allow the rehearsalofhow suspicious of the prospects of modernism for this misrecognition is supposedly counter- _—__ different reasons).

feited in each case. But for illustrative I believe that this is an extremely counpurposes, let me say that it is widely be- _ terintuitive conclusion. Any approach to lieved that perspective putatively enjoins the analysis of ideology in film ought to the viewer to embrace the illusion that she is resist the conclusion that film as such, or at the center of an optical array —i.e., atthe film of a certain form — say conventional monocular station point of the perspectival narrative cinema — is inherently or essenimage. This central position, moreover, isa _ tially ideological. single point in space, and it is supposed that The claim that film is ideological by virtue the attending impression of singularity pro- of its formal structures is putatively supmotes the conviction of unity in the subject, | ported by the analyses that film theorists thereby securing the principal ideological offer of the various structures in question.

effect of the Althusserian theory. Without going through these analyses one at There are a great many problems withthe a time here, I shall merely say that I find characterization of the operation of ideology — them consistently ill-advised. For example,

endorsed by contemporary film theorists. I in my brief summary of the case against will briefly discuss a few of them in order to __ perspective, one immediately notes that the motivate the proposal of a rival conception —_ reasoning proceeds by means of a number of 277

Ideology

hasty inferences. Even if we suppose that a Along with their assimilation of metaphysperspectival image imparts to the viewer a __ ics to ideology, contemporary film theorists sense of being posited at a single monocular _ also, often expressly, conflate the notion of station point, we immediately wonder why ideology with that of culture. To show that

thinking that one is occupying a single point something is cultural, to show that it is a in space would give one the impression that social construction, in their view, warrants one was unified in the requisite sense - what __ the inference that it is ideological. Perhaps does occupying a single point in space have _— this presumption is underwritten by the to do with, for example, the impression of notion that whenever society comes into the being an autonomous agent?!’ Indeed, the __ picture, the powers that be enter in such a accounts that one finds by contemporary — way as to ensure that whatever conventions film theorists of the dynamics according to —_—or conceptions we arrive at will be to the

which interactions with formal film struc- advantage of the status quo. This does not tures result in the film viewer misrecogniz- seem to be empirically plausible; surely

ing herself as a Cartesian ego seem uni- there are practices and beliefs that arise

formly strained. outside the dominant culture — e.g., breakOf course, there is an even deeper prob- dancing and other subcultural expressions. lem here. The contemporary film theorist Indeed, even within mainstream culture, it assumes that it is a necessary element of | seems possible for ideas and practices to capitalist ideology that we all conceive of | emerge that do not serve the status quo, ourselves — via misrecognition — to be what such as the anti-war movement of the they call Cartesian subjects, subjects who sixties. And, more importantly, the view of believe that they are unified in the sense of | contemporary theorists presupposes that not being socially constructed and who, itis —_ any culture, virtually by definition, is politisaid, therefore, mistakenly take themselves cally complicit, which, of course, makes the to be autonomous agents. However, on the __ point of criticizing ideology from the perone hand, it is doubtful that a culture like — spective of a vision of emancipatory social capitalism requires that its citizens endorse __ relations pointless.'

any single conception of the subject of the However, there does seem to be a point generality of the film theorists’ so-called in criticizing certain films as ideological. Cartesian subject. Couldn’t capitalism flour- But in order to do this we need a trimish if we were all behaviorists or if we mer conception of ideology than one that thought of ourselves in terms of Hume’s identifies the ideological with the cultural.

bundles? Couldn’t a population of Zen Thus, the first step in constructing an Buddhists supply a coterie of happy work- approach that is rival to the Althusserian ers? And, alternatively, couldn’t the puta- view is to specify what we mean by “ideoltive delusion that we are Cartesian egos ogy,” and to assure that our conception of underwrite a culture quite different than ideology does not conflate it with culture in

that of capitalism? . general. The contemporary film theorist wants to

reduce metaphysics to ;politics. is not . ; IdeologyThis and Rhetoric

only a problem because of the way in which these theorists attempt to “read” ametaphys- = Originally “ideology” pertained to the study ics of the subject into the formal structures of ideas; Lockean epistemologists were ideoof cinema. But, in addition, the metaphysi- —_logues in this sense.!4 However, the notion

cal commitments they supposedly discern gradually narrowed so that it applied to are underdetermined with respect to the _ political ideas or ideas that were politically political purposes that they may serve. significant, especially in terms of those ideas 278

Film, Rhetoric, and Ideology

that were politically useful for supporting a service in continuing social oppression

oppression. since persons failing to evince sainthood are

Following this heritage, I want to restrict _ likely to be consigned to the criminal class the domain of what is ideological to ideas, —_ and treated with suspicion. So a categorical primarily: to beliefs understood as proposi- framework is ideological if it is distorting, tions held assertively - where the proposi- —_ where that distortion performs some role in tions may be vague, especially in terms of — a system or practice of social domination. quantification (e.g., “People are funny”) — In contrast to the Althusserian approach,

and to categorical frameworks.’ Taking then, showing that a film or a segment of a beliefs first, I hypothesize that in order tobe _film is ideological is not a matter of indicat-

ideological, a belief or the way it is held ing that it is a social construction, but of must be in some sense epistemically defec- | demonstrating that it promotes ideological tive. It is either false, or itis ambiguous, or ideas — either false beliefs or distorting cateit is connected to other beliefs in a way that —gorical schemes that function to support is misleading or unwarranted.'© “The unem- some system of social domination. The ployed are just lazy” is a straightforward §Althusserian approach locates central levers

example of such a belief. of ideology in the formal structures of film. I

Of course, it is not enough for a belief to have at least suggested some reasons why be false or otherwise defective epistemically — this is a problematic way to go. In contrast, I

for it to be ideological: “2 + 2 = 1492” is want to hypothesize that whether a film is false, but to my knowledge it has not, as yet, ideological is a function of its internal ever been employed ideologically. To be organization or, more specifically, what I ideological an epistemically defective propo- _call its rhetorical organization, i.e., the sition has to be used in a certain way. particular organization of its narrative and Specifically, it has to be used as atenet-— as ___ pictorial elements in such a way that it a slogan, a premise, a principle, etc.-—in promotes or encourages ideological beliefs some system of social domination. To show __ or frameworks in viewers.

that a proposition with its corresponding The idea that the locus of ideology in belief is ideological, one must show that itis film resides in the way in which specific epistemically defective and that its contin- films articulate their stories and images is ued invocation plays a role in practices of fairly commonsensical. It would not seem

social domination. to be worth dignifying by the title of “an

Stated roughly, x is an ideological beliefif | approach” were it not the case that, at and only if (1) x is false (or otherwise | present, most contemporary film theorists epistemically defective) and (2) x is em- _ think that they have isolated a deeper level ployed as a tenet in some system of social of ideological manipulation in film, viz., domination. Of course, as noted above, that of generic film structures, like perspecideological ideas may not merely take the _ tive. This has the liability of being overly form of propositions, but may be of the general in two ways: it makes all films — or order of categorical frameworks, i.e., ways _ at least all films that employ certain generic of carving up phenomena.'’ For example, if structures — ideological and it makes them

a society like ours tends to portray African- all ideological in the same way, always Americans as either drug-crazy criminals or encouraging spectators to misrecognize saints, then that grid distorts the way in themselves as Cartesian subjects. Alternawhich someone who employs this optic tively, the view that ideological beliefs are forms expectations and assessments about propagated by films through their specific the behavior of African-Americans. This rhetorical organization allows both that framework, moreover, may readily perform — some films may not be ideological — if they 279

Ideology

promote no ideological beliefs— and that wrongfully oppressed, children, etc. — that there can be quite a range of ideological __is, characters who are in some sense the beliefs, including ones that may not pertain _—protagonist’s “inferiors,” but whom _ the

to issues of personal identity. '8 protagonist treats with consideration (notaTo say that ideological beliefs are propa- __ bly in contrast to the villain, who is apt to gated by films by means of their rhetorical handle his social inferiors quite brutishly — organization is pretty uninformative, unless _ kicking dogs, etc.). Democratic courtesy to we have some idea of what the notion of — one’s “inferiors,” as well as protectiveness “rhetorical organization” signifies. So, how toward the weak, and an overall aura of do I understand rhetoric and how is that “niceness” (toward other “nice” characters) relevant to analyzing the ideological opera- can function as a means of representing

tion of film? protagonists in such a way as to make the Rhetoric is a matter of influencing positions — which may be ideological — that

thought — a matter of persuasion, asaconse- __ they uphold attractive.

quence of presenting material in a way that is Likewise, Aristotle points out that a cru-

structured to secure an audience’s belief in cial form of rhetorical argument is the certain conclusions, or, at least, their favor- example, of which the fable or invented story able disposition toward those conclusions. is a major variation.” And clearly whole film Those conclusions may be stated outright by _— narratives can serve as rhetorical examples.

the orator, or the listener may come to André Bazin took Orson Welles’s Citizen embrace them insofar as they are strongly | Kane as an example supporting the contenimplied by, insinuated by, or presupposed by __ tion that “there is no profit in gaining the the rhetoric in question. Moreover, many of | whole world if one has lost one’s own the techniques of oratory can be adapted to —_ childhood.”! Of course, this rhetorical func-

narrative film-making so as to promote tion is not unique to film narrative; a beliefs or openness to beliefs in audiences. narrative in any art form can operate this From my perspective, where those beliefs | way. For instance, Arthur Miller’s drama are epistemically defective and where instill- | Death ofa Salesman functions as an argumen-

ing them contributes to a system of social tative example, advancing the viewpoint that

domination, they are ideological. the American Dream and its corresponding That rhetorical strategies may be imple- cult of appearances are ultimately destrucmented in narrative film should be fairly — tive. Nevertheless, where film narratives obvious. Aristotle, for example, points out serve as argumentative examples for views that establishing one’s good character is that are epistemically defective and tenets in influential in securing a speaker’s point of | some practice of social domination, their view.!° Similarly, in narrative films, an rhetorical effect will be ideological. ideological perspective may be advanced Among Aristotle’s insights into the rheby a character, and the persuasiveness of __ torical strategies of persuasion is the importhe view may hinge, in part, on portraying — tance of the enthymeme -— the syllogism that

the said fictional character as virtuous. In leaves something out and that requires the Hollywood films, these virtues— strength, audience to fill in the missing premise.” fortitude, ingenuity, bravery — are more of- Indeed, Aristotle thought that this form of ten Greek than Christian. However, quite rhetorical argument was the most effective frequently in Hollywood films, a character one available. The advantage of this device

is designated virtuous in terms of his for the rhetorician is that it engages the courteous, respectful, and thoughtful treat- | audience as participants in the process of ment of supporting characters, especially | argument in such a way that listeners, by

ones who are poor, weak, old, lame, what Arthur Danto calls “an almost inevita280

Film, Rhetoric, and Ideology

ble movement of mind,” supply what is in film, it is a crucial one — one whose needed for the argument to go through.* __ significance has not been extensively disThis enhances the credibility of the argu- — cussed. In the remainder of this essay, I want ment for the listener; in so far as she hasthe — to explore this device further as a way of

impression of reaching the missing segment expanding our understanding of one very on her own, she may regard it as her own = important way in which film, especially idea. For example, rhetorical questionsfunc- _ narrative film, disseminates ideology.

tion as a means of bringing the listener to Narratives presuppose all sorts of vague certain conclusions before the orator states generalizations as conditions of intelligibilthem outright. And, when the orator does, _ity. The audience must supply them as it subsequently, state them outright, the lis- | supplies the missing premise in oratorical tener then greets them favourably as conclu- |= enthymemes. Moreover, where the unstated sions that she probably already formed on __ generalizations are made explicit, they have

her own. That is, “when an arguer sup- resonance because we have already been presses one or more parts of a rhetorical prompted in their direction by the structure syllogism, the arguer invites an audience to of the story. Typical episodes of the eternally

complete it, thereby contributing to its own rerun TV series Star Trek exemplify this persuasion and exhibiting its rationality in nicely. Very often, these programs will con-

the process.”4 clude with a vaguely liberal observation by Narrative films are not arguments. But Captain Kirk, which takes the form of a

they often do presuppose ideas which the _ generalization that comprehends the action audience fills in in order for the narrative to in terms of an organizing moral that is

be intelligible. Narrative films may be virtually on the audience’s lips already — thought of as rhetorical, then, in so far as __ precisely because the story has been structhey are structured to lead the audience to _ tured in such a way as to elicit it from the fill in certain ideas about human conduct in viewer. the process of rendering the story intelligible For example, in the installment entitled

to themselves. For example, in James “Let That Be Your Last Battlefield,” race Whale’s film The Bride of Frankenstein, hatred is explored through the conflict there is a scene in which the monster is — between two aliens from the planet Charon. alone, raging through the forest. At one One, called Loki, is a revolutionist; the left point, he begins to hear offscreen music, _ side of his body, from head to foot, is black issuing from an unseen fiddle. Hisdemeanor and the right side is white. His pursuer, changes from that of a rampaging monster __ Beal, represents the master race on Charon; to one marked by childlike yearning. In he is black on the right and white on the left. order for the scene to make sense to the — Loki and Beal loathe each other and they viewer, one must realize and fill in what is | are prone to denounce each other by means being presupposed, namely a commonplace _ of racially loaded epithets. Of course, the principle of behavior that goes something — difference between them seems insignificant

like “Music hath charms to soothe the _ to the viewer and we feel that Spock has

savage breast.” merely verbalized our own conclusions That is, the narrative is structured in such — when he remarks that they look as if they a way as to elicit this presupposition — which _—_ belong to the same race. The underlying is of the order of a cultural commonplace - _—‘ theme of this episode — which the action

from the audience in its own process of illustrates-—is that the kind of irrational, making sense of the action. We may call this _ racial hatred that these two Charonites bear operation the narrative enthymeme. Though toward each other can only lead to their own it is not the only rhetorical structure available | destruction and the destruction of their 281

Ideology

respective races. This is borne out by the — recognize the utterance as its own concurplot — indeed it is the presupposition that — rent thinking on the matter.

makes the plot intelligible — and when Capt. The relevance of the role of commonKirk intones lines like “There’s nobody alive —_ places in oratory to what we can call on Charon because of hate” and “You both narrative enthymemes is, of course, that the must end up dead if you don’t stop hating,” |= presuppositions that the narrative prompts the audience hears its own surmises stated, — the audience to fill in are generally of the thereby disposing it favorably toward Kirk’s nature of commonplaces or clichés or nos-

conclusions.” trums or platitudes of a general sort about Of course, this sort of structure is not the nature of human conduct and behavior.

only found in what might be thought of as _—‘ The narrative functions to dispose the audi-

the simplistic narratives of mass culture. | ence toward mobilizing these commonplace When Oedipus Rex ends with the Chorus _ generalizations in the process of rendering singing that we should count no mortal as _ the narrative intelligible to itself, thereby fortunate until he/she is dead (and safely out —_— reinforcing the audience’s faith in them by

of harm’s way), we hear the articulation of — virtue of the impression that the audience the presupposition of the vivid example (the has reached these conclusions “on its own.”

story of Oedipus) that we have just wit- And, of course, where these commonplaces nessed and which was predicated on bring- — themselves are ideological, the rhetorical

ing us to just this sobering viewpoint. operation of the film — here understood as Also crucial to the rhetorician for secur- importantly but not exclusively as prompt-

ing conviction from audiences—as may ing the filling in of commonplace prealready be evident from my examples—is — suppositions — is ideological.”°

the manipulation of commonplaces, clichés In order to clarify the application of these and what Aristotle called maxims. The _ points about rhetoric to film, an illustration rhetorician exploits what is common or _ will be useful. Consider the original version familiar in order to gain the assent of the = of Back to the Future. The point of the film audience. That is, the rhetorician uses what — seems to be that anything can be altered by

the audience is already likely to believe or acts of individual will. This is the general have cognitively available in ordertoencour- principle or premise that the film dramaage acceptance of the rhetorician’s view- tizes, and, in order for the film to make point. The use of commonplaces is also — sense to audiences, they must embrace, or, thought to encourage conviction because it _at least, entertain it.?” That is, if the film is leaves the audience with the impression that — to appear as a coherent whole to them, they what it’s heard is what it already believes —_ will have seen it in the light of this generaliza-

and that the conclusions the rhetorician tion. In addition, this generalization is a reaches are, again, its own conclusions. For commonplace of our individualist culture — the rhetorician has elicited these conclusions _a tenet of what is called positive thinking —

from the audience by way of generally and it is serviceable in a number of ways for accepted commonplaces and, indeed, the upholding practices of social domination. conclusion — which the rhetorician ideally | For example, if someone finds himself in

tries to inspire in the mind of the audi- dire straits, such as homelessness, this is ence even before it is uttered — isitself often | sometimes said to be ultimately his own

couched in commonplaces. Of course, fault— and not a product of social conwhere the rhetorician has already inspired ditions — because he has failed to think the commonplace in the mind of the audi- — himself positively out of his circumstances.

ence before it is uttered, the effect of In Back to the Future, this commonplace uttering it will be that the audience may is sowed early on in the film. Walking down 282

Film, Rhetoric, and Ideology

the street with his girlfriend Jennifer, Marty hanced at least in so far as that idea, as a says that Doc says “If you put your mind to __ presupposition of the plot, underwrites the it, you can accomplish anything.””® At this narrative development of much of the action

point in the film it is cited tentatively; itis | of the film. That is, this idea supplies a quoted by Marty, but it is not yeta matter of general principle that applies to a great deal

conviction for him. But itis repeated ontwo of the action in the film, most notably to subsequent occasions. Marty offers it as a virtually all the successful activity in the piece of advice to George, his father. And _film. The audience, in turn, comes to adopt

then at the end of the film, George- who it as its own hypothesis for the sake of had promised never to forget Marty’s comprehending the events of the film. And, advice — repeats it when advance copies of _ finally, when the commonplace is uttered for

his first novel arrive in the mail. By this the last time - when George receives his time, the commonplace clearly expressesthe — copies of his novel — the film iterates the viewpoint of the film. Moreover, the audi- | commonplace to an audience which is likely ence has been encouraged to see the events to endorse it as its own thought insofar as it of the film under the aegis of this common- __ has already reached this view, if only as a place throughout, and it has been rewarded __ generalization that best explains the events in adopting this generalization as a relevant in the film.

presupposition about human behavior in so Of course, this is not the only commonfar as this generalization offers the most place in the film. Another, made explicit by comprehensive explanation of the action in Goldie Wilson, is that you need to stand up

the film. to bullies and not let them walk all over you. Obviously, the generalization applies to ‘This is connected to the notion that you can the exploits of the major character, Marty, | do anything to which you put your mind not

who, among other things, is able to change only because it occurs in the context of the conditions of his own existence by Goldie’s speech about making something of putting his mind to it. This is achieved in himself, but also because the road to George large measure by changing his father, | McFly’s “accomplishing anything” is bound George, whose transformation, in turn, is up with confronting a bully, namely, Biff. achieved by virtue of his acceptance of the —_ Bullies, that is, are defeatable by acts of will principle that willing enables you to accom- _and this commonplace is, in turn, a particuplish anything, whether it be decking Biff or — lar instance of “If you put your mind to it

publishing a novel. Likewise, that Goldie | you can accomplish anything,” which inWilson becomes the first African-American — cludes defeating bullies.

mayor of Hill Valley is due, the film implies, A further particularization of the nostrum to his go-getter attitude —to his commit- of positive thinking, which is crucial to the ment to making something of himself and to _ film, concerns the importance of taking risks

standing tall, while Doc, himself, is moved or trying. This arises in several contexts, from the despondency over his history of — including Marty’s paralyzing fear of rejecfailed experiments to enthusiasm by the tion with respect to his music, and his father challenge of putting his mind to sending George’s parallel fear about showing his

Marty “back to the future.” science fiction stories to anyone; and, of Rhetorically speaking, Back to the Future course, the importance of trying is also

plants the idea in the audience’s mind that _ related to George’s asking Marty’s mother,

“if you put your mind to it, you can Lorraine, for a date and, later, to his accomplish anything” — an idea, moreover, exercising his will in confronting bullies such

that is already a cultural commonplace. The as Biff and, later still, the redhead at the viability of this idea, furthermore, is en- | dance. When characters complain of their 283

Ideology

fears of rejection, the audience is apt to — sense of them. That is, the plot is rather like think that the character will never know — an example of the commonplace. The audiwhether he can succeed unless he puts — ence’s acceptance of the commonplace is himself on the line. We almost subvocalize: | encouraged as it comes to recognize the

“You'll never know unless you take a __ story as an instance of the commonplace. chance.” The conversations in which these This, in turn, has the net effect of reinforcanxieties are expressed function in a way — ing the commonplace -— insofar as it appears that is analogous to rhetorical questions— successful in accounting for some behavior, given the culture that we inhabit, they elicit even if fictional — while also concretizing the

a predictable answer to the character’s commonplace in the audience’s mind in plight. In addition, this answer underwrites — terms of a paradigm case which may guide the narrative action as a general principle —- application of the commonplace to actual i.e., the characters do succeed when they _ situations.*?

try — and, furthermore, it is connected to How generalizable are these observations the overarching commonplace that struc- about what I have called the rhetorical tures the film. For resolving to try, totake a organization of Back to the Future? My risk, or to take a stand is part of what is —_ hunch is that they can be extended to quite a

required by “putting your mind to it.”” lot of films, and that adopting the notions of If this analysis of the rhetoric of Back to _ rhetoric, presupposition and the use of the Future appears convincing, then central commonplaces will provide a useful frameto the film is the manipulation of common- _ work for isolating the ideological operation places. Either these commonplaces are pre- _of a great deal of cinema. To support my sented overtly to the audience or they are — hunch about commonplaces, two considerelicited by contriving situations to which the —_ ations come to mind. First, one notices that audience is apt to respond associatively with — frequently the titles of conventional films

a well-worn truism (like “in order to suc- are themselves commonplaces — You Can’t ceed, you have to take risks”). Moreover, Take It with You, The Best Years of Our the audience uses these commonplaces to Lives, Cheaper by the Dozen, It’s A Wonder-

track the action; insofar as they have, in ful Life — and, in these cases at least, the fact, structured the action, they account for _ role clichés play in organizing the narrative it quite expeditiously. So by the time the — seems to accord with our hypothesis about leading commonplace is delivered as acon- __films like Back to the Future, where the

clusion, the spectator is apt to greet it as | commonplace is not featured in the title. what she already thinks, for she has already § Secondly, one would predict, on what might

come to it herself, albeit as the result of | be called “design grounds,” that the presup-

rhetorical promptings. positions that are favored in popular narra-

So one crucial element in the rhetorical tives would be something of the order of operation of the film is that it instills its | commonplaces and clichés since they would conclusion in its spectators in such a way have to be familiar enough for mass audithat the spectator’s conviction is reinforced — ences to have access to them.

by her sense that the conclusion is a matter That narratives involve presuppositions of something that she is already disposed to _ that the audience fills in, I conjecture, is embrace. The key to installing this convic- | something that most theorists accept. Howtion is that the view in question be rather of | ever, several qualifications about the rele-

the order of a commonplace and that this vance of filling in presuppositions with commonplace — as a generalization about _ respect to the ideological operation of film behavior or a principle of conduct — fit the | need to be made. First, I am not claiming events in the plot as the best way to make _ that narrative presuppositions are always 284

Film, Rhetoric, and Ideology

ideological; they are only ideological where us for the purpose of rendering the situation they meet the criteria stated earlier in this _ intelligible. That a film reinforces one of paper. Moreover, eliciting presuppositions these heuristics with respect to some fictional

from audiences is not the sole means of | behavior may then have some spill-over conveying ideology; films may have long _ effect in the sense that when searching for a speeches that state their ideological position heuristic to apply to real circumstances, the quite bluntly. Rather, my claim is that the heuristic in question is one whose availability use of presuppositions, in terms of the way is attractive because it has succeeded in the in which it involves the audience “finding past in rendering some stretch of phenom-

the conclusion for itself,” is a powerful ena, albeit fictional, intelligible. rhetorical device for conveying ideology and Moreover, recent research in cognitive a frequent one. Moreover, though some- and social psychology indicates that vivid

times the presupposition may be found information is more likely to be stored, stated somewhere in the dialogue or title of | remembered, and mobilized than is pallid the film,*! in other cases the commonplace information. Factors that contribute to vivid-

remains tacit.°? ness include the extent to which the informaThough the rhetorical organization of a tion is, for example, emotionally interesting, film in terms of presuppositions and com- concrete, and imagery-provoking.*° Thus, monplaces may proffer ideological tenets to —_ heuristics wedded to films, in so far as they audiences, they do not, of course, guarantee are characteristically conveyed vividly, will

their acceptance. For viewers who do not have a high degree of availability in the already accept the ideological presupposi- minds of viewers who are not ill-disposed tions and commonplaces advanced by the __ toward the heuristic to begin with. And the film are unlikely to accept them. For such availability of the said heuristics may incline viewers, the film is apt to seem unintelligible |= viewers to access and apply them to actual or ridiculous, and, perhaps, worthy of indig- cases.>’7 And, of course, where the heuristic nation.*> On the other hand, where viewers __ in question is ideological, a film’s reinforcereadily accept the rhetoric of the film, they ment of its availability amounts to an ideoprobably already accept the ideologicalcom- _ logical effect.*8 monplaces, and the ideological operation of In conclusion, where contemporary film

the film in such cases is probably best theorists attempt to locate the most impordescribed as reinforcing existing ideology. tant ideological effects of film in its formal My suspicion is that this is the most common __ structures, I propose that we think in terms of

operation of ideology in film. rhetorical structures, such as the ideological One other case, however, is worth brief | deployment of presupposition in the service comment. There may be some viewers who, _ of eliciting ideological tenets (which will

antecedently, neither accept nor reject the often be of the nature of commonplaces). ideological commonplaces that the film elic- | Commonplace and presupposition are not its. What is the film’s ideological effect on — the only relevant rhetorical levers in film;

them? Here, I conjecture that the rhetorical further research in this area is required. operation of the film may at least tilt them |§ However, thinking of the dissemination of toward the ideological premise in questionby _film ideology in this way has the advantages enhancing the viability of the commonplace _ of: (1) satisfying our intuition that not all

in their cognitive stock of heuristics.*4 That films are necessarily ideological and (2) is, human beings are optimizers.*> When facilitating the recognition that ideology in confronted with situations, we will often film can be more than a matter of causing grasp for whatever heuristics - such as com- __ people to conceive of themselves as Cartemonplace generalizations — are available to sian egos.*? Furthermore, the Althusserian 285

Ideology

approach suggests that the ideological effect endorses all the findings of contemporary

of cinema is virtually unavoidable — that film theorists or that contemporary film through its formal structures, cinema uni- theorists have not essayed critical departures formly causes us to misrecognize ourselves as fr om the views of Althusser. However, I do Cartesian egos. A final advantage, then, of a believe that it 1s indisputable that the previrhetorical approach is that, as indicated in ously cited articl . supplies the fundamental

. framework within which contemporary film

the preceding paragraphs, it allows that theand theory has developed a y has developed continues toand de;

uptake of a film’s ideology 1s variable, velop. This much is admitted even by contemdepending im large measure on the audi- porary film theorists — for example, see Colin

ence’s predispositions. MacCabe, “Class of ’68,” in his Tracking the Signifier (Minneapolis: University of Minne-

Notes sota Press, 1985), p. 13. Moreover, I doubt that any contemporary film theorist would 1. Rudolf Arnheim, Film as Art (Berkeley: Uni- deny that there is a historical link between

versity of California Press, 1966). Althusser’s speculation on ideology and the 2. A term of art, in film studies, for events emergence of contemporary film theory. For staged or otherwise transpiring before the a further defense of this way of labeling

camera. contemporary film theory see Noél Carroll,

3. André Bazin, What is Cinema? (2 vols., Mystifying Movies: Fads and Fallacies in Berkeley: University of California Press, Contemporary Film Theory (New York: Co-

1971). lumbia University Press, 1988). For a collec-

4. For a sketch of this conversation, see Noél tion of many of the central documents of this Carroll, Philosophical Problems of Classical variety of film theory see the anthology Film Theory (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Uni- edited by Philip Rosen and entitled Narra-

versity Press, 1988). tive, Apparatus, Ideology (New York: Colum-

5. A primary representative of this sort of bia University Press, 1986). skepticism in film theory is Victor Perkins. 8. See, for example, Jean-Louis Comolli, “Tech-

See his Film as Film (Baltimore: Penguin niques and ideology: Camera, perspective Books, 1972). It should be noted that the case and depth of field,” Film Reader 2 (January of Perkins here is somewhat complicated. For 1977). though he mounts anti-essentialist arguments 9. See, for example, Jean-Louis Baudry, “Ideoagainst classical film theory, it is also possible logical effects of the basic cinematographic

to read his constructive proposals for the film apparatus,” in Theresa Hak Kyung Cha theory of the future as a species of closet (ed.), Apparatus (New York: Tanam Press, essentialism. See Carroll, Philosophical Prob- 1980).

lems, chapter 3. 10. See, for example, Daniel Dayan, “The tutor-

6. Isay “ironically” above because, though many code of classical cinema,” in Bill Nichols contemporary film theorists are avowedly (ed.), Movies and Methods (Berkeley: Univeranti-essentialist, they believe that certain cine- sity of California Press, 1976). matic devices — like the perspectival image — 11. For a sympathetic overview of this position,

are essentially ideological. see James Spellerberg, “Technology and ideol-

7. The label “Althusserian” has been chosen in ogy in cinema,” reprinted in Gerald Mast and order to signal the degree to which contempo- Marshall Cohen (eds.), Film Theory and

rary film theorists have been influenced by Criticism (New York: Oxford University the framework for analyzing ideology that Press, 1985). was introduced by the Marxist philosopher 12. A similar argument can be found in David Louis Althusser in his “Ideology and ideologi- Bordwell, Narration in the Fiction Film (Madi-

cal state apparatuses,” in his Lenin and son: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985), Philosophy (New York: Monthly Review pp. 25-26. Press, 1971). By employing this appellation I 13. For a more thorough account of contempo-

am not implying either that Louis Althusser rary film theory, along with more detailed 286

Film, Rhetoric, and Ideology

criticisms thereof, see Carroll, Mystifying bridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987); H. H. Kelley, Movies: Fads and Fallacies in Contemporary “Causal schematas and the attribution proFilm Theory. As its title indicates, that book cess,” in E. E. Jones (ed.), Attribution: Peris a brief against Althusserian film theory. ceiving the Causes of Behavior (Morristown, The present chapter is a continuation of that NJ: General Learning Press, 1972); Amélie debate. Specifically, in order to challenge Rorty, “Explaining emotions,” The Journal of contemporary film theory, I believe that one Philosophy 75 (1978); Richard Nisbett and must not only show its logical flaws and Lee Ross, Human Inference: Strategies and empirical shortcomings. One must also indi- Shortcomings of Social Judgment (Englewood

cate that there are more fruitful lines of Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1980), p. 35. I research than those developed by the Allt- have attempted to apply the notion of a husserians for answering the very questions paradigm scenario to films in Noél Carroll, that perplex them. That is, in order to defeat “The image of women in film: a defense of a contemporary film theory decisively, one paradigm,” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art needs to engage it dialectically and to demon- Criticism 4 (1990). strate that competing theories superior to the 16. This last disjunct is introduced in order to Althusserian model are available, i.e., theo- allow for the role that true propositions may

ries that avoid the liabilities their theories play in ideology. That is, a true proposition incur while also explaining the data. One may be embedded in an otherwise ideological question that contemporary film theorists ask discourse in such a way that its import is, is how films disseminate ideology. This essay overall, misleading owing to its discursive is an attempt to begin to develop an alterna- contextualization. tive answer to that question. Thus, this essay 17. Other candidates for the cognitive compois an extension of the argument in Mystifying nent of ideological ideas are mentioned in Movies to the terrain of the ideological effect note 15 above.

of cinema. 18. Of course, the Althusserian does not deny 14. For information on the history of the concept this. Rather, for the contemporary film theoof ideology, see David McLellan, Ideology rist the conviction of Cartesian egohood is the (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, primary ideological effect of the cinema and, 1986); H. Barth, Truth and Ideology (Berke- perhaps, a condition for the effectiveness of

ley: University of California Press, 1977); further ideological machinations. On our Allen Wood, “Ideology, false consciousness contrasting account, films may be ideological and social illusion,” in Brian P. McLaughlin with no implications about the nature of the and Amélie Oksenberg Rorty (eds.), Perspec- subject, and therefore, need not require the tives on Self-Deception (Berkeley: University misrecognition of Cartesian subjecthood as a

of California Press, 1988). condition for other ideological effects.

15. I am also willing to entertain the extension of 19. Aristotle, Rhetoric, Book I, sections 8 and 9. what counts as ideological to other cognitive 20. Aristotle, Rhetoric, Book II, section 20. phenomena, including what cognitive scien- 21. André Bazin, Orson Welles, (New York:

tists have labeled scripts (Shank and Abel- Harper & Row, 1978), p. 66. son), paradigm scenarios (de Sousa), schemas 22. Aristotle, Rhetoric, Book I, sections 22—25.

(Kelley), and personae (Nisbet and Ross), 23. Arthur Danto, The Transfiguration of the and perhaps even to prepropositional pat- Commonplace (Cambridge, MA: Harvard terns of salience (Rorty). However, if such University Press, 1981), p. 170. structures are to play a role in ideology, we 24. Walter R. Fisher, Human Communication As

. must be able to specify the conditions under Narration (Columbia, SC: University of which each, in turn, is epistemically defec- South Carolina Press, 1987), p. 28. tive. See R. Shank and R. P. Abelson, Scripts, 25. In his Rhetoric, Aristotle regards the example

Plans, Goals and Understanding: An Inquiry and the enthymeme as distinct forms of into Human Knowledge Structures (Hills- argument; where they are both deployed in dale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1977); Ronald the same discourse, he advises that the de Soussa, The Rationality of Emotion (Cam- enthymeme precede the example so that the 287

Ideology

force of the former not be diluted. However, rhetorical/narrative organization of this spe-

with what we are calling narrative en- cific film. And finally, though Back to the thymemes, it is generally the case that exam- Future appears to traffic in ideology in terms

ple and ellipsis work in tandem. of its notion of personal freedom, the method 26. Needless to say, films may be rhetorical used to isolate this commitment does not without being ideological. Films may propose privilege themes of agency as the sine qua non

genuinely moral (in the sense of upright) of ideology, and it allows that in other films arguments by means of rhetoric. And, of there may be other sorts of ideological commitcourse, the use of rhetoric in and of itself is ments, ones that may have nothing to do with not a sign of disvalue. The rhetorical opera- personal efficacy, but that are conveyed by tion of a film will only count as ideological if narrative enthymemes. On the other hand, I it meets the criteria laid down earlier. At the take it that the Althusserians are committed to same time, we are also claiming that ideology the view that any film, of the classically in film is primarily disseminated through constructed variety, is not only always ideologirhetorical operations of which the narrative cal but, at the very least, involved in propagatenthymeme is one of the most important. ing an ideology of exorbitant personal agency.

27. Or know that others in the given culture 30. Though further research on the matter is

believe it. necessary, it would also appear that one way

28. There is a similar commonplace in Back to the in which a film may function ideologically

Future III to the effect that your future is that differs somewhat from my examples so what you make it. This cliché is woven far is by concretizing a cultural commonthrough the narrative in a way that is analo- place — which in isolation may not be ideologigous to the example discussed above and, in cally charged — by means of a misleading or addition, it is literalized by the special fea- tendentious example that, in turn, may come

tures of time-travel, as is the maxim that we to influence the way in which the audience

are considering. applies that commonplace in actual situa-

29. Interestingly, the characterization of the ideo- tions. For example, John Ford’s She Wore A logical operation of Back to the Future that I Yellow Ribbon is underwritten by the presup-

am advancing may appear to correlate with position that the army is always the same.

the kind of ideological effect that I claimed This refers, first and foremost, to its Althusserians find pervasive in film. That is, I routinized activity and to the induction of have maintained that Back to the Future successive generations of soldiers (primarily celebrates an exorbitant belief in personal officers) into its routines and folk-ways. But agency and freedom. The question then arises there is also the suggestion that the army is as to how really distinct my analysis is from an always the same in the sense that the high Althusserian view of the same film. Here, I moral purpose exemplified by the cavalry in think that three differences are noteworthy. the film is an enduring, eternally benevolent First, the beliefs that I find proposed in Back feature of the military. Thus, the example in to the Future are more in the nature of folk question puts an ideological “spin” on the

platitudes which, contra the Althusserians, otherwise innocent and perhaps accurate need not be thought necessarily to hook up to maxim about military life. Further study of an entire ontology of the subject, nor can they this “spin factor” with respect to tendentious be worked into a theory of the subject that you and misleading narrative examples will, I could label Cartesian, Husserlian, or even believe, reveal a major source of the ideologiIdealist. Second, if these beliefs can be de- cal operations of films. rived from Back to the Future, this is not — 31. For example, when Marty quotes Doc as again, contra Althusserianism — a function of saying “If you put your mind to it you can

the fact that the film is projected by an accomplish anything.” apparatus, that it employs pictorial verisimili- 32. For example, in the original Invasion of the tude, perspective, narrative or continuity edit- Body Snatchers, part of the horror of collectiv-

ing (including point-of-view editing). It is, ist invaders is that they lack individuality. As rather, a matter of rhetoric — indeed, of the vegetables, the pod people are alike — as 288

Film, Rhetoric, and Ideology

alike as two peas in a pod. That is, a “Availability: a heuristic for judging frecommonplace about vegetables is exploited quency and probability,” Cognitive Psycholfor horrific as well as ideological effect, ogy 5 (1973); Daniel Kahneman, Paul Slovic, though it is never explicitly stated in the film. and Amos Tversky (ed.), Judgments Under

33. One advantage of what I am calling the Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (Camrhetorical approach to film ideology versus bridge University Press, 1982); and Nisbett the Althusserian approach is that whereas the and Ross, Human Inference. Althusserian approach seems to present the 35. Shelley E. Tylor, “The availability bias in ideological effect of a film as inevitable, social perception and interaction,” in Kahnthe rhetorical approach allows that spectators eman, Slovic, and Tversky (eds.), Judgments may reject and resist the ideology proffered Under Uncertainty, pp. 190-191. by a film. That is, on the Althusserian model, 36. See Nisbett and Ross, Human Inference, if a film has a certain generic structure, like chapter 3. perspective, this will inexorably cause the 37. My use of terminology above differs somespectator to misrecognize himself as a Carte- what from that of cognitive psychologists. sian ego. However, in my account of the They call vividness itself an example of the rhetoric of Back to the Future, there is no availability heuristic, i.e., a heuristic that problem in acknowledging that a viewer may privileges a biased inference or interpretation recognize the ideology of positive thinking because it is available. Nevertheless, despite

that the film presupposes and reject it. That our slightly different uses of terminology I

viewers are quite often aware of and ill believe that our points of view amount to disposed toward the ideological address of a roughly the same thing. film seems to me to be an indisputable fact. 38. Another case, which is at least worth noting,

That the viewer is always duped, as the is that of the viewer who is unaware that the Althusserian model suggests, is just wrong. heuristic or commonplace conveyed by the One strength then, comparatively speaking, film is ideological. Such a viewer might even of the rhetorical approach to film ideology is be opposed to the ideological message of that it can explain how films dispose audi- the film, if the ideological applications of the

ences toward various ideological stances, message were to be made apparent. The while also admitting that viewers do not range of potential and logical effects on such

always succumb to them. viewers is too varied to discuss here, but will

34. For discussions of heuristics in human reason- be developed in a future paper. ing, see Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahn- 39. Since the ideological presuppositions and eman, “Judgment under uncertainty: heuris- commonplaces that a film mobilizes may tics and biases,” Science 185 (1974), 1124- involve issues that don’t involve questions of 1131; Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, personal identity.

289

BLANK PAGE

=.: =

arguments and positions systematically. As a

result, historical hypotheses have, more

- PART V = often than not, been bypassed, rather than defeated. Little has been definitively dis-

| The History of carded. So what may be of use and what is

Film Theory ™ plainly wrong has not been sorted out = properly. In the earlier section of this anthology on

= the movies, for example, I remarked more

than once on my debts to Pudovkin. In this

: section, I claim that Hans Richter may have something of value to teach the contempo-

I have always found it both interesting and rary avant-garde. But it is not the case that useful to reread the historical texts of film — the history of film theory may only instruct theory. For it seems to me that the history of us by providing insights that we may exploit

film theory is not a closed book for film today. The errors of the past film theory may theorists in the way that the history of also be instructive about theoretical options physics is a dead letter for physicists. That that continue to tempt us in the present. is, practicing physicists do not — as part of In “Film/Mind Analogies: The Case of their training or as part of their customary | Hugo Munsterberg,” I examine one of the practice — pore over the writings of Coper- _—_— most articulate early attempts at film theory,

nicus; one would not typically consult not only in order to clarify the issues that Kepler to help solve a current problem. But confronted silent film theorists and the film theory is different. Its historical writings strategies they adopted to address them, but

may maintain a relevance to present theoriz- also in order to raise problems with the ing that is not paralleled by the historical | enduring proclivity of film theorists to orga-

texts of mature sciences like physics. nize their thinking by means of analogies I am not sure why this is so. Perhaps part between film and the mind. In this, I see of the reason is that substantial portions of | Munsterberg as a predecessor to contempofilm theory still belong in the province of _ rary film theorists, like Metz and Baudry. philosophy, and philosophical theories are — For though these latter-day theorists ananot as susceptible to supercession as scien- _logize film to the irrational aspects of the tific theories. Philosophical theories are not mind where Munsterberg analogizes film to decisively refuted in the way that scientific the cognitive functions, all three share a

theories are. confidence in the theoretical value of film/ Or perhaps it has to do with the immatu- mind analogies. Thus rereading Munsterrity of film theory as a field of inquiry. For — berg provides us with an opportunity for

though film theory, has (arguably) been scrutinizing one of the most frequently around for eighty-some years, it has only recurring paradigms of film theory virtually recently been organized as a coherent field _at its inception.! of academic study. That is, much of film Whereas Munsterberg comes in for relenttheory has been the work of inspired loners less criticism in what follows, in “Hans or of disconnected groups with little histori- | Richter’s Struggle for Film,” I find much to cal consciousness of belonging to a continu- —_— be admired in the clear-headed way in which

ous conversation or tradition. Thus, one _ Richter goes about setting up his theory for finds little dialectical engagement between a_ politically committed, avant-garde film the participants in the history of film theory. practice. Richter’s theory is also interesting

They do not work through each other’s for the way in which it parallels Walter 291

The History of Film Theory

Benjamin’s thinking in “The Work of Artin — kinds of film or certain film devices in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.” Like general. But filmmakers often seem to make Benjamin, Richter appears to me to be __ theories that are designed to rationalize or involved in the attempt to map a materialist | to make sense out of their own film practice

conception of history onto film history. and to discover an agenda. Thus, these Thus, my rereading of Richter enablesmeto — theories do not really seem to have general work through some of the problems that are —_ import outside the filmmaker’s practice.

raised by attempting to apply historical Moreover, it strikes me that it may be materialism to art in general and to film in _—_ appropriate to think and to talk about these

particular. different kinds of theories in different ways.

“A Brief Comment on Frampton’s Notion Perhaps we should not have the same of Metahistory” was originally a talk for a expectations and make the same demands of panel at the Museum of Modern Art which — Brahkage’s theories that we make of Arnwas organized by Annette Michelson in the — heim’s. Of course, the distinction that I have spring of 1985 in order to honor the memory ___ in mind is not an absolutely limpid one to of the late Hollis Frampton. The essay isexe- —_ apply, since authors like Richter and Eisen-

getical. It speculates about the role that stein seem to be playing in the same ballpark Frampton’s theory of the metahistory of film § as Benjamin and Kracauer. Yet, the matter might have played for his filmmaking. Isus- —_is ambiguous, since the case could also be pect that there may also be an undeveloped made that they are also just trying to make theoretical idea — or metatheoretical idea-— sense of their own practice. Nevertheless, of my own lingering in the background of _ there does seem to me to be some kind of a this essay. It is that it may be useful to draw __ distinction somewhere around here. It is, as a categorical distinction between different they say, a topic for future research. kinds of film theories: those made by scientists or philosophers like Metz and Munsterberg, on the one hand, and those made by _—‘Note

artists, like Frampton, Epstein, Brakhage, 1. Munsterberg can also serve as the most and perhaps Deren, on the other hand. completely analyzed example in this book of The first group of theories propose to tell the sort of medium-specificity theorist whose us about film in general — or about certain position was challenged throughout Part I.

292

= ; =.. |

ect goes awry and the way that the failure

CHAPTER XIX of his attempt may also shed light on the generic shortcomings of any film/mind ap-

Film/Mind Analogies: proach to film theory, including those of

, The Case of = our contemporaries. If Munsterberg is useful in terms of exempHugo Munsterberg lifying a problematic of contemporary film

™ theory, he also illuminates the problematic of

- early film theory — the film theory of the

silent era. Thus, in discussing Munsterberg, it is not only my intent to scrutinize his attempt to forge film/mind analogies, but also Though there is a strong tendency in the _ toconsider his theory critically as illustrative writing of our culture to assimilate cinemato __ of silent film theory, particularly in virtue of notions of reality and realism, there is — the question of whether and by what means another tradition, at least equally persistent, film could be conceived of as an artform.

that attempts to conceptualize cinema as an In early 1915, Hugo Munsterberg, a analog to the human mind — 1.e., to charac- |§ member of the Harvard Philosophy Depart-

terize cinematic processes as if they were ment, a leader in the field of applied modeled upon mental processes. psychology, and an adviser to the likes of Neither of these traditions seemstomean ‘Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson and Carnegie, saw adequate perspective from which to develop Annette Kellerman in Neptune’s Daughter

satisfying film theories. However, neither and became enthralled with the aesthetic tendency can be ignored, because both are ___ possibilities of the nascent artform, the so entrenched in our thinking about film, | movies. He spent much of the following

that, if not explicitly confronted, they will summer in nickelodeons and visited the continue to haunt our thinking about cin- ——- Vitagraph Studios in Brooklyn. Flattered by

ema. The purpose of this article is to begin the attentions of this distinguished acato challenge the view that film can be demic, a student of Wilhelm Wundt and a profitably studied theoretically by ana- protégé of William James, Adolph Zukor

logizing it to mental processes.! made him a contributing editor to the

The attempt to develop a theoretically | magazine Paramount Pictograph. Munsterviable approach to cinema by means of _ berg took his role seriously and began to film/mind analogies was already in place in write a great deal about film — this activity the second decade of this century, and it culminating in 1916 in his The Photoplay: A continues to inform much of the most — Psychological Study.

dominant strand of contemporary film Though by no means the first example theory — that of psychoanalytic semiotics. of film theory, Munsterberg’s text, now Readers more familiar with the analytic called The Film: A Psychological Study, tradition in aesthetics will recall a variant of | was surely the most sustained of the early the film/mind analogy in Suzanne Langer’s __ philosophical explanations and defenses of conception of film as dream. Perhaps the _ the film medium as an artform.* For many

most elaborate working through of the — years, however, the book remained forgotfilm/mind analog, with reference to the cog- ten, perhaps because the German-born

nitive-rational aspect of the mind, was Munsterberg raised the ire of the popular developed by Hugo Munsterberg. In this press due to his strenuous efforts to stop essay, I will be concerned with both the America’s entry into the First World War detailed way in which Munsterberg’s proj- on behalf of the Allies. But when the 293

The History of Film Theory

treatise was reissued in 1970, it seemed _ rather than creatively reconstituting it. In almost prophetic, for Munsterberg’s at- other words, it was presumed that imitation tempt to explain the workings of film — simpliciterwasnota hallmark of art. And furprocesses through analogies with mental — thermore, since it was assumed that film — as

processes coincided, at least in a very a photographic medium — could do no more general way, with the efforts of avant-garde than imitate, then film could not be art.

filmmakers — like Alain Resnais, Stan Munsterberg, like other film theorists to Brakhage and Michael Snow-to create come, agreed with the opponents of film works that were said to be modeled on or __ that if a medium is to be an artform, it must

to objectify consciousness. do more than imitate. And this, in turn, Today, Munsterberg’s treatise remains — entails that in order to show that film is an interesting for several reasons. On the one —_ art, he must refute the assumption that all hand, it is of exemplary historical value for, — the film medium must do (given its photodespite its early appearance, it manages to _ graphic nature) is slavishly copy. This, howset out the underlying aesthetic problematic — ever, involves showing two things: both that

of silent film with a clarity that was rarely film need not necessarily copy reality and rivaled during the period. But it is also of _ that films need not be mere mechanical contemporary interest. For in his use of — reproductions of theatrical dramas. mental analogies to explain both the particu- Munsterberg pursues these demonstra-

lar power and the conventions of film, tions through an ingenious discussion of a Munsterberg presages recent psychoanalytic series of cinematic devices — such as the explorations in film theory such as those of | close-up, parallel editing, flashbacks and Christian Metz and Jean-Louis Baudry. Ad- _flashforwards — that were being refined and mittedly, Munsterberg’s analogies were to, popularized during the period from 1908 to what might be thought of as, rational mental 1915. His review of these techniques — which processes, whereas contemporary film theo- at the time were considered innovations — rists prefer analogs with irrational processes. | put him in a position to claim not only that

However, Munsterberg can be seen as the _ the filmmaker transformed what he photopioneer of the mind/film analogy-approach — graphed but also that he transformed it in a to film theory, and his writings, therefore, | way that was uniquely cinematic (rather than can be discussed within the context of the theatrical). Moreover, Munsterberg’s expla-

contemporary debate about whether the nations of the way in which these devices

mind/film paradigm is a useful one. functioned also enabled him to connect The most pressing problem for film theo- _ film — specifically, film’s peculiar way of rists of the silent period was to show that film transforming the world — with that which could be an artform, insofar as art was the §Munsterberg, on independent grounds, took

only available cultural category through to be the purpose of art. which the medium could claim serious atten- In a nutshell, then, there are three major tion. But, since film was photographic, items on the agenda in The Photoplay: first, detractors regarded it as a mere mechanical — to show that the film medium, despite its recording device. Either, it slavishly repro- photographic provenance, could imaginaduced slices of reality (the early documenta- _ tively reconstitute whatever it recorded; ries of the Lumieres might be thought of as — second, that the cinematic mode of transexamples here), or, at best, it automatically | forming reality was different from the theat-

recorded famous, and not so famous, plays. rical mode; and, third, that this mode of The point was that film was simply acopying — transformation implemented the general pur-

machine, and nothing more. It blandly poses of art— which purposes could be imitated whatever stood before the camera _ identified without reference to cinema. 294

Film/Mind Analogies: The Case of Hugo Munsterberg

After an “Introduction,” in which he is done for us automatically in film. The sketches the technological development of _ film close-up is somehow equivalent to the cinema, and its early stylistic breakthroughs, psychological process of attention; it is an Munsterberg begins what he calls “The Psy- _— objectification or externalization of the chology of the Photoplay.” Essentially, this process. section is an analysis of cinematic devices (or processes of articulation) such as the Wherever our attention becomes focused on a close-up, parallel editing and so on. This special feature, the surrounding adjusts itself, way of beginning — by focussing on charac- eliminates everything in which we are not inter-

arr : . .cinematic ested, and processes by the close-up heightens the vividness teristic of articulation ; . aeIt 1s; as of that on which our mind is — concentrated.

reminds one of the procedure of Many if that outer world were woven into our mind and future film theorists, such as Arnheim, and, — were shaped not through its own laws but by the in fact, the logical function this section per- _ acts of our attention.4

forms also resembles that of opening portions of Arnheim’s Film As Art. For what is | Moreover, this account of the close-up not to be shown here is that cinema is not the ' only purportedly explains its operation but mere reproduction of anything, neither real- also does so in a way which differentiates ity nor theater. (Incidentally, Munsterberg, | such devices from the means available in

again like Arnheim, opposes the sound _ theater.

film). This notion of cinematic devices as the First, Munsterberg examines the impres- —_ objectification of mental processes is central

sions of depth and motion in film, noting to the claims Munsterberg will make for film that in contradistinction with theater, film as an art. But it should be noted that there 1s depth and film motion are, so to speak, a striking change in the manner of Munstersuperadditions that the mind supplies to a __ berg’s analysis of cinematic depth and mo-

series of flat surfaces of still photos. tion, on the one hand, and the analysis of Whereas “theater has both depth and mo- __ the close-up, on the other. For in the matter tion, without subjective help,” in film “we of film depth and motion, the psychologist create the depth and continuity through our __ tells us we add something to the visual array,

mental mechanism.’ whereas with the close-up, the selecting is The contrast with theater and the con- something that is done for us. That is, the cern with the relation of cinematic pro- mental process — attention — that Munstercesses to the mind continue throughout _ berg discusses with the respect to the closeMunsterberg’s discussion of cinematic de- _ up is, roughly speaking, in the film, not in vices. For example, in theater attention is — us. A similar shift in direction occurs in the directed by means of word and gesture. _ rest of Munsterberg’s account of cinematic When an actor points an accusing finger at _—_ articulations.

another character across the stage, my eye In theater, later moments in a play may follows the line of movement and lands at call to mind earlier ones; the scenes of the appropriate point of interest. But in Lear’s desperation, for example, remind us film, attention can be directed by camera of his earlier majesty. However, in film this positioning. If you want the audience to sort of contrast can be literally visualized by attend to the key in Notorious, you can means of a flashback. Where theater relies show a close-up of it. The close-up selects on the spectator’s memory, the flashback in crucial dramatic elements — objects, faces, film is an analog or functional equivalent to hands, etc.—and enlarges them, while | memory. Likewise, when we see that provereliminating surrounding details. What we __ bial gun in the first act of a play, we might be

do on our own in theater, it might be said, thought to imagine its going off in the last; 295

The History of Film Theory

but, in film, such predictions canbe made by _ imaginative explanation of how then novel a flashforward, as in the case of the funeral _ film devices function by means of mentalistic

barge in Don’t Look Now. Where the metaphors of the sort that V. I. Pudovkin flashback is the analog or objectification of | would later employ to teach narrative film memory, the flashforward correlates with — editing in terms of the shifting attention of

the imagination. an ideal spectator. However, Munsterberg

Of course, these comparisons with the himself has a larger project; he wants to use mental acts of the theater spectator do not _ these analyses of film devices to show that fully characterize the functions of the cine- the film medium can be an artform. To those matic devices in question because in film we — who denied film could be art because it can have flashbacks to scenes the audience merely reproduces what it photographs, never saw, closeups of details not hitherto | Munsterberg points out that a close look at

shown, and flashforwards to events never these filmic structures, which constitute imagined. So we are not to think of these basic elements of the medium, shows they devices as substitutes for mental acts the transform their photographic materials — audience would have performed had the _ specifically, they transform them in such a action unfolded theatrically. Rather, it |= way that they appear already synthesized or seems they must be taken as the operations molded by the human mind. So if it is a of an externalized mind in which something _ necessary condition for a medium to be art

is attended, something remembered, and that it transform rather than imitate its something imagined. Moreover, these de- _ referent, then film can be an art. Furthervices are modeled on generic acts of human _ more, since the mode of cinematic transforattention, memory and imagination so that mation is distinct from that of theater, then,

the manner in which they work is thought to if film is an art, it is an art distinct from be explained by analogizing them to mental __ theater. That is, for those worried that each

processes. Perhaps one way of thinking of art must differentiate itself from every this modeling is to recall the notion of _ other, film is not a theater clone. But the objectification Suzanne K. Langer has in question remains why transforming reality

mind in Feeling and Form. in such a way that the resulting representa-

Parallel editing in film — cutting between — tion mimes the mind should count as artistic two events that occur at the same time butin ___ transformation? And to answer that Mundifferent places and which are generally — sterberg needs to invoke his theory of art. related dramatically — also differs from stan- Munsterberg had worked out his view of

dard theatrical procedures where suchscenes art in The Principles of Art Education would be narrated sequentially. For Munster- (1905). The fruits of this theorizing are berg, this is, so to say, a reification of the applied to cinema in the second part of The capacity of the mind to splitits attentionorto Film under the heading of “The Esthetics of distribute its interest overanumberofevents — the Photoplay.” Though many film scholars

at roughly the same time. may find this section of the text disposably

Munsterberg also speculates on ways in archaic, it is absolutely essential to Munsterwhich cinema might externalize emotional — berg’s defense of film as an art. Indeed, moods — for example, by the use of soft | since nowadays we take it as given that film

focus, rhythmical editing and camera is an art, the energies, not to mention the movement — though he regards his remarks almost florid philosophizing, Munsterberg

here as tentative because these develop- expends on this issue appear beside the ments had not yet been fully cultivated by point. And yet we must remember that the

the cinema he knew. , question of whether film could be art was the One can read The Film primarily as an question of silent film theory. 296

Film/Mind Analogies: The Case of Hugo Munsterberg

Munsterberg’s position on the nature of | Kant’s view that that which gives rise to the art can best be described as a dePlatonized _—_ aesthetic perception of beauty is not subsum-

variant on Schopenhauer. As one would able under a concept. expect, given Munsterberg’s German heri- Though the concept of disinterestedness tage, it is deeply indebted to both rationalist is not so explicit in Munsterberg, he clearly and idealist aesthetics, though under his has this Kantian commitment in mind when dispensation these receive a primarily psy- _ he writes: chological rather than a metaphysical twist. Munsterberg proceeds by drawing a contrast The lover of beauty seeks it in the contemplation between two modes of thinking: the scien- of the single object; he isolates it from the world tific and scholarly, on the one hand, and the and by that act of isolation it does not come in

or . . question any more as means to the an effect, as ftool artistic on the other. . ; og or an end,Sloganized, as product of a cause, differas a stepping-

ence, in Munsterberg s own words, 1s con- stone to something else, but merely in its own

nection is science, but the work of art is existence, and, therefore, because it does not isolation.” That is, science discusses particu- —_ suggest anything outside of itself, it brings a rest

lar cases in order to connect them within to the mind of the subject.® larger systems by means of general laws;

science subsumes. Art, on the other hand, If the notion, in this quotation, that the places emphasis on the particular. Science — beautiful object lies outside the network of yields general knowledge through studying __ uses recalls the Kantian requirement of a dicases. But for art, the particular itself is that | vorce from practicality; the invocation of isowhich is valuable. Munsterberg, the epitome _lation, particularly of isolation as a means of of the reasonable man, does not place one of — inducing respite, reminds one of the radical

these ways of knowing over the other; form of Idealist aesthetics propounded by rather, for him, they are complementary. Schopenhauer. For Schopenhauer, aesthetic The contrast Munsterberg has in mind ts pleasure, in the main, derives, from the not unlike that of his contemporary Henri deliverance of knowledge from the service of Bergson. Science is general; art particular. the will. The realm of the will comprises That Munsterberg should defend film by striving and, thus, is intimately bound up such a formula is particularly interesting in —_ with causality. Beautiful objects present the light of the history of film theory. For his — viewer with objects lifted out of the network fellow emigre, Siegfried Kracauer, will also —_ of relations of space, time and causality, and develop a theory of film based on acontrast afford a kind of objective knowledge not tied between a scientific way of approaching the __ to the will and its needful concern with the

world, which is generalizing, versus the interrelations of things. For Schopenhauer, particularizing mode of film which, for _ this isolation from networks of space, time Kracauer, amounts to redeeming physical and causality enables the particular to be

reality. viewed in a way that discloses the Platonic The origins of this view are deeplyembed- —_—_—- Form of the thing.

ded in rationalist aesthetics. Perhaps it is Echoing Schopenhauer, Munsterberg first introduced by Baumgarten who advises _ _- writes: “The work of art shows us the that representations be of particulars, albeit things and events perfectly complete in

ones touched by perfection, as a means of | themselves, freed from all connections coming to terms with the Leibnizian- which lead beyond their own limits, that is, Wolffian notion that the objects of sensitive in perfect isolation.”’ Unlike Schopenknowledge (Baumgarten’s term) are clear hauer, Munsterberg does not correlate this but indistinct. The notion that the object of isolation with the revelation of Platonic art be particulars is also at least suggested by Ideas. Rather one finds solace in the 297

The History of Film Theory

particularity of the object abstracted from states overcomes the outer world. With this its relation to everything else. And the —inmind, the relation of Munsterberg’s earlier nature of this solace is specifically the kind analysis of filmic structures as analogs of of freedom from striving Schopenhauer — mental processes and his theory of film fall in emphasizes — the object “brings the desires _line. He writes “the photoplay tells us a to rest.”8 Such objects are not only isolated human story by overcoming the forms of the from relations with everything else but are outer world, namely space, time and causalmarked by internal perfection, that is to ity, by adjusting the events to the forms of the say, they are harmonious wholes; they are inner world, namely, attention, memory, unified by traditional organizing features imagination, and emotion.” Film, that is, in

such as plots. virtue of constructing its structures as mental Stated formulaically, Munsterberg holds _analogs, is an instance of art as theorized by that: “A work of art, by definition, is (1) a | Munsterberg. harmonious whole which is (2) divorced The requirement that artworks be harmofrom practical interests by means of (3) | nious wholes can be satisfied by films by being isolated from the networks of space, means of such features of plotting as unity of time and causality.” Condition (2) states action and character, and by such pictorial the troublesome but at least well-known re- _ attributes as balance. In sum, Munsterberg quirement of aesthetic disinterest, inherited _ says: from such writers as Hutscheson and Kant, while condition (3) specifies that require- | The photoplay shows us a significant conflict of ment more in the manner of Schopenhauer human actions in moving pictures which, freed

in terms of isolation from interconnection from t he physica | forms of space, time and

; , , causality, are adjusted to the free play of our

with everything else. Indeed, Munsterberg’s mental experiences and which complete isolation

language is even stronger than I have from the practical world through the perfect unity indicated, for he has in mind not only that _ of plot and pictorial appearance.!° the artwork is isolated from the rest of the

world but that it overcomes what he calls the The mention of the free play of the mind

forms of the outer world, namely space, and separation from the practical again time and causality. And this, in turn, is sound the Kantian chord while Schopenthought to result in a satisfying freedom hauer looms in the phrase “freed from the from striving on the part of the viewer. physical forms of space, time and causalBy this point, it may seem that we’ve _ ity.”!! Film is connected with a realm of drifted quite far from considering film. What freedom that has both psychological and can be the relation of film, specifically film as metaphysical dimensions. Clearly, what characterized by Munsterberg, and the view Munsterberg is about here is linking film that art is the overcoming of forms of the — with existing conceptions of art in order to

outer world? Speaking of musical tones, defend it against its detractors; and the Munsterberg says: “They have overcome the — conceptions of art he invokes do not tie the

outer world and the social world entirely, | object in any essential way with the imitathey unfold our inner life, our mental play, —_ tion of the outer world. Film does not copy with its feelings and emotions, its memories the outer world, but rather reconstitutes it in and fancies, in material tones which are _ the way that the mind does. This is a defense fluttering and fleeting like our own mental _— of the medium of film in general, rather than states.”? Here, it is clear that our inner life, | a defense of any particular film. Munster-

our mental states are being contrasted with berg has shown that film can be an art — the outer world, and that something that under his modified, Idealist conception of imitates or in some sense reduplicates those = art — without being committed to maintain298

Film/Mind Analogies: The Case of Hugo Munsterberg

ing that the medium had, as yet, produced Works of art are said to overcome the

any masterpieces. outer forms of space, time and causality.

The logical structure of Munsterberg’s | What could this possibly mean? One charitatheory is quite instructive foritisperhapsone _ ble gloss, one which has the virtue of making

of the first appearances of a model that will | Munsterberg’s view sound true, is that recur throughout the history of classical film | artworks characteristically come with things theory.” At the general level, it attributes a like frames, proscenium arches, curtains and purpose or role to cinema, here, the produc- so on, which are thought of as conventional tion of art. This, in turn, requires aspecifica- signs that inform audiences that whatever is

tion of what art is which, for Munsterberg, enclosed by these devices is, in general, most notably involves an overcoming of the — discontinuous with surrounding events and physical forms of space, time and causality. | environments. The usher is not part of the With this specification of the purpose of film, — play, nor does the red in the painting bear a

we are able to zero in on the determinant significant relation to the red of the fire characteristic of the medium, that 1s, the extinguisher that hangs next to it. The characteristic that enables the medium to artwork, so to speak, has been lifted out of realize its purpose. For Munsterberg this is | our everyday world. There is a technical identified as the capacity for the medium to sense, which undoubtedly would be tricky to objectify the processes of the human mind articulate in full, in which for purposes of (which, themselves, must be thought of as appreciation, the artwork is to be construed, overcoming the forms of the outer world). A —_ at_least in certain important respects, as conception of the determinant feature of the | outside our space-time continuum. Some medium, in turn, provides a framework for may put this extravagantly by saying that the analyzing the medium’s characteristic pro- = artwork is divorced from the real world and cesses of articulation; specifically, these — constitutes a world unto itself, where the processes — such as the close-up, parallel | verbiage here is to be taken as a mix of editing, the flashback, etc. — are treated as _ technical language, metaphor and terms of instances of the determinant feature of film. art. The close-up exemplifies the capacity for the This interpretation would give us a very medium to objectify mental processes by — concrete way to think of art as a matter of being an analog for attention. And so on. isolation. And clearly Munsterberg has at Though the logical structure of Munster- _ least this view in mind. But he also means to berg’s theory is at least clear, neither its claim much more, for art is said to overcome premises or presuppositions appear particu- outer forms of space, time and causality. But larly reliable. Perhaps, the premise that film to be isolated, in certain very restricted can serve the purposes of art is, by now, _ senses, from the existing space-time continincontestable. But the rest of the philosophi- —_—- uum is not to be divorced from the forms of

cal superstructure of the theory is shaky. space, time and causality. The forms of The dependence upon aesthetic disinterest- | space, time and causality may still have a edness is open to all the objections this hotly — relevance, in many different ways, to the contested concept invites, and, thus, Mun- internal structure of an artwork even if, for sterberg’s theory incurs all the problems example, we regard the world of a fiction as associated with what are called aesthetic | discontinuous from the space, time, cause

definitions of art. But these difficulties | manifold of the everyday world which we appear almost minimal when compared to inhabit. the sorts of pressure that can be brought to A case in point is plotting, which Munsterbear on the Schopenhauer-derived elements berg himself adduces as a unity-making

in the theory. feature in films. Plotting does not overcome 299

] The History of Film Theory the forms of space, time and causality but logical processes that link us to space, time, rather presupposes them. Munsterbergintro- —_and causality could be thought to liberate us duces his notion of “overcoming” with refer- from those self-same forms.

ence to music, which, for obvious reason, At this point, it might seem that what was the highest form of art for Schopen- | Munsterberg needs to do to is to drop the hauer. And, with a great deal of music, the | Schopenhauer-derived elements in_ this forms of space and causality, though not of _ theory and explicate his notion of isolation

time, may be irrelevant to the internal, solely in terms of the Kantian concept of artistic structure of the work. But for so aesthetic disinterestedness. But, of course,

many other arts the manipulation of the if that is done, then the tight logical forms of space, time and causality is integral connection between his analysis of cineto their structure. It seems incoherent to matic devices and his concept of art will be speak of artworks as overcoming the forms _ severed.

of space, time and causality since so much A disjunction between outer forms of art is involved with exploiting these very space, time, and causality and mental proforms. Moreover, if the value of art is cesses, then, is essential to Munsterberg’s situated in a release from striving, which — theory. But it is hard to see how it is to be itself is seen to be engaged by the form of | drawn. Munsterberg might have something causality, then it is difficult to understand the __like the following in mind: we can imagine way in which artforms that involve plots— _ beings with different psychological makenovels, dramas, and, to Munsterberg’spoten- | ups than our own. Say that they have no tial embarrassment, film — can liberate usin memories, they cannot imagine or predict

the appropriate way, since they will be — the future, they have no sense of causal parasitic upon the forms of causality. regularities. They are sheer bodily existents It may be thought that this argument and they live in a pure present. They are against Munsterberg is inadequate for it rather like amoebae; things just happen to overlooks the fact that Munsterberg speaks them, they forget it, and then something else of the overcoming of the outer forms of — happens to them. Their psychology restricts space, time and causality. But this sounds — them to an experience of the continuum of funny. One would have thought that our space, time, and causality on, so to speak, a psychological processes were exactly what moment to moment basis; if we had films

connected us to the outer forms of space, depicting their experience, they would be time and causality. Indeed, some Kantians _long takes of whatever happened in front of

would identify these forms with mental the camera followed relentlessly by whatforms. But, be that as it may, clearly mental ever happened next.

processes do not stand in opposition to the Our psychological processes, however, forms of space, time and causality, but are _ free us from the kind of pure-present experi-

intimately connected to them. And these ence of the continuum of space, time, and

mental processes, in virtue of their deep causality of such sheer bodily entities connection with space, time and causality, through our powers of memory, prediction are what make practical activity possible; and our ability to focus our attention. And, they do not stand against practical activity, | by extension, our movies, modeled on our they underlie practical activity. It appears psychological processes, might be said to incoherent to suggest that psychological liberate viewers from the mindless realism processes overcome space, time and causal- _ of sheer bodily filmmakers. So human psyity since they connect us with these forms. — chology can be thought of as overcoming the

Furthermore, it is incomprehensible that kind of experience of outer forms of space, film in virtue of imitating the very psycho- __ time and causality that sheer bodily existents 300

Film/Mind Analogies: The Case of Hugo Munsterberg

would have, and artforms, like film, that same boat in a way that leaves us wondering mime our psychological processes overcome how theater can be shown to be an art.

the realism of baldly sequential, present Of course, even if there are problems

states. with the more philosophical aspects of Mun-

However, evenifsensecanbemadeofthis — sterberg’s theory, it might be thought that interpretation of the way in which human there still may be something useful in his psychological processes (and, by extrapola- _—_ specific analyses of cinematic devices. That

tion, cinematic devices) .can be said to is, though his philosophy of art might leave overcome the forms of space, time, and too much to be desired, nevertheless his causality, it remains questionable whether — explanation of cinematic devices as analogs this can save Munsterberg’s theory. Why? — of mental processes could still be informaWell the theory has it that art, and film art, tive. And perhaps one could even go beyond somehow release us from our ordinaryexperi- | Munsterberg and claim that audiences are ence of things with respect to space, time and _ able to readily assimilate cinematic convencausality. But we do not ordinarily experi- tions exactly because those conventions are ence things as sheer bodily existents. Soeven modeled on prototypical psychological proif there were a contrast between the way we _ cesses with which we are all already familiar.

experience things and the way sheer bodily However, even Munsterberg’s mind/film existents experience things, that contrast analogies have come under recent attack. would appear to have little bearing on the If, for example, we take Munsterberg to be issue. If films replicate our mental processes, = saying that any close-shot is analogous to the then when we view them we will not encoun- — way in which one shifts attention, then it

ter a contrasting way of seeing the world. | becomes crucial to determine what we mean That there might be a contrasting way of | by “way” here. That is, across what specific seeing, such as that of our sheer bodily dimension of correspondence is the analogy existents, makes no difference for us when _ being drawn? Mark Wicclair takes the relewe encounter works of art organized in the —_— vant sense of “way” to be phenomenological;

ways we already negotiate the outer formsof he presumes that for Munsterberg’s analogs

space, time and causality. to succeed the appearance of cinematic Another potential problem for Munster- _—_ devices, such as the close-up, must match the

berg resides in the contrast he develops = ways in which imagery appears to consciousbetween film and theater. Forif film becomes _ ness via the pertinent psychic process. !* The an art in virtue of the way it transforms the — close-up should have the same characteristics spatio-temporal continuum of theater, thena — that objects of attention have in conscious-

question arises about whether theater re- ness. And on these grounds, Wicclair finds mains an art. That is, Munsterberg must go Munsterberg’s analogs wanting.

on to explain the way in which theater For example, a close-up involves moving Overcomes space, time, and causality if he =n on an object in such a way that the screen intends to count theater as anart. Asitis,he size of the object is literally enlarged. This is appears to elevate film to the status of an art quite different than attending to an object at at the expense of theater. Undoubtedly, he a distance since it involves a scale change. mistakenly overlooks this problem because Perhaps a more accurate way of miming he has conflated two independent theoretical attention would be to use a diaphanous issues — the arguments that film is merely a mask or an iris shot. Likewise, the account

reproduction of reality andthatfilmismerely of the flashback is subject to obvious the reproduction of theater. Munsterberg disanalogies. If we remember something by treats these arguments as if they were one, means of an image, we entertain two pereffectively placing theater and reality in the cepts simultaneously, the memory image 301

The History of Film Theory

and the view of whatever is before oureyes. functional analogies, it is far from clear that But flashbacks present images sequentially; they explain anything about the operation of they are phenomenologically disanalogous cinematic devices. For do we really learn with imagistic memory. Perhaps, superimpo- _—_ anything by being told that the close-up is an

sition is more akin to such memory, though _analog to the psychological process of atten-

probably this is not quite right either. tion when we know so little about the way in Similar problems can be generated with — which the psychological process of attention

each of Munsterberg’s analogies. operates? And analogies to memory and to The upshot of this is that if we construe — the imagination are on no firmer standing. Munsterberg’s analogies phenomenologi- Analogies to such processes have no explanacally, then his account of cinematic structures tory force where we have so little grasp of is flawed. And given some of Munsterberg’s _ the nature and structure of the mind.

descriptions, especially of the correlation of The point here is crucial and it applies the close-up and attention, it does sound as__ across the board to any mind/film analogy-

though Munsterberg has phenomenological approach to the cinema. In order to be analogies in mind. However, the text is instructive theoretically, an analogy must be ambiguous in a way that might enable us to — such that one knows more about the term in

deflect Wicclair’s objections. the analogy that is supposed to be elucidatMunsterberg, for instance, often speaks ing than the term that is supposed to be of functions. So rather than taking his _ elucidated. That is, we need to know more,

analogies to be phenomenological, we for example, about memory than we do might take them to be functional. That is, | about flashbacks if saying flashbacks are the close-up and attention are functionally | analogs to memory is to be informative. This analogous in regards to performing the — requirement is fundamental to the logic of same function — call it selective focussing- analogy. However, I am not convinced that in different systems, the cinematic, on the _ this requirement is met by any of Munsterone hand, and the psychological on the _ berg’s analogies nor, for that matter, by any other. In a similar vein, we might discrimi- —_ of the film/mind analogies propounded by nate between two types of flashbacks — __ film theorists so far.

those that repeat earlier scenes, and those Indeed, I suspect that the difficulty here that present novel scenes of earlier events _is likely to persist into the foreseeable

in the world of the film. The repetitive future, that is, for as long as the mind flashbacks could be said to perform the — remains mysterious to us. Nor should film same function — i.e., retrieval—in the cine- theorists be disheartened by this. For, in matic system that memory performs in the truth, we probably already know more psychological system while the novel flash- about the operations of film than we do

backs that fill in our fictions might be about the processes of the mind. This may thought to perform the same function-— appear to be an outlandish claim to film here, postulating — that imagination does in _ theorists. But it may be an occupational

our mental life. And, further functional conceit on their part to envision film to be analogs might be developed between mind more unfathomable than it really is. In fact,

and film. we understand quite a lot about the way in

However, despite the fact that we may — which films work, about their conventions save Munsterberg’s explanations by empha- _and their techniques. Far less is understood

sizing the importance of functional over about the workings of attention, imaginaphenomenological analogies, the real ques- tion, memory and the emotions. Munstertion is whether they are worth saving. For — berg manages to tell us virtually nothing by

even if the analogies are meant to be his analogies between film and the mind. 302

Film/Mind Analogies: The Case of Hugo Munsterberg

The way a close-up works is really easily One reason that films are not so obscure explained; to say it operates like attention — to us is that we make them. We make them actually complicates matters unless we un- to work in a certain way and, for the most

derstand how attention works; which, of part, they function in the way they are

course, we do not.} designed to work. In a very general sense, These objections to Munsterberg’s over- — we tend to understand our own tools and all approach has direct bearing on leading inventions more readily than that which we tendencies in contemporary film theory. For have not created. I don’t mean to say that psychoanalytically inclined film theorists, | we understand our creations perfectly, nor

like Baudry and Metz, have developed that we have no understanding of the elaborate accounts of the working of film by __ physical universe (though that knowledge is

- means of mentalistic analogs: in Baudry’s derived from experiments which, of course, case, between the cinematic apparatus and are the product of our invention). My point night dream, and in Metz’s, between film is rather the less controversial one that we and daydreams.'© These theories differ sig- | know a great deal about what we create in nificantly from Munsterberg’s insofar as virtue of making them to perform the tasks they press analogies between film andirratio- that they successfully perform.

nal mental processes while, for the most Presently, the computer, a product of part, he relied on analogies with what might human invention, is being exploited by be thought of as rational, or at least, not cognitive scientists as a model or analog for irrational mental processes. Nevertheless, to the mind. This is an eminently defensible the extent that these newer theories depend __ strategy because having designed computon mind/film analogies, they are susceptible — ers, we know a lot about them, and we can to the same line of criticism just rehearsed attempt to extrapolate the wealth of informa-

with respect to Munsterberg. tion to mental operations. In the past One would not, of course, wish to deny theater, recall Hume’s metaphor of the

that individual films might attempt to mime stage, and even film, for example Husserl, mental life. Brakhage’s Scenes from under provided at least suggestive analogs for the Childhood and Resnais’s Last Year at Ma- _ mind, though not ones as powerful as those rienbad are probably best explained criti- | currently advanced by experts in artificial cally in terms of the conceptions of the intelligence. Here my point is not that when mind that they are meant to illustrate. A all is said and done, the best theories of the

critic, that is, may be justified in exploring mind will be based on analogies with mind/film analogies where that supplies the theater, film or even artificial intelligence.

most plausible interpretation of why a _ But rather these theories have the correct specific film is structured the way it is. logical structure whereas theories of film However as a theoretical — as opposed toa ___ based on mentalistic analogs do not. For critical — project, it is my contention that theater, film and now computers are things

the mind/film analogy-approach is abjectly that we know much of, for we invented uninformative given our present state of | them, whereas the mind is still obscure to knowledge — or, more aptly, lack of know- us. ledge — about the mind, both in its rational Munsterberg developed a very clear verand irrational aspects. We learn next to sion of the mind/film analogy-approach to nothing from the claim that films are like cinema early on in evolution of film theory. daydreams or night dreams when we know —— One should not disparage his attempt. But so little about dreaming. No one really even —_ perhaps what is best learned from his effort

knows why we sleep. Dreaming is much now is that this line of inquiry should be

more inscrutable than the cinema. jettisoned.!” 303

The History of Film Theory

Notes that one might take thenotnotion of film as mind as the basis of a theoretical research 1. For a discussion of the problems of assimilat- program, but as the rhetorical device, a ing film to the notion of reality, see the metaphor, one meant to illuminate the new second chapter of my Philosophical Problems medium for a skeptical audience. Moreover, of Classical Film Theory (Princeton Univer- it was just the right kind of metaphor that the

sity Press, 1988). situation called for —- one which got people 2. Hugo Munsterberg, The Film: A Psychologi- thinking about film in contrast to reality or cal Study (New York: Dover Publications, the slavish recording thereof. I would not

1970). want to deny that as such a metaphor the film

3. Ibid., p. 30. as mind notion was rhetorically effective. My 4. Ibid., p. 39. point is only that it could not be given a literal 5. See Hugo Munsterberg, “Connection in Sci- cash value — neither in Munsterberg’s day ence and Isolation in Art,” in A Modern Book nor in our own. And this is what renders the of Esthetics, 3d ed., ed. Melvin Rader. (New approach theoretically dubious, despite whatYork: Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1966), pp. ever might be its heuristic value. 434-442. This is an excerpt from Munster- 16. For detailed, specific criticism of the theories

berg’s The Principles of Art Education. of Metz and Baudry, see my Mystifying

6. Ibid. Movies: Fads and Fallacies of Contemporary

7. Munsterberg, The Film, p. 64. Film Theory (Columbia University Press,

8. Ibid., p. 66. 1988).

9. Ibid., p. 73. 17. This essay was originally written as part of a

10. Ibid., p. 81. series of retrospective reviews that the Jour11. For an exploration of the Kantian aspect of nal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism planned of

Munsterberg’s theory, see Donald Freder- books written in this century before its icksen, The Aesthetic of Isolation in Film inception. It has been somewhat reworked to Theory: Hugo Munsterberg (New York: Arno be presented as an article independent of that

Press, 1977). series. This may account for some of its

12. For a more detailed discussion of the struc- peculiarities; other peculiarities are traceable

ture of this type of film theory, see the to me. Versions of this article were read at introduction to my Philosophical Problems of Vassar and at York University and I have

Classical Film Theory. benefitted from the criticisms of the faculties

13. See Mark Wicclair, “Film Theory and Hugo of both those schools, and, as well, particuMunsterberg’s The Film: A Psychological larly from the comments of Donald FrederStudy,” in The Journal of Aesthetic Education icksen, Annette Michelson, Jesse Kalin,

12 (July 1979): 33-50. Mary Devereaux, Evan Cameron, David

14. Ibid. Bordwell, Peter Kivy, Ian Jarvie and the 15. Upon hearing this assessment of Munster- referees of the Journal of Aesthetics and Art berg’s The Film, Mary Devereaux felt that I Criticism. Paul Guyer supplied especially had overlooked what was really important useful information concerning the intricacies about Munsterberg’s contribution. She noted of rationalist-idealist aesthetics.

304

=

- challenge to the “official” (Richter’s word) commercial film industry. In certain perti-

CHAPTER XxX = nent respects, Richter’s situation in writing

7 this book parallels the situation of many

Hans Richter’s avant-garde filmmakers of the last fifteen

Struggle for Film ™ years or so. As is well known, Richter’s = earliest film work is of a highly formal sort; his classic Rhythmus 21 might, for example,

= be interpreted as a study of the perceptual conditions that give rise to the sense of depth in film. However, by the time Richter writes

The Struggle for the Film, the political Hans Richter’s The Struggle for the Film: pressures of the times have convinced him Towards a socially responsible cinema (New _ that formal experimentation — and its subYork: St. Martin’s Press, 1986) was written tending aesthetic allegiance to the autonomy in the late thirties when the late author was __ of art — have become historically outmoded. in exile from Nazi Germany. Richter’s at- |= Art in general and film in particular must in tempts to publish the manuscript abroad and __ the present epoch (i.e., that of mass indusin the United States, where he emigrated in __ trial society) be situated in and engaged with 1941, failed, and the book, in a revised (ap- _ broader social contexts. Richter’s movement

parently condensed) version — authorized from avant-garde formalism to a concern by Richter himself — did not appear until — with politics and ideology, then, anticipates 1976 in Germany. The text in its reworked _ the shift, over the last two decades, in recent form may or may not have benefitted from avant-garde concern from the formal experihistorical hindsight — the English edition by mentation of the minimalist (or “structural”) Althusser-translator Ben Brewster contains _film to, at least nominally, a more politically some francologisms (“conjuncture,” “appa- | committed cinema.! Thus Richter’s thinking ratus”). Nevertheless, The Struggle for the about the options for such a cinema, or, as I Film is still a very interesting, supplemen- __ shall argue, his way of thinking about‘ them, tary document which adds to our understand- may be instructive for current theory and ing of film culture in the late twenties and _ practice. thirties, a period of momentous transitions, Broadly speaking, Richter’s philosophical

such as: from a purist avant garde to a approach in The Struggle for the Film is politically engaged one; and from silent film § Marxist. That is, Richter’s theoretical optic

to sound. Opposed both to the ideological involves what at least appears to be a role of film under capitalism and to the rise materialist conception of history. In conof fascism, The Struggle for the Film asks _ crete terms, this means that much of the “What is to be done?” of filmmakers at a — book takes the form of historical narration, time that Richter explicitly regards tobe one most often concerned with events and fig-

of crisis. ures which appear in virtually’ every film

And aside from its historical value, The history. However, it is a narrative that is Struggle for the Film may also be of some informed by a theory of history which, in theoretical use. For in it, Richter is trying to — turn, yields a theoretical history of film, one

work through a problem that concerns many = which unearths a problem (a “contradiccontemporary independent filmmakers, viz., tion”) whose solution is also immanent in how to develop a counter-cinema-— what _ the historical process. Richter calls a progressive cinema — one, The Struggle for the Film is divided into that is, capable of posing an effective political | two unequal parts: “The cinema as product 305

The History of Film Theory

of the twentieth century,” and “Towards a _— quately support a logically unified theoretihistory of the progressive cinema.” PartOne — cal argument, there are a number of key

sketches the history of the film from its philosophical and factual premises underlyorigins to the late thirties, and it hasathesis _ing the history of film in Part One. The first about that process: film initially (and in vir- _is that art is connected to needs. And since tue of materialist/technological predestina- needs change as social formations change,

tion) is an art of the masses which became art and the appropriate theory of art will increasingly subject to embourgeoisement,a alter over time. In point of fact, the modern phenomenon which is progressively more age has precipitated such a shift: the needs

apparent after 1925 with the emergence of art must satisfy, that is, change with the the Soviet cinema and its overt proletarian passage of successive hegemonic classes (the allegiance. The embourgeoisement of film-— bourgeoisie followed by the proletariat). which, among other things, results in the | Corresponding to this transition, there is a passive spectatorship of contentless films-— putative move from the notion of art as represents a crisis or problem tobe overcome autonomous (e.g., Schopenhauer) and cor(the struggle for the film). Part Two attempts __ relative aesthetic theorizing (e.g., Kant) toa to suggest ways in which engaged filmmakers conception of art as part and parcel of the might productively meet this crisis and con- _ social process and to a correlative type of test the influence of the official bourgeois political theorizing (what nowadays is hercinema. Richter’s primary method here isto _alded as the end of art theory). The distinclook to examples of devices in existing films _ tive feature of the modern age is that it is

that thwart the passive spectatorship of industrial and technological; and in this it is official cinema.” Richter’s criteria for the predicated upon serving a mass society even selection of these specimens of progressive _as it requires the masses to serve it. And for cinema is roughly Brechtian: progressive art —__ Richter the role of art in such a context is to encourages participant spectatorship, view- _ satisfy the needs of the masses. ers who interpret what they see in relation to Film, in this respect, is ideally suited, for actual social life. Richter finds serviceable in virtue of being the child of its age — it is strategies in this regard in the avant garde of | both technological and industrial — it can the early twenties, in what has since been serve the masses, just as an assembly line is called the art cinema (e.g., Dreyer) and in __fitted to produce for a mass market. That is, popular film — especially comedy (Chaplin, given its industrial and technological proveas usual, receives lavish commendation) but _ nance, film is the mass art, an art for and of

also drama (e.g., Viva Villa). However, at ‘the age of the masses. What needs do the the heart of Richter’s program is a commit- —_—masses have? For relaxation, spectacle, and

ment to montage as the high road to progres- knowledge and belief (p. 24), or, alterna-

Sive cinema. When Richter, on occasion, tively, for entertainment, spectacle, and presents original speculations about the way _ instruction (p. 39).

in which progressive cinema might be made With this framework in place, Richter is (e.g., his view of mechanical acting), he does able to trace the early history of film in so essentially as a montagist, and Vertov and _ terms of the fulfillment, ab initio, of the Eisenstein have a special pride of placeinthe — technological/industrial entelechy of this

text. Like others in the period between the mass art. Richter divides it into three world wars, such as Benjamin,? Richter genres — the documentary (which presumdiscerns a link between the cognitively stimu- = ably correlates with instruction), the fantas-

lating rhetoric of montage and the Brechtian _ tic film (spectacle?), and the fiction film

promotion of active spectatorship.4 (entertainment with elements of spectacle Though it is not clear that they ade- and perhaps instruction)> — each of whose 306

Hans Richter’s Struggle for Film

evolution he characterizes, often making Early film, then, by Richter’s accounting, sensitive and original observations about progressed in a way that began to realize the

films and filmmakers. social mandate inscribed in its material The documentary line, which Richter (technological/industrial) base. In certain maintains is committed to revealing reality cases (some documentaries, Chaplin), it and whose nemesis is cosmetic beauti- introduced new types of content, at times fication, begins with the Lumiéres and is _ revelatory of social reality, while, in the dramatically refined by Flaherty, whom main, it also constructed a vocabulary of Richter applauds for underscoring the im- —_—‘ forms which participated in the forging of a

portance of the environment. The tradition | newmode of perception for the masses. And, finds especially triumphant expression in as well, the masses responded eagerly to this Vertov, a veritable hero Richter endorses new artform. However, the very success of for his concern with rhythm, his aesthetic of —_ early film provoked acrisis. For the profitabil-

the machine (Richter sometimes relies on ity of film turned it into a business, a big the dubious associative constellation rhyth- business aligned with the interests of the mical/mechanical/modern), and for making __ bourgeoisie, not the proletariat.

film the tool of some sort of modern per- Richter obviously presupposes that once ception (one in which invisible processes — the medium had developed an emancipatory

are made visible; one which shows how mode of perception its natural vector of

things work). development would be to wed that mode of The fantastic line runs through Méliés, mass (i.e., appropriate to the mass age) Sennett, ciné-dadaists and Chaplin, who _ perception to new forms of content, ones shows social reality from the perspective of — socially relevant to the masses. But the the impoverished. Like Brecht, and Aris- takeover of film by bourgeois business totle and Horace before him, Richter thinks — concerns stops this process in its tracks. The

that instruction should be leavened with art of the masses is made to serve the pleasure — a view too often forgotten by interests of the bourgeois and the rule of

today’s politicized avant-gardists. capital. The results are the production of Richter’s account of the evolution of the films that are: apparently neutral socially, fictional line of early cinema is largely a wallowing in sex, adventure, and crime; review of the development of what is often __ films of high formal achievement, devoid of called the language of film, citing the formal — social content (The Student Prince is his

innovations of Griffith and other pioneers, favorite example); plots mired in the proband their augmentation by montagists. Like | lematics of bourgeois individualism. These other early film theorists, Richter spends a serve the status quo by suppressing social great deal of time discussing the significance _ reality and/or promulgating the bourgeois of the introduction of the close-up and of — world view. Richter concludes: cinema’s spatio-temporal conventions. This formal development nevertheless is seen in a The cinema is in this nonsensical situation: on positive political light — as being on the side —‘ the one hand, it is one of the most interesting

of history — for it is part of a liberation of artistic fields of our age, a universal art, an thought and vision purportedly comprising, instrument for the abolition of the opposition

. ae between and and feeling; on the other it is a among other. things, a fusionthought of cognition ; no correspondence pseudo-art with to concrete

emotion, and a way of rendering complex, life, an untruth constantly generating more uninvisible processes concretely intelligible. truth. This crass opposition reveals the contradicFilm, that is, evolves a new way of seeing — it tions to be found in cinema, contradictions which

is both an agent of and an emblem foranew are rooted in the age of which cinema is a part.

form of modern consciousness. (p. 81) 307

The History of Film Theory

Richter’s own explanation of why the — consciousness, becomes an instrument for masses acquiesce in this is that the products celebrating bourgeois individualism (in con-

of the official cinema propose moral day- trast, for example, to the possibility of dreams, seductive utopian escape routes exploring the mass hero of Soviet filmmak-

from the burdens of everyday life. ing). Such contradictions define the crisis of Richter’s scenario for the crisis of filmis — the film; progressive filmmakers must wrest

underwritten by a materialist theory of ' the means of production from the official history. In brief, this presupposes that the — cinema.

productive base of society determines su- Official cinema according to Richter has perstructural elements — ideologies, ways of | impeded the social evolution of the film. Its seeing, and so on. Also, this philosophy of | contentless narratives (vis-a-vis social realhistory explains momentous social changes __ ity) — formally stimulating (in the sense of

and their attending crises in terms of a mesmerizing) though empty — and its wishconflict between the productive base and fulfilling, utopian (“Sunday school”) moralother social elements. Specifically, at a ity stultify the critical capacities of the mass certain point of development, the produc- _—_ audience. Live social questions are deferred

tive capacity of the base outstrips the social and the passive reception of bourgeois forms and ideologies developed in concert ideology is promoted through entertainwith an earlier stage of productive capacity. | ment. In this context, the theorist of progresFor example, feudal society fettered the new _ sive cinema wants to know: productive capacities unleashed by the na- If the audience are insufficiently receptive — scent bourgeoisie. This tension between how are they to be made more so? productive capacity and superstructure is If they do not learn easily — how can ideas be thought of as a “contradiction,” and such presented in an easily accessible and forceful

contradictions are not resolved until the way? superstructure is brought in line with height- If they only respond to primitive stimuli — ened productive capacities, possibly by how can complex contents be clothed in simple

means of revolution. stimuli?

In Richter’s version of film history, the If they only see in their own fashion — by what film medium plays the role of the productive | ™eans are their eyes to be opened? base. Since it is industrial — and since indus- It they would rather be entertamed, and even

; . badly entertained thanservicing well taught; —can try, by nature, gravitates towards a how , ; they be taught in an entertaining way? (p. 135) mass populations — it has the potential of —

or even an inherent, historic predisposition These are the central questions that towards — serving the masses. Early film preoccupy Part Two of The Struggle for the tended in this direction. But when film fell Film. One has the sense that large portions under the control of bourgeois business of the text may have been deleted here. Part

interests, this process was arrested. The Two has a fragmentary feel to it and the means of production were shackled — speci- transitions are often not smooth. In any fically, the capacity of the productive base to case, Richter’s approach to the preceding generate, by means of a universal art,anew questions is not systematic and sometimes social content was obstructed. A contradic- _ not particularly perspicuous. Often, he detion (in the Marxist sense) arose between pends on examples—such as Laughton’s what the base could produce and what was acting style in The Private Lives of Henry produced and this fettering of productive VIII — with little (or only obscure) comment capacities served the interests of capitalism at on the methodological principles that enable

large. Also, Richter notes a subsidiary, the- said examples to implement the aims of matic contradiction. Film,amassartformass progressive cinema — that is, exactly how 308

Hans Richter’s Struggle for Film

and why does Laughton’s acting style em- —_ be adapted to the movement of the camera body an interpretation of Henry in a social machine so that cinema and actor compose perspective rather than only amerepresenta- = an expressive whole — one that is “mechani-

tion of an individual pathological psychol- cal.” What Richter means here by mechani-

ogy? With such cases, one might speculate cal is obscure. Perhaps he has in mind that either Richter thinks the mechanisms something like Meyerhold’s bio-mechanical

underlying his examples are obvious, or, style or Kuleshov’s acting exercises. But more probably, that it is sufficient to supply — even if one could get a reliable handle on fellow progressive filmmakers with para- what constitutes mechanical acting, the esdigms to think about and perhaps imitate. sentialist orientation it presupposes strains Where Richter is more programmatic in credulity. It is doubtful that the mechanical his recommendations, he is decidedly in _ structure of the medium dictates the expresfavor of a sort of Brechtian-informed mon- _ sive quality of the movement style of acting tage. Like Brecht, he opposes what he calls — in it. Does video require electrical acting

unilinear plot and prefers experimentation (and what would that be)? Moreover, logiin the direction of the Soviet mass hero and __ cally, one suspects that any attempt to link the essayistic film. On the relation of sound what might be called a mechanical style of to image, Richter endorses acoustic mon- _acting with the mechanical action of the film tage — along with metrical stylization —- pre- | cameras is scarcely more than an equivocaferred solutions of theorists like Eisenstein tion of the term “mechanical.”

to the problem of sound.® Like Arnheim, Of course, the deepest problems with whom he frequently chastises in asides, —Richter’s theory involve his philosophical Richter conceives of editing as a form of history of the film. On the most banal level, “defamiliarization”; however, in contrast to it is difficult to get clear on its periodizaArnheim, Richter emphasizes the impor- tions. When, for example, does the early tance of the “de-naturalized” space-time period of the development of the fiction film continuum opened by editing in virtue of | end and the era of the official, bourgeois the way it allows for the interpretive activ- _ film begin? For the distinguishing mark of

ity of the spectator rather than that of the the latter is what Richter considers its filmmaker. Indeed, what seems compelling socially contentless plots, but these go back about montage for Richter is that this style, to the dawn of the fiction film. Also, the once embraced, appears to point naturally — distinction Richter makes between fantastic toward fruition in what Eisenstein called _ films and fiction films is hard to sustain.

intellectual montage,’ which, in turn, is a More perplexing, however, is Richter’s practice ideally modeled for Brechtian presupposition that cinema is inherently

spectatorship. emancipatory, or, at least, that it has a

Other of Richter’s biases also correspond __ natural tendency, all things being equal, in to those of theorists of the period, especially that direction. Like Benjamin, Richter, for his penchant for medium specificity. In his | example, believes that cinema heralds a new discussion of film acting, which he regards as _— form of perception.’ Richter’s own case for the leading communicative dimension of — the emancipatory nature of cinema appears

film, he not only calls, a la Brecht, for to derive from his view of technology. interpretation, rather thanidentificatory por- |§ Technology and industry are mass forms of

trayal, but urges adoption of a mechanical _production-1i.e., they produce for the style of performance — not only because this masses. Cinema is industrial and _ techwill secure desired alienation effects, but nological — it is a mass form of production. because it is appropriate to the medium of It is, therefore, an artform (art, here, is the film.® That is, the actor’s movements should relevant type of production) for the masses. 309

The History of Film Theory

An artform for the masses has a natural indicate, Richter hypostatizes cinema. Intendency to serve their genuine needs; deed, he writes of the struggle for the film,

cinema is such an art. as if film.as we know it were a single thing Clearly, this argument depends on the _ rather than a multiplicity of various uses. way “artform for the masses” is interpreted. Instead of speaking as though in the contest

On the one hand, it could be descriptive - with official cinema progressive cinema

an artform for the masses is one that were the legitimate heir to some throne, produces for a mass market. This sense, of | Richter should regard both rivals as uses of course, corresponds to the opening stages of | cinema, and defend the use he advocates in the argument concerned with industry. But — terms of the moral, political, intellectual and

there is also a commendatory sense of aesthetic values it engenders. There is no “artform for the masses,” where that means _ reason to doubt that a powerful case for a “serves the genuine needs of the masses.” progressive cinema can be made without And that is the sense of mass artform with resorting to notions of materialist destiny.?°

which the argument concludes. However, Since I have criticized the metaphysical these two senses are not logically connected. foundations of Richter’s view of film hisA form of production may indeed supply a __ tory, as well as some of his suggestions for a mass market without serving genuine needs. _— progressive cinema, the question remains as

This is not a logical contradiction. to why I claimed earlier that the book Is it some other sort of contradiction? If might be of theoretical use. My reasons one accepts a certain view of the materialist here have less to do with the substantive conception of history, one may be tempted claims Richter makes than with aspects of to say that it is a historical law that the forces the way he goes about thinking of the of production always gravitate toward fulfill- | prospects for progressive cinema. For some

ing genuine needs, and that production for of Richter’s ways of thinking about these

mass markets that fails in this respect matters are, I believe, more productive contradicts a historical law. But a law that than recent attempts to establish avantcan be contradicted hardly sounds like alaw — garde and/or progressive film practice on at all and, in any case, invoking suchalawin __ the basis of received post-structural theory.

this context effectively begs the question Three features that might recommend since what is at stake here is whether film-— —_ Richter’s mode of theorizing to contempo-

the form of production at issue — isnecessar- rary filmmakers are that it is practical, ily emancipatory (destined to fulfill genuine integrative, and precise. His approach is needs), and the purported law does no more __ practical in that it is aimed at bringing about

than assert that all forces of production, specific outcomes in a concrete situation including film, are essentially emancipatory. | whose problematic nature is clearly defined.

In short, the conclusion is being presumed _It is theorizing dedicated to figuring out from the start. Of course, the basic problem = what is to be done within a context where

in this discussion is the attribution of a the exigencies are spelt out. It is directed particular telos or destiny to technology by and directive. Thinking is targeted at makthe materialist theory of history. Whether a __ ing films, films which solve certain problems technology serves for good or ill depends on _in a given situation with definite needs.

the actual uses to which it is put. Richter, This contrasts sharply with the sort of like others, errs in straining to find a moral _ theorizing available to contemporary avant-

predisposition inherent in the film medium. gardists from the various popular AltAs his proclivities toward medium-speci- —__ husserian-Lacanian frameworks. These are

ficity and his faith in a technologically abstract — descriptive of the conditions of determined, benevolent telos for cinema subject constitution in general — and criti310

Hans Richter’s Struggle for Film

cal — designed to unmask the machinations about what you want to know. Framing clear

of ideology (everywhere). Not only does questions is an integral part of theorizing. such theorizing fail to supply the filmmaker The greater the clarity and specificity of with a clear-cut sense of what isto be done — _— one’s questions, the greater the likelihood

since it is critical and descriptive rather than that one can find answers to them. The practical. It is also framed in such a general questions a theoretician poses, particularly and abstract fashion that any film is likely to | where they are well-defined, facilitate refall afoul of its critical categories in one way _ search. But even though these remarks are

or another. Taken seriously the metaphysi- virtually platitudes, they are rarely recal-critical biases of such theorizing may spected by avant-garde theorists. Too many make any attempt at filmmaking problem- contemporary filmmakers seem to choose

atical and, in any case, they are hardly theories because they are edifying worldinstructive, even in a vague way, about what views—ones often regurgitated disjunca filmmaker who accepts them might do to tively in their work. And discussion and contest ideology. Whereas the practical ap- debates about avant-garde film theory are

proach to theorizing that Richter illus- generally incomprehensible just because trates — theory as grappling with contextu- what is at issue is a mystery. Reading The ally situated problems — offers an example _—_ Struggle for the Film is tonic, at least in this

of the way in which filmmakers can guide —_ respect. Contemporary avant-gardists can

their own activity. only profit from the example of Richter’s Richter’s style of theorizing is alsointegra- clear questioning. tive. In searching for solutions to his practical problems, he turns to the historical avant

garde and to popular film for suggestions, Notes and he is willing to admit fellow travelers of 1. For a contextualization of the shift away from

all sorts to the progressive cinema. Where minimalist cinema, see Noél Carroll, “Film,” the tendency in ciné-post-structural theoriz- in the Postmodern Moment, ed. by Stanley ing is to find every preceding avant garde, Trachtenberg (Westport, Ct.: Greenwood

not to mention the history of popular film, Press, 1986).

complicit in ideology, Richter’s perspective 2. Richter’s theory of film takes a classic form. is strategic in two senses — he assesses the Richter posits a role or value for cinema — a

_— ; social to servecontext the needs work the past in itsmandate own strategic ; esof ; the ; ; ; of masses. Given his interpretation of this man-

which, in turn, allows him to regard that date, this enables him to focus upon the

past as a repository of potential strategies characteristic of film that will be determinant for the present. As a result, historical in his thinking — the capacity of the medium to experience, so to speak, stays open to the engage critical faculties. He then examines

progressive filmmaker and can be integrated various articulatory processes of film — acting,

into contemporary practice. editing, etc — in order to elucidate the ways in Richter’s theorizing as well has the virtue which they have been adapted to actualize the of being relatively precise as avant-garde determinant characteristic of film. Fora discustheories go. As already quoted, he asks sion of the structure of this type of theorizing, fairly specific questions about the ways in see my Philosop hical Problems of Classical

; Film Theory (Princeton: Princeton University

which film spectatorship is to be changed. Press, 1988).

Some may feel that his answers overestimate 3. Walter Benjamin, “The Work of Art in the the efficacy of montage. But even if one Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” in Illumi-

rejects his answers, the relative precision of nations, edited by Hannah Arendt (New his questions is salutary. For a large part of York: Schocken Books, 1969). Though Benja-

theorizing is a matter of getting straight min is not mentioned by Richter, there are a 311

The History of Film Theory

number of similarities between the two theo- silent film use of sound. See my “Lang and rists, as noted by A. L. Rees in the “For- Pabst: Paradigms for Early Sound Practice,”

ward” to The Struggle for the Film. in Film Sound: Theory and Practice, edited 4. Asa result of the popularization of the Bazin- by Elisabeth Weis and John Belton (New ian polemic, it is easy to forget that montage York: Columbia University Press, 1985). was often advocated on the grounds that it 7. For a recent discussion of intellectual monpromoted a cognitively active audience. Ironi- tage see Annette Michelson, “Reading Eisen-

cally, though putatively opposed aesthetic stein, Reading Capital,” in October, no. 2 projects, both Bazinian realism and montage (Summer 1976). agree in their most fundamental values — the 8. On page 159, Richter argues for metrical film

desirability of participant spectators. Their dialogue on the grounds that this accords with primary debate really seems to be about the the mechanical nature of cinema. This seems

means best suited to securing this end. to involve a specious identification of the 5. Richter’s categories — including the distinc- metrical and the mechanical. tions drawn between spectacle, instruction, 9. Benjamin, “The Work of Art in the Age of

and entertainment as well as between the Mechanical Reproduction.” fantastic film and fiction film -— are not as 10. Another problem with Richter’s approach is tightly crafted as one might wish. Why, for that it envisions the program for progressive example, is Chaplin included in the fantastic cinema exclusively in terms of filmmaking

| line rather than the fiction line? Similarly, it is strategies, paying no attention to distribudifficult to see spectacle and entertainment as tion. But surely an advocate of progressive discrete categories rather than overlapping cinema needs not only to be concerned with

ones. what is to be seen but also how it is to be

6. Richter’s preferences with regard to sound seen. Here one must play Adorno to correspond to what I have elsewhere called a Richter’s Benjamin.

312

=

= theory and art criticism to an emphasis on

CHAPTER XXI history as the privileged discursive frame-

~ work. For the essentialist, the prime task of

A Brief Comment _ the theorist is to identify the nature of an

; . artform and toNotion advocate those styles that on Frampton’s | = ae ; , . appear to exploit best its artistic medium. of Metahistory Bazin, Greenberg, and Brakhage are exam-

™ ples, though hardly compatible ones, of essentialism. By the eighties, however, per-

=

haps as the result of the collapse of Pax

Americana and the pervasive uncertainty. thereof, faith in essentialism has given way Tonight I would like to speak about certain to a preference for history — especially for aspects of Hollis Frampton’s film theory, social and institutional history — as the acspecifically about the contextual factors and = cepted means for understanding film and the logical constraints that I surmise led him to _ arts. Semiotics, genealogy, reception theory,

contrive the notion of a metahistory of all putatively sensitive to historical variabilcinema. My aim is interpretive, rather than _ity, have become favored tools of artworld critical, which seems appropriate, for unlike theorizing, while, in film studies, these

that of academic film theorists, such as developments are also accompanied by the Arnheim and Metz, Frampton’s theorizing rise of intensive interest in historiography. was not directed at formulating a general This change in focus — from essentialism to account of the nature of film as it exists, but history — in the study and criticism of film at an account of what film, particularly his _—_and art is reflective of, if not always synchroown filmmaking, should be. Loosely speak- _ nous with, the shifts in intellectual ambition

ing, his theory performed primarily a prag- between the sixties and the eighties, as matic rather than a purely cognitive role. In witnessed by the current hagiography of the this light, I shall argue that by means of the _ intelligentsia — e.g., Foucault, Rorty, MacIn-

idea of metahistory, Frampton was attempt- tyre, Ricoeur, Gadamer, late Heidegger, ing to negotiate his way between two theo- etc. Of course the gross movement of the retical approaches to cinema in such a way _ seismic shift I have in mind here might also

that would make it possible for him to be invoked by considering the contrasts

continue filmmaking. between structuralism versus post-strucStated broadly, the two theoretical clams turalism, and modernism versus _postthat I think Frampton wishes to reconcilecan modernism, where the first terms of these be called the essentialist approach and the — oppositions stake out some variant of essenhistorical approach. And in attempting to tialism to be outflanked by the generally coordinate these approaches — through the _historicizing maneuvers of the second terms.

notion of metahistory — Frampton’s theoriz- Now [| do not want to suggest that ing parallels, in its own special way, acentral | Frampton was directly affiliated with any of struggle or tension within film theory, indeed __ the particular figures or bodies of ideas just

within art theory and cultural theory, asthose enumerated. Rather, his own preoccupahave evolved over the past twenty-five years. tions roughly shadow the dialectic of essence Some background clarification is neces- — versus history which sketches, across multisary here. It seems to me that over the past __ ple dimensions, the intellectual movement

twenty-five years there has beena shift from of the sixties through the seventies into the essentialism as the basic form of analysis _— eighties. The conflict between essentialism and, at times, of commendation in film and history was apparent in Frampton’s film 313

The History of Film Theory

theory by the early seventies, and his way of _ bal description and pictorial description —

dealing with the tension between these but also still photography and motion picopposing theoretical options was meta- tures (as the images begin to incinerate).? history. Thus, Frampton’s theorizing can be At times, as in “Lecture,” Frampton took seen as one marker, among diverse markers, _ashot at trying to specify the quintessence of of a watershed within the course of recent film. Arguing that film is whatever can fit in

intellectual history. the projector, Frampton privileges footage Throughout Frampton’s theorizing, a as the sine qua non of cinema and, in

strong essentialist tendency is evident. Inhis — Lessing-like fashion, goes on to declare 1962 conversations with Carl Andre, we find footage itself to be the appropriate subject

Frampton calling for a critique of photogra- matter of the medium. He writes with phy which will acknowledge that which is — specious logic but seductive wit that

special to photography, in contrast to the other fine arts. He writes, “My variables are We earned long ago to see our rectangle, to hold time, density, slope and so forth, physical all of it in focus simultaneously. If films consist of

. ; 3 consecutive frames, we can learn to see them also.

values which need not concern a painter.”! itself is | d baby born bab Le ght itself is learned,Sicht a newborn not Twelve years later in “The Withering Away only sees poorly — it sees upside down.

of the State of the Art,” we find Frampton At any rate, in some of our frames we found, trying to isolate the differentia between film as we thought, Lana Turner. Of course, she was : and video, noting, for example, the special _but a fleeting shadow — but we had hold of potentials of the latter for optical effects. something. She was what the film was about. Perhaps we can agree that the film was about In short, film builds upon the straight cut, and the her because she appeared oftener than anything direct collision of images, or ‘shots,’ extending a else.

perceptual domain whose most noticeable trait Certainly a film must be about whatever we might call successiveness. (In this respect, appears most often in it. film resembles history. ) But video does not seem Now suppose Lana Turner is not always on the

to take kindly to the cut. Rather, those screen.

inconclusions of video art during which I have Suppose further that we take an instrument come closest to moments of real discovery and and scratch the ribbon of film along its whole peripeteia, seem oftenest to exhibit a tropism length. toward a kind (or many kinds) of metamorphic Then the scratch is more often visible than simultaneity. (In this respect, video resembles Miss Turner, and the film is about the scratch.

Ovidean myth.) Now suppose that we project all films. What So that it strikes me that video art, which must are they about, in their great numbers?

find its own Muse or else struggle under the At one time and another, we shall have seen, tyranny of film, as film did for so long under the as we think, very many things.

tyrannies of drama and prose fiction, might best But only one thing has always been in the build its strategies of articulation upon an elas- projector. ticized notion of what I might call — for lack of a Film.

better term — the dissolve. That is what we have seen.

Then that is what all films are about.

Of course, this essentialist concern with

differentiating media also became a topic of But along with his essentialist bias, some of Frampton’s most significant work. | Frampton also evinced a strong feeling for Poetic Justice, what might be literally calleda history. In “For a Metahistory of Film,” he

filmed scenario, contrasts film and literature, regards film art as something that can while (nostalgia) not only forcefully juxta- | emerge only at a specific historical moment poses language and photography —i.e., ver- | which he identifies as the demise of the 314

A Brief Comment on Frampton’s Notion of Metahistory

Machine Age (a period signaled by the ment to history — viz., the postulation that advent of radar). His reasoning here is history unfolds according to a plan, indeed, based on the premise that film, the artofthe | according to an essential plan. In art theory, age of mechanical reproduction, can only — one popular version of this tendency is the enter the ranks of the authentic arts when it — story that charts the destiny of Cubism is obsolete in terms of its value for survival. through its apotheosis in something like Frampton’s version of the aesthetic disinter- | Louis’s Unfurleds, while in film theory the

estedness thesis, here, however, is less notion that the essence of photography interesting for us than his willingness to blossoms in deep-focus cinematography reconnect art theory with history. Thissense of | plays the same song with different lyrics. historiographic fascination also looms in And, of course, one interpretation of Zorns Frampton’s extended ruminations on the Lemma would suggest that Frampton was origins and proto-histories of artforms. As not always averse to this form of essentialist well, the influence of Pound and Eliot, _ historicizing: the first part of the film symbolespecially with their emphasis on the ideas _izes a time before film, a time of words of tradition and of a canon, predisposed = without photographs; the second part is a Frampton to an interest in remaking and _ silent film, executed in the preferred style of reusing the past, which inevitably embroiled that period, montage; while the third part, a him in a vivid sense of the movement of | sound film in the long-take, deep-focus

history. style, ends by blurring the scene into the In his writing, Frampton danced be- _ screenina gesture pointing toward Minimaltween a static essentialism and an inquisi- _ ist film.?

tive, animated appreciation of historical But Frampton, as a creative artist, could processes. This tension, which we might not ultimately endorse this type of Hegelian figuratively cast as one between time and _ resolution. For his theorizing was designed timelessness, undoubtedly comes to the _ to serve his continuing practice as a filmfore in some of Frampton’s discussions of | maker, whereas an evolutionary theory of Eadweard Muybridge’s photography. And history, of the essentialist variety, culminatit appears, as well, to be reflected in some __ ing at a certain moment in the present, or of his films, such as (nostalgia), Surface the near present, would entail the end to his Tension, and the central section of Zorns practice, or to put things in proper Hegelian Lemma, which rely on the contrast of idiom, an end to (his, Frampton’s) art. That stillness and formal design on the one is, the teleological reconciliation of essence hand, versus movement on the other. At and history implies that once the essential

the level of theory, this contrast seems destiny of an artform is reached, the form transformed into a conflict between view- _ effectively dies (in the sense that there is no ing film as having a timeless essence, the — reason for anyone practicing in that artform

tendency of artworld aesthetics in the to continue making work in it). The story, sixties, versus assessing it as an historical so to speak, is finished; the book closed. process, as something developing over Thus, ironically, though at one moment time, a point of view emerging aggressively — essentialism appears to propose a producby the mid-seventies. Frampton’s problem, __ tive strategy for progressive art-making, it

then, was to coordinate these opposing can also promote a situation in which the

dispositions. answer to the question “What is to be Now the essentialist after Hegel has the done?” is “Nothing.” This 1s scarcely a

wherewithal ready to hand to accommodate _——-viable modus operandi for the working

a commitment to essences with a commit- = avant-gardist. And Frampton, it seems to 315

The History of Film Theory

me, realized that he could not reconcile poses to create a fictional tradition in the history and essentialism by means of a _ future, oxymoronic as it sounds. Whether Hegelian-type gambit. Instead, he opted for this theoretical plunge is philosophically metahistory as the means to assimilate sound and/or whether it could be recast as an conflicting theoretical inclinations with his allegory revealing certain features of the

ongoing productivity. relation of emerging art to its “tradition” is The metahistorian of film, though open __ less important for our understanding of the to the history of film, does not see film — role the somewhat peculiar notion of meta-

history as converging on the present. The history performed in Frampton’s program actual history of film is mongrel; there isno than the recognition that his theoretical destiny inscribed within it. Rather, now, in sleight-of-hand was artistically generative. It the present, the metahistorian takes stock of | underpins the awesome project of Magellan,

the mess of film history and targets certain a work whose ambition, it seems to me, is conditions of the medium which seem to — grounded in the circumstance of an artist/the-

him to represent its quintessence. For orist drawn by the allures of both essenFrampton, these conditions appear to com- _tialism and the notion of historical tradition prise: framing, photographic illusionism and __ but who refused to close down shop because narrative.© Now in the actual history of _ the zeitgeist had arrived. Metahistory was a film —the accumulation of footage since _ theoretical invention that, for Frampton at Edison — these conditions were not in fact least, appeared to carve out a conceptual rigorously and self-consciously explored. It |= space in which he could continue to work becomes the task of the metahistorian to — while simultaneously paying his dues both to make up for this shortcoming, to, in effect, | essentialism and to his respect for the notion envision the history of film as it would have of an historical tradition. been had it been rigorously self-conscious,

and to reconstruct it “axiomatically.” The Notes metahistorical filmmaker, that is, imagines

what the history of film should have been 1. In 12 Dialogues 1962-1963; Carl Andre, (according to his criteria) and then goes on Hollis Frampton, edited and annotated by to make it. The crucial consequence of this B.H.D. Buchloh (Halifax/New York: Press of maneuver is that it places our filmic tradi- Heinen Scotia College of Art and New York tion, oddly enough, an the future. Our 2. Hollis Frampton, from Circles of Confusion tradition, in an admittedly disorienting way (Rochester, N.Y.: Visual Studies Workshop of speaking, awaits invention. Commitment Press, 1983), pp. 166-167.

a niversity Press, 1980).

to the discovery of the essence or axioms of 3. For further analysis and contextualization of

film does not entail the closure of the (nostalgia), see Noél Carroll, “Film,” in The development of film but opens onto future Postmodern Moment: A Handbook of Condevelopments. Art does not die. Rather, temporary Innovation in the Arts, edited with since footage is the subject of film, and since an introduction by Stanley Trachtenberg

each already exposed piece of footage (Westport, Connecticut 06881: Greenwood awaits self-conscious reworking in terms of Press, 1985). This article is a comprehensive

. ; . overview of avant-garde film since 1965. — , pton, ecture,” Circles of Confu sionism, the prospect before the metasion, p 63.

framing, narrative, and the issue of illu- 4. See Framvton. “A Lecture.” Circl ; historian is vast, though perhaps not endless 5. For further elaboration see Carroll, “Film,” (unless, of course, we up the reflexive ante The Postmodern Moment.

to meta-metahistories and beyond). 6. See Frampton’s “A Pentagram for Conjuring In short, the metahistorian of film pro- the Narrative,” in Circles of Confusion, p. 63. 316

A Brief Comment on Frampton’s Notion of Metahistory 7. Though the metahistorian’s reorganization of Collingwood in his The Idea of History also try the flow of temporality is nonstandard and to carve out anomalous time warps. This is not somewhat perplexing, it is not unprecedented. to justify the metahistorian but only to say that

In ways quite different from Frampton’s, the relation between past, present, and future Croce in History — Its Theory and Practice and has been fiddled with before.

317

BLANK PAGE

=

= pirical problems of competing theories. It is | enough to dismiss a rival to say that it

PART VI = supposedly supports Reaganite Republican-

ism or is inconsistent with the regnant

. conception of psychoanalytic feminism in

| Polemical Exchanges ™ the Society for Cinema Studies.

The intolerance of rival views and the studied avoidance of dialectical engagement

= with criticisms on the part of the Cinema | Studies Establishment has obviously influenced that manner in which I have responded to it. Ihave been more hot-blooded

It is my general view that film theorizing and sarcastic toward contemporary film should be dialectical. By that I mean that a __ theorists than I ever am in my debates with

major way in which film theorizing pro- my colleagues in philosophy. In philosophy, gresses is by criticizing already existing criticism is the norm. It is expected and it is theory. Some may say that my use of the _ generally exchanged without bitterness. In term “progresses” here is itself suspect. How- = cinema studies, politically correct intolerever, I count the elimination of error as pro- — ance and avoidance of criticism is the norm.’ gress and that is one potential consequence, | And I confess that this has often inclined me

it is to be hoped, of dialectical criticism. Of toward anger. Thus, I have called this course, an even more salutary consequence section “Polemical Exchanges” rather than might be that in criticizing one theoretical “Dialectical Exchanges.” But, for all that, it solution to a problem, one may also see is still my hope that one day film theorizing one’s way to a better solution. Seeing a — can become a field in which civil, dialectical shortfall in one theory, thatis, may alertone | engagement becomes the standard practice. to what is to be done and how it might be As will be evident from the following artidone (as well as to what is not to be done). __ cles, I take umbrage at the insistent tendency Unfortunately, film theory as it is pres- — of scholars in cinema studies to dismiss my

ently practiced is not noteworthy for this theorizing as politically reactionary. I am type of dialectical criticism. In place of particularly nonplussed by this charge, since sustained and detailed criticism of alterna- §_[ suspect that my voting record on real-world tives, it goes in for high-handed ideological __ political issues is probably the same as that of

debunking, excoriating this or that rival most other members of the Society for theory with buzz-words like “formalism,” or | Cinema Studies. In the sixties and early “politically correct” insinuations that rival — seventies, I was, like many of my peers, intheories will somehow contribute to the volved in radical politics. And, despite sugdomination of the oppressed. As a result, — gestions to the contrary, I remain committed what we have instead of careful dialectical to many of the tenets of sixties’ radicalism.

criticism is academic name-calling. For me, sixties’ radicalism meant, first and Thus, the forum in which film theory is foremost, a radical questioning of authority. “debated” tends to be somewhat harsh and ___ Thus, one may read my criticisms of contemrancorous. It is typically marked by the _ porary film theory, especially in its authoritar-

language of moral superiority — as the self- ian aspect, as a continuation of sixties’ righteously self-confident defenders of politi- —_ radicalism. In the sixties, one was convinced

cal correctness denounce deviations from __ that it was appropriate to be skeptical and to their viewpoint. Absent is in-depth analysis challenge dominant beliefs. It was especially

319 :

of the conceptual, methodological, and em- appropriate to respond with skepticism to

Polemical Exchanges

beliefs defended by ideological obscurantism fear being labeled antifeminist. Undoubtand institutional repression. I have simply _ edly, I will be called an enemy of feminism applied that skepticism to contemporary film for demonstrating the flaws in Silverman’s

theory. Contemporary film theorists have book, despite the fact that in an earlier responded to those criticisms with mystifying article, included in this volume, I have vituperation. Hence, the following polemics. | defended a model — albeit an unfashionable “Cognitivism, Contemporary Film Theory _ one — of feminist analysis.‘ But even if I will and Method: A Response to Warren Buck- __ be attacked in this manner, I think that the land” is a reply to a review that Buckland _ insults must be borne in order to begin to lift

wrote in Screen of my book Mystifying _ the veil of political correctness that protects Movies. As the introduction to that article | shoddy scholarship in film studies (and in indicates, I asked the editors of Screenforthe literary studies) nowadays. opportunity to publish my response to Buck- “A Reply to Heath” is the last installment land in their journal. But after they gave me —in my exchange with Stephen Heath in the the politically correct run-around with which journal October. In the winter of 1982, I I was already familiar from other film jour- —_ published a substantial (at least in terms of nals, I was compelled to publish it elsewhere. __ size) criticism of Heath’s film theory, which I

Though the essay deals with many of — called “Address to the Heathen.” Heath Buckland’s specific criticisms of Mystifying responded with a lively, if inconsequential, Movies, it will also be, I hope, of interest to —_ essay called “Le Pére Noél.” Both my essay

the general reader. For I try to deal with and Heath’s are frequently cited in the several methodological issues that are larger _ literature. However, it seems to be generally

than the disputes between Buckland and ignored that I answered Heath’s charges in me, and I also attempt to use the essay asan an essay of my own. The field appears to opportunity to clarify my perception of the have (conveniently?) forgotten my rebuttals nature of the debate between psychoanalytic of “Le Pére Noél.” So, it is worthwhile, I film theory and what is coming to be called __ think, to republish them here.

cognitivism. This section concludes with my replies to “Cracks in the Acoustic Mirror” is a two criticisms of Mystifying Movies. My

sustained analysis of the book The Acoustic reply to Jennifer Hammett is admittedly Mirror by Kaja Silverman. I have includedit impolite, but I believe that it is appropriate, in this anthology because, to my mind, _ given the dismissive tone of her rejection of Silverman’s book exemplifies a number of | my own positive theories. My exchange with

the major shortcomings of psychoanalytic Richard Allen is a different matter. He feminist film theory in particular and of con- __ clearly made the effort to understand my temporary film theory in general. It shows __ position and his criticisms are reasonably set

little understanding of what is involved in forth, even if I think they are mistaken. advancing a causal hypothesis. Indeed, it | Allen makes his case clearly, carefully, and seems so amateurish in these matters astobe — without invective. I respect that. Allen’s almost silly. And it proceeds to speculate article makes me think that genuine dialectiabout psychosexual development without — cal exchange may be becoming possible in the empirical foundations of a clinical prac- _ film studies. tice or of research in child psychology. In fact, the empirical and theoretical grounding

of this book is so flimsy that I do not think Notes that it could have been published except 1. See “The Image of Women in Film: A under the protection of political correctness. Defense of a Paradigm,” in Part IV of this People are afraid to criticize it because they volume. 320

| CHAPTER XXII = Throughout the eighties, albeit in fits and

starts, there was an attempt, by people like

Cognitivism, | - myself and David Bordwell,! to field an

Contemporary Film aiethefilm neaachria ones an alterna, tive to psychoanalytic-Marxist-semlotic

Theory and Method: ™ theory which has been disseminated most A Response to - notably by Screen and which is, especially Warren Buckland when amplified by Lacanian feminism, the = dominant approach to film theory in the

English-speaking world today. This alternative approach has been labeled “cognitivism” because of the emphasis that it places on the

Introduction efficacy of models that exploit the role of cognitive processes, as opposed to unconAs its title indicates, my book — Mystifying scious processes, in the explanation of cineMovies: Fads and Fallacies in Contempo- matic communication and understanding.

rary Film Theory — rejects a great many of Cognitivism is not a unified theory in the presuppositions of the cinema studies three senses. First, it is not a single theory, establishment in the United States and Britain but a series of small-scale theories, each of today. Moreover, since the British journal — which offers answers to specific questions

Screen was the source of many of those about film communication, e.g., how do presuppositions, it is not surprising that it audiences assimilate film narratives? Secpublished a scathing response to Mystifying ond, it is not a unified theory because Movies. That response took the form of a _ different cognitivist theorists often present substantial article by Warren Buckland enti- small-scale theories that conceptualize the

tled “Critique of Poor Reason.” phenomena at hand differently and, someScreen sent neither me nor my publishera times, in nonconverging ways. And finally, copy of this review article. I came across it cognitivism seems not to be a unified theory over a year after its publication date. [wrote — because, partly due to the previous two to Screen requesting an author's right to _ considerations, we have no reason to believe

refute Buckland’s charges in an article of — that all the small-scale theories that the comparable length. Screen suggested that I _cognitivists have assembled can be orgawrite a five-page letter to the editor, or, if I nized into a single framework. wanted to write an article, that it connect my On the other hand, though cognitivism is dispute with Buckland to larger methodologi- _—_not a theory, its proponents share certain

cal issues in the debate between psychoana- convictions, such as: that cognitive models lytic film theory and my view, which is — may provide better answers to many of the sometimes called cognitivism. The following theoretical questions we have about film article was my attempt to implement the — than psychoanalytic models do; that film

second option. theory is a mode of rational enquiry and, as Screen rejected the article. Whether Screen — such, is assessable according to our best rejected it as a result of a judgment thatitdoes standards of reasoning and evidence; and not sufficiently address significant method- that theories are evaluated comparatively, ological issues or as an attempt to repress — e.g., psychoanalytic theories must be put in alternative voices in the predictably Stalinist | competition with cognitive theories that promanner of Lysenko is a question for the pose to explain the same data (like narrative

reader to resolve... . comprehension). Furthermore, Some cogni321

Polemical Exchanges

tivists — most notoriously myself — have ar- method as a useful guide to the sort of gued that once the reigning psychoanalytic- —_— rational enquiry that film theorists pursue.

Marxist theory is assessed according to But Buckland seems to think that I believe canons of rational enquiry and compared to __ that scientific method and analytic philoso-

alternative cognitive theories, it appears phy lead “to an unconditional avoidance of baroque and vacuous, indeed, altogether an error in order to establish ‘the truth.’ ”

intellectual disaster. (CPR, 81) But let me disabuse him of this. Predictably, cognitivism has evoked the Not only do I never advance such an idea, ire of the cinema studies establishment.” Not but I couldn’t, since it is evident that only does cognitivism challenge the founda- _ talented scientists and philosophers would tions of that establishment’s paradigm, butit not be embroiled in defending incompatible also emerges at a time when itisevident that theories if they possessed such miraculous that paradigm is producing routine, rather methods. I do believe that specific methods

than interesting, new results. And it is a (like Mill’s) and protocols (like “if one of commonplace that researchers are apt to two competing theories fits the phenomena abandon a theory when it ceases to provide __ better, ceteris paribus, prefer it to its rival”)

innovative discoveries. Thus, it should come are truth-tracking; but none so far have as no surprise that we are beginning to guaranteed what Buckland calls the “unconencounter a number of what might be ditional avoidance of error.” Nor is someone

thought of as “damage control” articles who upholds the value of such methods

which are dedicated to the refutation of | committed to this view. What I am commitcognitivism and/or to establishing its com- __ ted to is that such methods serve as the best

patibility with the dominant psychoanalytic (the heretofore most reliable) means for

model (the new pluralism). justifying our beliefs. But, of course, I admit One of the most interesting of these arti- that a justified belief can be false. cles — because it is the most sustained as well Buckland likes to chastise science by as the most methodologically ambitious —is calling it “imperialistic” — foisting its findWarren Buckland’s recent attack, published — ings on all comers as the truth. But this is in Screen, of my book Mystifying Movies.,In not a shortcoming of science; it is a reflecwhat follows, I wish to respond to Buck- — tion of Buckland’s confusion of the issue of

land’s attack in detail. But, more impor- truth with the issue of justification. Scientantly, I would like to address a series of __ tific method provides us with strong justificadeep methodological issues that his attack tions for thing like theories, though, again, a raises which are pertinent to any future — well-warranted theory at time T1 could turn debates between cognitivism and the ruling __ out to be false at time T2. Nevertheless, that psychoanalytic-marxist theory. Thus, though a justified theory or belief could be false

this article is, in part, a reaction to Buck- does not seem to loosen our expectations — land, it is also an attempt to clarify what I of both ourselves and others — that we strive take to be some of the most important _ to back up our beliefs with the best justificamethodological issues between cognitivists tions available. The psychoanalytic-marxist

and psychoanalytic-marxists. misrepresents the cognitivist as a “truth-

bully.” I, for example, don’t demand accep-

Science Bashing | tance of my theories as infallibly true, but only as better justified, at this point in the Buckland, like others, fears that cognitiv- debate, than their competitors.

ism, at least under my construal, puts too One way in which Buckland seeks to much faith in scientific method (and analytic undercut what for him are the dubious philosophy). It is true that I regard scientific — scientific presuppositions of cognitivism is to 322

Cognitivism, Contemporary Film Theory and Method

charge that I think of scientific method asa be more reliable than others. All the source of absolute truth and falsity. (CPR, | cognitivist need claim for her theories is that 81) In contrast, Buckland thinks that relativ- they are more justified, at this juncture in

ism is the better course, and, in fact, the the dialectical debate, than are psychobrand of relativism that he prefers is a analytic-marxist competitors. And she may variety of social constructivism. But before do this without claiming that none of her looking at Buckland’s sketch of the social — theories will ever have to be modified or determination of scientific knowledge, we abandoned. must consider the underlying structure of Of course, Buckland will deny my appeal

Buckland’s argument. to transcultural standards of justification

Buckland confronts us with a dilemma: _ because his version of relativism maintains either one must be an absolutist with respect that “the truth values of each theoretical to scientific knowledge or one must be a paradigm are predominantly (although not relativist; you can’t be an absolutist (actu- —_ exclusively) relative to the social and hisally, for the reasons I gave above); there- _ torical determinations from which they

fore, you must be a relativist. emerged.” (CPR, 81) This is an empirical But this argument, though it is often claim. In order to defend it, a social

deployed by theorists in the humanities, is | determinist like Buckland will have to too facile. It has not explored all the | demonstrate that major scientific claims — available options. One can eschew absolut- _—ilike the notion that gases expand when ism and relativism at the same time. One can _ heated — have been endorsed by most scienbe what is called a fallibilist, which, by the _ tists for reasons that have almost nothing to

way, is the position the cognitivists, like do with evidence, arguments and observa-

myself and Bordwell, hold. tions, and that they have almost everything The fallibilist admits that she may have to __ to do with socio-historical causes.

revise her theories in light of future evidence No one has done this, nor does it seem or of theoreticalimplications oflaterdevelop- __ very likely that it can be done, since it is ments because she realizes that at best her — surely a daunting fact that scientists from theories are well-warranted, and that a well- — very different socio-historical backgrounds

warranted theory can be false. There is no _ (capitalist, marxist, Catholic, Islamic) acclaim to a purchase on absolute truth here. cept a great many of the same claims (even But neither is there a concession to relativism | sometimes across historical epochs). If Buck-

in any standard sense of the term. Forwe are land were correct and scientists accepted open to revising our theories in accordance __ theories not in terms of shared standards of

with the best available transcultural stand- | enquiry but in terms of prevailing social ards of justification, those shared, forexam- agendas in their respective cultures, the fact ple, by capitalist physicists, Chinese commu- _ of recurring strong consensus among scien-

nist physicists, and Vatican physicists. tists over a large number of theories could The fallibilist denies that we could revise never be explained. Moreover, with referall our beliefs, theories, and protocols at — ence to Buckland’s bizarre talk about truth once. But any subset thereof is revisable — values, it is hard to imagine how one would under given circumstances, and, indeed, the specify the truth conditions for “gases ex-

entire set might be revised serially. The | pand when heated” in terms of specific scientific viewpoint does not commit us to — constellations of socio-historical relations:

the arrogant presumption that it delivers “Gases expand when heated” is true if and absolute truth, but only to the more modest _ only if what? — the relevant socio-historical claim that there are discernible grades of — context is a Protestant capitalist oligarchy! justification, of which some have proven to And, in any case, Buckland’s social deter323

Polemical Exchanges

minism appears at odds with his attempt to Buckland presumes that the cognitivist debunk the scientific pretensions of the film theorists have not yet absorbed the cognitivist. For he wishes to advance the lessons of post-positivist philosophers of generalization that in fact all scientific claims science, viz., that theories should be evalu-

are relative to social determinations. But ated pragmatically in a way that is sensitive what then is the status of his generalization? to the contexts in which they emerge. Presumably he wants us to regarditaseither | Usually, these post-positivist insights are true, or approximately true, or well justified. fleshed out by noting that competing scienBut since it is an empirical generalization, his __ tific theories emerge in specific historical theory must be reflexive,i.e.,itmustapplyto | contexts (of theoretical debate) in order to

itself. And applied to itself, Buckland’s answer presiding questions and that these objection reduces predominantly to an ex- __ theories are assessed pragmatically in terms

pression of the values and aims of the of the way they differentially succeed in particular socio-historical situation he inhab- _— solving the contextually motivated probits. So, either we will have to regard Buck- lems. This mode of assessment is pragmatic

land’s view as inexplicably transcending the (rather than absolutist) because it ranges constraints of social determination (and — only over known rival theories (rather than thereby serving as a self-refutation of the | over every conceivable theory that might be theory), or we will have to regard his viewas brought to bear on the question), and just as self-deluded as he claims that _ because it focuses particularly on solutions

cognitivism Is. to contextually motivated (theoretical) probConceptual relativism, augmented by a lems. But if this is the sort of post-positivist social determination thesis, then, is not a view of science that Buckland yearns for, promising line of attack for the contempo- then he fails to note that cognitivist film rary film theorist eager to undermine _ theory is pragmatic and contextual — with a cognitivism. Moreover, the attractiveness of | vengeance. , this line for politically-minded film theorists The entire underlying structure of Mystify-

(and literary theorists) has always been ing Movies is dialectical. The elements of mysterious to me. For relativism of this sort cinema that I have attempted to explain, turns progressive claims about economic like perspective and narrative, have been inequality, racial oppression, and sexual bias _ targeted because those are the features that

into the special pleading of certain social psychoanalytic-marxists have, contextually,

formations. isolated as the ones that are in need of

However, in that case, public support of | explanation. Alternative cognitivist explanathe claims of reformers on the part ofpersons tions are mounted and explicitly weighed outside said social formations loses its point. against reigning theories in terms of their Surely such reformers, a minority in every | comparative justifiability. This approach is country in the industrialized West, cannot not positivist; it is maximally compatible expect this support unless they can advance _ with the sort of pragmatic, contextual sensitheir claims as justifiable to people from alien tivity Buckland advocates, though, ironisocial formations. Since conceptual relativ- _ cally, he does not recognize it as such. ism plus social determinism is so inimicable Indeed, if Mystifying Movies makes any to the aims of political film theorists, one is _ lasting contribution to film theory, I would

tempted to explain its allure for such theo- hope that it would be that it explicitly rists on the grounds that they think that the —_ introduced the dialectical (pragmatic, con-

theory is probably true. But conceding that textually sensitive) form of argumentation much contradicts their allegiance to a social __ to the field. Moreover, I also believe that I

constructivist epistemology. have said enough at this point to block 324

Cognitivism, Contemporary Film Theory and Method

dismissals of cognitivism as a naive version version of a psychoanalytic-marxist apof positivism. In the future, intoning buzz __ proach to film within the context of analytic phrases like “absolute knowledge” will not philosophy. Therefore, there is no justificasuffice as a way of rejecting cognitivism. If — tion, methodologically, in complaining that

the debate about scientific methodology analytic philosophy antecedently stacks the continues in film theory—as I think it deck against a psychoanalytic-marxist apshould — then it will be constrained to begin _ proach in film theory.

with the understanding that cognitivism is Of course, Buckland’s reservations about prima facie based on a sophisticated, post- analytic philosophy may spring from an

positivist conception of science. uninformed conflation of analytic philosophy with logical positivism. But by this time

. . . in history, logical positivism is a defunct

Bashing Analytic Philosophy program, due to devastating objections adFor Buckland, not only does my reliance on vanced by other analytic philosophers. Morescience as a guide to rational enquiry impose __ over, logical positivism has been discredited

an imperialist, absolutist conception of for several decades. And, indeed, for the “truth” on film studies; my commitments to __ reasons stated in the preceding section, my analytic philosophy reinforce this original approach to film theory is post-positivist.

sin. He writes: “Analytic philosophy pres- Perhaps the strangest feature of Buckents itself as the only legitimate paradigm __land’s initial denunciation of the inherent based on ‘true,’ ‘objective’ knowledge... .” | absolutist imperialism of analytic philoso(CPR, 81) This is a strange view of analytic — phy is that throughout his article he relies philosophy. For analytic philosophy is nota heavily on the authority of analytical phibody of knowledge norisitaparadigminany — losophers both to criticize me and to destrict sense of the term. It is not a paradigm velop his own recommendations for film

| because competing, contradictory theories theory. Along the way we meet up with can be developed under its aegis, which is Donald Davidson, Hilary Putnam, W. V. also why it is not a body of knowledge. Quine, and J. J. Katz, while the theory of Some analytic philosophers of politics are relevance that Buckland favors derives from marxists (or “Analytical Marxists”) —like — the work of H. P. Grice. But these people G. A. Cohen — while others are libertarians are not marginal renegades; they are repre-

(e.g., Robert Nozick and Tibor Machen) _ sentatives of the core of the tradition. I and still others are liberals (e.g., John Rawls = cannot see how Buckland can reconcile his and Ronald Dworkin). And there are distin- —_ rejection of me specifically because of my

guished feminists, like Virginia Held, who analytic stance at the same time that he are analytically inclined. Richard Wollheim approvingly marshals so many once and advances a psychoanalytic theory of mind __ future officers of the American Philosophiwhile Adolf Grunbaum and Alasdair MacIn- — cal Association to rebuke me. If ever one tyre reject psychoanalysis altogether. Ana- | were tempted to mobilize psychoanalysis,

lytic philosophy is a tradition rather than a it might be to explain Buckland’s selfparadigm or a body of knowledge — atradi- —_ contradictory, love-hate relation to analytic

tion in which different and contradictory philosophy. theories can be and have been developed. Thus, my allegiance to analytic philosophy The Principle of Charity in no way begs any questions in my debates

. with psychoanalytic-marxist film theorists. A central premise of Buckland’s rejection of There is no reason to suppose that, in| my arguments against psychoanalytic-marxprinciple, someone might not defend some ist film theory is that in interpreting their 325

Polemical Exchanges

commitments, I fail to abide by the principle the lights of modern day science? Surely a of charity. (CPR, 83-84) The version of the __ principle of interpretation like that would principle of charity that Buckland depends __ produce a mass of anachronisms.

upon is derived primarily from Donald However advisable a principle of charity Davidson’s article “On the Very Idea of a _— might be for translating the ordinary speech Conceptual Scheme.”* Davidson’s principle _(“There’s a dog.”) of alien languages, it does

is developed in the context of considering not follow that the same procedure is the problem of how one translates from one = appropriate in reconstructing rarefied theolanguage to another. His principle of charity __ retical idioms, especially those of contesting advises that in order to maximize the sense _ theories. For such a policy — if carried out of the language that we are translating, we |§ completely —- would make the best interpre-

try to optimize agreement between our- tation of two rival theories the one that has selves and our interlocutors. That is, we them both committed to the same assertions assume that we share the bulk of our be- about the relevant phenomena. If I extend

liefs with the users of the alien language the principle of charity to a competing that we are translating. For if we can’t theory my best construal of it necessarily formulate most of what x is saying in terms makes it into my theory. If one follows of our own conceptual scheme, we cannot — Buckland’s advice fully, we wouldn’t have

be sure whether or not x is just making rival theories at all. But that’s absurd.

random noises. For the preceding reasons, I am, in What Buckland wants to contend, I general, reluctant to extrapolate the princi-

think, is that insofar as my interpretations of __ ple of charity from the context of the radical psychoanalytic-marxist film theorists don’t translation of alien languages to the interpre-

respect something like the principle of char- _ tation of rival theories. But I am also ity (that pertains to contexts of radical reluctant to accept the principle of charity as translation between alien languages), my a policy governing my interpretation of formulations make contemporary film theo- | contemporary film theory for another rea-

rists sound pretty silly. Whereas, if I ex- son. Contemporary film theory is not an tended the principle of charity to their alien language for me.° I am a user of the theories — presuming that what Itake to be languages in which contemporary film reasonable corresponds to what they are _ theory is articulated. The context is not one trying to say — then their theories wouldn’t __ of radical translation.

appear as outlandish as I make them out The contemporary film theorist and I

to be. share the same criteria for identifying inBut [’m not sure, pace Buckland’s con- stances of chairs, tables, dogs, convertibles,

strual of Davidson, that, even if we can perspective and film editing. We already provide a convincing version of the principle |= share most of the same beliefs about the of charity, we can suppose that it should world. We may differ about a tiny fraction of apply to the interpretation of theories _ the beliefs that make up our highly technical (rather than to the translation of languages) theories. But, at the same time, in virtue of in general or to my interpretation of psycho- _all those beliefs we hold in common, we may

analytic-marxist film theory in particular. be able to surmise with confidence that Wouldn’t it be a mistake to interpret Aris- | some of our rival’s technical theories not totle’s physics in terms of contemporary — only differ from ours but also actually are physical beliefs — that is, to attempt to find _ silly.

interpretations of his claims that would It does not seem to me that Buckland is make as many of them as possible true by aware of the incongruities that result from 326

Cognitivism, Contemporary Film Theory and Method

endorsing Davidson’s principle of charity as_ — that Buckland seems to think can just be

a principle of theory interpretation. Indeed, stipulated is to be defended. But more on often it seems to me that Buckland’s notion __ that below. of my lack of charity amounts to his feeling

that I am imposing alien (scientific, philo- Misinterpretation I sophical) modes of reasoning on contempo-

rary film theory and, thereby, failing to Due to my putative lack of interpretive interpret it from the inside. Of course, if charity, Buckland maintains that my arguthat’s what I’m doing, am I not charitably ments against contemporary film theorists extending my beliefs about proof to psycho- _—s miss their mark because I am not confronting

analytic-marxist film theorists? But, in any _ their views, but only my own misinterpretacase, I am not convinced that Iam employ- __ tions of their positions. By now, given the ing different forms ofreasoningthancontem- example of Stephen Heath, misinterpreta-

porary film theorists do. For example, I tion is one of the canonical methods of recognize the kinds of arguments and stan- _—‘ dismissing my objections. Needless to say, I dards of evidence that Buckland uses against do not believe that my interpretations are as

me, even if [ am not convinced by them. blind as Buckland claims. So I would like An example of my lack of interpretive quickly to review some of his charges in order charity, in Buckland’s rather than Davidson’s_ __ to unhorse them. At the same time, I would

sense, which is raised more than once (CPR, ‘like to show how very easily Buckland’s 82-83; 89-90), is that I fail to acknowledge “new” interpretations can be rejected. that contemporary film theorists stipulate or Buckland opens his rebuttal by accusing presuppose that movies engage the uncon- _me of being uncharitable to Baudry’s argu-

scious psyches of spectators. That is their ment in “The Apparatus.” (CPR 85-88) starting point. That their theoriesturnouton The crux of the dispute is this: I take my accounting to seem ridiculous is aconse- Baudry to be advancing an inductive arguquence of my refusal to grant this premise. ment by logical analogy which concludes

And undoubtedly psychoanalytic-marxist that the charged experience of cinema is theory would not seem so ridiculoustomeifI caused by the desire for and regression to

accepted this presupposition. primitive narcissism. Baudry reaches this However, I do not believe that a film conclusion by adducing eight basic anal-

theorist can stipulate that movies engage ogies — which sometimes invoke sub-analpeople’s psyches on an unconscious level ogies — between film and dream. I try to (CPR, 83) any more than I believe that an undermine these analogies — and the variastrologist can be allowed to stipulate that ous sub-analogies — while also introducing our fates are controlled by the stars. One — some challenging disanalogies between film cannot presuppose whatever one wants; and dream. Depending on how you count one’s presuppositions should be open to — them, I muster about ten lines of objection discussion and criticism. Film theoryis nota to Baudry’s argument, though some of formal system. My refusal to accept this — these also involve attacking what I’ve just stipulation is a substantive issue, not a called Baudry’s sub-analogies. Where Buck-

matter of interpretative protocols. land believes that I’ve been uncharitable to Indeed, it is my conviction that the most Baudry concerns the matter of one of important issue to be confronted in the Baudry’s sub-analogies. So even if Buckdebate between the psychoanalytic-marxist land were right, his worries pertain to film theorist and the cognitivist concerns the —_ roughly 8% percent of my arguments.

question of whether and how the premise Baudry claims that dreams and films have 327

Polemical Exchanges

screens and that the so-called dream screen __ how, in principle, to tell personal, idiosynis a figure for the mother’s breast. Baudry cratic dream associations and structural elederives this “insight” from the psychoanalyst ments of dreams, like screens, apart). Given Bertram Lewin. I, in turn, challenge the all these problems with Lewin’s speculation, plausibility of the subtending analogy be- it seems to me that I was probably exercising

tween a screen and a breast, noting: charity in not saddling Baudry with Lewin’s One must at least question the purported lattened breast Screens. screen/breast association. What is its basis? And FB urthermore, if anyone feels that I was rehow extensive is it? Maybe some white people | ™Ss in ignoring Lewin’s flattened breasts, let

envision breasts as white and then go on to. me say what was already implicit in the associate the latter with white screens. But not charges I did make. If one patient can, by everyone is white. And I wonder if many whites | means of an inference, be said to associassociate breasts and screens. Certainly it is not ate flattened out breasts with screens, that an intuitively straightforward association like would be scant evidence that all of us have that between guns and penises. For example, —_ dream screens that we associate with breasts,

screens are flat; and lactating breasts are not. A or even flattened breasts. And anyway, of screen is, ideally, uniform in color and texture; course, even if Baudry could deflect my flatness argument by invoking Lewin’s scarcely

but a breast has a nipple. (MM, 29) .; 5

Where did I go wrong? I reject the motivated and strained speculations, that analogy between screens and breasts be- — would still leave over ninety percent of my cause most breasts are not white, breasts are —_ refutation of Baudry intact.

not uniformly colored and textured and In criticizing Metz’s hypothesis about the because breasts are not flat. Buckland says __ role that the Imaginary plays in film recepthat ’m unfair here because Lewin says that __ tion, I doubted whether the phenomenon of for a portion of one of his patient’s dream __ viewing a film sufficiently matched canoniher putative breast/dream screen was flat. cal discussions of mirror stage identification. So Baudry could respond to the flatness part © For we do not appear in the film image.

of my objection by claiming that within Buckland criticizes me for ignoring the fact Lewin’s theory, one might say that breasts, that authority figures like Metz and Penley

in the relevant sense, are flat. assert that it is enough for the film to present Since Baudry never explicitly endorses an absent “spatial and temporal elsewhere” this claim, I don’t see how I can be said to for the Imaginary to be engaged. (CPR, 89) have misinterpreted him. At best, one could Well, I know that Metz thinks something

say that I overlooked a possible coun- like this; but I was asking that the belief be termove of which Baudry might avail him- explained and justified. Buckland seems to

self upon hearing my objection. Was I _ think that I should accept the pronounceuncharitable in failing to rehearse this coun- _=ments of his authorities unquestioningly. I, termove? Well, ’m not sure. Lewin’s claim = of course, reject such authoritarianism on sounds pretty flimsy. It is not even based on _ scientific grounds; I would have thought that

an overt association on the part of his it would also be unpalatable on political patient but upon an inference that Lewin, grounds. But, in any case, the issue is not rather than the subject, makes regarding her _—one of misinterpretation. I don’t misrepre-

description of her dream. Moreover, as I sent what is being claimed; I only require had already pointed out about the Lewin that the claim be supported by argumentamaterial (MM, 28), the empirical support tion and explanation. offered for the hypothesis that all dreams A crucial aspect of my supposed misinterhave screens is statistically miniscule as well _ pretations of Metz is that I don’t catch onto as being conceptually crude (we are not told Metz’s thought that all films are fictional due 328

Cognitivism, Contemporary Film Theory and Method to their presentation of an absent spatial and _—_ refuting rather than misinterpreting contem-

temporal elsewhere. (CPR, 89; 91) Accord- __ porary film theory, he will refer to those ing to Buckland, this oversight leads me to _—- writings when putatively they reveal my criticize Metz as if he were writing about the — chronic inability to interpret people cordisavowal of conflicting beliefs and disbeliefs rectly. For example, he cites my discussion with respect to the presence of the profilmic of certain illusion theories of representation

referent of the image; whereas, for Buck- in “Conspiracy Theories of Representaland, Metz is discussing the presence of the tion”? in order to declare that one of its diegesis. (CPR, 91) Several things needtobe arguments fails to apply to Metz and

said about this. Baudry. But why is this a problem, since the First, Buckland’s inference from fiction article is not about Metz and Baudry?

in Metz’s sense of diegesis is specious. Not Certainly Buckland is right in noting all fictions are narrative. Second, Metz’s (CPR, 90) that both Metz and I agree that — contrast between a chair onstage andachair _ film viewers know that they are watching on film suggests that he is talking about the _ films. However, that is not the issue that is

play of absence and presence of the — under dispute. Rather the issue is whether profilmic referent.’ Third, the contrast be- or not this needs to be explained in terms of tween the referent and diegesis seems spuri- _—_a notion of disavowal. And I, of course, try

ous, since narratives refer, even if that to argue that commitments to disavowal are reference is fictional. And finally, though I _—_— extraneous.

know that Metz thinks that all films are In recounting my debate with Stephen fictional, I have already rejected the plausi- | Heath on the status of perspective (CPR,

bility of that claim at length.® 93), Buckland suggests that my emphasis on Throughout, Buckland shows his ten- the biological and perceptual aspects of dency to regard my rejection of central perspective renderings precludes the fact premises in the arguments of contemporary __ that perspective has a history and, therefore,

film theory to be a matter of misinterpreta- a conventionalist status. Of course, I never tion, when, in fact, they constitute substan- | deny that perspective has a history; people tive points in the debate. If someone claims — write books about it, and I have read them. that “the moon is made of green cheese” as_ __ But this concession hardly implies that per-

a premise in a theory and I dispute this spective is merely a convention in the sense premise, I am not misinterpreting the the- defended by conventionalists like Goodman ory. And, it may go without saying, [regard and Wartofsky in the philosophical and many of the premises of contemporary film psychological literature. Indeed, I would theory as on a par with “the moonis made of _ even be willing to grant that there are some

green cheese.” conventions within the tradition of perspecFor Buckland, it would appear that the __ tive rendering (e.g., that the most significant

interpretation of a theory involves accep- elements in the rendering be placed at the tance of the premises of the theory. This vanishing point). But this does not compel hermeneutic principle leaves me dumb- me to accept the idea that perspective works founded. An interpretation undoubtedly in- _ solely in virtue of conventions. volves stating the premises of rival theories. Buckland also chides me for my interpreta-

But I see no reason to think that that tion of contemporary film theory’s treatment mandates either believing them or treating of perspective because I do not foreground

them uncritically. their supposed discovery that perspective Though Buckland is not willing to advert _—is really a representation of a metaphysito my writings other than Mystifying Movies _ cal position — such as Husserlian Idealism —

when supposedly they show that I am with religious overtones. (CPR, 92) This is 329

Polemical Exchanges

not quite right, for 1 do dismiss one variation _cognitivist than thou” (or me), and the on this theme, viz., Comolli’s. (WM 137- _ vociferous complaints about my misinterpre138) However, Buckland is correctinobserv- _ tations are camouflage. Screen beware: Bucking that I do not deal with the version of the —_ land may be a cognitivist in psychoanalytic

thesis propounded in Jean-Louis Baudry’s _ clothing. “Ideological Effects of the Basic Cinemato-

graphic Apparatus.” . os . The reason that I did not pause to dismiss Misinterpretation I Baudry’s correlation of the cinematicappara- If Buckland is convinced that I systemati-

tus with Husserlian Idealism was that I cally misread contemporary film theory, I thought that the argument was evidently | am equally sure that Buckland misreads me. flawed. For Baudry seems to find that the —_I don’t think that this is a lack of Davidapparatus reflects Husserlian Idealism onthe — sonian charity. He simply doesn’t take note

basis of the same features that in his article of the words on my pages. “The Apparatus” he correlated cinema with In reviewing my positive proposals about

Platonism. But Husserlian Idealism and the nature of our perception of the cinePlatonism are incompatible philosophical matic image, Buckland complains that I positions. How can cinema represent two _ reduce the image to the status of a natural incompatible philosophical positions in vir- | object. (CPR, 97) This just ignores my tue of the self-same features? The fact that contention that we should conceptualize Baudry discovers that cinema represents picturing (including motion picturing) as Idealism as easily as he discovers that it cultural inventions. (MM, 142-145) represents its Platonic antipode suggests to Also, Buckland infers that I am attracted me that the “apparatus” underdetermines — to the hypothesis that pictures are univerwhat philosophical theories can be associated sally recognizable because this entails that with it. And this, furthermore, suggests to _ pictures have no ideological repercussions. me that we would be better off dropping the —- But before this debunking account of my idea that cinema as suchisarepresentationof scurrilous motives for embracing the hya specific philosophical or religious position pothesis is accepted, one should consider all

altogether. the psychological data I advance in favor

Perhaps the most striking aspect of Buck- of the hypothesis. I’m not championing land’s accusation of my systematic misinter- the view because I have a covert political pretation of contemporary film theory is his agenda. I feel drawn to the hypothesis beexplicit refusal to commit himself to the — cause of the psychological evidence. (MM, tenets of contemporary film theory oncethey 139-142)

have been interpreted accurately (i.e., a la Buckland also maintains that my theory Buckland). (CPR, 87) Basically, Buckland — of cinematic perception is inconsistent. For, seems to be arguing that, though ’m wrong ___ on the one hand, I claim that when perceivdue to my biased interpretations, he, Buck- _—ing a cinematic image we are focally aware land, is not prepared to say that contempo- _— of what it is about and subsidiarily aware rary film theory, when correctly interpreted, that it is a representation. But when I offer is viable. Moreover, when one realizes that my characterization of cinematic awareness,

the positive theoretical recommendations Buckland claims that I place “exclusive that Buckland makes at the end of his article emphasis upon the focus in which the (CPR, 102—103) are basically cognitivist,one subsidiaries are marginalised out of the begins to suspect that the “Critique of Poor _ picture (literally!).” (CPR, 97) Reason” is “pulling a fast one” on the reader. This is not so much a misinterpretation as That is, Buckland really wants to be “more a misreading. It ignores sentences like: 330

Cognitivism, Contemporary Film Theory and Method

“Human perceptual capacities evolve in matic.” And I suppose that, were cinematic such a way that the capacity for pictorial | comprehension simply a matter of decoding, recognition comes, almost naturally, with one might call it automatic. But two things

the capacity for object recognition, and part require emphasis here. First, I do not of that capacity is the ability to differentiate | maintain that film comprehension as a whole

pictures from their referents.” (MM, 144) is automatic, though I think certain aspects This, of course, acknowledges that subsid- _ of it may be “virtually automatic,” viz., that lary awareness of the picture is part and we are looking where we are looking in a

parcel of all picture perception. Close shot in virtue of the framing, and that On the other hand, if what worries we recognize what images are about in Buckland is that I think that what he calls virtue of innate perceptual capacities. The the focus commands more of our attention latter claim may be controversial, though I than the subsidiary, he has read me cor- think the psychological evidence is on my

rectly. I do think that the focus generally side, while the former claim is I think carries more weight. That’s what it meansto incontestable. Moreover, I do not reduce be the focus rather than the subsidiary. Or, | cinematic comprehension to these two proalternatively, what’s the problem with mar- __ cesses, but go on to stress the importance of

ginalizing the subsidiary, since the subsidiary hypothesis formation in my account of is, by a definition Buckland seems to accept, —_ erotetic — or question/answer — narration in

relatively marginalized? a way that is more a matter of what Buckland criticizes my positive account of | Buckland would call a pragmatic theory. cinematic narration on the grounds that it Thus, though there are elements of automaignores the possibility of the subversion of — tism in my theory, the theory as a whole puts

hypotheses a film induces its audience to a great deal of emphasis on the kind of formulate. But in my account of whatI calla | pragmatic approach Buckland endorses.

sustaining scene, I, for example, explicitly Second, even if aspects of my account of state: “A scene that begins to answer a cinematic comprehension are automatic, narrative question but then frustrates the they are not automatic in virtue of some answer — e.g., a detective following up a code. That I am looking at the heroine’s face

wrong clue —is also a sustaining scene.” in a close shot is not a function of an (MM, 174-175) Moreover, Buckland’s ex- arbitrarily established code. The perceptual ploration of this supposed lacuna in my _ structure of the image, typically, causes one view, specifically with reference to horror — to be looking where one is looking. Simifilms, is dealt with more thoroughly in my larly, I advance a number of considerations

book The Philosophy of Horror." in order to deny that our processing of the Buckland thinks that there isafundamen- cinematic image involves decoding. Thus,

tal problem with my positive account of not only is my theory as a whole not a cinematic comprehension: it is what he calls | semantic/code theory, but even the parts of it code/semantic rather than pragmatic.(CPR, — that regard some features of cinematic com-

100) In contrast, I think Buckland is mis- prehension as “automatic” do not rely on taken in characterizing my theory this way; —_ codes. Therefore, I am not a code/semantic

moreover, I suspect that the origin of — theorist. Indeed, throughout my career as a

Buckland’s confusion is that he has taken film theorist, I have always explicitly parts of the theory to be the whole of the stressed the importance of inference over

theory. decoding as a model for many aspects of As [understand him, my theory issuppos- — cinematic comprehension. !!

edly a code/semantic theory because it treats Furthermore, once it is clear that Iam not cinematic comprehension as if it were “auto- a code/semantic theorist, the significance of 331

Polemical Exchanges , Buckland’s pragmatic alternative to my ap- _ theory. It is an approach that has guided proach loses its dialectical force. For the | some theorizing already and which, it is to choice between Buckland/Sperber/Wilson — be hoped, will guide more in the future. I and Carroll cannot be decided on the basis _ have always agreed that some of this theoriz-

of superiority of pragmatic/relevance theo- ing will pertain to the ideological and ries versus semantic/code theories. More- __ political dimension of cinema. In that sense, over, though it is somewhat difficult to make I have never been a formalist. Moreover, out Buckland’s positive recommendations __ since cognitivist theories of these topics are for film theorists — given his clotted, pro- beginning to be produced, charges of formalgrammatic style of writing —I suspect that ism are obsolete. The issue now is whether my theory of cinematic comprehension is — cognitivist or psychoanalytic theories do a

probably compatible with the sort Buckland better job answering our questions about advocates (that is, if Buckland’s view makes _ ideology. This discussion has barely begun;

sense). nevertheless, I welcome it. Buckland also bandies about the charge —

frequently leveled at cognitivist theorists — a.

that I am a formalist (e.g., CPR, 100). This Cognitivism, Psychoanalysis and overlooks the fact that not only doI discuss Constraint: The Big Question the use of certain structures in terms of their Perhaps Buckland’s central objection to my ideological significance (€.8., MM ” 1585159) approach is that I will only countenance or

but I XP heitly promise that cognitivism can regard as valid theories of film that are offer piecemeal generalizations about the Cognitivist. (CPR, 96) In this way, Buckland operation of ideology in film. similarly, distinguishes between the good cognitivist though Bordwell is generally upbraided asa cop, Bordwell, and the bad cognitivist cop,

formalist, I can think of few studies as me. But, in fact, I have never denied that dedicated as his of Ozu to situating his psychoanalysis might contribute to our unsubject so thoroughly in terms of its socio- derstanding of film. I wrote: political context.” Of course, Buckland is right in noticing Nothing we have said suggests an objection in that most of the theories that are proposed _ principle to these more specific questions about in Mystifying Movies are what he would call aspects of the audience over and above their formalist. But that is only to say that I cognitive faculties. Social conditioning and affecbelieve that some of our questions of cinema _‘"Ve psychology, appropriately constrained, might

may require what he calls formalist answers. >& introduced to explain the power of given However, I have never precluded the possi- movies or types of movies for target groups. bility that other questions must confront the Sociology anthropology, and’ ‘certain forms of : psychoanalysis are likely to be useful in such issue of ideology. Indeed, in recent papers, I investigations. (MM, 213)

have attempted to extend the cognitivist approach to issues of film ideology.'!? Thus, Perhaps these qualifications, and similar

the real issue is not whether cognitivism is | ones in my book The Philosophy of Horror, formalist, but whether the contribution that have been overlooked by readers because of cognitivism can make to what I take to be _—my protracted, admittedly relentless rejeclegitimate questions about film and ideology _ tion of one psychoanalytic hypothesis after

is productive or not. Specifically, we will another. But I have consistently acknowlneed to compare the merits of cognitivist | edged that apart from the specific arguments models of film ideology to psychoanalytic — that I have advanced against specific applica-

models. tions of psychoanalytic theories, I have no Cognitivism is not a fully developed knock-down argument to show that psycho332

Cognitivism, Contemporary Film Theory and Method

analysis is always out of place in film theory. many cultural practices), organic or systemic Indeed, as the preceding passage indicates,I _ factors.

explicitly allow that, appropriately con- Freud himself abides by this methodologi-

strained, psychoanalysis may add to our’ cal constraint in his Interpretation of

understanding of film. Dreams, where he first, and at great length,

Of course, the sticking point here is disposes of dream theories of the preceding whatever is meant by “appropriately con- sorts before advancing his own theory. strained.” Indeed, I think that the continued Moreover, I would contend that he was debate between cognitivism and psycho- motivated here by more than respect for the analysis hinges on discussing and debating __ niceties of dialectical argumentation. He

the kinds of constraints that film theorists realized that in order to postulate the should respect when applying psychoanaly- operation of repressed unconscious forces sis to film. In order to advance this debate, he had to demonstrate the failure to accom-

allow me to state my view. modate the data of rationalist psychology, In thinking about when it is appropriate standing accounts of cognitive processing, to embrace psychoanalytic explanatory and organic hypotheses. For it is analytical frameworks, it pays to remember that psy- _ to the very concept of psychoanalysis that its choanalysis is a theory that is designed to _—_ object is the irrational, which domain has as explain the irrational. Thus, behavior that its criterion of identification the inadequacy can be traced without remainder to organic _ of rational, cognitive or organic explanasources, such as brain lesions and chemical _ tions. Put bluntly, there is nothing left for imbalances, are not in the domain of psycho- _ psychoanalysis to explain if the behavior or

analysis. For they are nonrational causes, state in question can be explained organinot irrational ones. Similarly, behaviors— cally, rationally or in terms of the normal like certain slips of the tongue of the sorts functioning of our cognitive and perceptual translators and transcribers make — which _ systems.

can be attributed to limitations of standard The relevance of this to the dialectical cognitive processing are also analyzable in structure of argumentation in Mystifying terms of nonrational and not irrational Movies should be obvious. First I criticize causes, and, therefore, are not proper ob- various psychoanalytic explanations of our jects of psychoanalysis. Likewise, behaviors, responses to cinema in terms of their logical

states, or reactions that are explicable ratio- | and empirical flaws. Then I field a rival nally and/or in virtue of normal cognitive hypothesis which I argue is not logically processing are not, prima facie, appropriate flawed, and which I argue does a better job topics for psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis — with the data. In other words, I put theories

explains breakdowns in rationality or in in competition. normal cognitive processing that are not However, there is a feature of this dialectiotherwise explicable in terms of nonrational cal strategy that is not standard in most

defects. other scientific debates. For the theories

Another way to put this is to ask what ‘that I advance in competition to psychoremains to be explained if we can account analysis are all what we call cognitivist.

for a behavior or a state in terms of rational Thus, if they are convincing and if psychopsychology or in terms of nonrational de- _—_ analytic theory is constrained in the way I fects in the organism or processing system. argue, then my theories not only challenge That is, in order to mobilize psychoanalysis, | psychoanalytic alternatives, but preclude one has to be able to point to some data _—_‘ them. For they show that the responses in

which are not sufficiently explained by question are not in the appropriate domain rational (under which rubric I would include —_ of psychoanalysis.1* 333

Polemical Exchanges

Of course, I don’t suppose that this ends _ productive. But I am a robust methodologi-

the discussion. Confronted with this strat- cal pluralist since I am not advocating a egy, the critic disposed toward psychoanaly- situation in which everyone just rattles sis will want to find some aspect of the data = around in their own paradigm. Instead, the that my theories do not explain. Butifthisis | available theories should be critically com-

the structure of the debate between pared in such a way that some may be cognitivism and psychoanalysis, then it indi- _—_ eliminated, though critical comparison may cates that Mystifying Movies has achieved at _—also reveal that some of these theories are

least one effect. Namely, it has shifted the | complementary or supplementary or otherburden of proof to the defender of psycho- —_ wise compatible. Unlike Buckland, I am not analysis. The underlying purpose of Mystify- | ready now to suppose that cognitivism and

ing Movies and of my recent cognitivist | some form of psychoanalysis are obviously account of horror has been to shift the | compatible. But neither am I committed to burden of proof to the psychoanalytic film the view that this is an impossible conclutheorist. Indeed, I chose the horror genre as_ _ sion. At present, my bets are clearly on

an arena in which to expand cognitivist cognitivism. Yet I have always conceded theorizing just because its traffic with in- that only time and critical, reflective debate tense emotional states gives it the appear- __ will settle the issue. ance of being, so to speak, a “natural” target I admit that I know no reason in principle

for psychoanalysis. It is now up to the to predict that psycho-analysis will never psychoanalyst to show what my theories of | provide the most satisfactory explanations horror, cinematic narration, cinematicrepre- of some of the data at hand. All we can do is sentation, editing and film music have left | compare the relative strengths and weakout and to show that in order to account for nesses of our theories. This, of course, also this remainder we must resort to suitably — requires that we interrogate the framework constrained psychoanalytic explanations— in which we compare our theories. Quesrather than cognitivist or biological or socio- —_—‘ tions about whether there are constraints to

cultural alternatives. which psychoanalysis is beholden and about Again, I have no argument to show that what these constraints are constitute the there is nothing left over for psychoanalytic | fundamental issue between psychoanalytic theorists and critics to explain. What I think _ film theorists and their cognitivist counterI have shown is rather: first, that there isless parts today. Let the discussion begin. to be explained than is usually presumed, without argument, by contemporary film

theorists and, second, that the burden of Notes

proof in the debates I have initiated is theirs. 1. E.g., Noél Carroll, Mystifying Movies (New Maybe there are aspects of our response to York: Columbia University Press, 1988); Noél

cinema that call for suitably constrained Carroll, The Philosophy of Horror (New psychoanalytic theorizing. My position is York: Routledge, 1990); David Bordwell, Narthat it is now up to psychoanalytic critics to ration and the Fiction Film (Madison, Wisc.: prove it. They cannot, as Buckland pro- University of Wisconsin P, 1985); David Bord-

poses, simply stipulate it. well,, Making Meaning (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1989).

Loe . . See, ple, Rober ay, e

On the one hand, I am a methodological > See. for example. Robert. R “Th

pluralist in the sense that I favor having a Bordwell Regime and the Stakes of Knowlfield where there are a lot of theories. For edge,” Strategies, no. 1, Fall 1988; Dudley insofar as putting all our available theories Andrew, “The Limits of Delight: Robert into competition delivers results, putting a Ray’s Postmodern Film Studies,” Strategies, lot of theories into play is likely to be no. 2, 1989; Dudley Andrew, “Cognitivism: 334

Cognitivism, Contemporary Film Theory and Method

Quests and Questionings,” Jris, no. 9, unconscious plays a role in determining the Spring 1989; Dudley Andrew, “A Reply to behavior of normal people. I, of course,

David Bordwell,” Jris, no. 11, Summer know that Lacan thinks that. My point, 1990. Also relevant to the debate are: however, is that Lacan can’t just assert that; David Bordwell, “A Case for Cognitivism,” he must prove it, preferably by defending his

Iris, no. 9, Spring 1989; and David criteria (if he has any) for explaining normal Bordwell, “A Case for Cognitivism: Further behavior psychoanalytically. See Celia BritReflection,” /ris, no. 11, Summer 1990. ton’s review of Mystifying Movies in Review3. Warren Buckland, “Critique of Poor Rea- ing Sociology, vol. 7, no. 1. son,” Screen, vol. 30, no. 4, Autumn 1989. 7. Christian Metz, “The Imaginary Signifier,” Henceforth, this will be referred to as CPR in The Imaginary Signifier (Bloomington: Indithe text where the relevant page references ana University Press, 1982), p. 44. will be cited. My Mystifying Movies will be 8. See Noél Carroll, “From Real to Reel: referred to as MM with page references also Entangled in Nonfiction Film,” Philosophic cited in the text. Stephen Heath has also Exchange, 1983. This essay is reprinted in this registered prolonged objections to my work volume. in his “Le Pére Noél,” October, Fall 1983. I 9. Noél Carroll, “Conspiracy Theories of Reprewill not review Heath’s attack here because I sentation,” Philosophy of the Social Sciences, have already dealt with it in Noél Carroll, “A vol. 17, 1987. Reply to Heath,” October, Winter 1983. Nor 10. Noél Carroll, The Philosophy of Horror, will I dwell on the objections made by Robert especially Chapter Three. Lapsley and Michael Westlake in their book 11. For example, see Noél Carroll, “Toward A Film Theory since they did not have access to Theory of Film Editing,” Millennium Film the theory propounded in Mystifying Movies. Journal, No. 3, Winter/Spring 1979. This See Robert Lapsley and Michael Westlake, essay is reprinted in this volume. Film Theory (Manchester: Manchester Uni- 12. David Bordwell, Ozu and the Poetics of Cin-

versity Press, 1988). ema (Princeton: Princeton University Press 4. In Donald Davidson, Inquiries Into Truth and the British Film Institute, 1988). and Interpretation (Oxford: Oxford University 13. See Noél Carroll, “The Image of Women in

Press, 1984). It may be of interest to some Film: A Defense of a Paradigm,” The Journal readers that, ironically, I have used this very of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, vol. 84, no. 4, article to undermine the post-Saussurean lin- Fall 1990; and Noél Carroll, “Film, Rhetoric guistic theory upon which so much contempo- and Ideology,” Explanations and Value, ed. rary film theory and literary theory depends. Salim Kemal and I. Gaskell (Cambridge Uni-

See Noél Carroll, “Belsey on Language and versity Press, 1993). These essays are reRealism,” Philosophy and Literature, April printed in the volume.

1986. 14. Of course, if you don’t accept what I refer to

5. This is also a reason to refrain from charging as the constraints on psychoanalysis, you will that my approach is incommensurable with not agree that the plausibility of my theories respect to marxist-psychoanalytic film theory. neatly removes psychoanalysis from the field. For example, the cognitivist and the marxist- On the other hand, the consequences of this psychoanalytic theorist share myriad observa- are not devastating for my attack. For my tion terms, like perspective, convention and theories are still competing theories which

film editing. the psychoanalytic theorist must engage, one

6. Perhaps Celia Britton has a similar argument at a time, even if my theories don’t have the

in mind when she chastens me for not special advantage claimed for them in the

mentioning that Lacan believes that the text.

335

,;=

= meaning of what is said and, by even further

7 extension, it refers to processes of communi-

CHAPTER XXIII : cation and discourse that are unspoken. | And, metaphorically, voice can also apply to Cracks in the - the authorial preoccupations of a filmmaker Acoustic Mirror. like Cavani. Silverman is aware that at least

, 7 = some of these phenomena are quite different, but she does not seem worried about eliding them under the same rubric. Later, I

will suggest why this elision should be worrisome.

Since not even a stipulative definition of Recent discussions of sound in film have _ voice is available in the text, the best way to been influenced by the notion of the acous- get at what is signaled by it is to look at the tic mirror, an amplification, shall we say, of | work that it is supposed to do — i.e., to look the scenario of psychosexual development at the hypotheses and explanations in which espoused by Lacanians. This notion is al- _ it ostensibly figures. Roughly, these hypotheready subject to diverse formulations, includ- ses can be divided into two groups: those

ing those of Claudia Gorbman, Mary Ann _ that pertain to Hollywood and those that Doane, and Kaja Silverman. But for pur- __ pertain to various alternative cinemas. poses of both brevity and clarity, I will focus Taking what Silverman has to say about on only one of these formulations, namely, | Hollywood first, one can say that Silverman the one advanced by Kaja Silverman in her _ claims that the female voice in Hollywood recent, influential book The Acoustic Mirror _ practice is rendered systematically insuffi-

(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, cient or is “contained” in order to facilitate 1988). I have chosen this book because I the male viewer’s own disavowal of his own think that it is fair to say that itis the most _ insufficiency. That is, the insufficiency of the

developed account that we have of the male viewer is purportedly transferred to acoustic mirror to date in English. However, _ the voice of female characters in Hollywood I should add that I think that ifSilverman’s __ narratives. In order to understand this hyaccounts of the acoustic mirror—and of — pothesis, we need to know the nature of the related notions like voice and the choric insufficiency that the male viewer disavows, scene — are the best ones to be had, then _ on the one hand, and the way in which that

them. women characters. What does Silverman have to say about There are at least two male disavowals

perhaps we would be better off without insufficiency is transferred or imposed onto

voice, the choric scene, and the acoustic that debilitations of the female voice are mirror? What, for example, does she mean said to facilitate. They are

by voice? This is very difficult to say. Silverman never really defines it. One can, I 1. The disavowal of the fact that the male

think, generally assume that when she viewer is not the enunciator of the film, speaks of the voice in cinema, she has the and, therefore, that he lacks what is female voice in mind. However, voice, even called discursive control or mastery. Sil-

with this qualification is quite slippery in verman associates this process of disSilverman’s treatment. Sometimes it refers avowal with the containment of the literally to the female voice in cinema — 1.e., female voice through several strategies,

to what a sound recording could record. But notably: (a) the sequestering of the at other times, voice appears to include the female voice in spectacles within the film 336

Cracks in the Acoustic Mirror

(e.g., in song and dance numbers); (b) Letter to Three Wives is the only example subjecting the woman’s voice to psycho- _ she can find of disembodied female narraanalysis or to some other form of the tion in Hollywood film), and (b) the second

“talking cure” within the film itself; (c) strategy for male disavowal of the choric deforming or distorting the female voice scene is the putative dedication of the by imbuing it with a speech impediment Hollywood cinema to eliciting screams and

or an accent. cries from female characters. Hollywood 2. There is also a second, deeper level of | cinema is said to be a machine for producing male disavowal here. Putatively, it in- | female cries — a veritable scream machine. volves the male’s disavowal of the | Here Silverman has in mind films like Sorry mother’s voice as a source of the male’s = Wrong Number, as well as countless horror subjectivity or identity and asasource of | and slasher films. Silverman situates the

language. What does this mean? psychic significance of this strategy as a means by which male fantasy transfers, Both males and females acquire lan- through reversal, the infantile male helplessguage, in large part, through interaction ness, manifested in his childhood crying, to with the mother, a process Silverman chris- — the mother.

tens as the choric scene. The choric scene is As is frequent in a great deal of recent the developmental stage when, wrapped in feminist film theory —-as exemplified by the sonorous envelop of the mother’s voice, | Laura Mulvey’s avant-gardism, on the one we learn the names of things. In this choric — hand, and by Teresa de Lauretis’s qualified scene, the mother’s voice addresses the child defense of realism, on the other — Silver_ rather in the fashion of voice-over commen- __man’s diagnosis of the problems or disavowtary, a metaphor not of my making, but of als of the Hollywood cinema is connected to Silverman’s. Indeed, it seems that for Silver- a prognosis for an alternative cinema. That man this choric scene is prototypic for voice- _is, what is denied in the Hollywood cinema

over narration in film. is to be secured or restored by feminist film According to the kind of psychoanalytic __ practice.

model to which Silverman subscribes, a Of course, what is, according to Silversense of subjecthood develops in tandem man, contained, deformed, obscured and, with this process of language acquisition. In most often, simply banished by Hollywood

great measure, the mother’s voice is a _ is the voice of the mother, along with any source of that acquisition, providing what psychic acknowledgment of the acoustic Silverman calls an acoustic mirror, which is mirror and the choric scene. In turn, what analogous to the visual mirror of Lacanian Silverman regards as a major achievement in psychoanalysis — a mirror in whose reflec- feminist cinema is the acknowledgment of tion the infant male or female shapes its — the voice of the mother and of the acoustic

subjectivity. mirror — not for the purpose of some illuBy hypothesis, the male child eventually — sory sense of unity or plenitude, but as a way

tends to deny this dependence on the for women to recognize commonality as mother, often by attributing hisownhelpless- daughters (thereby securing a condition for ness and insufficiency to her. Hollywood feminist collectivity). This sense of commoncinema repeats and reinforces this disavowal _ ality, however, is also said to acknowledge by means of several strategies, including, (a) differences as a result of the separation from the lack of voice-over, female narration in the mother and the entry into the so-called Hollywood, which purportedly masks for — Lacanian stage of the symbolic, something the male viewers the remembrance of the __ that Silverman regards as posing the Oedipal threatening choric scene (Silverman says the _ issue of castration for men and women alike. 337

Polemical Exchanges

Speaking more concretely and with refer- _ the talking cure (a strained way of putting it, ence to cinema, Silverman cites a number of — since persons and not voices are what are avant-garde films that function to imple- typically psychoanalyzed); and, lastly, impos-

ment these ends, including Riddles of the ing accents and impediments on the female Sphinx by Peter Wollen and Laura Mulvey _ voice.

and Journeys from Berlin/1971 by Yvonne Consider these three strategies for a Rainer. In Riddles of the Sphinx, the choric moment. Now substract them from the scene is reinstituted through the voice-over — corpus of Hollywood filmmaking and notice

narration of mothers, like Mary Kelly and —_ that what remains are reels and reels of the fictional sphinx, as well as through talk _ narrative film in which none of these stratebetween women (thereby establishing a gies ever appear. For example, the number condition for female community, symbolized of films where women are subjected to the by the acrobats at the end of the film). talking cure are statistically infrequent, even Journeys from Berlin, among other avant- miniscule. But the male viewer seems no garde films, disembodies the woman’s voice more unhinged or disturbed by films that fail and recalls the speech of the mother as the _ to employ these strategies than by the films first voice-over. As well, that voice is in- — that do. Therefore, it seems vastly improbavested with discursive variety, speaking of ble that these strategies are performing the matters of theory, sexuality and politics. The = causal role that Silverman attributes to female voice that is purportedly contained them. by Hollywood is thus liberated and em- Here, as in so much other feminist psychopowered, given room to flex its discursive analytic film theory — indeed, as in so much

mastery. other contemporary film theory in general — we see a cauSal hypothesis advanced without

Having briefly sketched some of Silverman’s __ the slightest comprehension of what is incentral notions, let me now suggest some of _ volved in making a causal claim. For if the

the problems that they must confront. Iwill aforesaid strategies were really doing the not now dwell on the philosophical prob- — causal work of containment that Silverman lems raised by Silverman’s rather free-style —_ attributes to them, why is that containment adaptation and use of psychoanalysis — not _ still in place when the strategies in question

because there are not estimable difficulties | are absent? Nothing can be a cause of x, here, but because this is not the right forum ceteris paribus, if in its absence, x still for these issues. Instead, allow metoremark obtains. Causes and effects co-vary. But primarily on the limitations of these con- Silverman’s obliviousness to the need to

cepts for film theory and criticism. establish co-variation indicates that she lacks First — and of central importance from even minimal understanding of the kind of that perspective — isthe question ofwhether, — evidence her hypotheses require in order to

with respect to the Hollywood tradition, be intelligible. Her forays into causal analysis these concepts and the processes they de- are, in effect, virtually ridiculous. nominate fit the facts. I cannot see that they You might think that the way around this do. Ifthe stability ofthe male viewerdepends _ allegation is simply to assert that Silverman

on the kinds of containing strategies that hasn’t told us all the relevant strategies. Silverman enumerates, then he would have But I don’t think that this will work, unless

to be unhinged a great deal of the time. it can handle another embarrassing bit of Recall what some of these strategies com- —_— contrary data — to wit: all of the extremely

prise: “sequestering” the female voice within powerful female voices Hollywood has the narrative by means of deviceslike produc- — given us. Remember Rosalind Russell, Jean

tion numbers; subjecting the female voice to Arthur, Claudet Colbert, and Katherine 338

Cracks in the Acoustic Mirror

Hepburn, especially in their screwball come- = Hollywood cinema were able to listen to dis-

dies, but not only there. If the male viewer | embodied female voices on the radio all of really requires “contained” female voices in the time with no apparent tremors of insuffiorder to sustain psychic equilibrium, then ciency. Moreover, male viewers evince no

he should be destabilized by Rosalind discernible consternation with embodied feRussell’s discursive mastery in His Girl male voices in films with respect to J ReFriday and Katherine Hepburn’s in Bring- © member Momma, Jane Eyre, The Bride of ing Up Baby. Has anyone in the history of = Frankenstein, Naked City, Raw Deal, A Man film exhibited more discursive mastery than of Her Own (the fifties’ version), Jo Kill a Katherine Hepburn in Bringing Up Baby? Mockingbird and so on. What difference But since the male viewer is not discernibly should disembodiment make, since the disturbed by these cases, it seems legitimate | mother in the choric scene is not disemto infer that the putatively necessary debili- | bodied? Will Silverman dare to say she

tation of the female voice is not a proj- knows the child experiences the mother as ectable causal hypothesis. Again, the ill- | disembodied? But, in any case, I submit that considered and amateurish causal reasoning __ the technique is so rare, that no one notices

here is flabbergasting. that it is absent in films, and even when it is

As a side note, it is instructive to observe _ present, as in Letter to Three Wives, male that Silverman’s problem with powerful, viewers, contrary to Silverman’s hypothesis, active female characters parallels one of the | seem unflappable. One begins to wonder if awesome empirical flaws in Laura Mulvey’s Silverman understands what a cause is.

theory of visual pleasure, notably Mulvey’s On the other hand, the hypothesis about claim that women are only objects of the — the Hollywood scream machine faces Silvergaze and never doers in Hollywood cinema. man with another kind of problem, one that It is a strange feature of feminist psychoana- __ runs through all of her putative Hollywood lytic film theory that it is so inclined to treat —_ strategies for manipulating the female voice.

women as eternal victims. The evidence [If horror films and slasher movies are available of images of women in film is far machines for eliciting screams from female

more mixed. characters, they also do an extremely effiOther Hollywood strategies for male dis- cient job of eliciting screams from male

avowal vis-a-vis the female voice are said to — characters. Thus, if the helplessness signaled involve denying the female voice the posi- — by the screaming female character reassures tion of voice-over-narrator and the putative — the male viewer, why doesn’t the self-same fact that Hollywood narrative is dedicated to — type of scream, elicited in the same way

making women characters scream. from the male characters, undermine that As to the claim about the lack of disem- — assurance?

bodied female narration, I think that it is Similarly, male characters not only also important to stress that disembodied narra- = scream, but, remembering Silverman’s other

tion is not a very frequent technique in _ strategies, they have accents and impediHollywood films and that the infrequency of | ments “imposed” — if that’s the right word

female narration is probably best explained for a feature of a fictional character — on in terms of the infrequency of the technique __ their voice, and they are, as well, frequently

in general, along with Hollywood’s tendency sequestered, so to speak, in production to favor the male viewpoint, rather than in numbers. And, of course, Gregory Peck was terms of an attempt to repress the mother’s —_ psychoanalyzed by Ingrid Bergman in Spellvoice. Indeed, this latter motive would be — bound. Silverman owes us an explanation of difficult to sustain coherently, once one — why such examples are not problematic for recalls that the male viewers of the classical — the male viewer. Until she does, her hypothe339

Polemical Exchanges

ses about the causal function of these strate- causal generalizations and, importantly, be-

gies are, to put it mildly, nonstarters. cause the individual films that she is interAs with so much contemporary film preting, as a matter of fact, share a great theory, one wonders whether Silverman has many of Silverman’s psychoanalytic alleeven a glimmering of understanding about — giances. Therefore, in explicating these what it takes to advance acausalhypothesis. films, it is appropriate, hermeneutically Of course, she might respond that she isnot — speaking, to illuminate their psychoanalytic

talking about causal relations. But what presuppositions in the same way that it is

could a discussion of containments, the relevant to advert to Thomas Aquinas absence of which raise anxieties in males, be — when explicating Dante, or to McTaggart’s

if not causal hypotheses? otherwise fanciful theory of time when Perhaps an even more vexing problem _ explicating Eliot. with Silverman’s speculations about Holly- But even here there are some problems. wood filmmaking is her proposal of a A key element of Silverman’s account is the connection between the male viewer’s hy- _ notion of the acoustic mirror, which she only pothesized disposition toward consternation — discovered after the films in question were

over his lack of discursive mastery, and its made. Thus, her invocation of the acoustic displacement in the form of violence done to — mirror with respect to these films cannot be

the voice of female characters. For the — construed as unpacking the presuppositions male’s discursive insufficiency comes down __ of the films in question. For if Silverman to the fact that he is not narrating the story only just discovered the choric scene, it that is unfolding on the screen. But this could not have been presumed by filmmaknarration — whoever or whatever one thinks __ ers at an earlier date.

is doing it — is silent, while the female voices Perhaps the response here will be that in question need not be involved in story _ this only shows that the filmmakers could telling. So why does the male viewerrecuper- not have consciously presupposed the choric

ate his lack of control of a process of silent scene. It does not preclude the possibility narration through the deformation of audi- — that unconsciously this developmental stage

ble language that is not necessarily narra- shaped the filmmaker’s choice as a sort of tive. One might try to smuggle aconnection psychic prototype. Of course, this line of in here by describing all narration as telling | defense depends on there actually being a

stories, and by presuming that all telling | developmental stage of the precise sort requires a voice, but this involves little more Silverman specifies, and Silverman does than advancing a pun in place of an analysis. _ precious little by way of supplying therapeuThus, there is little profit in Silverman’s __ tic or psychological evidence for it.

notions of voice and the acoustic mirror for There are no summaries of observations the theory and criticism of Hollywood film. | of children. And unlike Freud or Lacan, Are these concepts any more useful when it Silverman does not have the empirical backcomes to the avant-garde? Let us consider — ground of a clinical practice upon which to the examples already mentioned: Riddles of _ base her postulations about psychosexual the Sphinx and Journeys from Berlin. As development. We seem to have little reason might be expected, Silverman’s psychoana- to believe that there is an acoustic mirror lytic idiom serves the phenomena here _ stage other than Silverman’s wish that there better than it did in her account of Holly- —_ be such a stage. That is, the acoustic mirror

wood, for the simple reason that, with appears to be completely suppositional with these avant-garde examples, she isinterpret- no evidence standing behind it, save perhaps ing individual films rather than making — the commonplace that mothers are generally 340

Cracks in the Acoustic Mirror

responsible for a great deal of our linguistic tacked onto Riddles of the Sphinx and education. (Generally, but not always; are Journeys from Berlin. male children raised by male caregivers, Of course, Silverman is not wrong to obperhaps gay male caregivers, rattled by dis- serve that the disembodied female voice is

embodied male voice-over narration?) important in these films, as well as in other But maybe the question of whether there | works of the recent feminist avant-garde.

is such a stage as that of the acoustic mirror That point was well established, if not is better left to clinical and child psycholo- obvious, long before Silverman wrote The gists. A more important question for film | Acoustic Mirror. The question is whether critics to consider is if there are choric — the concept of the acoustic mirror, with its scenes and acoustic mirrors, can we see their —§ subtending psychoanalytic hypotheses about imprint on the details of films like Riddles of _ the significance of the mother’s voice, adds

the Sphinx and Journeys from Berlin? And anything to what is already known critically here the problem is that it is very difficult to | about these films.

find strong analogies between the choric I want to suggest that it does not. scene and the scenes in those films — Many feminist filmmakers of the sevenincluding the scenes that Silverman brings __ ties, led by Yvonne Rainer, chose to employ

forth as evidence. the disembodied female voice, especially a The choric scene/acoustic mirror refers to | disembodied female voice discoursing on the mother talking to the child, envelopingit theory, as a powerful symbolic means of in a sonorous envelop and teaching it the _asserting their equality and their authority, rudiments of language and social inter- particularly in the context of the avant-garde course. As mentioned already, Silverman film world. The choice of the disembodied thinks of this as the original voice-over — voice in this situation was historically very commentary. Now the films in question astute and effective for a number of reasons. have voice-over commentary, generally by It undercut what was perceived to be a

women and sometimes by mothers (the presiding homology that body/mind : : latter especially in Riddles of the Sphinx). — spectacle/discourse : : female/male. Within However, the content of these voices is like this context, the association of the female in nothing you ever heard on your mother’s (or _film with spectacle and with the role of sex caregiver’s) Knee. It includes excursii into object was subverted and replaced with the psychoanalysis and politics, into art history, | voice of theory and reflection, that is, with the reading of dreams, and so forth. Thatis, | something that was, among other things, none of it is really vaguely like rudimentary — unavailable for ogling. The symbolism of the

language learning or the initiation of the voice-over female theorist was and still is a child into social modes of affection. But means of asserting the equality of women to surely if there is such a thing as the choric men as thinkers and speakers with equal scene, it requires more than women speak- access to authority and equal claims to

ing, even in voice-over commentary, in seriousness. order to be mobilized or even for viewers to But note that if you are willing to accept be mobilized by it. Something very like the __ this brief indication of the way in which an

Original psychic interaction should be re- account of the importance of the disemplayed. Yet neither of these films supply — bodied voices in a film like Journeys from even moderately exact analogs to the choric Berlin might go, then you have little need to scene, and, as a result, Silverman’s exegeti- —__ resort to psychoanalytic scenarios involving cal references to the mother’s voice and to _—_— acoustic mirrors. For one can explain why

the choric scene appear to be arbitrarily the choice of the disembodied voice was a 341

Polemical Exchanges

strategic one given the logic of the art unsubstantiated processes such as acoustic historical situation and the general social mirroring, obscures and muddies critical context in which Rainer and other feminist | understanding rather than enhancing it.

filmmakers made their decisions. That is, Thus, it would seem that Silverman’s their choice of this symbolism is fully explica- —_ notions of voice, the acoustic mirror and the

ble in terms of their application of what = choric scene are no more helpful in the might be called art-practical reasoning inthe — discussion of the avant-garde than they were specific cultural context in which they oper- _ in the analysis of Hollywood filmmaking.

ated. Complicating this fully rationalistic So, perhaps, it is better to dispense with story by appending references to psycho- them altogether. Or, at least, I hereby so analysis, especially with respect to such move.

342

=

= my footnotes which are peripheral to the

central, still uncontested points made by

CHAPTER XXIV - AH. Perhaps we can explain Heath’s foot-

note fetish by postulating that he takes literally the idea of weighing arguments and that

A Reply to Heath ™ he was unable otherwise to add bulk to the

= slim PN. , When Heath finally mounts his three sustained counterattacks — concerning per| spective, illusion, ~and interminability — in

only one of these, the section on in-

terminability, is he defending himself from

Whether, in fact, the hypothetical cabal of | objections directed at the core of what is Cavell, Danto, and Carroll has been and unique to his theory. In the discussions of

continues to be more instrumental than illusion and perspective he is attacking Stephen Heath in the professionalization of — general introductory points of mine that are

contemporary cinema studies is a questionI not integral to the central epistemological leave to informed readers to answer. Heath, arguments brought against distinctive eleat least, says he regards professionalism as ments of Heath’s theory — such as the appareactionary and responds to the epistemo- __ ratus and suture. There is certainly nothing logical objections propounded in my “Ad- wrong in attacking me. But I am astonished dress to the Heathen”! by whining that he __ that instead of defending what is unique to

will not sink to such rank professional his own theory, Heath spends his longest preoccupations. It is part of a pernicious — sections rejecting my positions on perspec-

conspiracy, Heath would have us believe, to tive and illusion in the name of such consider epistemology to be the formal — semioticians as Coleridge. Respecting editoinspection and evaluation of theories. Thus, __rially imposed limitations of space, I shall maintaining what he fancies to be his politi- | address only a few of his points. cal purity, Heath never addresses the core objections of AH: that suture theory ‘Ss Misrepresentation: Or, the Author Is Not strictly speaking, vacuous; that his deploy- Dead ment of psychoanalysis is not properly constrained by consideration of countervailing § The frequent lack of logical and grammaticognitive-psychological hypotheses; that his cal connectives in QC and its strained use of analyses of the various mechanics of subject | words often make it difficult to ascertain positioning are based on equivocation; that — what is being said. I therefore expected that his metaphors are uselessly obscure; that his | some questions would arise over my charnotion of unity is illicit; that his concept of —_acterizations of its substance, but I could the cinematic apparatus defies the pragmatic not have anticipated misrepresentation as

requirements of theory building. Heath’s main line of defense. RetrospecInstead, Heath raises a smokescreen in tively, it appears that the turgid style of QC order to disguise the fact that he is not deal- _—is an evasion tactic. The ambiguity of the

ing with issues raised in AH and wastes a __ formulations in QC allows them to be great deal of time itemizing my alleged mis- = applied under one interpretation, but they

representations of QC. But surprisingly, | can, when challenged, be defended under nearly half of his complaints — such as his at- another interpretation, one that turns an tack of my quotation of Hegel (AH, p.93)- __ ostensibly radical hypothesis into a truism. are extracted from side comments made in _ For example, Heath depicted the relation of 343

Polemical Exchanges

narrative and perspective in cinema as an “subjective image,” he never explicitly parts interlocking system which overcomes the company with the idea that the relation of the potential disturbances of film movement in _ character to what he sees in the point-of-view

virtue of the narrative’s capacity to center schema is “rectilinear,” “orientated,” “logisubjects — a capacity which reinforces what cal,” and “precise.”? Since Heath has already

sounds like a functionally equivalent effect told us that point-of-view is “a kind of of perspective (for example, QC, pp. 36— _— perspective within the perspective system”

37). But when this is attacked as equivoca- (QC, p. 44), what are we to make of these tion, we are told that all that was claimed by _ claims about rectilinear space? Heath might the initially obscure text was the paltry and claim that he neither endorses nor criticizes

widely known truth that, historically, one §Mitry on the issue of rectilinear space, but finds that perspective paintings have been simply drops the quotation as some sort of used to portray narratives. But why does historical documentation (whose point reone need the particular terms “centering” |= mains unspecified). Yet even Heath must and “positioning” if that is all one wants to —_ know that if one quotes a passage, does not say? In PN Heath has undertaken a reread- criticize it, and employs it materially in one’s

ing of QC that represents it as a string of | exposition, then that counts as an endorseself-evident truths whose rejection implies ment. Clearly, in the section above, Heath

perversion. bases the “joining operation” of the point-ofview schema on the model of the eye-line

; ; _. match, which is characterized as a logical,

On Point-of-View Editing rectilinear — shall we say “geometrically . In section iv of PN, Heath rejects my accurate” — organization of space. characterization of his account of point-of- The preceding discussion of rectilinear view editing as a “perspective system” that is Space is couched in “appearance talk.” This

somehow geometrically engineered. Yet in CaM be interpreted in at least two ways. his lengthy introduction to the relation of | Saying the space appears rectilinear can shots in point-of-view editing, we read: mean that it /Jooks and is rectilinear in its

construction, just as when I ask if the dean If in the left of the frame an actor in close-up is appeared healthy I am asking for accurate looking off right, he has an empty space infrontof information about his state. Or, saying that

him; if the following shot shows an empty space to h tilinear could mean the left and an object to the right, then the actor’s the space appears rec 4: ; look appears to cross an orientated, rectilinear, and that the space looks rectilinear but that this thus logical space: it seems to bear with precision IS a deceptive illusion. Sp ectators believe the on the object. One has an eye-line match. The ‘relationship between shots is geometrically

look, that is, joins form of expression-—the precise, but it is not. In AH, I show that composition of the images and their dispositionin neither of these alternatives is relevant to relation to one another — and form of content- — point-of-view editing. It is unnecessary for the definition of the action of the film in the the editor to arrange point-of-view schemas movement of looks, exchanges, objects seen and —_— by means of the rules of perspective nor do

so on. Point of view develops on the basis of this audiences mistakenly believe, nor must they joining operation of the look, the camera taking mistakenly believe, that the relation of shots

the position of a character in order to show the ; ; :; .

spectator what he or she sees (QC, p. 46, italics n a point-of-view schema is geometrically

added). precise. I emphasize instead that pragmatic considerations of the narrative context will The quotation that initiates the preceding — be of prime importance in the reception of

passage is from Mitry. And though Heath _ the point-of-view structure. Undoubtedly goes On to criticize Mitry’s account of the Heath will say that this is his position, but 344

A Reply to Heath

then why did he include that nonsense about I take this as a statement that Heath

logical, rectilinear space? does not study causation as it is typically In addition, Heath misconstrues my in- understood, but studies something new —

vented King Kong example. The problem is “structural causality” — which must be segrethat if the space is rectilinear, then the image — gated by quotation marks in the manner of

of Darrow should be taken from a high a neologism and which is grasped by the angle about thirty feet overhead, whereas,I movements of contradictions. Heath, of contend, the point-of-view schema will work — course, refrains from defining any of his if the shot is taken at eye-level. Moreover, — terms, but we are left to think that his study this incongruity will not be explained by the is of something other than causality as that type of account Heath offers of the Gutman is normally conceived. case in Maltese Falcon because mine is not It seems obvious that the only reason the an example of subjective marking. Itis Justa | above passage offers for ideological analy-

violation of rectilinear mapping. But the ses’ not being construed as “a problem in spectator would understand the cut despite | cause and effect” is that cause and effect its failure to match the ostensible geometry analysis asserts an “absolute point of ori-

of the scene. gin,” a totally obscure formulation that is only given the vaguest explication in terms of some sort of analogy with the facility of

Causation solving equations in the first degree. But the Heath claims that my footnote about his ordinary notion of cause and effect is not stand on causation is a misrepresentation. I tied to expression in such restricted mathesaid the analyses in QC are causal (AH, matical terms. Moreover, | See no reason to

p. 92) because the conception of contra- think that structural causality is at all dictions — what Heath studies instead of different trom causality simpliciter and cercauses — are treated as compelling forces tainly not mn virtue of seni’ demonstrated that produce states of affairs, because QC difference in the symbolic formulations of

explicitly uses the concept of the causation these concepts. ;

of the subject and because the use of , In PN, Heath Parenthetically defines metaphors, like those of the cinema ma- Point of origin” in a new way: Now it chine and the apparatus, strike me as indicates that the study of ideology should cause-talk. Did Heath deny his analyses not be economist. OK. But this still does not

are causal? He wrote: show that “structural causality” traffics in “contradictions” that are different from

. . . it must be seen that the notion of determina- ordinary causes and effects. tion which has proved — or has been made to prove — such a stumbling block for ideological In Praise of Lacan analysis cannot be conceived of as a problem in

cause-and-effect with its answer an explanation Section vi of PN is devoted to a throwaway from an absolute point of origin (as though —_ remark that I make in a footnote in which I

historical materialism were to be, in Engel’s say that Heath congratulates Lacan for the words, ‘ easier than the solution of a simple discovery of lalangue. In QC (p. 80), Heath equation in the first degree”). Analysis will be concerned not with determinations in this mecha- asserts that lalangue Overcome S shortco me nistic sense but with contradictions, it being in the Ings of the lang ue/parole distinction VIS-a-

movement of these contradictions that can be VIS understanding the subject in language. grasped the set of determinations — the “struc- Given Heath’s commitments, isn’t this tural causality” — focused by a particular social Something that recommends Jalangue to

fact, institution or work (QC, pp. 6-7). the serious film theorist (even if Heath 345

Polemical Exchanges

may want to modify other aspects of finds no other reason given for whatever the

Lacan)? problem is with the reproduction thesis ex-

What is so peculiar about this little distrac- cept that images are chosen subjects about tion of Heath’s is that he ignores the fact that |= which we have the right to ask the why and

my footnote is attached to one of the most —_ the wherefore of their choice. I spoke of damning objections I make against suture selection and Heath uses choice. But I do not theory. In order to avoid vacuity, a theory | see how my use of a synonymous charactermust not only explain why x is the case but ization of the problem should raise any also under what circumstances x would not difficulties.

be the case. If I attempted to explain both Heath believes that I misconstrued that why a certain flower would live and why it — which he was identifying as the problem.

would die by saying “God wills it,’ my | Whereas I thought the problem concerned explanation would be vacuous. Similarly, | objectivity, Heath holds the issue is that the Heath deals with both classical Hollywood reproduction thesis overlooks that films films and structuralist-materialist films in have ideological contents and usages. And terms of suture. There seems to be nothing _ selectivity is offered as the explicit mark of an avant-garde filmmaker can do to achieve __ the ideological implication. But then are not nonsuture; attempts to subvert suture result _ films always bound to be ideological? And if instead in an intensity of meaning. Thus, by _ they are ideological, doesn’t that exclude explaining everything, suture explains noth- — them from the realm of objectivity? In most ing. Since it is this rather deep issue which usages, to be ideological entails a failure in

preoccupies the page of AH that Heath objectivity. Moreover, Heath himself has concerns himself with, why is he wasting said that this section of QC is heavily space on the question of whether or notheis Althusserian. And does that not imply that

congratulating Lacan? if films are ideological, then they at least are not scientifically objective (in the somewhat

as extended sense of science Althusser emLumiere ploys)? Furthermore, what beyond the fact In PN vii, Heath reproduces two paragraphs that images are selected from somewhere

from my footnote 32 (AH, p. 115). In one for a chosen use is given by Heath as a paragraph I present Heath’s discussion of _ reason to hold that the images are somehow

Lumiére and also something called the problematic? “reproduction thesis,” while in the other Heath implies that he has some really paragraph Icomment that Heath seemstobe | complex notion of objectivity that would not arguing that what is wrong withthe reproduc- _ fall afoul of my simplistic objections. But tion thesis is that in saying films reproduce _ the burden of producing that account is his; reality it ignores the issue of selection. By _ he does not refute me by merely suggesting using the word “seems,” I was signaling that that he has such an unspecified concept up

one could not be certain of what Heath was his sleeve. Also, when he produces this claiming. I thought he was asserting that concept of objectivity, we will still have to Lumiére’s claims about his films were incor- _ return to the passage in question to see how

rect because the films were not objective the argument there fares in light of this insofar as they were representations of — secret definition. Lastly, Heath says I have “chosen subjects,” and that, furthermore, an entity-view of objectivity. I would have

this objection could be extended to the thought that my repeated emphasis on the claims of the reproduction thesis. Searching methodology and practice of rational inHeath’s original passage (QC, p. 4), one = quiry would have more than suggested that 346

A Reply to Heath

my notion of objectivity is not an entity- | manner of implementation is not straightfor-

view, but a pragmatic view. wardly intelligible. That, of course, was my point.

Unity and Production

In PN iii, Heath accuses me of falsely Unity and Diversity attributing to him the belief that “acoherent In PN ii, Heath completely misrepresents narrative film is not really a unity unless it the issue. I hold that within the Western reveals that it is a production —a fictional — tradition of the arts — to which, as a matter world constructed by a team of cineastesand of historical fact, narrative film belongs — by a process of suture” (AH, pp. 151-152). | spectators are instructed to derive aesthetic But Heath has wrenched this sentence outof pleasure from the relations of coherence context. In fact, the idea is not attributed to between the complex and diverse elements him. It occurs within a series of proleptic — that comprise artworks. We learn to attend

arguments by which I attempt to imagine to patterns of notes, recurring plot motifs, and to refute counterarguments that a “fol- | systematic character contrasts, correlations lower of Heath” (AH, p. 151) might attempt between formal elements and themes, and to concoct in order to deal with my objec- _ so on. For this sort of appreciation to occur

tions to one of Heath’s “interminability | we must presuppose that the spectator arguments.” I assume that prolepsis is a knows that the artwork and/or film is comrespectable strategy in rational inquiry. Its | posed of heterogeneous elements and dimenpurpose is to foreclose certain directions of _ sions. That is, I deny that in the tension argument before they are proposed. Heath — between unity and heterogeneity there is a

may not think that this particular line of | point where some totalizing impression of argument is worth foreclosing, but he can- homogeneity dominates the spectator.

not claim that I have said he holds the I do not deny that at certain stages in his position in question. I am only warning account, Heath does imply that pleasure interested parties to steer clear of this | comes from the play of unity and diversity.

option. But for Heath it appears that an illusion of

Heath thinks the countermove I envision homogenizing totality always prevails, at is extremely ill-advised. So do I. For once, _ least as far as the spectator’s experience is

Heath and I agree. Our disagreement, I concerned. The fiction film works to prosurmise, is that Heath does not believe duce an illusion of homogeneity for the anyone would try this gambit. But I have — spectator; that is, the spectator fails to heard the claim that this or that film is not —_ recognize that the film is a heterogeneity. unified exactly because its various processes But this is what I reject — the idea that there

of production (specified according to the is any point where the spectator is overparti pris of the commentator) are not whelmed by an impression of homogeneity acknowledged. But, then, it would follow so compelling that all recognition of heterothat were the film unified, it would acknowl- geneity disappears.

edge its processes of production. Given the In AH, I based my contention that dialectics of the filmworld, I believe thatsuch — spectators are not swept away by illusions of

an argument might be mounted, since itis | homogeneity on the grounds that artworks entailed by the strategy that discovers fail- | and/or films are explicitly disseminated ures of unity on the basis of a work’s masking — within our tradition as unities-in-diversities

that it isa production. Iagree with Heaththat rather than as homogeneities per se. In it is a confused position, one whose very addition, when asked why they think such 347

Polemical Exchanges

and such a film is unified, spectators report — the subject sutures or fills in the discourse. “because the film’s parts hang together” and Thus, adding part of what is deleted in PN,

not because they, the spectators, undergo “interpellation can in no way be the key some ecstatic ALL-IS-ONE experience. _ either to ideology or to subjectivity (the fact

And, of course, “unity” is always unity in of the individual), the two being held as terms of something — parts, elements, as- interdependent” (QC, p. 103, italics added).

pects, dimensions, and so on. So to experi- What is the consequence of this? It ence unity is to experience the unification of — suggests that my initial account of Heath’s

parts. There is no homogeneity per se, program is too Althusserian, but, then, though QC appears to assert that for the | Heath himself admits that he is initially spectator viewing film, there issome overrid- §Althusserian. By the time Heath develops

ing illusion of this sort. the concept of suture and the importance of Heath muddies the waters by saying that — the subject’s part, however, I am explicitly

he, as observer and theoretician, knows both aware that the emphasis has been added that spectator pleasure in films, at certain to the subject’s “filling-in” operation and stages, results in the tension between unity my criticisms accommodate this (e.g., AH,

and diversity, and that, again as a theorist, p. 131). That is, when Heath presents he knows films are heterogeneous. I never us with his version of suture, which is disputed that as a theorist he upheld these meant to overcome the simplicities of the | beliefs. Rather, I question the validity of his — initial Althusserian allegiances, my argu-

theoretical claim that spectators are ulti- ments against his position have followed mately overwhelmed by the homogeneity apace and gained in complexity. Specifically,

effect.? I contest his psychoanalytic account of the subject’s suturing of film discourse by means . of an alternative cognitive-psychological per-

Interpellation spective. That Heath realizes that my initial I wrote, “Heath’s basic premise is that a _ elision of subject construction and interprime function of ideology is to construct — pellation cannot be traced to my ensuing, subjects. (This is also known as positioning _—__ detailed attacks on his theory is shown by the

or ‘interpellating’ subjects)” (AH, p. 91). fact that he finds the error in no later Heath counterposes this to part of a sen- __ sections of AH.

tence from QC that says, among other things, that interpellation is not the key to Interminability ideology. Clearly I made some error, but it is

not, I believe, one that has deep repercus- | Heath begins his section “Interminability” sions for later criticisms in AH, especially | by misrepresenting me. In AH (pp. 140those involving objections to Heath’s suture 141), I opened with a brief contextualizing

theory. remark to the effect that there is a wideMy primary claim in the preceding quota- _— spread tendency nowadays to regard texts as

tion is not challenged by Heath, viz., that in some sense infinite. I mentioned two posiideology is concerned to construct subjects. tions within this trend: that each reader has My error is in parenthetically defining “sub- his own meaning, and that since words are inject construction” by means of “interpel- — terdefined they are claimed to lead to infinite lation,” whereas interpellation is only an semiosis. Heath vociferously spurns _alleelement in subject construction. The subject — giance to these tenets. Why does he bother? I

is not simply positioned by the ideological never attributed them to him. I specified that address but there is also interaction between _he has his own position which is concerned the subject (subjectivity) and discourse- — with ceaseless subject construction. 348

A Reply to Heath

Another major misinterpretation in this can’t answer. He demands to know the section is the fantasy that my objections to criteria by which I count the adult and the Heath’s position are grounded in speech act _ sickly child as the same enduring substance. theory. Admittedly, I attempt to make the To meet Heath’s attack I need only produce enounced/enunciation distinction intelligible | the requested criteria. So: A is the same to English-speaking readers by stipulatively — person as B if and only if A and B have the

reframing it as a distinction between a same (i.e., numerically the same) mental statement and a speech act (AH, p. 148). But — states and perform the same (numerically

no reference ismadetotheformalmachinery the same) actions. Here the criteria are of speech-act theory, nor does any argument __ stated tenselessly. But we can apply this rely on this theory. If [had meant toemploy — format to the sickly child/adult case in the

it, I would have introduced it explicitly as I following way: An adult, A, is the same have done in the past when Ihave employed _ person as the child, B, if and only if the it.4 Instead, all I did was to Anglicize the mental states that A possesses and the

enounced/enunciation distinction. actions that A performs are the same actions In my original attack on Heath’s use ofthe (numerically) that B will perform and the enounced/enunciation distinction I stressed |§ same mental states (numerically) that B will

(a) that I did not see how this distinction have. established a pervasive split in the subject, Heath charges that I have no place for the and (b) that I did not see how any such splitin | unconscious in my framework; this is false, the subject in linguistic representations could since I endorse the concept when employed be extrapolated to cinematic representation. | under the proper constraints (AH, pp. 131-

I offered a battery of arguments toshowthat 132). Indeed, I even propose the way in the mere fact of the distinction did not which the unconscious will figure in quesportend a split. And I also searched for an tions of numerical identity (AH, p. 101). argument from Heath which would demon- _— Since the unconscious will count as some

strate that the distinction entailed a split sort of mental state, then if A and B are the subject. In his response, Heath still refrains | same person, they will have the numerically

from supplying an argument, preferring same unconscious states, motives, intenoracular, apodictic pronouncements. He _ tions, and so forth. writes, “Carroll refuses the distinction but if Heath asks whether the kind of thing I by some misfortune he can’t get ridofit,then identify as a continuing entity is a mind or a he’d rather be two whole subjects than a body. This, I think, places the question at split, a subject in process. Still, split there is, | the wrong level of abstraction. The selfof the subject in language whichismorethan identifiable sickly child/adult persists under the positions, the representations ceaselessly — the sortal-concept human being rather than

effected and assumed” (PN, p. 107). Of under that of either mind or body. Heath course, I never said the distinction couldn’t may be asking what makes something a be made; I only questioned whether it member of the class human being, but this is entailed a split subject. All Heathhasdonein logically separate from and not directly response is to beg the question by asserting — relevant to the debate about the metaphysi-

that there is a split. cal conditions for numerical individuation. Heath challenges my dissolution of the Nor do I believe that the question of what a

supposed subject split in the case of the human being is will be answered by an statement, “When I think what a healthy unqualified vote for mind or body. But child I once was” (QC, p. 117). The nature again this is a separate matter from that of Heath’s rebuttal is a rhetorical question — which is at stake: the request for criteria which for some unstated reason he believesI ‘that would be operable for use with ques349

Polemical Exchanges

tions of numerical identity such as Heath implicated there as a subject. That he projects

asks in PN footnote 59.° his distance as ego, proposes himself as subject-

Among the linguistic phenomena to master of a simple analogy that in no sense which Heath briefly alludes as evidence of | concerns him and is just a term in the pure subject splits is the future tense. This is ad- = #9 of an argument devoid of any “I,” does duced to meet my challenge to him to specify not stop the discursive act, the reality of the

, ; oe production of the utterance, the involvement of

: . proauced ulterance quite ailrerenuy

some third-person subject splits insofar as him in that produced utt te different!

the best evidence Heath offers for subject from the projected place of his subject-mastery splits in QC is based on a first person case Of = (pN, pp. 106-107).

the liar paradox. I can almost grasp why someone might imagine that the liar paradox Where are we to locate the subject split in suggests some kind of split. But the future my utterance? There are not two grammatitense can hardly be worked into even sucha __ cal subjects in its main clause. Moreover, the

loose, intuitive suggestion. If I say “That sentence in question does not split the naval officer will be the next King,” where is —_ reference of what it identifies as a common

the split subject? There are not two gram- _ mode of speech in our culture. I wrote the matical subjects. Nor are there two ontologi- — sentence, reporting a linguistic practice that I

cal subjects, that is, two distinct referents: do not indulge in. But for whom does this the naval officer and the King. For the naval constitute a split? For the reader? Why? He officer and the King are the same human __ knows the article was written by me; that I being. The only way to derive two subjects —_- write about others does not split the reader’s

would be to attempt to argue that the naval _—identity. Nor am I split because I speak of

officer is not now the King. The entity in others. Yes, one can make a distinction question, however, is not standardly indi- | between me and those I write about. But viduated under the sortal-concept naval exactly where is the division or split to be officer but under that of human being. Fur- —_‘ found — that is, in what ostensible subject?

thermore, even if there were split subjects | Heath maliciously charges that I had an in future-tense, linguistic representations, | immoral intent in writing the given sentence. what would that have to do with film? Film Thetheoretical issue, however, should not be lacks a system of tenses. Moreover, were one — obscured by the slander. If x has a motive for metaphorically to extend the idea of tenses _—_ uttering a sentence, but the motive is not

to film (e.g., to say that flashbacks were in expressed in the utterance —x says “The the past tense), one would still have to admit apples are delicious” in order to please the that the (metaphorically characterized) use —_ neighbor who grew them — neither x himself

of the future tense in film (flashforwards?) is | nor anyone who overhears him is split, very rare. Hence, if Heath meansto base the —__ though each is numerically distinct from the

putative existence of subject splits in film on other. What possible connection could this the idea of a filmic future tense, then he kind of case have to Heath’s other purported must acknowledge that such splits are infre- evidence of splits in language: the liar paraquent, rather than generic phenomena ob- _— dox and the future tense? You can only lump

taining in all cinematic representations. all this disparate material together by free As evidence for subject splits, Heath, association if you start out by trying to find

omnisciently, writes: something in every case that can equivocatWhen Carroll brings out his “in a certain patriar- ingly be described by some connotation of

chal way of speaking, it is said that a woman is the word “split.” But that is to accept not complete until she has borne a child,” we still antecedently the notion of a split rather than have an enounced and an enunciation, a state- | to demonstrate its acceptability. ment and the fact of its production, with Carroll In the preceding passage from Heath, the 350

A Reply to Heath

enounced/enunciation distinction is identi- ing because the apparent opposition Heath fied as that between the statement and the _ still insinuates needs dissolving.

fact of its production. If, in certain cases, The opposition above appears to be that there is a distinction between the grammati- _ the film is complete as a production (yet, cal subject of a statement and the speaker, nevertheless) also remains to be completed

whom one might call a psychological _ by spectators, that is, sutured, made cohersubject — who, moreover, is distinct from — ent, filled in. Notice, first, that we have the psychological subjects who hear the moved from a relation between a speaker statement — how do these admitted distinc- and his production to that of a message and tions, of which it makes no sense to say that _its receiver. But also there is no opposition

they are masked in ordinary language, here. The film is an embodied object (not a portend a split in any of the subjects isolated = physical object simpliciter) which is com-

by our distinctions? The liar paradox might plete in terms of its construction as a be advertised as “splitting” the grammatical numerically distinct entity before its release, subject in some ill-defined way, but Heath while it is also an object for use that remains fails, except by way of his unwavering — to be completed, that is, to fulfill the purpose ambiguity concerning the reference of the for whichit was made. Hence, there is no uniterm “subject,” to demonstrate how any _ vocal sense in which it is both complete and psychological subject is split in language or not complete. It is complete in the sense of

in representation in general. having been constructed as an object even if Heath spends a great deal of energy _ it has yet to be “completed” in the extended attacking an analogy that I draw between _ sense of fulfilling its purpose. Thus, there films and cars. I introduced the analogy to _is nothing theoretically interesting in the fixshort-circuit an opposition between the film _ ity/present enunciation, complete/not com-

as enounced in the past versus the film plete opposition. Indeed, there 1s no opposias present enunciation, which opposition — tion if we explicate the terms at issue. If seems to suggest that the film is in some __ there were, we could call every object made univocal sense both complete and not com- _sfor use, like a car, both complete and not

plete. Heath writes, “A film is always complete. But this seems absurd. finished, enounced; and finished, enounced Heath challenges this argument by attackeven in its enunciation which is given, fixed, ing the car/film analogy. Films are different repeated at every ‘showing’ or ‘screening’” from cars; for example, films communicate, (QC, p. 216). And in the next paragraph he _ cars transport. But how do these and other adds, “Yet in that fixity, that givenness, disanalogies show that films can be said to there is nevertheless, the making of the film be complete and not complete in some by the spectator.” Initially I thought that univocal sense while cars cannot be?

this was meant to propound a paradox because I thought that the liar paradox was Illusion the model for the enounced/enunciation distinction. Now apparently Heath rejects | Heath begins “Brecht” with a few selfthe idea that the distinction entails a para- serving misreadings of “A Brief Digres-

dox, though, as I have shown, this is sion: The Legacy of Brecht’s Errors” (AH, advanced at the cost of sacrificing what little pp. 103-109). In this section I was prievidence there is for the idea of subject marily attacking a tendency of ’70s film splits. Even if there is not meant to be an _ theory that castigated the visual dimension outright paradox in Heath’s formulation, | of mimetic cinema as illusionistic, an idea however, I still think that the argument that that film theorists unquestionably associemploys the car/film analogy is worth mak- ated with Brecht. Heath complains that 351

Polemical Exchanges

neither he nor Brecht believes that cases of | pose our knowledge that cinematic images

visual representation prompt illusions. are representations. For example, to comThe case for Brecht is mixed. Some mend a film as lifelike entails that the film is passages (e.g., AH, p. 104) show that Brecht being compared knowingly to something did slip into illusion/delusion talk. On the — else — obviously what the film represents.

other hand, I explicitly acknowledge the The illusion/delusion theorist, however, existence of other writings which suggest holds that the viewer believes the cinematic that the passages that I quote may not reflect image is its referent. But if normal practices the core of Brecht’s thinking (AH, p. 104).I —_ entail that viewers know they are watching

then note, however, that the illusion/de- cinematic images, then it follows that the lusion thesis, which film scholars thought normal viewer believes he is viewing cinethey got from Brecht, was still worth attack- |§ matic images and not their referents. That ing because of its influence on film studies. _is, combining the illusion/delusion theory Since I make it clear that it is film studiesand — with certain ordinary facts about cinema

not Brecht that is under fire, why does viewing we derive a contradiction — that the Heath waste his energy vindicating Brecht? — viewer both believes and does not believe he Furthermore, I never attributed a simple _is viewing cinematic images.

illusion/delusion model to Heath but refer I suggest that we dissolve this contradic(AH, pp. 108, 109, 141) to his position asa __ tion by abandoning as contrary to fact the variation on the Brechtian framework — one __ proposition that people in any literal sense

that demands an entirely unique set of believe that cinematic images are the refercounter-arguments. Indeed, my attack on _ ents of said images. Instead, let us say that the simple illusion/delusion model is called — spectators regard cinematic images as repre-

“A Digression” because it precedes the sentations of objects and events in virtue of

attack on QC. a delimited range of recognizable similariIn this section my basic thesis is that the __ ties that obtain visually between the image characterization of the relation between film and what it denotes. This rids us of the idea

spectators and what they see in terms of ' of illusion which is not only empirically illusions is misguided. For anything that is outlandish, but which also affords us no properly called a visual illusion either de- _— particular explanatory advantages over a ceives or is liable to deceive normal percipi- —_— recognizability model. That is, we can ex-

ents in standard viewing conditions. But plain why films are engaging, exciting, cinematic images are not illusions in this — enthralling, and so on because people recog-

sense. For example, information derived nize the events the films stand for and from binocular and motion parallax in stan- = viewers are so moved by such events. We

dard conditions quickly reveals that cine- learn nothing about movie responses by matic images are two-dimensional, not saying people believe they are in the pres-

three-dimensional stimull. ence of the actual referents of cinematic

In addition, surface irregularities such as images. Indeed, such a theory would have to scratches, grain, flickers, marks for reel | become very complex to explain why no one changes, the glow of reflected light, and so _ flees from Godzilla.

on require that the film viewer “see The most dazzling portions of Heath’s through” the medium to comprehend the _ section on illusion are his attempts to show represented scene. But to “see through” that my position is self-contradictory. Heath these irregularities must presuppose that the —_ uniformly essays this by taking my original

percipient knows he is viewing a cinematic sentences out of context, changing their image. Likewise, many of the institutional- |§ meaning, and juxtaposing his version of what ized, appreciative responses to films presup- _‘I say to snippets from other sections of AH. 352

A Reply to Heath

Heath quotes my “Most plays and films, of some recognizable similarities between when seen in standard viewing conditions, cinematic images and what they denote.® don’t look like events and locales outside the Heath then abruptly jumps to a different theater” (AH, p. 106). He interprets thisasa discussion in which he tears a passage of blanket statement “denying that plays and mine out of context, cutting into the argufilms can have relations of looking like events | ment midway so that no one can tell either and locales” (PN, p. 94). Heath then notes what distinctions are being made or why. that this does not correspond to my use of ' The section under dispute comes from AH,

resemblance elsewhere, since I say that pp. 115-16. In the broader context, what is mimetic pictures refer by way of resembling _at issue here is whether or not we identify

objects (AH, p. 113). But tellingly, Heath the camera image with our own vision. I drops the qualification that I consistently | deny that we do. I claim that if we did, we make: that resemblance in mimesis is always | would phenomenologically experience the in terms of resemblance in certain respects, image in its entirety as coextensive with our

that is, not exact resemblance. visual field. We would be “inside” the visual

Heath’s refutation hinges on the interpre- _ field of the camera image as we are “inside”

tation one gives to “like” in the original our own sensations and perceptions. But statement (AH, p. 106). It occurs in a this “insideness” does not characterize our paragraph concerned to argue that people | experience of camera images. Most of the don’t mistake things such as film images for _ time the camera “sees” more than we do; its their referents because of the dissimilarities | boundary is wider than ours. Characteristibetween film images and what they are _ cally we can only focus on those portions of images of. In this context, “don’t look like” —_ the image where there is action. The visual obviously means that film images cannot be _ field of the camera affords possibilities of

taken as having exactly the same visual perception. It enables us to scan and to properties as their referents. That “like” can —_ gather new sensations and perceptions from mean having “exactly the same qualities” isa the self-same image as, for example, when a

perfectly acceptable dictionary sense, and it new detail appears in the background of a is obviously the appropriate meaning given deep-focus shot. my context. Images from Rio Lobo don’t We look at camera images; we don’t see-in look exactly like what they represent nordo __ them, that is, we treat the image (as a whole)

they look exactly like Wooster Street. Thus,I as existing independently from our sensa-

can keep the three things separate. On the tions rather than treating the image (as a other hand, when I say mimetic pictures whole) as a replica of our occurrent percepresemble their referents, I carefully add that tion. We are “outside” the image as a whole

this is resemblance in certain respects. Itis | rather than experiencing the image (as a not contradictory to assert that cinematic | whole) as though it were co-extensive with images do not share exactly all the visual our perception (i.e., as if we were “inside” qualities of their referents— indeed, they _ the projector beam in the way we always feel don’t share enough to fool people normally — = “inside” the visual boundary of our occurrent

while also maintaining that these images perceptions). share some recognizable visual characteris- What is being compared here as more tics with their referents. My original state- similar is the experience of looking at ment was not a blanket denial of the possibil- | cinema images and the experience of look-

ity of any similarities, but a denial that ing at reality, and these are analogized in cinematic images look exactly like their terms of a feeling of the existence of referents. I neither contradicted myself nor something independent of our perception — did I foreclose the possibility of the existence a feeling of “outsideness” that accompanies 353

Polemical Exchanges

both. I claim that this makes seeing a Throughout my attack on ciné-Brechtmotion picture like seeing a real/nonrepre- _—ianism I explicitly rely on a strong sense of sentational event. But I add that it is only _ illusion, a deception sense. I admit that there in virtue of this specified comparison that I may bea weaker sense in which any pictorial introduce the Cavellian notion that the — representation is called an illusion if it shares

experience of viewing a film is like our a specifiable range of recognizable visual experience of viewing the world-— that is, similarities with the kind of entity or action it

we look at both. Heath brings forth a depicts (AH, p. 106). But I explicitly oppose

contradiction by noting that ten pages this weaker sense; and I do not believe earlier I said that most films do not look _ theorists should use it, including Gibson, like events. Well, again, it is not contradic- White, Hagan, Gombrich, et al., with whom

tory to say that films do not look exactly I agree on other matters. like the events they denote, but that they Heath wants to defend the weak sense of do bear similarities to the originals in some __ illusion. He characterizes film viewing in respects. Moreover, Heath claims that my _ terms of having “a belief that one is watchstipulation of “outsideness” as the only _ ing a kind of reality of life.” One reading of relevant point of comparison is wrong _ this less than luminous notion might be that because there are other points of resem- we see that a given film has certain recogniz-

blance. But with this argument Heath able similarities to something else, viz., to misconstrues what it is I am comparing. what it depicts (whether living or dead or The screen image is not being compared to inanimate). But then why connect this to the the event. At this point, what I am discuss- _ notion of “illusion?” What is to be gained by ing is the comparison of the experience of | formulating the connection as one of illusion

seeing a picture with the experience of rather than one of recognizability? Of seeing an event. Here the only pertinent course, Heath may have something more in similarity I find is “outsideness.” The fact mind by his obscure “kind of reality of life,” that the image and the event may resemble __ but until he defines this expression, what he

each other in many more respects is irrele- | means is anyone’s guess, though it does vant to the question of how the experiences __ sound like the strong sense of illusion.

qua experiences feel similar. What other If we discard the notion of illusion, we phenomenological similarities does Heath can characterize our emotional, aesthetic, think obtain between these experiences? and intellectual responses to films by saying When Heath parodies my denial that we _ that we know that a given film represents x take film images as real in any sense, he isat _—_ (or, represents x as-a-so-and-so), something his most willfully myopic as areader. Mineis _-we find gripping, involving, exciting, bor-

unquestionably a statement made in an ing, funny, historically accurate, anachronisargument where what is presupposed as __ tic, engrossing, and so on. Why do I have to relevant is the standard dichotomy between _feel that I am in India in order to be uplifted representations of things and real things in by Gandhi or to be impressed by its histori-

themselves. What I am asserting is that we cal details (indeed, how could I be imdo not take cinematic representations of pressed by its historical details if I thought I things to be the very three-dimensional was with Gandhi in India)? Can’t I simply objects and events they depict. Obviously recognize that the film depicts the kind of camera images are also existing objects courageous life that excites me and that the (both physical and phenomenal). But inthe _film incorporates more period details than

argument in question the dichotomy be- many other films I have seen of India? tween real thing and nonexistent thing is | Heath should explain what the weak sense

never at issue. of illusion allows him to account for that 354

A Reply to Heath

another explication in terms of knowledge sions. So what? I never denied that it was and recognizable similarities cannot. In- — possible to construct deceptive visual illustead Heath only recycles old saws such as __ sions — consider the Ames experiments.’ My

that of the suspension of disbelief, an point throughout was that such rare cases are unlikely hypothesis that proposes that we not the primary data for discussing the are always, contrary to all available phe- — standard practices of representation in our nomenological evidence, thrusting ourselves — culture. Heath wonders why I do not con-

into a special cognitive state whenever we | sider the use of perspective apart from

encounter representations. pictures. Why should I? Isn’t our disagree-

Perspective . , , ; ;

ment about pictorial perspective? Heath

. insinuates that I wrongly accuse him of claiming that perspective uniquely suits capi-

Heath begins his discussion of perspective _ talism. But the footnote in question (AH, by denying that he holds a deception sense _ p. 114) makes no mention of Heath and it of illusion. But in his introduction to the _ explicitly cites Brakhage and Berger as protopic of perspective, he quotes his own _ ponents of this view. Heath also repeatedly statement (QC, p. 28) in which he points out suggests that I correlate perspective and that a component element of the account of truth despite the fact that I explicitly reject perspective on which he relies is “deceptive this correlation in favor of the notion of illusion.” Heath never rescinds or qualifies _ pictorial fidelity (AH, p. 114). Throughout

this aspect of the operating definition of his rebuttal, Heath produces examples of perspective in his essay. He also refers to theorists who describe perspective in terms Renaissance perspective as a “trap for the _ of illusion. In AH (p. 111) I acknowledged look” (QC, p. 70). This is a strange mode of that this would be easy to do. My question expression for one who does not wish to cast = was whether this traditionalist position was

perspective in a pejorative light. correct. And, of course, I never deny that Is Heath a conventionalist as regards | conventions are involved in representation. perspective? He claims that in painting from § Most of my arguments throughout AH em-

the Quattrocentro onwards “there is areal = phasize the importance of conventions. I utopianism at work, the construction of a — only attack the conventionalist position on code — in every sense a vision — projected — perspective that Heath and Francastel seem onto a reality to be gained in allits hoped-for —_to be proposing.

clarity much more than onto some naturally Heath’s frontal attacks on my account of given reality” (QC, p. 29, italics added). perspective fail dismally. He claims that I say Heath makes clear that he believes that the —_ perspective is accurate, but that it is not. It

alleged fidelity of perspective is really a shows railroad tracks converging, but this is matter of our cultural habituation to this false. Yet if he looks at my position, he will code both in his unqualified quotations of note that Isay Iam dealing with accuracy as a P. Francastel and also in his statement that matter of degree (AH, p. 112). I say that “For five centuries men and women exist at _—_— perspective is more accurate than competing

ease in that space; the Quattrocentro system §_mimetic pictorial systems. It is perfectly provides a practical representation of the | compatible to hold this while also admitting world which in time appears so natural asto __ that the system may contain inaccuracies.

offer its real representation, the immediate Heath challenges my claim about perspec-

, 355

translation of reality itself” (QC, pp. 29-30). __ tive’s relative superiority vis-a-vis spatial

Characteristically, Heath sets some red accuracy by means of a counterexample: herrings swimming. He points out that there | English Ordinance Survey Maps. I do not

are some very convincing perspective illu- know whether there is something special

Polemical Exchanges

about these maps since I have been unable _ance to the eye” (PN, p. 85). And “ ‘appearto acquire one. If they are like American ance’ in ‘Address’ shores up a version of the road maps, however, then it is clear, that | eye/camera analogy” (PN, p. 86). they are not viable counterexamples to my The word “appearance,” however, need

thesis. I claimed that perspective is more not mean “illusion,” nor was I using it in accurate in terms of affording spatial infor- that sense. When a policeman questions mation than any other mimetic pictorial witnesses about the appearance of a bank system. Maps are not pictures. One must be __ robber, the last thing he wants is a report of taught to read a map; the mountains on a__ an illusion. He is requesting a description, a map are not recognized perceptually as _ veridical one, of the visible characteristics of mountains but are coded, often by color. — the culprit. Except for certain contexts, such Heath believes that I cannot exclude maps _as Platonic dialogues, where the operative from consideration unless I define mimetic dichotomy is Appearance versus Reality, an pictorial systems in a circular fashion, using appearance is the outward aspect of any perspective as my species differentia. False. | physical thing. There is no reason to suspect I do not use perspective as a condition for that in ordinary language “The milk appears

picturing. Rather pictures are, in part, spoiled” means “The milk is not spoiled.” objects that have visually recognizable simi- Talk about appearances can be talk about larities to their referents such that we can how things are, not about illusions.

perceptually identify what they refer to. Also, talk of appearances need not refer

Maps are read, not recognized. to a particular instance of vision, that is, toa Heath claims that my assertion that per- — specific occurrent visual experience, but spective is the only mimetic pictorial system |= may refer to what is visible.? That is, a grounded in scientific laws is a tautology. | perspective picture described as affording Why? The Japanese floating-eye style, the — spatial information about appearances is not ancient Egyptian frontal-eye style, and what being characterized as providing a phenomeDeregowski calls split-type drawings’ are all —_nologically recognizable replica of a specific

examples of mimetic pictorial systems but act or kind of act of vision but as providing they are not grounded in scientificlaws. That | information about the structure of ambient perspective is and these othersystemsarenot light in an optic array which, in turn, is the is a fact and not a matter of logicor meaning. — sort of thing from which humans derive

Heath’s most important attack on my _ reliable information about the layout of characterization of perspective is that in things in space. I used the word “appearusing the concept of “appearance” in my ance” to signal that the spatial information account I unwittingly contradict myself. in perspective paintings is visual. That’s not That is, I claim to portray perspective — controversial, I hope. But my commitment without reference to illusion or to replicas of — to perspective paintings affording informa-

vision. Yet, purportedly, by speaking of — tion about the structure of light in optical appearance I have covertly smuggled both — arrays hardly commits me to the belief that these elements into my position. I say _ perspective is a point-perfect replica of the

perspective, compared to other mimetic, experience of normal seeing. It is not a pictorial systems, is more accurate in terms representation of seeing; it affords spatial of affording spatial information — that is, information from the optical structure — information about the appearance of the from the appearance — of the layout of the relative disposition of objects in space. | environment. Moreover, the information Heath interprets this to mean that “perspec- afforded by perspective is more accurate tive gives us accurate information not as to than that available from any competing, true distance but as to appearance, appear- mimetic pictorial system. 356

. A Reply to Heath Just about the funniest thing that Heath between pragmaticism and what he calls ever readisaclaimImakeinafootnote(AH, — extreme empiricism. p. 114) that perspective responds to a deep,

; . . Positivism

biologically motivated concern with where ages things stand in space. I made this point to

refute the suggestions of Brakhage and One of the accusations Heath makes is that Berger that perspective somehow uniquely I am a “positivist.” Pm not sure Heath suits capitalism. Also, by reference to this knows what a positivist, logical or otherbiological, evolutionary factor, I think that wise, really is. I do not subscribe to a we can explain the rapid and easy dissemina- __ verifiability principle in either AH or anytion of perspective across cultures and eco- __ thing else I’ve written. Does Heath think I nomic systems. Surely such an explanation am a positivist because I demand that social

seems more plausible than the vision of scientific theories must be couched in generarmed coercion insinuated by Heath’s quota- _—_alizations? Well, I’ve never said that either.

tion of Francastel: “[W]ith their technical And though I believe there exist social superiority, they [the Europeans] imposed _ scientific that employ satisfactory generalizathat [Quattrocentro] space over the planet” _ tions, I do not believe that all such explana-

(QC, p. 29). tions require lawlike generalizations. So I’m Of course, I never say or imply that not a positivist, or at least not a logical

hunter-gatherers and shipping magnates use __ positivist, in the usual sense of that term. perspective drawings in the manner ofmaps. Also, I can’t be a positivist for the same

Nor do I deny that one can write a useful types of reasons I couldn’t be called an history about a given culture’s adoption of | extreme empiricist. perspective. My only point, contra Heath, is Heath says I am a positivist (in his sense) that biological considerations have some _ because I only accept biological or cognitiveplace in our explanations of pictorial repre- §_ psychological accounts. This is quite false

sentation. Not everything is reducible to. and can only be the result of a slipshod social/economic/ideological history. reading of AH. I accept many different types Heath suggests that I am an extreme of explanation and styles of analysis. I empiricist, yet he never defines what he _ constantly refer to institutionalized practices means by empiricist except by way ofa silly | and thus endorse explanations in terms of metaphor about stumbling over laws and — conventions — so, sociology and social hissome mystical gibberish about the world’s tory can fit within my purview. I accept not containing knowledge of itself. What = psychoanalytic explanations along with bioHeath appears to be accusing me of is logical, evolutionary, and cognitive-psychobelieving that we discover scientific laws by _ logical ones. I employ the techniques of looking. If I did in fact believe that discover- _—_ analytic philosophy but also take advantage

ies were a simple matter of looking, why of phenomenology. Nor do I reject the would I have stressed the importance of possibility of ideological analysis.!° Rather, I competition between research programs as _ attempt to find the method which, in competi-

an indispensable means of endorsing one _ tion with other methods, best addresses the over the other? Would not Heath’s extreme |= phenomena at hand in terms of our specific empiricist be able to establish the viability of | questions. I do not spurn any approach as a

a single research program by comparing itto possible source of knowledge on a priori what Heath calls the world “out there”? Did — grounds. I am open to any method that will I not also emphasize the pragmatic nature of | deliver the best explanation in light of the

explanation in the concluding section of | questions we are asking. AH)? Perhaps Heath is unable to distinguish As this suggests, I do not believe that 357

Polemical Exchanges

every kind of explanation is equally appro- again — where an adequate rationalist explapriate to every kind of case. Limitations nation is available, we do not require psycho-

have to be acknowledged concerning the analysis. Note, however, that unlike the applicability of various methods. Specifi- frothing positivist of Heath’s reverie, I have cally, I believe that there are some limits to no opposition to psychoanalysis properly the range of things that can be explained employed. psychoanalytically. This is, of course, where Nor am I opposed to ideological analysis. the difference between Heath and me arises. Yet I insist that we must first ascertain that I endorse the use of psychoanalytic explana- the phenomena we investigate are best tions, but only under certain constraints, approached by seeing them as ideological. If whereas Heath uses them to explain almost __ we are investigating a belief (or recommeneverything human, including how we make _ dation) imparted by a film, then we must

sense of film editing. test to see if it is ideological by establishing

Psychoanalytic theory is designed to ex- __ that it is false (or unreasonable) and that it plain the irrational. The general paresis and ___ functions in some system of social domina-

epileptic fits due to injury to Broca’s areain tion. If we are concerned to discover the brain are nonrational and thus not a — whether a symbol system — such as a natural subject for psychoanalytic enquiry. Simi- language or a pictorial style — is ideological,

larly, I believe that when an agent does then we must establish that it excludes the something that is rational, we have no prima __ possibility of the representation of certain facie reason to investigate further into the __ facts and interests for the purpose of uphold-

causes of his actions. That is,a methodologi- ing some practice or institution of social cal constraint on psyhoanalytic explanation domination. I believe that the technical is that it not be mobilized until there is an _—_—sjargon of certain branches of the law may be

identifiable breakdown in rationality. Not all | relevant examples of this. Thus, I do not beliefs, not all social, aesthetic, emotional, | oppose ideological analysis per se. I merely and cognitive responses are candidates for disagree with OC in its insistence upon the psychoanalytic investigation. Insofar as psy- —_ explanation of all phenomena under discus-

choanalysis is designed to conceptualize sion in terms of ideology and psychoanalyirrational behavior, which is only identifi- sis. Indeed, I am more of a pluralist and less

able as a deviation from some norm of of a reductionist than Heath is.

rational behavior, there Is no work for it to 1. In what follows, AH refers to my “Address to

do where the behavior in question is of an the Heathen,” in October, no. 23 (Winter

unmistakably rational sort. 1982). QC refers to Stephen Heath’s Ques-

The basic concepts of psychoanalysis are tions of Cinema, Bloomington, Indiana, metaphoric extensions of the concepts of the 1981; PN refers to Heath’s “Le Pére Noel,”

rational —e.g., motive, intention, wish, October, no. 26 (Fall 1983). drive, need, and so on. That is, the concepts 2. In PN, Heath says that his use of “overlay” are all purposive, ends-seeking. The differ- indicated that he did not have geometry in ence is that these forces are conscious and mind. Is this supposed nonrelation to geome-

y are p y ; ; 9

deliberative in rationalist psychology, but try part of the dictionary meaning of “overthey are metaphorically extended to uncon- lay,” or some well-known Jargon usage, or Is scious forces in psychoanalysis. Psychoanaly- 3 I desperate, ad hoc invention by Heath?

_ . Heath discusses the culminating homogeneity

sis, by examining UNCONSCIOUS intentions and of narrative film in his “simple definition” of

repressed operations, explains actions, pur- film narrative in QC, p. 136. A rereading of posively characterized, that cannot be ex- this definition makes me wonder why Heath plained by conscious or merely tacit inten- believes it inappropriate for me to remind tions, beliefs, and reasonings. But — once him that opening scenes need not be repeated 358

A Reply to Heath

at the end of narrative films. For in that chology, on the one hand, with logical, definition Heath says that S, which is defined ontological, and linguistic questions of referas an initial state, leads to S’, which is a return ence. If Heath means to establish the split

to S. subject on the basis of maturation, let him

4. See my “Language and Cinema: Preliminary bring forward evidence from developmental

Notes for a Theory of Verbal Images,” in psychology and not from the philosophy of Millennium Film Journal nos. 7/8/9. N.B.; I language. am not now chiding Heath for failing to have 6. Heath wonders why I employ “Most” in my read this piece nor can anyone who has read statement. This was simply to allow for the AH honestly claim that I reproached Heath possibility that there may sometime be some for not being familiar with my writing. This isolated case where the standard viewing

essay 1s reprinted in this volume. condition does provide an exact likeness. I

5. Here Heath unleashes a barrage of vague and know of no such case, but I did not wish to

confusedly connected questions. He chal- say that it is absolutely impossible that lenges the idea of a substance by saying it is a someone might stage a counterexample that

major philosophical topic. But I have no idea would fool viewers. For the time being, of how to respond to such an unfocused however, we should not build our theories on observation. What specific inadequacy is this such far-off possibilities. weighty aside supposed to reveal about my 7. See, for example, the chair-illusion that is position? Also Heath’s suspicion that I am illustrated in R. L. Gregory, The Intelligent talking about bodies when I speak of identify- Eye, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1970, p. 29. ing continuing entities seems to confuse 8. Jan B. Deregowski, “Illusion and Culture,” epistemological questions about the public in R. L. Gregory and E. H. Gombrich, ed., criteria for how we say A is the same as B Illusion, Nature and Art, New York, Scribwith metaphysical questions about the crite- ners, 1973, p. 183. ria for numerically individuating human per- 9. I owe the distinction between vision and the

~ sons where A = B. Moreover, I do not visible to John L. Ward, who proposed it to understand what Heath means in footnote me in a letter dated June 30, 1983. Also, for 59, PN, by claiming that the enduring sub- simplicity’s sake, I am dealing throughout jects cannot be reflected in language. If he this section with cases where the picture is of means that identity conditions cannot be an existing person, place, or thing. Certain stated then he will have to demonstrate the readily available complications must be failure of the proposal above. If he means added to deal with representations of inthat the enounced/enunciation distinction vented entities and events. blocks my regarding the sickly child and the 10. For example, in AH, despite Heath’s misread-

adult as ontologically the same person, then ing, I considered Fort Apache, The Bronx to he has merely begged the question again. be a candidate for ideological interpretation. Heath’s talk of my supposed commitment to I merely asserted that the film’s pictorial a “pre-anything I” leads me to think that he is verisimilitude would not be a significant confusing empirical questions of genetic psy- variable in such an interpretation.

359

-= ; ;.

_=

/ = understanding a narrative is tantamount to perceiving narrative structures as if they CHAPTER XXV - were physical shapes (p. 91). Here, Hammett alleges that I believe that we perceive

Replies to narrative structures passively rather than

Hammett and Allen ™ being involved in processes of active participation and construction.

How could one make as many stupid

, errors as I did? Well, it’s not hard when one has Hammett helping you along. Basically, she invents absurd views for me and then

, she bowls them over with fashionable sloI. Response to Jennifer Hammett gans and prejudices drawn from the reigning doxa. Hammett’s fundamental procedure is From the dialogues of Plato, we learn that — essentially the rhetorical sleight of hand: there is an ancient quarrel between philoso- misconstrue a reasonable position for a phy and rhetoric. Unhappily, it is still alive | nutty one and then congratulate yourself and thriving as I learned when reading a _and your readership for your superior underreview of my book Mystifying Movies! by — standing. You could call this technique Jean Hammett, an orator from Berkeley.2 “refutation in absentia.” Systematically misunderstanding my distinc- My position on representational imaging tions and arguments in favor of the sort of in the single shot is that, as with representabromides a politician would utter ifshe were tional paintings, we realize what the shot running for the presidency of the Society for represents (e.g., a man, a train, a coronaCinema Studies, Hammett delivers rhetori- tion) by a process that is not involved in cal tricks and fashionable slogans where _ reading, decoding, deciphering, or infer-

analysis might be more appropriate. ence. When one looks at a typical picture of According to Hammett, with respect to. a cathedral, one recognizes that it is a the kind of representational imaging that we _ representation of cathedral by looking —

typically find in the single shot in flm—a that is, if one can recognize cathedrals in close-up of Gregory Peck, for example -—I what we call “real life.” We do not have a set am supposedly arealist andI remaincommit- of _dictionary-like rules that enables us to

ted to the notion of the specificity of the | infer from or to decode lines on a canvas in cinematic image. She then goes on torefute — order to arrive at the proposition “This is a

my putative realism by asserting that I cathedral.” We don’t read pictures or infer equate pictorial perception with filmic com- what they are pictures of. We recognize

prehension and that I proceed as if the what they are pictures of by looking.’ whole story of understanding of what she __Picture-recognition capacities and objectcalls the meaning of a cinematic shot were —_ recognition capacities come in tandem, I simply a matter of pictorial recognition. argue, on the basis of the psychological and Supposedly, I am unaware that context, for | anthropological data cited in Mystifying example, is important to understanding the Movies.‘

meaning of a shot. Here it pays to note that my hypothesis is Hammett then further imagines that I a rather narrow one about how one realizes compound this blunder by claiming that I _‘ that a shot is a shot of x — that itis ashot ofa

believe that understanding narratives is also rocking horse and not of a persimmon. a matter of recognition (pictorial recogni- Against linguistically oriented models that tion?), and she indicates that I think that claim that computational processes such as 360

Replies to Hammett and Allen

reading, decoding, and inference are in- mention of codes and decipherment), it volved, I argue that we have many reasons _ might make sense to call me a naturalist or a to believe that mediation by such processes _nonconventionalist when it comes to picture

ill-suits the data and that a more likely perception. But it shows a misunderstanding conjecture is that people have an innate _ of film theory to call me a realist. recognition capacity for telling what a pic- Not only am [ not a realist, but Iam not a ture is that develops along with the capacity photographic or cinematic realist, despite

to recognize objects in real life. what Hammett alleges. I reject the notion of Is this realism of any sort? Well, itis not the specificity of the cinematic image. For, realism in the ontological sense that people —_ as should be evident from what I have said

have in mind when they claim that the so far, I think that the story about perceiving photographic image is its referent (a la paintings, photographs, and film shots is Bazin). I don’t postulate any identity rela- | pretty much of a piece. In each case, the tionship between cinematic images and that | symbols in question activate a recognitional of which they are images. For me the image _ capacity that develops in tandem with our

and its object are numerically distinct, and = object-recognition capacities. But if the they are also qualitatively distinct -— they do story is the same with respect to paintings, not pass Leibniz’s test for the identity of | photographs, and film images, then I cannot

indiscernibles. possibly be committed to the specificity of Nor am I a psychological realist. I don’t the cinematic image. For Hammett to insist think that audiences take or perceive the that Ido demonstrates either incredible careshot of x for x itself. Audiences do not _ lessness, incompetence, or bad faith.

experience the shot of x and x to be In any case, whether or not I am a realist, identical — at least not on my account. Ido Hammett also alleges that the emphasis that think that our capacity to recognize what _ I place on recognition (rather than reading shots of x are shots of and our capacity to _—_ or inference) in picture perception is wrong. recognize x’s “in nature” develop together. | Why? “... Carroll’s cognitive theory does But, as I stress in Mystifying Movies, these not ask what images mean; or perhaps more capacities evolve in such a way that we are ___ precisely, Carroll equates meaning with iden-

also able to discriminate x’s “in nature” tity... . He has made this move, equating from images of x’s. We do not confuse them comprehension with perception. . .” (p. 88). as psychological realists might contend. We According to Hammett, understanding an don’t experience them as identical orequiva- image — understanding what she calls its lent, and I never suggested anything re- meaning — involves more than pictorial permotely like that. Sol am neither anontologi- ception. Images may have different mean-

cal realist nor a psychological realist. ings in different contexts. She says of a I claim that some of the same processes are —__ representation of a tree that “its identity as a

involved in picture recognition and object tree does not determine which meaning recognition.’ But isn’t everyone prepared to attaches. Thus, ‘recognizing’ it is a tree concede that much? Such hardly counts as_ —_ would not be the equivalent of understandrealism. Undoubtedly there will be adispute —_ing its contextual meaning” (p. 88).

about how much of picture perception can be Of course. But notice that Hammett has

explained by reference to our object- changed the terms of the discussion. I was recognition capacities. Since, in contrast to __ talking about the best hypothesis for explain-

linguistically oriented conventionalists, I ing pictorial perception —for explaining think that much (but not all) of our picture- — how we realize a picture of x is of x rather

recognition can be explained in terms of _ than of y. In answering this narrow queshard-wired recognitional capacities (with no __ tion, I claim that conjecturing a hard-wired 361

Polemical Exchanges

process of recognition does a better jobthan _have further significances. These will call for

hypothesizing reading and inference. further hypotheses in order to be explained, But Hammett ignores the fact that Iam __ but it does not follow that the recognition dealing with this narrow issue. Instead, she —_ hypothesis is not an essential complement to alleges that Iam involved with a problem of __ those further hypotheses. her own invention — not how do we realize In Mystifying Movies I present psychologithe shot is a shot of a cow, but how do we __ cal evidence for the recognition hypothesis. I comprehend or understand the meaning of _also point out that the recognition hypothesis

the shot? Perhaps the appearance of an squares with our best data about crossimage of a cow in a narrative film implies cultural pictorial perception. Hammett never that the locale of the story has shifted from bothers to discuss any of that evidence or the city to the country. I do not claim that argumentation that I adduce. Like the highyou could surmise that simply by looking. — school relativist, she seems so assured in her Recognizing that it is a shot of a cow will — conviction that it’s culture all the way down hardly supply you with a full account of how __ that she is utterly oblivious of her responsibil-

we take the image to signify something like ity as ascholar to confront the data as well as that. As Hammett says, what Iclaim about _ the theoretical anomalies that I point out in pictorial recognition won’t give you an _ the conventionalist hypothesis. Instead, she

entire theory of filmic comprehension. prefers to attack a straw man (straw person) But so what? I’m not presenting the position by asserting again and again that discussion of the role of picture perception __ pictorial recognition capacities do not acas a comprehensive theory of what she calls — count for every dimension of our understand-

meaning in film. You don’t refute a theory ing of cinematic meaning. Though this may about the origin of the Civil War by saying —_ leave the impression with the uninformed

that it fails to be a theory of all war. reader that something important is being Hammett rejects what I say about recogni- debated here, Hammett’s “argumentation” tion because it can’t explain how we under- is really nothing but rhetorical smoke and stand what she calls the meaning of film tout — mirrors.

court. But I never claimed that the hypothe- If my account of the perception of the sis could do that. It is nothing more than a —_ cinematic image was absurd, according to rhetorical bluff to complain that my hypothe- | Hammett, my account of narration is even sis can’t deliver the goods when it wasn’t _ sillier. She writes:

designed to convey the particular goods in ,

question to begin with. Here as in his account of cinematic images, Of course, I think that picture percep- Carroll equates seeing with comprehending; spection, understood in terms of recognition, has tators look and “thereby” comprehend. Oddly,

; for purporting to- explain how films some role tosomeone play in abilities, our under-Carroll sae: bypasses ; . explanatory appeal to our cognitive

standing Or comprehension of the so-called spectator cognition altogether propounding somemeaning of many (most?) cinematic images. thing like a “bullet theory” of cinematic meaning.

Does Hammett deny that? She says that the Spectators do not interpret or read films, they meaning of an image of a priest in Going My receive them (p. 90).6 Way, & 1/2, and The Silence differ. Perhaps.

But certainly before one identifies each of How could I have neglected cognition in those putatively differential meanings, one _ favor of looking? Of course, I didn’t. In the must realize that the images at issue are comment above, Hammett has conveniently images of priests, not giraffes. How does repressed mention of the fact that in the one do that? I say by means of our natural preceding chapter I advanced a theory of recognitional capacities. The images may narrative comprehension in the movies.’ I 362

Replies to Hammett and Allen

claimed that spectators follow movies by — wants to deny that looking has some role to

identifying the salient questions that the play in a cognitive account of what it is to movies under examination raise. The audi- _ follow a narrative film. All I claim about ence then uses these questions to organize — variable framing is that it helps and guides

the action, tracking details in light of their us to look at the details that are most expectation that answers to the questions pertinent to the cognitive activity of followposed by the movie will emerge. Thus, on ing the story. Hammett replaces my perhaps my account, following moviesinvolvescogni- pedestrian view of the function of these tive activity, namely, structuring details in devices in the service of narrative compreterms of questions and answers. It is simply —§ hension with an outlandish view, which she false to say that I characterize following a _ calls the “bullet theory,” and then proceeds narrative merely in terms of looking without _ to “refute” me.

any higher-order cognitive structuring on Hammett is disturbed by my “implicit”

the part of the spectator. claim that movies do not require interpretaI then go on to hypothesize that this tion (p. 90). If by interpretation she means cognitive structuring is facilitated and di- cognitive processing, then her allegation rected by filmmakers through their use of ' that I think that movies do not require devices like variable framing (camera move- _ interpretation is a remarkable misrepresenta-

ment and editing). These devices are typi- _ tion. I think that spectators have to follow cally deployed so that the spectator is stories and that this involves cognitive activ-

looking at—is paying attention to-—the ity in terms of isolating relevant narrative elements of the action that are most relevant | questions and tracking answers. I explicitly to her tracking of the presiding system of — claim that. Hammett says I believe that a questions and answers that drive the narra- _—_ close-up renders an image automatically

tive forward. These devices enable the intelligible. Rather I think that a close-up spectator to follow the narrative perspicu- makes us automatically attend to certain ously by guiding the viewer’s attention to details, typically to the details that are what is most pertinent to the cognitive — especially relevant to our cognitive activity structure of questions and answers that she __ of following the story.

is in the process of evolving. There is no If, on the other hand, by interpretation looking and comprehending simpliciter in Hammett is referring to the activity of this model. Rather what we see is integrated explaining something that is nonobvious or into an evolving structure of questions and —_ obscure or puzzling, then it is true that I answers. What we see is information that is _ think that the activity of following the story

cognized in terms of a structure that is in a typical movie, as a matter of fact, logically organized around presiding ques- doesn’t typically involve much interpretations and answers. Editing and camera _ tion, since the story line in most movies (that movements in typical movies help us pick _is, mass-market fictions) is usually not out the details that are most relevant to} nonobvious or obscure or puzzling. But to

evolving that structure of questions and deny that interpretation in this sense is answers. Would anyone deny that? always involved in the basic comprehension I did not concoct some mystical theory of | of movies does not amount to a denial of film whereby we look and we know. Rather — cognitive activity on the part of the spectawhat we see (and what we are helped and tor. Following the story is cognitive activity

guided to see by variable framing) gets even if it does not involve the cognitive embedded in a cognitive framework of activity of interpretation in the strong sense questions and answers by the process of — of penetrating obscurity. being a spectator. Surely not even Hammett For some strange reason, Hammett treats 363

Polemical Exchanges

my discussion of devices like variable highly unlikely that we will encounter movframing — which fall into the category thatI _ies that answer the questions they pose in call cinematic narration — before she exam- such a way that only a handful of physicists ines my theory of narration. What is espe- _— can understand the answers.

cially peculiar in this is that I claim that Hammett also goes after my theory of cinematic narration is hierarchically or func- _— narration by repeating the allegation that

tionally subordinated to the purposes of | my account of the way in which we follow narration, which, on my account, requires movie narratives doesn’t tell the whole story the productive activity of spectators. Per- | of how we understand and comprehend the

haps by inverting the exposition of my meaning of movies. But recall that the accounts of narration and cinematic narra- ‘theory in question was only designed to tion, Hammett hopes to hide from the account for how we follow or comprehend reader my claims about the cognitive activity | movie narratives. Thus, if one’s conception

of spectators so as to make persuasive her of what Hammett calls the “meaning” of a allegations that I think comprehending films movie is broader than following the basic is completely secured by looking. But thisis _ narrative line then it is true that the theory

merely a rhetorical shell game. of erotetic narration does not say how By the time that Hammett comes to deal movies make meaning tout court. Yet it is no

with my account of narration, she has failing in the theory that it doesn’t explain convinced herself that I also think that we — what it wasn’t designed to explain. There follow stories by looking. She claims that I are, I am the first to admit, dimensions of treat narrative structures as if they were significance in narrative film that have to do physical shapes. But this is nothing short of — with structures beyond setting out the narra-

nonsense; I wonder what such physical tive. They are worthy of theorizing. But that shapes might look like. But, in any case, the |= does not show an inadequacy in the theory

nonsense is not mine. The metaphor of of erotetic narration. In fact, the theory of physical shapes is totally Hammett’s inven- __erotetic narration may be a useful suppletion. The narrative structures that Ispeak of | ment to those additional theories. are matters of questions and answers. Thus, Hammett’s is obsessed by a global questhey have propositional content. Thus, ina __ tion, How do we understand the meaning of certain sense, gua propositional-narrative film? As a result, she consistently misconcontent, they have nothing essential to do — strues my piecemeal theories about more

with vision. circumscribed questions such as how do we Hammett rejects my theory of movie _ realize that a single-shot image is an image narration, which I call erotetic narration. of x as failed attempts to answer her big She says that this is a theory of perceiving question. But I, on the other hand, think narrative and that it must be wrong because _ that it is more felicitous to partition that big one could imagine a case where the question question into a series of smaller ones. So

a film raises is about the trajectory of | many things might count as what is called Voyager II and the answer is a complicated “the meaning of film” that it is better to equation. Thus, she surmises, erotetic narra- think of it in terms of the activity of diverse tion cannot simply be a matter of percep- mechanisms, functioning to promote diverse

tion. But this putative counterexample is purposes (some narrational, some emodoubly misconceived. First, because I don’t tional, some allegorical, and so on), which think that narrative comprehension is visual are conducive of diverse effects.

rather than propositional and, second, be- The meaning of film is a rather baggy cause if I am right about movies (mass- conception, somewhat loose and vague. market movies) and their purposes, thenitis | There is no reason to believe that one theory 364

Replies to Hammett and Allen

or a unified set of theories will comprehen- problem could be that one thinks that we sively characterize all the ways of meaning don’t need any theories of film structure in in film. Thus, I suggest that we concentrate addition to those other theories — theories on characterizing discrete mechanisms or of movie distribution, industry economics, processes of signification. Hammett fails to advertising content, and so on. But what see this and consistently criticizes me for not — could be the justification of a moratorium attempting to do something — viz., theorize on theories of film structure? I can’t imagine how film conveys meaning per se— which I one and, in any case, Hammett doesn’t

think is methodologically ill-advised. Of provide one. course, if she ever manages to produce a Hammett winds up her jeremiad with the unified theory of cinematic meaning herself, | requisite charge of political incorrectness.

I will be happy to read it. My theory of the power of the movies is Hammett concludes by chiding my over- naughty because it doesn’t acknowledge all approach and my conjectures about some cultural difference. ’'m a big, bad imperialist

of the reasons why movies are such an _ because when considering the international effective means of mass communication. effectiveness of Hollywood-type filmmakHer complaint about my overall approach is _—_ ing, I dare to hypothesize that in certain

that it is formalist. Here her objection is qualified ways, especially at the level of based on my emphasis on devices like cognition, Hollywood style may address variable framing and erotetic narration in — cross-cultural or contingently universal feaaccounting for the effectiveness of movies. tures of humans. But such conjectures are In this, she alleges, I commit the traditional politically incorrect and strictly verboten.

error of film theorists, namely, that of Hammett writes:

looking at film forms to the exclusion of considering of things like distribution net- Surely, it is a form of cultural myopia to conclude

works and subject matter. that because the movies we are familiar with ; ar seem readily accessible and because Hollywood But I go out of my way in Mystifying has_ successfull ted all th Id é y exported all over the world, Movies to acknowledge that research into there is something in the very nature of film that such matters is legitimate and absolutely makes them accessible (p. 92). appropriate in film studies. I say we need to

study distribution and subject matter in Am I just ethnocentric? I don’t deny that order to secure a well-rounded understand- _is a speculation worth discussing, only that ing of how film operates. I have concen- the conclusion is foregone. There is nothing trated on the way in which certain cinematic inherently evil in conjecturing that movies structures or mechanisms function but am may, in specified respects, address continopen to and even encourage complementary gently universal features of their audiences. research programs. That is the definition of After all, Hammett herself acknowledges the kind of piecemeal theorizing I advocate — that Hollywood exports films successfully. in this volume and advocated in Mystifying Certainly it must be legitimate to ask what Movies as well. To understand film practice, the basis of that success might be. Especially we need theories of movie structure, theo- | nowadays in the era of difference, it must be ries of distribution, theories of advertising, a pressing research question to account for theories of content, and so on. ’ve concen- how Hollywood’s international success is trated on theories of structure. But I don’t possible. How can films confected by New deny the advisability of theories of other Yorkers in Los Angeles be assimilated by

dimensions of film practice. What’s the receptive audiences in Bali, India, and

problem here? Lebanon? How can first-time viewers in It would seem to me that the only Africa follow what is called classical editing? 365

Polemical Exchanges

These are unavoidable facts, and they call tion. It reminds one of the bishop who for theoretical answers. They cannot be _ refused to look through Galileo’s telescope. banished because they ought not obtain in a

olitically correct world of difference. There .

i unavoidable data here about the dissemi- Il. Response to Richard Allen nation of cultural objects, even if the facts | Whenreading pieces like Hammett’s “Essenoffend against the predictions of the politi- _tializing Movies,” I worry that film theory

cally correct. will never mature beyond rhetorical grandMoreover, there are good reasons to _ standing. For if film theory is to become

hypothesize that certain Hollywood-type — genuinely dialectical inquiry, careful consid-

structures command worldwide attention eration of rival viewpoints will have to because they tap into contingent universal replace fashionable sloganeering. But destructures of cognition and affect. These — spite my pessimism, perhaps things are begin-

reasons have to do with the fact that ning to change. Film theory of a more sober assimilation occurs where the grounds for and measured bent is starting to appear. One adopting cultural diffusion models are not example is Richard Allen’s “Representation,

very persuasive inasmuch as hypotheses Illusion and the Cinema.”? about cultural diffusion and cultural indoctri- The purpose of Allen’s article is to nation do not fit the data. Hypotheses like develope a theory of illusion in film. The mine that account for the successful exporta- — theory he advances is a theory of what he tion of Hollywood International by viewing calls “projective illusion.” The starting point Hollywood-type filmmakers (who may, by _ of his theory is my rejection of the utility of the way, live and produce films in Mexico or — the notion of illusion when speaking of

Japan) as, in certain respects, intuitive | cinematic representations in the single shot. psychologists who have discovered some Allen thinks that my rejection of illusion virtually universal effective means of com- talk is too hasty, and, in contrast, he wants munication may be wrong. But these hy- — to carve out a meaningful application of the

potheses should not be dismissed out of notion of illusion to cinematic representahand as culturally myopic until it is estab- —_ tion. Moreover, I thought that in scotching

lished that such theories are inferior to rival the notion that cinema is illusionistic, we theories that confront the data head-on. could, so to speak, disavow the relevance of Hammett, on the other hand, doesn’t as_ _ Lacanian theories of disavowal in the explathey say “get it.” Why Hong Kong films are _ nation of our negotiation of cinematic repre-

popular in South America now can’t be _ sentation. For if there is no illusion, there is explained in terms of Western imperialism no pressure to postulate unconscious proor Yankee ethnocentricity. It is a fact (even — cesses like disavowal in order to elucidate if for some it is an unpleasant fact) that calls = how the so-called illusions take hold. But in

for an explanation. Hong Kong films are attempting to reinstate the utility of illusion successful in places that Hong Kong never __ in characterizing our reception of cinematic colonized, since Hong Kong never colonized __ representations, Allen also hopes to regain a

anything. Thus, it is at least plausible to place for psychoanalysis in the theory of the mount a rival hypothesis to the imperialism — reception of cinematic representation.

hypothesis, namely, an hypothesis that In this brief note, I want to examine Hong Kong filmmakers tap into features of — Allen’s criticisms of me as well as the theory

cognition and affect that are transculturally of projective illusion that Allen propounds. shared. To say that such hypotheses are — I am especially interested in indicating what simply not allowed smacks of the Inquisi- _I believe are some of the shortcomings of 366

Replies to Hammett and Allen

Allen’s view which is, of course, a way of protesting that it is theoretically useless, if dialectically defending my own view against _ not confusing.

Allen’s rival approach. However, before I called this use of illusion benign, since it criticizing Allen, I want to acknowledge that involved no implication of deception. The I regard his criticisms of me to be respect- _ notion of the illusion that involves deception able and his way of constructing his compet- and that concerns contemporary film theoing viewpoint methodologically appposite. I _rists, I called “malign.” And I argued that

readily concede that Allen, unlike Ham- the malignant brand was eminently dispensmett, has studied my arguments thoroughly _—_able theoretically when it comes to explain-

and that he has gotten them right. There is ing how, for example, we assimilate repreno misinterpretation or caricature in his sentational images of the single-shot variety. objections. Moreover, the way in which he _ Allen appears to agree that my criticisms of attempts to correct what he takes to be the __ the notion of illusion in the deception sense, lacuna in my theory is, in principle, sound. I ~=which is presumed by contemporary film

disagree with his conclusions, for reasons _ theorists, hit their mark. But he also is Ill indicate, but I, nevertheless, also think — unsatisfied by what I have to say about the

that he has initiated a serious theoretical benign sense of illusion. He writes: “As it

discussion. stands, Carroll’s distinction between malign

In Mystifying Movies, Itake anillusionto and benign senses of illusion is unillumibe something that deceives or is liable to _ nating, for the definition of an ‘epistemically deceive spectators. An illusion is deceptive. benign’ sense of illusion is a trivial one. To The emphasis on deception seems to accord _ the extent that all pictorial representations as well with the concerns with illusion in might be said to look like what they depict, contemporary film theory which emphasizes all pictorial representations are illusions” the way in which so-called cinematic illusions (p. 33). Allen thinks that there is more to be ensnare spectators in epistemically defective said about illusion in the benign, nondestates of all sorts, such as misrecognition. In ceptive sense. And, furthermore, he thinks Mystifying Movies and in various articles,'!°I that once we delve into this category, we will rejected the plausibility of attributing illu- | come up with at least one irreproachable sion, in the sense of epistemic deception, to sense of epistemically benign, cinematic viewers of pictorial representations, includ- illusion that will show that my dismissal of ing cinematic images. However, I also con- __ the notion of illusionism for film theory was ceded that in ordinary language there might — premature. also be a sense of the term “illusion” which Basically, Allen wants to claim that there does not involve deception. One might, for is a chink in my argument, namely, that I example, call any representational picture an overlooked a viable sense of nondeceptive illusion — perhaps in such cases, “illusion” — cinematic illusion and that as a result I exiled just means pictorial representation. Maybe _ illusion from film theory too quickly. In when people talk about illusionistic painting | order to make this objection stick, it is up to what they mean, at least some of the time,is | Allen to provide an account of the species of simply representational painting. This is not nondeceptive, cinematic illusion that I iga sense of illusion I’m keen about and if I —_—nored. Allen realizes that this is his burden

could legislate linguistic usage, I would, for of proof, and, in order to meet it, he theoretical reasons, advocate that we get rid develops a theory of projective illusion, the of it. But since I can’t regiment this usage out ~—s candidate for nondeceptive, cinematic illu-

of existence, I am willing to at least acknowl- sion that I neglected. The crux of Allen’s ‘edge the existence of this usage, while also argument against me hinges on his account 367

Polemical Exchanges

of projective illusion. How strong is his — which the viewer perceives the fiction as-

case? pect of the image, that is, in which the Characterizing projective illusion, Allen = viewer perceives the fictional world. More-

writes: over, the part of the process that involves the impression of perceiving the fictional When you see a zombie in George Romero’s world, the projective illusion, may require Night of the Living Dead, you may perceive the psychoanalytic explanation.

image realistically, that is, as the recording of a However, before we call in the shrinks, fictional portrayal of a zombie. It is h ighly _{et’s look a little more closely at the notion unlikely, but you might perceive the zombie as a - oe a, reproductive illusion and presume that these of projective illusio n. It seems to me to be creatures were out there in this world, for deeply p roblematic. The analysis presupexample if somehow you thought that the film POSS that the viewer moves in and out of was a documentary. However, there is a third States of perceiving the movie as medium option: you may perceive a world inhabited by | versus perceiving a fictional world. This is zombies. When you see a world inhabited by _ treated as a matter of aspect perception. But zombies you do not mistake a staged event for this doesn’t seem right. A fictional world, actuality in the manner of a reproductive illusion, for example, is not an aspect of the variety rather, you lose awareness of the fact that youare that Wittgenstein had in mind. For you can’t

seeing 4 film. Rather than look through the gee a fiction. It is not the sort of visible mage from the outside ata Photographic aspect that the aspect-seeing model is deimage of something staged in this world, you ;

perceive the events of the film directly or “from signed to handle. within.” You perceive a fully realized, though Ot COUTSE, there are deeper problems here fictional, world that has all the perceptual pres- | than the inapplicability of the seeing-as entness or immediacy of our own. I call thisform model. Even if Allen were to drop that

of illusion projective illusion (p. 40). model, he would still be confronted with the metaphysical impossibility of seeing or per-

Allen characterizes the state of projec- ceiving a fiction or, even worse, a fictional tive illusion “as the loss of awareness of the | world. When watching a movie, we don’t photographic image as image in favor of the __ perceive a fictional world. You can’t see a experience of a fully realized though fic- _ fictional world. When we watch Night of the tional world” (p. 43). According to Allen, Living Dead, what we see is not a fictional as we watch a film, we may be aware of the zombie. It can’t be done. Rather, we see a film as medium or aware of the film as pictorial representation that we recognize as fictional world. These states are not simulta- =a depiction of a rather raggedy, messed-up neous, but rather may occur sequentially, man or woman, which we imagine, prompted like the dawning of the duck and, then, the __ by the narrative, to be a zombie. rabbit aspects in Jastrow’s “Is it a duck? Is Fiction is a matter of imagining or enter-

it a rabbit?” Since the state of the film taining certain thoughts as the result of our viewer flip-flops between attending the _ realization that the author intends us to do medium aspect and the fiction aspect of the — so on the basis of our apprehension that that image, the viewer’s state cannot be one of __ is what the author intends us to do. Fiction is

deceptive illusion, since in virtue of the a matter of our imagining various thoughts episodes of viewing the medium aspect of as a result of our insight that that is what the the image, the viewer does not believe that author intends us to do. With visual fictions, the image is its referent. But there is still | what we literally see is not the fiction; rather room for nondeceptive illusion in this we see depictive representations whose conmodel, namely, interludes in which the tent we recognize and which we then use to viewer’s medium awareness recedes and in imagine, not see, the fictional circumstances 368

Replies to Hammett and Allen

the author has in store for us.1' We imagine — suspended our awareness of the movie-asfictional “worlds”; they are not available for | medium, why don’t we get nervous when sight. What we perceive literally are repre- —_ Eisenstein thrusts that hefty piece of naval

sentations that we use, under the direction artillery in our face? Perhaps, Allen’s anof the author or filmmaker, to direct our — swer will be that we are not antsy because mandated imaginings. We see an image of _ what we are perceiving, or what we think we what we recognize to be a large reptile and are aware of perceiving, is a fiction. But if then imagine Godzilla smashing Tokyo to _ this is the answer, then we are back to all the

smithereens. problems we’ve reviewed with the conjec-

Suppose you don’t share my ontological ture that we perceive fictions. And if the shyness about saying that it is possible to hypothesis that we perceive fictions is imperceive fictions. Allen’s theory is still in plausible or inadmissible, then it looks like

trouble. He says that we shift between Allen will have to confront the daunting medium awareness and projective illusion. | problem of the behavioral incongruity of In those interludes of projective illusion, we — illusionism rehearsed above.

putatively perceive fictional worlds. This Maybe Allen could say this. We don’t run account can’t be right. Why? Because it gives from the theater because we are flipus no purchase on our reception of nonfiction flopping between medium-awareness and

films. What can be the projective illusion projective illusion, and those fleeting mostage with regard to nonfiction films? Itcan’t | ments of medium-awareness are sufficient to be that we are perceiving fictional worlds, or — keep us in our seats. This sounds to me like that we think that we are perceiving fictional a variation on a famous theme by Gombrich.

worlds. Presumably, fictional world talk is | But despite its illustrious provenance, I inappropriate with nonfiction films. But does distrust it. On the one hand, I confess that I our experience of nonfiction films differ at have never detected this flip-flopping phethe relevant levels of perception from our nomenologically in my own experience of experience of fiction films. Surely, we should _filmgoing. But if such introspective reports

have a uniform account of our perceptual carry little or no weight with Allen, there experience of fictional and nonfictional films | are conceptual considerations as well. This and images. But Allen’s theory of projective flip-flopping is a perceptual matter on his

illusion falters in this respect, since with account. And it can’t occur because there is nonfiction films there are no fictional worlds — no possible state of perceiving fictions. So

available for projective illusion.’ Thus, Al- half of the flip-flop isn’t there; you cannot len’s theory of projective illusion is fatally | switch into a nonexistent state. But I repeat

flawed. myself. At this point, my last argument One of the long-standing objections to loops back to my first argument and the

any illusion theory of pictorial and/or dra- _ ensuing dialectic starts up again.

matic representation is that spectators don’t So, returning to Allen’s objection to my act as though they believe that images — theory, my response is that I didn’t overbefore them are “real.” Call this anomaly — look the possibility of projective illusion the behavioral incongruity of illusionism. because I do not believe that it is a live For example, we don’t scramble from the option theoretically. Moreover, since I am theater when the battleship Potemkin lowers not convinced that there is a mental state of

its sixteen-inch guns at us. Yet if we are projective illusion, I do not think that we under the illusion that a cannon is pointed at = need psychoanalysis to explain it. In short,

us, would we behave so unaccountably? I still remain unconvinced that illusion is How exactly will the theory of projective a useful concept for film theory and, illusion handle cases like this? If we have in consequence, that we need psychoana369

Polemical Exchanges

lytic mechanisms like disavowal to account ies,” Film Quarterly 47, no. 1 (Fall 1993);

for it. and Paul Messaris, Visual Literacy: Image, Of course, I do not believe that every- Mind and Reality (Boulder: Westview Press, thing is now settled. I anticipate that Richard 1994). Allen will have responses to my objections 5. N.B.: if I say that some of the same processes

identical. age_;him to bring processes themHammett forward.are Film 6. In this ; ,to ; ,, ,overall quotation, is alluding

and, indeed, I would be the first to encour- are involved, I am not claiming that the

an

theorizing should be dialectical, and Rich- assertion from page 200 of Mystifying Movard Allen has shown me that serious conver- ies. There I claim that as a consequence of

sation and debate is becoming possible in variable framing “the spectator is always film studies, despite my frequent and per- looking where he or she should be looking, haps overly melodramatic laments that “all always attending to the right details and

is lost.” thereby comprehending, nearly effortlessly, the ongoing action in the way it is meant to be

understood.” But notice that by vaguely

Notes paraphrasing this sentence, Hammett has effectively taken it out of context. In context,

1. Noél Carroll, Mystifying Movies: Fads and my claim is about how we comprehend shots Fallacies in Contemporary Film Theory (New nearly effortlessly, not about how we compreYork: Columbia University Press, 1988). hend shots simpliciter. It is a hypothesis about 2. Jennifer Hammett, “Essentializing Movies: the relative ease of comprehension, not the Perceiving Cognitive Film Theory,” Wide whole story of comprehension. Charging that Angle 14, no. 1 (January 1992). References to the assertion is the whole story of comprehenHammett’s article will be given parentheti- sion is a rhetorical trick parallel to Hammett’s

cally in the text. allegation that I think that pictorial recogni-

3. I leave it to physiological psychologists to tion of the single shot gives us the whole story discover the biological processes that subtend of film comprehension. such recognitional capacities. That is, I don’t 7. Here I am using the notion of comprehension

suppose that recognition is magical, as the in the way David Bordwell does in his book phrase “by looking” may suggest to some. Making Meaning (Cambridge, Mass.: HarRather, I think that telling the rest of the vard University Press, 1991).

causal story belongs in the province of 8. Since Hammett charges that I am both a

biology. realist and a formalist, one wonders whether

4. Since I first published this hypothesis in my she is insinuating that my position is selfessay “The Power of Movies,” a number of contradictory. For formalism and realism are similar arguments about pictorial representa- often thought of as opposing positions in film tion have been registered by philosophers aesthetics. But there is no such contradiction and film scholars. The relevant philosophical in my theory since I am neither a traditional citations include: Flint Schier, Deeper into realist nor a traditional formalist. I am, as Pictures (Cambridge University Press, 1986); I suggested earlier, a naturalist when it Christopher Peacocke, “Depiction,” Philo- comes to the explanation of certain cinematic

sophical Review 96 (1987); Gregory Currie, forms, but there is no contradiction in “Film, Reality and Illusion,” in Post-Theory: explaining some cinematic forms naturalisReconstructing Film Studies, edited by David tically. Nor am I a traditional formalist, in Bordwell and Noél Carroll (Madison: Univer- any case, as I have argued elsewhere through-

sity of Wisconsin Press, 1995); Gregory out this volume. Currie, Image and Mind: Film, Philosophy 9. Richard Allen, “Representation, Illusion and

and Cognitive Science (Cambridge University the Cinema,” Cinema Journal 32, no. 2 Press, 1995). The relevant cinema studies (Winter 1993). References to Allen’s article citations include Stephen Prince, “The Dis- will be given parenthetically in the text. course of Pictures: Iconicity and Film Stud- 10. Including: Noél Carroll, “Address to the 370

Replies to Hammett and Allen

Heathen,” October 26 (Fall 1983); Noél sis As Make-Believe,” The Philosophical Carroll, “Conspiracy Theories of Representa- Quarterly 45, no. 178 (January 1995). tion,” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 17 12. If at this point, one attempts to argue that (1987); and Noél Carroll, “Anti-Illusionism nonfiction films are really fictions, I would in Modern and Postmodern Art,” Leonardo resist this move with the arguments advanced

21, no. 3 (1988). in my article “From Real to Reel,” which is 11. See Noél Carroll, “A Critical Study of Mime- included in this volume.

371

: BLANK PAGE

=. = History and Film Theory,” I acted as if there was also a parallel question in film studies.

PART VI = But that seems wrong to me now. Film studies is not concerned with how to estab-

= ip .

lish that a given film is an artwork. If such a

False Starts ™ question arises with a specific film, I suppose that we would refer it to our best method for identifying art in general. How-

- ever, in “Film History and Film Theory,” I proceeded as though we needed a film theory to solve such questions, whereas now I doubt this.

In this last section of the book, I have In this essay, in short, I am doing what I chosen to reprint some of my earliest articles have often chided other film scholars for

in film theory. Originally, I thought to doing -—imposing philosophical concerns exclude these pieces. But the anonymous and models from another discipline on film reviewers of the manuscript as well as _ studies. I invented a problem for film studies several friends said that they thought that that really didn’t emerge from its own practhey should be included, since the articles _ tice and, therefore, presented a theory that in are still referred to sometimes and since they many ways is simply beside the point. My are hard to find. Even very large university | enthusiasm about a certain philosophical

libraries tend not to possess the small- approach inclined me to ignore its scant circulation journals in which these articles __ relevance to film studies.

first appeared. I have not given up my enthusiasm for this “Film History and Film Theory: An philosophical problem. But I hope that I

Outline for an Institutional Theory of Film” _ have learned to pursue it in the right context.

was an attempt to erect a framework for I have written a series of articles for philoconducting film theory. It was program- — sophical publications that develop some of matic. And it was singular — it pretends that __ the ideas initiated in “Film History and Film a theory of film is possible. In that regard, it | Theory.”! But I have abandoned my convic-

is not an example of the kind of film tion ofthe pressing relevance of this issue for theorizing that I recommend now. It is film studies. Indeed, as a result of my own anything but piecemeal. I still think the experience of saddling film theory with essay has some strengths. Its plea that film extraneous philosophical concerns, I have theory be sensitive to film history is still, | grown suspicious of a similar tendency in with certain qualifications, on the right other theorists. I think that film theory is an track, and some of the insights about individ- = area where practitioners are overly prone to

ual films and about film style seem worth attempt to map theories from other fields on preserving. But, on the whole, the essay is __ the data with little or no appreciation of the

flawed. appropriateness of the fit. Can Foucauldian Perhaps the most egregious error in the models of epistemes that range over centu-

essay is its importation of a problem anda ___riesreally be applied to film practice, which is

framework for solving that problem into itself just a century old? This is not to say that film studies from analytic philosophy. In _ philosophy has no place in film theorizing. analytic philosophy, a presiding question is | We must simply be careful to be sure that it is “What is art?” This is a question about how _ relevant. In “Film History and Film Theory,”

to identify a candidate object or perfor- I was not. I let my philosophical enthusiasms

mance as an artwork. In writing “Film obscure my judgment. 373

False Starts

Though I now freely admit that “Film interpretations of various edited arrays History and Film Theory” is a step in the more than it is a genuinely unified theory of

wrong direction —a false start—I do not editing. The vague terms of theoretical think that the preceding problems with it are analysis allow me to line up a series of the ones that greeted its publication. It was critical remarks about examples of film immediately abjured as formalist in an _ editing. This does not strike me as surprisarticle in the very issue of the very journal _ing, given what I know about myself. For that published it. Indeed, it was denounced —_ when I began in film studies, my interests by one of the editors of that journal. This — were primarily critical, not theoretical. Had

was my first brush with political correctness I thought about it at the time, I probably in print. Moreover, the journal consistently — believed that a life in film studies would be

refused to publish my defense of “Film onein which you simply interpreted one film History and Film Theory.” It seems to me _ after another. I didn’t actually start thinking that film theorists have been so preoccupied about theory until semiotics, structuralism,

with studying repression that they have Lacanian psychoanalysis, and the rest arbecome adept at it themselves. Iam repub- __ rived on the scene. At that point, given my lishing “Art, Film and Ideology: A Re- — background in the philosophy of science and sponse to Blaine Allan” in this volume to aesthetics, I reacted against what I thought amplify further my resistance to being la- _and still think 1s sloppy theorizing. But I also

beled a formalist. realized that the best defense is an offense, “Toward a Theory of Film Editing” ismy and so I began to attempt to develop an earliest published attempt at film theory. alternative to what I call contemporary film The glaring problem with the article is that theory. Since my first love was film interpreits central terms of analysis — inference and tation, however, it is no wonder that my interpretation — are simply too vague. That _ earliest essays tend to contain much more is why it manages to accommodate all the criticism than my later attempts at film

data. Moreover, I wonder whether every- theorizing. I have only become a film thing I think of as inference really would theorist gradually. Had there never been continue to qualify under that categorization = Lacanian film theory, I would probably still if inference were really to be perspicuously — be turning out long, detailed, loving analyconceptualized. I think that the article was — ses of Buster Keaton and Harry Smith. I right in resisting linguistically based or — suppose this is one of life’s ironies. inspired models of film comprehension. But its positive proposals are neither precise nor

systematic enough. Notes

On the positive side, I also think that the 1. See, for example: Noél Carroll, “Art, Pracway in which the article proceeds by think- tice and Narrative,” The Monist 71 (1988); ing about classical narrative editing and Noél Carroll, “Identifying Art,” in Jnstituavant-garde editing at the same time still has tions of Art: Reconsiderations of George theoretical advantages. And I, of course, Dickie's Philosophy, edited by Robert Yanal

remain committed to the cognitivist ap- (University Parks: Penn State University proach in the essay, even though I think a lot Press, 1993); and Noel Carroll, Histo rical

of the details of the ;theory are too aus and and the Philosophy of Ar G the ournal of mushy. Aesthetics Art Criticism 52

There are also some interpretive observa- (Summer, 1993).

tions about specific shot chains that remain 2. I should note that the Leninist conception of

useful. ideology employed in this paper is a broader In fact, looking back at the essay, it now conception of ideology than the one that I looks to me as though it is really a string of favor today. 374

=

CHAPTER XXVI = would be sensitive to the fact that film, as an object of theoretical study, is a historical

Film History - process. At the same time, I hope to avoid and Film Theory: reducing film theory to film history. An Outline for - In the attempt to overcome the shortcom-

, ings of classical film theories, I will rely quite

a an Institutional | heavily on what is known in philosophical Theory of Film literature as the Institutional Theory of Art,

= a position most often associated with George Dickie and Arthur Danto.! I realize that in turning to the Anglo-American tradition

rather than to European thought, I am

I. Introduction writing somewhat against the grain of the dominant academic approach to the inadeMuch of classical film theory is plagued by —quacies of classical film theory. In this regard

an imperviousness to film history. In many my intent is admittedly polemical, though I of the most famous theories, e.g., those of | donot have space here to even sketch most of the realists and montagists, we find a ten- my objections to Marxist-Psychoanalyticdency to hypostasize one or another aspect Semiology as it is currently practiced. What I of the medium and to evaluate every other — will try to supply, somewhat broadly, is a aspect in relation to the chosen one. This perspective and a research program that is an diathesis for essentialism renders each of the alternative to the various proliferating Euroclassics, in turn, incapable of dealing with pean models but I will not always elaborate the entire range of achievement that film = why I think that this alternative is superior. I history offers and that we would expect an _—_ ask the reader to weigh this alternative in

adequate theory to account for. terms of its internal consistency and its In particular, classical theories are weak- __ efficacy in dealing with the material. My est and least persuasive in accommodating __ reservations about contending contemporar-

new developments in film which postdate ies must await future papers. the formulation of the theories in question.

Montagists are hard put to account for the II. The Structure of Film Theory achievements of film realism; realist theorists have little to offer us about either the _It is a methodological cliché that the content resurgence of assertive editing in the sixties of a theory will be influenced by the tasks it or the postwar evolution of film modernism. _ sets for itself. But what is the task of making Of course, both schools can reject develop- _—_a film theory? To even the casual observer, ments that don’t tally with their sensibilities, _ film theory appears to be an activity directed though at the cost of sounding rather ad hoc. at answering questions about film of a fairly

There are two problems, here, though ' general sort. But what are these abstract they are related. The classical theories failto | questions?

be general enough specifically because film Generalizing from the history of film is a social practice and as such it is not a___ theory, there seem to be at least three medium whose form is set for all time, but recurrent questions which taxed our forerather has a developmental dimension. The _ bears. I would like to spend some time failure of classical theory is its failure to looking at these questions because if my recognize that film is social and, therefore, proposal is to constitute a theory it should historical. The purpose of this paper is to be able to answer them as well. Suggest the outline of a film theory that The question that most strikes one when 375

False Starts

reading the classics is “What is the determi- _ film. If one takes art as the value of cinema,

nant or crucial feature of film?” That is, then one’s characterization of the nature of what is or should be the central factorin our art can be used to pick out the determinant thinking about film? Bazin, for instance, feature of the medium. answered this by emphasizing film’s capacity There is a strong relation between the

to record pro-filmic reality. answers to the first and second questions; Often this question has been answered by namely the items listed as determinant invoking the notion of an essence, i.e., in features will generally be items that are the idiom of an attribute that an object must instrumental in realizing or actualizing or have if it is to be identified as a film. The achieving the value or role the theorist idea of the “cinematic,” for example, as it is names for cinema. For example, Bazin generally used, falls back on some idea of _ claims that the role of film is to immortalize

the essential nature of cinema. But the _ the past; this commitment enables him to

question is broader, I believe, than the zero in on recording as the determinant essentialist answers. The film theoretician factor because it is the most plausible means need not presuppose there are such thingsas_ __ to the end. Of course, a theoretician may

essences. The question, as I’ve stated it, hold that film has more than one value or leaves open the possibilities that film may role; indeed, I suppose that it is logically have no essential feature, that it may have _ possible to deny that film has any role more than one and that evenifithas one or — though it does seem very unlikely that such a

more essential features, it may not be that large social institution doesn’t have at least this feature (or features) should be determi- some function, even if it is a thoroughly nant in our thinking about cinematic pro- — venal or pernicious one. cesses. Indeed, in the fifth part of this essay, The last question asked by film theories 1s I will argue that the complexity of the _ really a brace of questions iterated again and medium is its most significant characteristic, | again so that they occupy the bulk of the

though this is hardly an essential, identifying text. It is “What are the processes of

feature of film. articulation in film in relation to the previThis question can be answered in either ous two answers?” Dealing with this questhe singular or the plural. For example, the tion usually involves drawing up lists of theory defended in Perkins’ Film as Film articulatory processes and relating each profundamentally argues that cinema has two _ cess back to the determinant characteristic determinant characteristics: the capacities and the value of cinema. A given theory both to reproduce and to reconstitute pro- = may include accounts of types of montage or filmic reality. Also, though the history of | types of spatial disjunctions or types of film theory leads us to expect a positive | camera angles or all of these things. Though answer to this question, a theorist could a theory may not be complete in this regard,

resolve it by denying that film has any this question could be exhaustively andeterminant characteristic whatsoever. swered by considering each dimension of Another question that is answered either cinematic articulation (e.g., composition,

explicitly or implicitly in the major film editing, sound, etc.) and by charting the theories is “What is the value or role of basic variables or structures open to manipucinema?” Munsterberg, Arnheim and Bal- __ lation in each of these dimensions (e.g., the

azs, for instance, are all committed to art as close-up, the long take, parallel editing, the answer. However this problem is solved, §jump-cuts, etc.). Film theories are full of the answer is important because it placesthe available schemas for the presentation of theoretician in a particular conceptual posi- material. However, film theories are not tion for discussing the determinant feature of | simply lists. They differ from filmmaking 376

Film History and Film Theory

guides or manuals which also contain lists | advocates a certain kind of film. I believe

because film theories attempt to elucidate this despite the fact that the theory in each process of articulation in terms of their |§ question may be wrong just because it is too

commitments to a particular determinant parochial in its tastes.

feature and value of film. Though I derived these questions by For instance, Munsterberg holds that film generalizing recurrent structures that I

is art, that art is freedom and that the found in classical film theory, it should be determinant characteristic of film is its clear that they are also endemic in current capacity to mime certain mental processes theories. Marxist-Psychoanalytic-Semiology that free us from mere physical existence. In | examines a process of articulation like the

treating parallel editing, he analyzes it in point-of-view schema within a theoretical terms of how it frees us from an experience context where the role of the dominant of sheer spatio-temporal succession. Mun- cinema is identified as the entrenchment of sterberg’s theory is probably incoherent, but ideology and where its determinant characits form is instructive and can be general- _ teristic is illusionism,*? which is seen as a ized; the cinematic variables he itemizes are means of “naturalizing” ideology. Lacanian not only described but analyzed as instances psychoanalysis is brought to bear on the of his proposed determinant characteristic | POV in order to show how it is an instance which, in turn, is a means by which film — of an illusion that propagates ideology.4

realizes its goal.” Similarly, I will attempt to set forth answers Handbooks tell us some of the structures __ to these three interrelated questions.? that are available to filmmakers. They may

even offer practical advice like ‘use flat Ill. Film as Art

lighting for comedy.” But these lists and

suggestions are not theoretical until the | Within the short history of film theory, items on the lists are related to the questions several dominant strategies for answering posed about film’s determinant characteris- — the basic questions of the discipline have

tic and role. Film theorists may ask more appealed to scholars. These include the than these questions, but I think that they — consideration of film as language (held with must at least have answers to these three if different degrees of rigor by montagists and their work is to amount to a theory of film. | semiologists), film as dream (espoused by It should be noted that by identifying film | Hoffmansthal, Langer, Sparshott and retheory with at least these three questions, — cently Metz), film as mental process (Mun-

the issue of whether it is evaluative or sterberg), film as photographic reality (Badescriptive is left open. This ambiguity zin, Kracauer and Cavell), and, of course, enters especially with the disjunction that film as art (held by too many to enumerfilm theorists speculate on the value or role _— ate). These different perspectives may or of cinema. A theorist like Eisenstein seems may not conflict depending on the interpre-

to be recommending a certain practice of _ tation that the theorist gives his or her cinema whereas the Marxist-Psychoanalytic- informing idea. Clearly Bazin used the idea

Semiologist appears primarily to be report- of film as photographic reality in a way

ing the function of cinema in capitalist | which clashed with one idea of film as society. I would not want to deny that either language, though the same antithesis is not approach is theory, though Iam unmoved by _ evident in Vertov. Langer connected the both. I believe that the Institutional Theory idea of film as dream with that of film as art

of Film is descriptive. But I am also fairly in virtue of her theory that art was the certain that we cannot dismiss something as___ reification of the forms of aspects of our

an example of film theory just because it felt emotive life, like dreams. Similarly 377

False Starts

Munsterberg argued that film was art just _ of film as a vehicle for ideology is of deep because it mimed certain mental processes. importance and that theorizing about film as

Adopting one or another of these ap- art is not incompatible with this task, but proaches often dictates specific forms of rather illuminates the context in which ideoreasoning in relation to the basic questions _ logical formations, especially in film styles, of film theory. The film as dream approach become comprehensible. involves argument by logical analogy, show- By answering the question of the value of ing how each, or at least a number, of the _film in terms of art, the stage is conceptually processes and structures of representation of | set for answering the other questions since film are like the experiences and structures —_ our conception of art can be used to evaluate

of dream. The determinant characteristic of different candidates for the determinant film will be dreamlikeness while its role or — characteristic. The form our reasoning takes value will be whatever the role or value of is to hypothesize that the feature of film that dream is, unless like Langer, dreamlikeness _is most instrumental in enabling the medium is connected to some other quality like art. | to make art is the determinant characteristic. I am committed to the film as art ap- But what is our conception of art? There are proach. This doesn’t mean that [hold that all | many contenders. Arnheim emphasizes exfilm is art. But rather, that for theoretical pression; Balazs, self-expression. And forpurposes, I only want to consider those films malism presents still further conceptions. which are art. I have chosen this perspective Thus, in adopting a film as art stance, we because it seems to me that itis an indisput- | must add another answer to the three basic able fact that it is as art, albeit sometimes — ones. Specifically we must clarify what we qualified as popular art, that filmhascometo take art tobein order to apply that concept in occupy the powerful position it holds in our _ the rest of our theory. culture. Film has many uses, but I think that

its most significant use in the twentieth IV. The Institutional Theory of Art century has been to make art. I believe it has,

even in its art-making capacity, been usedto The Institutional Theory of Art arose in make other things including not only money __ reaction to the dominant attitude toward the

but ideology. Nevertheless, I want to stress idea of art in the philosophical literature of that the study of film as art logically precedes __ the fifties and sixties. This position, stated in

the study of film as ideology because art, its its most widely known version in Morris forms and its traditions, is the filter through § Weitz’s “The Role of Theory in Aesthetwhich ideology must pass. For instance, a __ ics,” claims that art is an open concept. The disjunctive cut can only accrue revolutionary open concept approach, in turn, was a significance in virtue of the artistic traditions — reaction to what it saw as the fundamental of continuity editing which suchacut rejects. error of all other approaches to the nature of In order to assess the ideological significance art. To understand the Institutional Theory, of an articulatory practice (e.g., a style) as —_ a brief account of the open concept notion is radical or reactionary, it is first necessary to _—s necessary.

locate that practice in relation to a history of Proponents of the open concept approach styles as, for example, a deviation or a surveyed the history of art theory and found

repetition of past styles. The history of it wanting. Especially with the demise of stylistic options, 1.e., the artistic traditions of | various imitation theories of art, philoso-

the medium, in a manner of speaking, _phers and critics attempted to fill the gap

constitute one of the conditions that make — with alternative accounts of the nature of both the operation and expression of ideol- = art. Expression theories sprang up, like ogy possible. Inshort, [believe thatthe study — those of Croce and Collingwood, as well as 378

Film History and Film Theory

different sorts of formalism, including not ments, e.g., Classicism is followed by Roonly the Russians, but also Bell, Fry, and,in manticism which is followed by Realism, a way, Bergson and Ortega y Gasset. These — etc. Even if a theorist did find a common examples, of course, represent only the tip characteristic for all the art up to a given of the iceberg. Each theory appeared only to __ point in history, say up to the day he or she

be refuted because of a combination of published their theory, there would still be a technical difficulties and the inability of any |§ question about whether that feature would given approach to canvas all the things that __ be the defining feature of works of future art

were intuitively felt to be in the class of | movements given the tropism of successive art objects. These theories were especially — periods of art toward novelty, especially in weak on art that emerged after the theories terms of challenging and overthrowing the were proposed. Film theory bears the traces canons of earlier movements. Previous atof this activity in aesthetics, since often film | tempts at art theory were wrong because in theoreticians relied on one or another of the their search for the definition of art they many theories of art that abounded in the — overlooked the expansionary character of first half of the twentieth century, though, of — art, attempting to predict, in a way, what art

course, in some cases film theoreticians will always be despite the fact that unexreached back as far as the 18th or 19th — pected developments and novelty are among

century for their ideas. the deepest goals of art.

Looking at this vast disarray, the open In their putative refutation of traditional concept theory surmised that something aesthetics, the open concept theorists did must be wrong with the way art theory was _— not argue that past art theory was without

being done. Its history was one of failure. value altogether, but rather without the This, on its own, didn’t prove that art value past art theorists had assumed. The theory, as traditionally practiced, wasimpos- open concept theorists pointed out that each

sible but it gave the open concept theorists | age and each art movement attempts to food for thought. They argued that if they — define its ideal of art. Unfortunately, this is

could come up with a reason why art done in terms of the defining characteristic theories always failed, they would have _ of art and is misguided as theory. Yet it does grounds for believing that traditional aesthet- serve a salutary polemical and critical func-

ics rested on an error. tion. The traditional theorists, like Bell, Weitz noted that traditional theories al- —_ actually were involved in calling attention to ways sought to define the essential character- _— particular possibilities of art that had been

istic of art. But, following Wittgenstein’s neglected in previous art and criticism. They analysis of games, he ventured that art performed anexemplary critical task, recommight not have any essential feature, the | mending attention to specific features of art

works we think of as art linked only by _ that had been barely noticed theretofore. “family resemblances” rather than by sets of | Theorists entered partisan debates about necessary and sufficient conditions. In this art, especially at points where artists were

sense, art is an open concept; it has no expanding the boundaries of art, and the defining characteristic like expressiveness or _ theorists elucidated the important features

significant form. of their beloved objects as well as the subtle To support this conjecture, the open family relationships that the art they upheld concept theory noted that intrinsic to our _ bore to earlier art. The opening chapters of

notion of art is a high value placed on Perkins’ Film as Film incisively account for innovation, novelty and change. This is not __ the history of film theory in just this way,

only important in the careers of individual arguing that the first generations of film artists, but for the evaluation of art move- theorists were wrong, but that they operated

379 |

False Starts

polemically in specific historical contexts exactly what the Institutional Theory essays, where they illuminated ignored aspects of — rejecting the basic claim of the open concept the medium, enhancing our understanding __ theory that art can’t be defined.

of film at least temporarily. The clearest statement of the Institutional The open concept theory regards the Theory is George Dickie’s. Though flawed, theorist as a kind of critic, whose position, _it is a good starting point for developing a whether sympathetic and supportive or hos- stronger version that will be useful for film tile and rejecting, develops arm-in-arm with — theory. Dickie defines art in the following the evolution of art. The theorist, construed = way:

as critic, seems to function best when he or . . .

she aids the expansion of art’s frontiers. In “ Work of art in the classificatory sense is

film theory, one of the most effective summa- t) an artifact ries of the sentiments of the open concept 2) bobs somesocial person OF persons acting ; ehalf of awhich certain institution (thein

theory comes at the end of Sontag S essay artworld) has conferred the status of candi-

“Film and Theater” when she writes, date for appreciation.® For some time, all useful ideas in art have been Dickie holds that traditional theory and the extremely sophisticated. Like the idea that every- Open concept theory were both wrong be-

thing is what it is and not another thing. A cause they assumed that if art had some painting is a painting. Sculpture is sculpture. A characteristic feature it would be a manifest

poem is a; erpoem, not prose. Etobject, cetera. And thesignificant . : ot a: » property of the like Bell’s complementary idea: a painting can be “literary form. Dickie’s move is to areue that one of

or sculptural, a poem can be prose, theater can ; 8

emulate and incorporate cinema, cinema can be the most important characteristic features of

theatrical. art is a non-manifest, relational property, We need a new idea. It will probably be very | namely belonging to the artworld. He sees

simple. Will we be able to recognize it?’ the artworld as a social institution, like the law but less formalized, made up of artists,

Here, the open frontier of film art is exhibitors, critics and spectators, each of acknowledged and the theorist, if he or she — whom plays different roles.? Dickie’s point can be called such, is given the responsibility is that something becomes art when it is to be on the lookout for the next develop- _—— placed in the proper social (institutional)

ment in the medium. context (like a gallery) in the proper way Like most philosophical theories, the (established by precedent) by someone — an open concept theory has come in for quite a _ artist, a curator, a critic — endorsed to do so.

battering. This is not the place to rehearse These people, so to speak, nominate works all its technical difficulties except for those —_as candidates for appreciation; they present

which are relevant to the formation of the | works for spectators to judge worthy of

Institutional Theory. The open concept attention or interest, though whether the theory presumes that the expansionary na- works are appreciated is irrelevant to ture of art forecloses the possibility of | whether they are works of art. In this sense, defining art. Its argument against definition Dickie’s position is classificatory rather than

is not that past attempts at definition have evaluative.

always failed, but that they have always The Institutional Theory, like the open failed because art is expansionary. This concept theory, can claim Wittgenstein as argument, however, has an obvious chink in _its progenitor, though rather than adopting

its armor. What if the expansionary char- his analysis of games, the Institutional acter of art can be appropriately accommo- ‘Theory emphasizes his notion of a form of

dated within a definition of art? This is life. Art, it holds, is a society, a form of

_ 380

Film History and Film Theory

life, with its own rules and roles. An object One objection is that Dickie has not is an artwork in virtue of entering that form — really demonstrated that the artworld is an

of life, that social context, in accordance institution;!2 he presumes that it has a with the rules of conduct of the artworld, system of rules, but since he does not spell understood broadly as an institution like them out, why believe him? Indeed, some of

religion or politics. Again, it is not, as his own examples plus some of the wilder traditional theory held, that an object is art | counterexamples make the artworld seem

in virtue of some manifest, non-relational only like an institution in the sense of a property, but it is rather in terms of a madhouse rather than something like the nonexhibited relational property —its con- law. textual position — that something is art.!° The biggest problems in the theory return Duchamp’s Fountain, a favorite example __ to the question of whether or not Dickie can

for the Institutional Theory, was a simple — exclude any object from the order of art urinal until Duchamp, operating on behalf except for the most arbitrary and ad hoc of the artworld, placed it in a social context —_ reasons. Are there any limits on who confers where it became a candidate for apprecia- __ the status of candidate for appreciation? Can

tion. Indeed, Duchamp, as an artist, can be anyone set themselves up as a bestower of regarded as one of the key creative propo- _ status? Can I declare my bathtub a work of nents of the Institutional Theory insofar as _—_ art tomorrow? If not, why not? If so, what’s Fountain provokes a reflexive meditation on — to stop me from declaring everything art? To

the conditions of art, specifically by fore- say the least, that would be an infelicitous grounding the importance of the artworld consequence for a supposed definition of context as a constitutory factor in making an anything, save perhaps “everything.”

object art.!! Dickie argues that conferring status is On the face of it, Dickie’s theory is mildly —_ like nominating an alderman. But disbelievappalling. It relies heavily on Dada-derived _ ers have challenged this analogy by remindpranks as evidence and to many it seems to ___ ing us that a candidate for alderman must be saying that something is a work of art just | meet certain criteria before he or she can because somebody (albeit working on behalf be nominated, e.g., he or she must be of a of. the artworld) says it is. Obviously, sucha certain age.'’ But Dickie has not supplied theory can assimilate the expansionary char- _ any criteria for what an artifact must be in acter of art because anything can become a ____ order to qualify as a candidate for apprecia-

work of art as long as the right somebody tion. Again the floodgates seem open. says it is. As would be expected, the Dickie could put some teeth in his theory Institutional Theory has sparked a large — by admitting that there just are some things literature that plays with the paradoxes that that can’t be appreciated, but since Dickie issue from Dickie’s formulation through the (J think mistakenly) seems to think that “to use Of many lively and entertaining coun- __ be able to appreciate x” means “to be able terexamples that bring out the Dadaist in to like x in some respect” he concludes that

the staidest of philosophers. the things that opponents have cited as Almost every phrase in Dickie’s formula- “paradigms of things which cannot be tion has come under bombardment. I will appreciated — ordinary thumbtacks, cheap not present all the objections but merely try | white envelopes and plastic forks — have to summarize the brunt of the main onesin _—_appreciatable qualities which can be noted order to prepare the reader for areformula- _if one focuses attention on them.”!* Thus, tion of the central points of the Institutional in terms of “appreciation” Dickie’s theory Theory that I think are significant for film adds no constraints to his definition.

theory. _ The bulk of the objections to Dickie point 381

False Starts

out that he is not restrictive enough.’ To — work; it means something different depending shore up the approach some criteria for ex- upon its art-historical locations, its antecedents cluding some objects from the artworld must and the like."”

be supplied. It is here that I think that Danto’s conception of the artworld, which is Though I am not altogether happy with

more historicist than Dickie’s, is relevant. every aspect of this passage,"* I believe that

Danto does not give us a definition of art, its Stress on the role of interpreting the but he does have an account of the artworld object in its art-historical context is exactly as a society. As one reads his speculations on right. An object can be excluded from the how a work enters the order of art, one real- class of art if It cannot be situated by an izes that for Danto since art is a society, it interpretation in the artistic context of its has a history. His examples abundantly show production. The tradition, the practices and that for him it is the history of art that works the theories of the ar tworld at a given time as a constraint on what objects can become supply the teeth Dickie S theory needed. art at a given time. He invents the case ofa ___. Extending D anto’s insights while returntie, painted blue by Picasso, that today we ‘8 to Dickie’s attempt to define art, I want would count as a work of art. He then consid- to argue that the second clause in Dickie’s ers whether the same painted tie would have definition should read that something is a been art at the time of Poussin or Morandi or work of art in a classificatory sense only if Cezanne, concluding that it would not be- 2) it can be appreciated as a repetition, amplifica-

cause “there would have been no room in tion or repudiation of prior traditions of the the artworld of Cezanne’s time for a painted artworld. necktie. Not everything can be an artwork at

every time: the artworld must be ready for it. I have kept Dickie’s concept of appreciaMuch as not every line which is witty ina —_ tion in name only, for unlike him, I am using

given context can be witty in all.”!® “appreciate” not to mean “to like” but in the Danto’s point is that art as society means _more basic sense, pointed out by Ziff,’ of that art has a history, a set of traditions “to assess.” For an object to be a work of art against which a putative object is measured — we must be able to assess it by means of an as art or non-art. The artworld is an institu- interpretation that relates it to the traditions tion in virtue of these traditions. An object — of the artworld. I have tried also to flesh out must “fit into” these traditions before itcan §_Danto’s theory by sketching the three basic be an artwork. That is, at every point in the modes of interpreting an object in relation history of art, there is an ensemble of past __ to the artistic tradition. It will be under one and present practices and theories; anobject — of these three types of interpretation that an must be comprehensible in light of this | object becomes an artwork. If, at any given

context if it is to be counted as art. This point in history, the object cannot be conprovides a constraint on what can or cannot nected with the tradition by means of these be art at a given time because it implies that —_ kinds of interpretations, it is not art. Morea putative art object must be interpretable in — over, at any point in history, an object may terms of the traditions, the practices andthe — be proffered under an interpretation along

theories of the artworld. Danto writes: one of these three lines and that interpretaThe moment something is considered an artwork, ton may be wrong. For example, it might be it becomes subject to an interpretation. It owes its logically self-contradictory. In that case, if existence as an artwork to this and when its claim the object has no other available interpreta-

is defeated, it loses its interpretation and be- tion, it is not art. Here is solace for the comes a mere thing. The interpretation isinsome | Opponent of the Institutional Theory who measure a function of the artistic context of the | feared it was too permissive. 382

Film History and Film Theory

If a work is interpretable as a repetition, | work of art. In a manner of speaking, the amplification or repudiation of its anteced- —_ constraints on adequate interpretations supents, it is an artwork at the moment of its — ply a major portion of the “rules of conduct”

birth. This doesn’t mean that one of its for designating an object art. Undoubtedly contemporaries must have an interpretation since the criteria for reasonable interpreta-

ready to hand, but only that such an _ tion ofa work of art allow for the possibility interpretation is available within the prac- _—_ of equally strong, even contesting interpreta-

tices and theories of the artworld at that tions, there may be some undecidable cases time. Consider Danto’s case of the painted on the boundary between art and non-art, tie; if it were proffered not in Poussin’s time, though I think that the number of actual but in the 1920s, it would be art, even if it | boundary problems will not be great enough stupefied every spectator, just because there to hurt the overall efficacy of the theory. At was enough of the right kind of theoryinthe — the same time, the Institutional Theory will

air. On the other hand, an object, even _ be able to exclude many of the more hairaccompanied by the right kind ofinterpreta- _ raising cases like our roll of out-takes.

tion, can be excluded if the only interpreta- A little more needs to be said about the

tion it has is ill-founded. three modes of interpretation under which ‘Imagine a film discovered in the Warner an object is classified as art. The most Bros. vaults that is made up of the randomly _ straightforward mode is to establish that a ordered out-takes of a hundred different given work is a repetition of past or existing films of the thirties. Further imagine that traditions, practices, and theories. A repeti-

this is screened at MOMA, where the tion is a modification or variation in the program notes declare that this film bares all _ particularities of the content of, for inthe codes of the narrative cinema. Here the stance, a genre or form. In film, Gone with

film is linked with an interpretation that the Wind is a repetition of movies like construes it as a modernist repudiation. But Frankenstein, for though the characters, the interpretation, in the case as I’ve out- events, and places have changed, the basic lined it, is implausible. It is at the very least narrative techniques have remained the anachronistic to suppose that Warner Bros. same. Repetition, in this sense, is not exact in the thirties supplied a context where there duplication. If someone remade Klute, shot were either traditions or practices, let alone for shot, so that it was indiscernible from the theories, that by the wildest stretch of the __ original, it could only stand as a work of art imagination would enable that film, in that if it were accompanied by an interpretation place, at that time to function asa modernist — that characterized it as a complex repudiarepudiation of narrative filmmaking. We can tion (perhaps involving irony) rather than defeat the interpretation and thus exclude _ one that flew under the flag of repetition.”

that film from the corpus of art. An amplification is a formal modification We can evaluate interpretations of puta- that expands the means of achieving the tive works of art by criteria like accuracy of — goals of a given genre or form. For instance,

detail, logical coherence, comprehensive- at a given point in film history parallel ness of detail, specificity and distinctiveness editing and the close-up were popularized. of interpretation, simplicity in explanation, The films that sported these new techniques historicity, etc. Thus, we can exclude some —_ were amplifications of the aim of making supposed works of art on the grounds that _ film narratives. And, of course, even at the

their only interpretations can be defeated time they were greeted as such; for film, because they are implausible when mea- they were appraised as new means for sured against the kinds of criteria we expect achieving an established end.

from any reasonable interpretation of a Through the concept of amplification, the 383

False Starts

Institutional Theory can incorporate aspects time can function as a plausible repudiation of the expansionary character of art which and an expansion of the frontier of art. In the so exercised the open concept theory. But _ next section, I will attempt to say what the repudiation is even more important in this —_ ramifications of adopting this historicist verrespect. An artistic repudiation is arejection sion of the Institutional Theory are for film

of an antecedent style and its associated theory.

,; , Film

values. It emphasizes possibilities that are repressed in, or obscured by, the rejecte d V. Notes for an Institutional Theory of

style. For an object to count as a repudia- .

tion, it must not merely be different from

what has preceded it, it must be interpret- The Institutional Theory is attractive for able as in some sense opposed or against _ film theory because it is sensitive to the

antecedent artistic traditions. developmental dimension of art forms, a

The disjunctive editing in Un chien anda- __ factor notably lacking in most classical film lou is a repudiation of the dominant struc- _—_ theories. As outlined above, it gives art tures of editing, but a similar-looking, mis- history an important role to play in aesthetmatched, fragmentary example of film from ics. At the very least, adopting the Institu1904 would not be, if only because the _ tional Theory gives the film-as-art theorist a dominant narrative style had not yet been means for deciding what is and is not in his established. Likewise, Renoir’s deep-focus, — or her field of study. The ability to know decentered compositions in Rules of the — what the data is, of course, is important for Game repudiate the simple, economic, cen- _—_any theory. But we have traveled a long and

trally composed images of the dominant — winding, almost feckless road if that is the narrative traditions of the twenties and — only advantage that the Institutional Theory thirties whereas Porter’s rather confused, holds for us. decentered shots, though on occasion simi- One thing that the foregoing account tells lar in effect to Renoir’s, are not repudiations —_us is that an art form has the capacity for

of anything, but the common coin of the later works to repudiate earlier ones. This

early days of film. feature seems crucial to me for zeroing in on When a work of art is regarded as a _ the determinant feature of film. Historically, repudiation of a pre-existing tradition, its film has sponsored, at the very least, one style stands, in the culture from which it — generally acknowledged great debate that emerges, to what it repudiates somewhat like involved the opposition of two film styles

a logical contrary. At least, it behaves like that were treated as contraries, viz., the one. We think this way, for instance, of | contest between montage and deep-focus Classicism versus Romanticism. In film, a _ realism. This is a very complicated issue, similar tension exists between montage and _—_ and I don’t pretend to be able to unravel it realism. Again a repudiation is not merely completely. But there is one aspect of it that,

different from what has preceded it, but for our purposes, is especially important. To opposed in a way that givesitsrelationtothe — wit, it was a debate between one style of past a discernible structure. To interpret an composition in the single shot versus one object as a repudiation one must show _ type of editing. In other words, it developed exactly along what dimensions the object — because film is a complex object in the sense rejects tradition as well as showing that just that it is made up of a number of discrete that sort of rejection was conceivable in the — channels ofarticulation. Weighting one chan-

artistic context in which the work appeared. nel over another gave film stylists the History and tradition, in other words, supply |= conceptual space necessary for one type of information that constrain what at any given _ filmmaking to repudiate another. Perkins 384

Film History and Film Theory

has pointed out that film began as ahybrid, _ tive cinema. Nor was this just the idle chatter the product of the fusion of photography __ of critics, but an animating idea of a certain and optical toys like the Zoetrope. Unfortu- form of filmmaking.

nately he does not explore the full ramifica- My answer to the question about what tions of this insight, settling as he does ona aspect of film should be central in our formula for the cinematic that is meant to thinking about the medium is that its deterreconcile or equilibrate only two capacities |§ minant characteristic is its complexity which of film — its abilities to reproduce and also _— affords the possibility of individual films

to reconstitute pro-filmic reality. ° entering a developing, historical discourse Of course, editing and composition are — with other films and other arts. “Discourse,”

not the only processes of articulation; here, is metaphoric. By it I mean that sound, color, screen size, etc. set up even __ through stylistic manipulation of the comfurther possibilities that afford not only plex elements of film, individual films can opportunities for amplifying existing film repeat, amplify or repudiate the concerns styles, but for repudiating past ones. In and preoccupations of other films and other short, it is the complexity of the medium §$arts. The phrase “complex elements” refers that is the determinant characteristic in our _— not only to the fact that film has discrete

thinking about film as art. channels of articulation but that each of So far, I have only alluded to complexity — those channels is itself complex.

in terms of the interplay between the differ- Earlier I claimed that the Institutional ent channels of articulation in film. Buteven Theory suggested a research program for more profoundly, each of the discrete chan- __ the Institutional Theory of Film. With the nels of articulation is complex in the.sense __ specification of the determinant characteristhat each can be manipulated toward very __ tic, the way is clear to see what that research

different, often opposing ends. program is. The question in film theory that Alexander Sesonske has pointed out that requires the most voluminous answer is, phenomenologically cinematic space (i.e., | “What are the processes of articulation of the space of a single shot) can be either flat _— film in relation to its determinant characteris-

or deep.*! An individual filmmaker, like tic and value?” The form this answer takes is Hans Richter in Rhythmus, Ernie Gehrin Se- —an_ analysis of the different processes of rene Velocity or more conventionally, Busby _articulation and their possible inter-relations Berkeley in his production numbers, can as instances of the determinant characteris-

play off this tension between the two- _ tic. If the Institutional Theory claims a dimensional and three-dimensional aspects certain type of complexity as the determi-

of cinematic space. But the fact that a nant feature of film, then the final, though filmmaker can emphasize either the flatness most crucial, portion of the theory involves of the screen or the depth of the image on _a_ review of the processes of articulation as the screen opens the possibility, not only that | examples of complex elements that cannot the filmmaker will manipulate the two con- only repeat but amplify and repudiate eartrapuntally, but elevate one aspect of cine- __ lier uses of those elements. matic space over another. Proponents of the Film theoreticians dwell on the capacities New American Cinema, who, under the _ of each aspect of the medium, charting their influence of the Greenberg version of mod- __ possible uses, and sometimes adding which ernism, claimed that cinematic space was uses are legitimate and which not according

“really” flat and that the task of the film- to the guiding prejudices of the theoretimaker was to reveal this basic condition of _ cians. This analysis, whether classificatory

the medium, made exactly this move in or evaluative, is done with an eye to the repudiating the deep space of classical narra- | determinant characteristic and value of film. 385

False Starts

Commitments on these issues orient the The system he proposed, and which we theoreticians by supplying a framework in — can easily descry in the bulk of narrative which to analyze the articulatory processes. _ films, is quite commonsensical; probably it is The Institutional Theory seeks to establish — the approach that most of us would naturally

how each articulatory element can support opt for when confronted by the problem of the dialectic of repetition, amplification and = organizing narrative space. Neither Freeburg

repudiation. nor the multitude of filmmakers whose pracToalarge extent, thisessayisapromissory _ tice he theorized named their approach; so

note which I hope to repay with future for expositional purposes let me call it the writing. I cannot now scrutinize every articu- | economic-psychological method of medium latory process in film, but I would like to — shot composition.

discuss some aspects of the medium-long The approach has a hyphenated name shot (henceforth simply “medium shot”) in because it has two components, one of order to provide some idea of how I think which is a value and the other which is that the Institutional Theory would approach factual. The value component is that part I

the various elements of film articulation. call economic. It holds that the task of a Composition in the medium shot is one of _ director is to lead the audience’s attention to

the basic forms of cinematic articulation. | the most important elements in the narraHistorically, it was one of the first methods __ tive. This attitude is based on an idea of of cinematic representation, seemingly bor- __ efficiency, and Freeburg’s emphasis on this

rowed from theater and painting as a pri- quality reminds us of many of Lev Kulemary format. One might also speculate that | shov’s recommendations about composithis format has a certain phenomenological tion. Both, for instance, advocate a simplicprimacy, that transcends the specific circum- _—ity of detail that might be thought of as stances of film history, and which is due to _—_ abstraction in the sense of removing or

the fact that our normal experience of subtracting distracting objects from the set. people is of whole, identifiable bodies, |The correct composition in Freeburg is that rather than of parts as we find in the close — which most efficiently directs the attention shot or as specks as we find in long shots. of the audience to the key elements of the

But for whatever reason, composition inthe story; failure in this regard is an error in medium shot is a primary process of film style. For Freeburg, a good composition is articulation and it is the task of my theory to — one in which the first item the audience

show how it can sustain a reticulum of attends to is also the key narrative element repetitions, amplifications and repudiations. __ in the shot.

Film became linked with storytelling How can a filmmaker be assured that he or quite early in its history. This gave rise tothe — she has a good composition ahead of time? problem of how to organize narrative space _— ‘This is where the theory is factual. Freeburg

in the medium shot. Though the saga of |adduces certain psychological rules of early narrative composition is not as well thumb, which modern research could exunderstood and perhaps for that reason not _—_pand, about where the audience is likely to so dramatic as that of early editing, thereisa look in a composition. Of course, the value

discernible maturation in compositional component of the theory tells you to put the style between 1900-1920. What became the _ key narrative elements in the sectors where principles of the dominant style in narrative — the audience is likeliest to look.

composition were outlined by the early film The rules of thumb are pretty obvious. theoretician Victor Freeburg, who like The audience is likely to look at stasis in many others of our profession, attempted to movement or movement in stasis, at the

codify his preferences into a system.” center of the frame, at prominent objects, 386

Film History and Film Theory

along continuous lines like diagonals, at image, a phenomenon we find, for instance, light on dark and vice-versa, at geometric in Sternberg, Renoir and Tati. figures, etc. Freeburg, like Kuleshov, urges Consider Rules of the Game for a mothat compositions not be cluttered lest atten- ment. It is as if Renoir had read Freeburg tion be diffused, and he also warns against _—_and set out to violate every recommendation

the use of unusual or unidentifiable objects in the book. In many shots there is perturbon the set since they are likely to distract ing movement in the background, diverting

attention from the main action. attention from the central action. In defi-

Freeburg’s analysis isincomplete not only —_ance of Freeburg’s strictures against distract-

because his list of the manipulable variables ing objects, we find things obtruding into for inducing attention is too short, but also — the frame and on occasion dominating the

because he has not provided us with any foreground; the marquis, for instance, araccount of the comparative strength of the — gues with his lover while standing next to an different variables when they are not coordi- _arresting oriental statue whose strange, asnated to draw attention to one sector of the _ sertive presence, and size command more

image. Nevertheless, his speculations are attention than either of the humans. Imporimportant for film theory in several respects. tant dramatic events are thrust into the First of all he has focused on what might background; André sees St. Aubin and be thought of as the fundamental structures | Christine while Schumacher’s wild chase

of the medium shot; any medium shot, draws attention to the foreground. The indeed any shot whether flat or deep, close motivation for these, and other similar or long, will guide attention in accordance strategies, in Rules of the Game is, of with certain psychological rules of thumb. course, well known; they are increments of a Any compositional style begins with these style of film realism that attempts to prorules of thumb and then goes on to decide mote in the spectator an encounter with the

how to manipulate them, that is, how the image that is more like the way we experiaudience will be directed through the image. ence pro-filmic reality than what we find in a

Freeburg offers one alternative; use the — standardly composed film. In terms of the

rules of thumb to guarantee that the key Institutional Theory we can add that this narrative element is the first thing the style of realism is also a repudiation of the spectator looks at. In this he is articulating | economic-psychological approach to the methe base-line style in medium shot composi- dium shot. Here, it is important to note that

tion not only as it is practiced in film, butin Renoir is employing the same kinds of television programs as well. Most medium __ psychological rules of thumb as Freeburg shot composition is nothing but a repetition discussed; at root, medium shot composition

of the economic-psychological approach to is always a matter of directing attention

the narrative image. according to these variables. But where Given this base-line, we can begintochart attention will be directed, and why, are other possibilities for the use of the medium matters that are open to invention. And in shot, including what can be designated as ___ this light, Renoir can be understood as

amplifications and repudiations. Some of the | someone who proffered an opposing viewmost famous film directors can, for instance, point of the significance of the basic struc-

be understood in terms of repudiating the tures of the medium shot. economic-psychological style. One aspect of Lang’s Siegfried represents another kind that style is focusing attention on a single of repudiation of the economic-psychological sector in the image; thus, one clear way to approach. Often objects dwarf the human repudiate it is to defocus and simultaneously — characters; but even more importantly, an diffuse attention across many sectors of the astounding number of shots are composed 387

False Starts

symmetrically so that the eye is drawn away _ the shot, past the absent rail and further from individual characters to the overall — until finally we see Johnny, played by Buster geometric design of the image. Here the Keaton, pumping the lever on his handcar, effect is unlike realism; our attention is not wildly in pursuit of his stolen train. The diffuse; our eye doesn’t circle around and natural pathway of vision here, as dictated scan the image for detail. Rather we first by the formal arrangement of compositional grasp the entire image as a gestalt. Freeburg elements, leads the spectator from one noted the eye’s proclivity to settleon geomet- _—_— crucial element in the situation (the missing

ric designs. But in Siegfried the recognition __ rail) to the next (Johnny), preparing us for

of this rule of thumb has not led Lang to _ the predictable gag when Johnny and his employ it for the sake of the narrative. handcar go careening onto the roadside. Indeed, the apprehension of geometric de- One way to chart the difference between signs in the imagery contests and at ttmes The General and Rules of the Game is to see supersedes the apprehension of characters — what variables of attention the two films rely and events. But Lang has not bungled the _ on. Here, one might note that Keaton favors job. He has allowed the physical world and __ the use of continuous lines, like diagonals, to an overriding sense of designtoloomoverhis draw our eyes into the background, whereas

characters in order to express a theme of — Renoir favors the use of assertive backfatalism. The composition, asit directs atten- | ground movement to catch our attention. tion to overarching gestalts, literalizes the This sort of analysis is on a par with pointing notion that Siegfried is inescapably trapped out that Tati uses color and sound to tell us in the fatal design of destiny. Lang has made — where to lookin his complex medium shots in

attention to the narrative secondary for Playtime. But this analysis doesn’t get at the expressionistic purposes, repudiating the fundamental difference between Renoir and economic-psychological approachinorderto Keaton, namely, in The General attention is make the individual medium shots function always directed in a very determinate way; as general symbols, not merely representing the image is not diffuse and the spectator

their referents, but fate as well. does not scan it for details. Unlike Rules of Keaton’s The General willserveasmyone the Game continued viewings of The General example of amplification. Like Rules of the are not likely to turn up new discoveries of Game, this film is noted for its use of depthof | dramatic situations that you literally did not field. Yet, in contrast to Rules of theGameor __ perceive the first time around. In its use of Playtime, one would hardly describe one’s _ the depth-of-field medium shot and the longattention to its composition as diffuse. Again take, The General may be a distant ancestor and again, Keaton uses the uniformly articu- of Renoir’s realist style, but strictly speaking

lated railroad tracks to draw our attention it is still an example of the economicfrom the foreground to the background. In _ psychological approach, albeit a sophisti-

both sectors of the shot we see objects and cated one. What Keaton has done is to activities which are interrelated, oftensetting |§ amplify that approach by using the diagonal

the stage for some gag. to tackle narrative events whose elements are For instance, one shot in the film begins __ far apart in space without taking recourse to with a low angle view of the railway track. — the use of editing which would have been the

The roadbed is quite prominent, indeed, solution of most of his contemporaries, like

rather large given its proximity to the Lloyd. Keaton has not surrendered the camera. We note that a portion of the track principle that the spectator should first see is missing; it had been removed earlier by the key narrative elements; rather, he has the Union hijackers. The rhythmic recession mastered the use of continuous, recessive of the line of tracks pulls us into the depth of — linear compositions, including the use of the 388

Film History and Film Theory

diagonal, so that the key narrative elements make sure that their relation to what is alcan be widely dispersed, yet stillimmediately ready in the filmworld is legitimate in terms

apparent to the audience. of whether or not they can be accompanied

These examples, of course, are not of- by an interpretation that meets certain

fered as an exhaustive account of the criteria.

medium shot, but merely as a sketch of the The Institutional Theory of Film, as type of analysis the Institutional Theory expounded here, is historicist in two reinvolves. Such a theory is inextricably — spects. Not only does it use historical categobound to history in a way that theories like __ ries to elaborate the articulatory processes Arnheim’s or Kracauer’s are not because of the medium, but it also tends to analyze the way in which the possibilities of the | the medium from the inside, accepting as medium are charted and elucidated are in __ basic certain beliefs that are held by citizens terms of repetition, amplification, and repu- _ of the filmworld, e.g., that film is art, that diation, which are essentially historical cate- —_ art intrinsically values the expansion of its

gories. It is true that a theoreticlan may — own frontiers, etc. I have attempted to put conceive of possibilities of the medium that some of these beliefs in order. But some have not yet been actualized and may even _ readers may feel that though the theory predict the appearance of a new use of one _ avoids the blindness toward history and the of the processes of articulation. This is | developmental dimension of the medium compatible with and perhaps somewhat found in classical theory, it blunders into an facilitated by the Institutional Theory be- — even deeper sort of error. For in its historicause despite its historicism the analytic — cism, the Institutional Theory loses sight of categories it employs are developmental. | what some claim is the fact that art, even the

The only constraints the Institutional idea of art, and that of film as art are Theory urges on such predictions are that ideological illusions. In setting out the interthe hypothesized possibilities grow from the __ nal logic, the rules, of the filmworld, the past as amplifications or repudiations. At Institutional Theory is engaged in an enterthe same time, though such predictions are _ prise akin to counting the bones in the not discouraged by the Institutional Theory, skeleton of a phantom. Or so it might be they are not essential to it. Setting out and —_ claimed by those for whom theory should analyzing the possibilities of the articula- not work at attempting to internally recon-

tory processes of the medium that have struct the protocol of the filmworld, but emerged so far is an awesome enough task should view it externally, from the outside,

in itself, which in regard to the future of | as a machine for propagating bourgeois film will at the very least put us ina better ideology that is not even understood as such position to recognize and understand new by the people who run it.

possibilities when and if they develop. To this I can only answer that though I agree that art and film art are in part

of ideology, I do not VI.. conduits Conclusion , believe that

they are merely epiphenomena of an ecoThe Institutional Theory of Film envisions nomic system. The filmworld is unquestionfilm as a society — the filmworld as one of — ably influenced by its position in a wider the sprawling suburbs of the artworld. Both — culture in relation to an economic history the older and the newer neighborhoods are —_ and system, but those influences are minted

governed by certain established proce- and circulated in the currency of the dures. Individual films enter the filmworld _ filmworld by the structure of that instituand the artworld by three routes, and at _ tion. I presuppose that the filmworld is semi-

each point of entry they are checked to autonomous’ in relation to the economic 389

False Starts

base of the broader society, and that for this falls under at least one of the following reason it needs to be studied in its own headings: raw material, methods and techterms. In this sense, the Institutional Theory niques, forms and shapes, purpose or value.” of Film, with its emphasis on film art as a This is similar to the characterization of film social institution, does not preclude studies theory that I am offering but it is important to

of the relation of film and ideology but om phasize that Andrew and | difter not

simply on the number and wording of the

prepares for them. basic questions of film theory but also because I’ve not only proposed a list of three

Notes issues but I’ve tried to say how the answers to these issues are systematically interrelated. 1. For a statement of Dickie’s version of the For me, Andrew has offered a description of Institutional Theory see his Art and the what film theories usually contain without a Aesthetic: An Institutional Analysis (Ithaca: specification of the nature of the conceptual Cornell, 1974). Danto’s views are contained connection between each of the answers a in three important papers: “The Artworld,” theory proposes. By claiming that the deterin Journal of Philosophy 6 (1964); “Artworks minant characteristic is related to the role of

and Real Things,” in Theoria, Parts 1-3 film as a means to an end, and that the (1973); “The Transformation of the Common- articulatory processes are assessed as inplace,” in Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criti- stances of the determinant characteristic, I cism 33 (1974). The anthology, Culture and would claim that I have offered an analysis of Art (Nyborg: F. Lokkes Forlag, 1976), edited film theory whereas Andrew has offered a by Lars Aagaard-Mogensen contains many in- broad description of its elements. teresting essays against the Institutional The- 6. Weitz’s article, which has been widely anory as well as key essays by Dickie, Danto and thologized, first appeared in the Journal of Joseph Margolis in defense of it. The litera- Aesthetics and Art Criticism 15 (1956). Other ture is much larger than this, but this is a start. related articles include: Paul Ziff, “The Task 2. Though film theorists generally seem to of Defining a Work of Art,” in Philosophical follow Munsterberg in treating the processes Review 62 (1953); W. E. Kennick, “Does of articulation as positive instances of the Traditional Aesthetics Rest on a Mistake?” in determinant characteristic, in some cases a Mind 67 (1958); Stuart Hampshire, “Logic given process of articulation can be treated as and Appreciation,” in The World Review a negative instance or violation, e.g., Bazin’s (Oct. 1952); Morris Weitz “Wittgenstein’s analysis of montage. But in either case what Aesthetics,” in Language and Aesthetics, ed. is significant is that the discussion of the Benjamin Tilghman (Lawrence: University of process of articulation is related back to the Kansas Press, 1973). This is only a sample of

discussion of the determinant feature. the literature; in my exposition I have mostly 3. By “illusionism” adherents to this position followed Weitz but aspects of some of the are referring both to techniques of pictorial other proponents of the open concept are verisimilitude and to the techniques of classi- mixed in as well.

cal narration. For example, see Stephen 7.In Film Theory and Criticism, ed. by G. Heath, “Narrative Space,” in Screen 17 (Au- Mast and M. Cohen (New York: Oxford,

tumn 1976). For my own part, I wonder 1974), p. 267. whether or not equating narrative and per- 8. Dickie, “A Response to Cohen: The Actualspective is involved in a subtle perpetration of ity of Art,” in Aesthetics: A Critical Anthol-

the fallacy of equivocation. ogy, ed. by George Dickie and Richard

4. E.g., Daniel Dayan, “The Tutor-Code of Sclafani (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1977), Classical Cinema,” in Film Quarterly 28 (Fall pp. 196-97.

1974). 9. Though there are different roles, one person

5. In the introduction to The Major Film Theo- can play more than one of them. ries (New York: Oxford, 1976), J. Dudley 10. This property can become quite complex. Andrew writes “Every question about film Later I argue that at the very least it involves 390

Film History and Film Theory

the object entering the artworld at a specific tion between repetition and duplication time in one of three specifiable ways. might mean for works of art whose aesthetic 11. The consistent proponent of the open con- significance rests solely on their propositional cept theory might retort by saying that the import. Perhaps, if the day after Fountain was Institutional Theory is merely another exam- exhibited, someone else attempted to declare ple of a time-bound theory that is really their sink art under the interpretation that he

criticism attempting to call attention to the or she was illustrating that “anything can important feature of certain beloved objects, become art,” we might be able to dismiss

the products of Dada and its heritage. them by charging that they were merely 12. For a detailed attack on Dickie’s use of the duplicating Fountain. notion of an institution, see Monroe Beards- 21. In “Cinema Space,” in Explorations in Phe-

ley, “Is Art Essentially Institutional,” in nomenology 4 (The Hague: Marinus Nijhoff,

Culture and Art. 1973), ed. by David Carr and Edward Casey.

13. Ted Cohen attacks the nominating analogy as 22. See Pictorial Beauty on the Screen (New well as other aspects of Dickie’s definition in York: Benjamin Blom, 1972). This text was “A Critique of the Institutional Theory of originally published in 1923. Art: The Possibility of Art,” in Aesthetics: A 23. By using the term “semi-autonomous” I am

Critical Anthology. not promoting an “art for art’s sake” position

14. Dickie, “A Response to Cohen,” p. 200. (as some readers of this ms. have assumed). I 15. Dickie’s very broad notion of an artifact has am rather stressing that each art form has an also been attacked. But I will not consider internal history and structure as well as a histhose criticisms here because, in this paper, I tory in relation to broader social and ecowant to apply the Institutional Theory to film nomic developments. Though I am interested which I think is an artifact in the narrowest, in classification rather than evaluation and

least disputable sense of the word. though I think the word “law” is too strong, I 16. Danto, “The Last Work of Art: Artworks feel an institutional approach is compatible and Real Things,” in Aesthetics: A Critical with the thrust of Trotsky’s thinking when he

Anthology, p. 557. writes “a work of art should, in the first place,

17. Danto, p. 561. be judged by its own law, that is, by the law 18. For example, I think that if the interpretation of art” (in Literature and Revolution [Ann of the object is wrong, and the object has no Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1971], other historically plausible interpretation, p. 178). What I want to say is that first we

then the object was never an artwork. need a taxonomy of the formal possibilities of 19. Paul Ziff, Semantic Analysis (Ithaca: Cornell, the medium as they emerge historically.

1960), p. 242. These can then be correlated to shifts within

20. It is interesting to consider what the distinc- the broader social and economic base.

391

;=

=. CHAPTER XXVII idea of a rebuttal had been dropped.

received no reply. And I believed that the

Needless to say, I was quite surprised

=

Art, Film and when I got my copy of No. 4. And outraged. Ideology: A Response = This sort of bushwhacking is not unknown in

a film “scholarship”; it is a trick we are famil-

to Blaine Allan iar with from Screen. Yet I feel I must object

™ that it is not only cowardly but an abuse of

= an author’s right to assume that his/her

manuscript has been accepted in the same

spirit it was offered. Since the publication of

Film Reader is erratic, I have no idea how

The following article is a response to an long Allan will enjoy a free ride at my attack upon the present author which ap- expense. But no matter. There is a larger peared in Film Reader No. 4. The unusual _ issue here. circumstances of the attack are noted below. Film journals, if they are to be scholarly, Film Reader, however, has refused to print must stop behaving like high school newspa-

an unexpurgated version of Carroll’s re- pers. I suppose that Allan felt he could sponse to Allan which accounts for its abridge my rights as an author because my appearance here. The opinions expressed in article offered a clear and present danger to this rejoinder are those of the author, not _ the revolution. That’s ridiculous. It’s about Millennium Film Journal. The article was _ time that film scholars disabuse themselves

written in the Winter of 1980. of the fantasy that they are on the barricades.

I. Introduction .; ; :;

We are a comparatively tiny academic en-

. clave addressing each other, not the proletar-

iat. We are not an appropriate audience for In Film Reader No. 4, an article appeared = sermonizing or sloganeering. Our remarks —

by Blaine Allan entitled “Up Against the even the most incendiary ones — have no Institutional Wall: A Dissenting View.” This | impact outside our community. Therefore, was an attack of an article in the same — we have no recourse to revolutionary ethics, volume by me that expounded whatI callan specifically to abrogating the prima facie Institutional Theory of Film. What follows rights of other researchers.

is an answer to Allan’s charges. But before My response to Allan’s attack is divided commenting on the substance of his re- into two parts — “Skirmishes” and “Insularmarks, I would like to point out the ques- _—ity?” “Skirmishes” is a detailed review of tionable manner in which Allan’s article was = Allan’s objections aimed at revealing his

published. faulty reading and reasoning. Since Allan

Allan is an editor of Film Reader. Obvi- makes many different kinds of errors, this ously he had no idea of writing an article section is somewhat diffuse. Some readers, until mine arrived in the mail. Soon after my not interested in dialectical minutiae, may article was accepted (Fall 1978), my New _ prefer to jump immediately to “Insularity?” York editor informed me that Film Reader — which requires less intimate knowledge of

was contemplating a response to it. I either my original article or Allan’s. Here I thought that that was fine, as long as I was _—_ deal with a point Allan often repeats (but

sent a copy of the response and was given never demonstrates). He charges that my the opportunity to rebut itin the same issue. = approach is insular and “an endorsement of I made this request at least one year before | comparative formalism at its most barren,” Film Reader No. 4 reached its audience. I despite the fact that I claim that my theory 392

Art, Film and Ideology: A Response to Blaine Allan

only asserts that the filmworld is a semi- is amonumental enthymeme calling for a lot autonomous institution and that my ap- — of hard work to adduce the invisible premproach is propaedeutic to the study of film ises. At worst, it is a bit of complacent,

and ideology. though fashionable, rhetoric.!

Allan does not seem to be of a mind for Allan ends his introduction by suggesting such distinctions, though Edward Bus- _ that the artworld is thought of “as a natural combe, in the same volume, notes “Noél body or entity operating on our behalf or for Carroll’s ‘Institutional Theory of Film’ cer- —_ our benefit.” What does he mean? Does he

tainly seems to be materialist in its implica- mean that the people who follow the tions, if not Marxist.” And, of course, artworld and even those who merely watch Buscombe is right. My approach was de- it from afar don’t know that money and signed to be compatible with and even to power are involved? If so, he’s just wrong. If facilitate ideological studies. Buscombe saw __he were correct, how would he explain the and understood the arguments that Allan fact that it has been quite common for a long either wouldn’t or couldn’t. Since Allan has —_— time in our culture for someone -— either no arguments — only monotonous asser- inside or outside the art scene — to describe tions — my only means to answer his charges __ the latest avant-garde “breakthrough” as a is to elaborately spell out the position onthe |= money-making scam or a play for notoriety relations between artistictraditionsandideol- |= and power? The idea of the spectator lulled

ogy that is already in the original text. into accepting the artifacts of culture as “natural” is a reflex assumption of much

Il. Skirmishes current theory. It should be abandoned because it doesn’t fit the facts. It is not the Allan begins his attack with a section called = audience that’s blind; it’s the theorists.

“An Illustration,” which I presume is a Allan’s second section is called “A Paralconceit that is meant to be literary. It lel.” He chides Frank Kermode’s theory of involves a kind of parable gleaned from _interpretation-— by dredging up E. D. Ways of Seeing. Since it has very little todo — Hirsch’s criticisms of it - and suggests that

with my position, I will reserve detailed | somehow this has something to do with me.

comment. However, this interlude does But what? I have my own position on introduce us to Allan’s peculiar style of interpretation, published a year before reasoning. From his own speculation that Allan’s piece appeared,’ which is not only the artworld would castigate Berger if he antithetical to Kermode’s but also not suscepdestroyed Botticelli’s Mars and Venus, Allan _ tible to the “invisible academy” objection. I

concludes that this shows “the art work have enough holes in my own roof without enters into relations of property and eco- moving into Kermode’s funhouse. How is nomic value.” Now it is true that artworks §Kermode’s “institution” similar to mine in enter such relations, as I explicitly acknowl- — terms of my view of interpretation? Ker-

edge in my essay. But to see that as a mode’s construct proffers leaders; mine does conclusion of the Berger example is a piece —_— not. So why does Allan even bother to bring

of sky-writing. If the artworld punished it up? Berger in such a case, they might certainly Allan next veers into praise of a list of have reasons other than economic ones. disciplines and schools of thought that he Allan has forgotten to close off these alterna- | believes help us understand film. His claims tives in his “argument.” Wouldn’t Berger be —_ about Peirce’s influence on fields like psycho-

punished or at least reprimanded forsuchan analysis seem strained; and Peirce had much act in a communist utopia as well as in a ‘more to Say than the few snatches ritualisticapitalistic society? At best this “argument” cally repeated by semiologists. For example, 393

False Starts

I have yet to read applications of his theory —_ But the categorical distinction between be-

of abduction or of truth in any of the fields ing art or non-art is like the institutional Allan mentions. When reading Allan’s lit- —_ distinction between being married or unmarany of approaches, however, I was struck by _ ried. And it is a description of me, not an one thing. Lifting a phrase from Buscombe, _ evaluation, that I am a bachelor.

Allan accuses me of hedging my bets when I Allan attempts to impute an evaluative readily acknowledge that film and art are dimension to my position by saying that parts of larger social structures. But what “ ‘art’ occupies a privileged place as subject are we to make of Allan’s pluralism — he’s of examination... .” “Privileged” here is covered virtually every horse in the race? nothing but a tendentious equivocation.

Allan ends “A Parallel” by noting Botanists “privilege” vegetables in_ this

- sense. Do we take them to be saying

Critical concern for the cinema has centered “Tomatoes = good; gold = bad”? throughout its history on the place of film within Allan further asserts that I legitimatize art

art. The argument assumes that it can reach a ae

resting point once it achieves this goal of locating as the filter through which ideology must a particular form within the sphere of art. Clearly pass. Now I do say that in terms of film,

it cannot. ideology is expressed, in large part, via

selection of some aesthetic options (rather I’m confused about what “argument” refers than others) which, in turn, derive from the to here. Does he mean my argument or the history of the evolution of film-as-art. Does

film-as-art argument in general? Also, that mean that I endorse film art as a where does “Clearly, it cannot” come from? — conduit for ideology? Of course not. If I say

It is an assertion without argument or people can only be stabbed with sharp evidence, high-sounding but hollow. In any _—_ objects I have not legitimatized or endorsed

case, if Allan takes it that I hold that the _ the use of sharp objects to stab people. I’ve study of film reaches a “resting point” once __ said they can only be stabbed one way (with we situate film within the sphere of art, he — sharp objects) and not that they should be just didn’t read my article. Later he insinu- — stabbed. Likewise, ideology in film will ates a similar charge, suggesting that think — generally be expressed in relation to the our work is done when we find aninterpreta- —_ aesthetic traditions of film; but that doesn’t tion that establishes that a given object isa entail my advocacy of propagating ideology.

work of art. I recommend that he re-read The arguments that Allan brings against

section V of my essay. George Dickie, whom he accusingly refers

In “Up Against the Wall” Allan launches — to as my “source,” are pure bathos. Dickie his frontal assault. He holds that my distinc- — uses the idea of nominating an alderman as tion between “art” and “non-art” is evalua- —_an analogy for asserting something is a work tive, not descriptive. Well, that’s for him to — of art. As I point out in my essay, it is a weak

prove, which, of course, he doesn’t. Is analogy for reasons of logic. But Allan determining whether a group of children is __ blasts it with bluster by changing Dickie’s

playing the game “football” rather than example and ranting on about bossism. merely running around, tossing a football to | Certainly Dickie has a right to his choice of

and fro, evaluative or descriptive? To me it heuristic analogy — which is based on an seems straightforwardly descriptive even ideally functioning electoral process. Allan’s though the criteria for whether an activity is | response resembles someone who upon hear-

or is not a game of football are matters of | ing that a performance was “as tart as a institutional fact rather than facts of nature. | cherry” remembers that he once had a If Allan wants to say that being an instance __ rotten cherry and then accuses his interlocu-

of art is not like being a super nova, lagree. tor of advocating rotten performances. Al394

Art, Film and Ideology: A Response to Blaine Allan

lan’s free associations concerning electoral | which I claimed, given the case as I outlined

processes becloud his comprehension of it, would still be a work of art. Allan seems Dickie’s point. Allan also seems to believe __ to take the case as if it actually occurred and

that an electoral process as such is patriar- then argues for the same conclusion I chal and that, a fortiori, so is Dickie’s proposed. Allan’s point here eludes me. He theory. Surely, the artworld and government does announce, however, that my position are male dominated. But it is not obvious amounts to static essentialism without, of that they are necessarily patriarchal. Allan course, addressing my point that my candimight help us with a demonstration. But the = date for the determinant characteristic of

trendy oracle is his specialty. film is anything but essential. Allan’s mode I was surprised that Allanspendssomuch of reasoning appears to be (1) look an effort lambasting Dickie, since, though argument square in the face, (2) ignore its Dickie is a “source” of my position, he is details, (3) find its conclusion, and (4) assert

the one that I part company with quite the opposite. I suppose this is a way of explicitly. Allan writes as though in attack- manufacturing copy, but it is hardly scholing Dickie he’s attacking me. It is as if I _ arly, let alone thoughtful.

criticized Allan for E. D. Hirsch’s “inten- Allan also objects that my theory retionalism” even though Allan denies com- moves “any dynamism from the concept of plete affiliation with his source. But even history.” What does “dynamism” mean? My when Allan admits the difference between categories of repetition, amplification and Dickie’s position and mine, he still tries to repudiation all describe modes of moving

hang me with the same wayward charges. from one historical point to another. I He says that my theory is also patriar- derived the idea of amplification from the chal because it emphasizes prior traditions. notion that some artists “solve” the formal What does this mean? Tradition = patriar- | problems that beset earlier artists while the chy? Matriarchies have no traditions? Only — concept of repudiation comes from the idea

men are interested in traditions? A non- that artistic revolutions overturn past cansexist society would have no traditions? ons. Even if Allan feels my approach is Allan says that I point to traditions rather “insular,” how can he deny that it pertains to

than to possibilities. False. All I have processes of change? claimed is that future developments in film Returning to Dickie’s theory, Allan will grow out of past developments. I fail to | snidely remarks that it appears tautological.

see how that claim grates against the pre- But for a philosophical definition to be suppositions of any of the methods Allan __ tautological means that it is true in virtue of enshrines. Allan also says my theory is “too _—its logical form (e.g., “P or not-P” is

broadly drawn to be effectively applied.” tautology). Dickie’s theory may be wrong But I do apply it in section V of the essay. but it is not a tautology. Allan seems to Whatever Allan found wanting in that prefer Danto’s view because it is sensitive to

application is never stated. Perhaps he historical contexts and he says that this means the theory is not capable of churning avoids Dickie’s problems with circularity. out reliable predictions. Of course, he’s But Allan has not once shown why Dickie’s right. But what film theory can? Indeed, argument that his position is not viciously should a film theory even attempt such a _ circular is unsuccessful. At the end of this

feat? breakneck review of Dickie and Danto, Allan has a high old time with ahypotheti- —- Allan elliptically asks “Could there have cal, heuristic example of mine about a work — been an ‘artworld’ prior to ‘art’?” Is he by Picasso that I counterfactually imagine asking this of Dickie, Danto, or me? I take it was not understood by his compatriots, but ‘that this question is designed to stump any 395

False Starts

institutional theorist, so P’ll try and answer it of the medium” is solely a function of there

from my point of view. being discrete channels of articulation in First, it is important to notice that the film. Furthermore, I have not excluded the question is very vague. It might be suggesting = spectator from my approach. The extended

that there were artworks before the modern — discussion of the medium long shot in system of the arts was established in the 18th — section V explicitly tries to get at some basic

century by people like Crousaz, Batteux, — structures of composition by reference to Harris, Baumgarten, Meier, Mendelssohn, spectators. I suppose I shouldn’t be bitter; Lessing, etc. That is certainly true, but that Perkins is also misread. Allan says Perkins does not show that there was not anartworld chalks up the “sins of the pioneers” to their reaching back into antiquity. The Ut pictura — exclusion of a consideration of spectators. poesis of Horace, for example, indicates a —_ But as I read Perkins the major problem he classical appreciation of the inter-relatedness finds with classical film theory is its attempt

and natural affinity of different types of to restrict artistic development by proscripartworks before the refinement of a full _ tive rules.* As for Allan’s throwaway obser-

blown concept of the aesthetic. vation about Danto’s essay on film (an Allan might, alternatively, be asking a article I don’t have space now to disagree “chicken or the egg” question, i.e., “Which with), all I can say is that if Allan thinks it came first, the artworks or the artworld?” has anything special to say about spectators, The answer to this, of course, would have to he has misconstrued Danto’s examples for be highly speculative. But my guess is that | Danto’s point. Indeed, my essay deals with art, like science, evolved from religion and __ the spectator more than Danto’s does. magic through a gradual process of special-

; Le . III. Insularity?

ization until the goals of art became suffi- ,

ciently distinct from religion that art came to constitute its own realm of value — or, less _—_—‘ In the preceding section, I did not deal with mystically, its own ballpark (the game meta- __ the objection Allan repeats again and again,

phor is not a slip of the pen). During that __ viz., that the approach I advocate is insular,

time the ways of making, of seeing and of a piece of rank formalism. In my original discussing certain religio-magic artifacts and _—_ paper, I claim that the filmworld is a semi-

rituals changed concomittantly so that the | autonomous community within a broader first art objects—as opposed to purely _ society. I never deny that issues and trends

religious accessories — appeared just as a of society at large are echoed by the community of spectators was prepared to filmworld and by the development of the talk about them in terms of their non- modes of articulation of film. I simply put religiously significant attributes along with forth the observation that the trends and their religious ones. Fixing the exact date-— _— issues of the broader society are not transif there was one — for this event is a job for | posed whole cloth from the broader society

historians and archaeologists not theorists. | but are mediated by the forms, history and The task of theorists is to show how this __ styles of the filmworld.

institution operates once it is in place — and For example, a certain type of western the discussion of its operation includes an _ became popular in the late sixties and early

account of how it produces ideology. seventies. Called the “professional westBefore moving to the issue of insularity, I ern,” it was beyond the shadow of a doubt would like to point out that Allan’s contrast an ideological reflection of the post-WWII between my position and Perkins’ is based _ cult of professionalism. But how could this on misunderstanding both of us. I do not — be? What do a cadre of dirty cowboys have claim, as Allan alleges, that the “complexity to do with the Ivy-League, button-down396

Art, Film and Ideology: A Response to Blaine Allan

collar boys at Rand? Nothing, if we restrict medium in order to pith the ideological our vision to an examination of the overt expressions in a certain film. In this respect, reference of the narrative and the think- since ideological expression — in fact, any

tanks of the power elite. type of expression — is constituted, in large But, of course, we don’t restrict our part, through selection from or, at least,

vision this way. We see that the ideological reaction to historically formed and sedimessage is mediated by a form. In this case, mented gamuts of alternatives, I claim that it is mediated by a genre with all sorts of — specification of said gamuts is a methodologisubtending conventions. The professional — cally and logically prior task to ideological

western is seen against the background of analysis per se. This doesn’t in any way conventions; it modifies some of these con- __ preclude ideological analysis; it facilitates it.

ventions, putting more emphasis on some _ That is, you need a clear idea of the loci of than on others, dropping some and subvert- _—_ alternatives in relation to other possibilities

ing others. To understand the ideological before correlating them to specific ideologioperation of the professional western, it is | cal movements in the broader culture. In the necessary to pinpoint the selections it makes — sense that the ideological impulses of the

from a gamut of existing alternatives. broader society are mediated, in this way, In some cases, we do this by isolating the film and, for me, all the arts are semialternatives that a film forgoes; in a certain autonomous. As I said in the original paper, sense, what isn’t in a film can sometimes be _ the influences of the broader society are as important as what is. And a film can also _— minted and circulated in the currency of the repudiate given alternatives by introducing _ filmworld, by what I called the structure of

an unprecedented contrary choice to a __ that institution. Structure, in the context of given alternative (thereby forging a new _ the original essay, of course, referred to the

alternative). gamuts of alternatives available within differI don’t want to claim that the professional — ent articulatory processes which are histori-

western is involved in repudiating al- — cally interrelated as repetitions, amplificaternatives — e.g., Peckinpah’s use of slow- tions and repudiations. To the extent that motion is rather a formal amplification of these elective gamuts have their own internal the gunfight-as-spectacle that goes back at _ logic and supply their own constraints, and to

least to films like San Antonio. But I do _ the extent that they mold the material they think that it is impossible to understand how __ convey, they are semi-autonomous.

the particular, ideologically charged mes- Allan will have none of this. Unlike sage of the professional western is expressed | Buscombe, Allan is incapable of seeing the without assessing it within the constraints necessity of the kind of analysis the Institu-

imposed by or against the spectrum of _ tional Theory, as I propounded it, encouralternatives afforded not only by the classi- ages. Allan never tires of harping on the cal cinema but particularly by the classical §_anti-formalist refrain. Unfortunately, he of-

western. fers not a single argument to show that my

The research program that Iurged under arguments about semi-autonomy or methodthe rubric of the Institutional Theory of Film — ological priority are mistaken. He just says is concerned with designating the various _ they are as if it were obvious — and maybe it alternatives available along each dimension is within the clerisy he belongs to. But for of articulation in film. Ideological impulses the rest of us a proof might be nice. Since

get articulated via selections (and negations) —_ Allan has not deigned to supply a refutation, of the forms that are historically available. |= my task is somewhat difficult; I have only a

As I said in my original paper, we need a __ sentiment rather than a position to which to taxonomy of the formal possibilities of the | respond. Consequently, in what follows I 397

False Starts

will have to hypothesize as I go along as to _— ingly, while also signaling to us that she is what might be the objections to my position. — only pretending; difficult as this sounds, it is

I want to propose three arguments in dramatically pulled off by selecting the theatfavor of the type of research promotedinmy _ rical techniques of raised eyebrows and original paper. The arguments are interre- _—_ glancings aside. In any case, the message is

lated and are generated from a similar clear — “true Americans don’t brook fasstrategy, but they are applied to different | cism” and the ideological implication feeds cases and to different objections. Their off this — “the people who devote their lives general point is that the type of theorizing I to government are instinctively revolted by advocate is propaedeutic to ideological bigotry.” To understand how this implication analysis whether we are talking about the gets off the ground, so to speak, we have to ideological significance of certain motifs, | see what choices in the style of dialogue and techniques or entire styles (e.g., the theoreti- | gesture were elected from the gamuts of cal abstraction called the classical cinema). movie dialogue and acting. That is a necesBefore setting out my first argument, I — sary condition for explaining its operation. should say that I am assuming a Leninist Saying this does not disavow the fact that we

conception of ideology rather than one will also have to examine the use these based on, say, Marx, Lukacs, Plamenatz, choices perform in this film. Althusser, Mannheim, etc. This is not be- This is a comparatively simple case because I agree with Lenin’s use of the cause we are concerned with formal alternaconcept; frankly, I feel the idea becomes tives within a dramatic enactment. Howrather bloated in his writing. Nevertheless, it = ever, much current film scholarship seems does seem to me to capture the sense of | more concerned with the ideological implica-

“ideology” that is most rampant in film tions of what might be called the nonstudies. Needless to say, the following argu- —_character-based forms that organize films — ments might have to be reworked insome of _ editing, lighting, plotting, screen size, com-

their particulars if different concepts of position, etc. How do we isolate the ideologiideology are assumed. I don’t have the space __ cal implications here?

to give variant forms of each argument in Consider the deep-focus photography, order to accommodate each different con- —_ episodic open-ended narrative structures cept of ideology. But I think I could if called § and everyday detail of some Italian Neo-

upon to do so. Realism. One could correlate this with the In examining a given film we may ask post-WWII triumph of liberalism. That is,

about the ideological implications of many of — these choices each evoke ambiguous associaa variety of elements — dialogue, character, — tions with freedom, pluralism and egalitari-

cuts, composition, lighting, etc. In The anism which, in turn, can be anchored in Farmer’s Daughter, the ideological implica- __ the liberal creed of the day. Do deep-focus

tions of Mr. Finley’s drunken, proto-fascist | photography and open-ended narrative speech, and of Mrs. Morley’s and Joseph’s structures automatically have this import?

immediate reactions as they listen to it Of course not. There are many inept, requires little analysis. Mr. Finley’s speechis — primitive films with the same features, but

composed of Hollywood trigger-phrases for their deep-focus photography and openracialism and the actors who play his listeners | ended narrative structures do not have the select stylized, exaggerated gestures ofindig- | non-manifest relational property of being nation derived from theater. Perhaps Mrs. — repudiations of a dominant style of filmmakMorley’s role is a bit more complicated. She = ing that emphasizes closed narrative strucmust signal indignation to the audience, _ tures and highly directive photography. It is

while pretending to listen to Finley approv- _in virtue of their relation to a gamut of 398

Art, Film and Ideology: A Response to Blaine Allan

stylistic choices that these Neo-Realist ten- tion employed in cinema as its research dencies can be correlated to some rough program, using the historical categories of notion of freedom-—i.e., they afford a _ repetition, amplification and repudiation as greater degree of freedom and indetermi- its means for structuring the options within nacy than alternate choices. And this, in — each articulatory process. Consequently, the

turn, can be associated with liberalism. Institutional Theory of Film, if completed, In my original paper, my example was _ would yield information about the necessary disjunctive editing. I wrote “a disjunctive — conditions of any ideological expression in cut can only accrue revolutionary signifi- film (save perhaps for direct address - e.g., cance in virtue of the artistic traditions of | an actor looking at the camera and saying

continuity editing such a cut rejects.” “I’m for the nuclear family because it’s good

Whether the ideological implication of a for capitalism. Get it?”). The research given technique is of the nature of an overt program I advocate — or one very much like expression or of the nature of asymptom,in _it — is necessary to the adequate analysis of other words, its articulation hinges on its any sort of expression in film and, therefore, being elected from the repertory of histori- to the sub-category of ideological exprescally derived options of the sort the Institu- — sion. Therefore, it is methodologically prior tional Theory, I set forth, endeavors to — to ideological analysis per se. At the same

categorize. time it is not inevitably insular, as Allan The preceding discussion enables me to — charges, because it facilitates ideological

lay out my first argument somewhat ab- analysis. I hasten to add that the sense of stractly. I have assumed that when we priority that I have in mind is not temporal — attempt to divine the ideological implication i.e., that the research I urge must be of a given technique we are searching for | completed before ideological analyses — but what it expresses ideologically. Further, I logical —i.e., ideological research presuphave argued that expression, ideological or poses the information available through the otherwise, in any artform, results, in large type of research I advocate.

part, from selection of a specific technique Someone concerned with ideological from a field of alternatives. The selection of — analysis at this point in the history of the field

one alternative rather than others from a might sniffle at this argument and condehistorically sedimented array of electivesisa scendingly note that what is at issue is not the necessary condition for any expression, ideo- _—_— ideological significance of this or that techlogical expressions included, andthe elucida- —_ nique but the ideological significance of the

tion of the place of that alternative within a entire apparatus of cinema as it evolved from spectrum (which entails an elucidation of | Renaissance “illusionism” under the power the spectrum itself) is a requisite part of or of the rise of capitalism. Personally, [ have

an assumption of the analysis of what has little faith in such an enterprise since it been expressed. The selection of a tech- ignores the heterogeneity (especially the nique from such a repertoire, in and ofitself, long-standing institutionalized tradition of is not a sufficient condition for expression, anti-realism) within not only fine art and ideological or otherwise. However, every cinema, but even Hollywood. Yet, in any ideological expression will be generated in case, a proponent of this line might remain part through the selection of an option unmoved by my first argument holding that it against the backdrop of the possible moves _applies to the analysis of techniques whereas

afforded by the traditions of the medium. it is the entire ensemble of techniques that The Institutional Theory of Film that I requires ideological analysis. But even in this proposed takes the investigation of the case, the approach I’ve advocated is methodelective gamuts of the processes of articula- —_ ologically prior. The argument for this is like 399

False Starts

the first one. Namely we can only identify the cause, it seems to me, that the phenomenon ideological significance of the canons of — we are generally concerned with is not acRenaissance representation and their puta- —curately or succinctly described by causal tive extension into the design of the camera models. However, if someone were deterand techniques of “invisible editing” because mined to analyze the ideological implica-

we realize that representational styles could _tions of film, construing them as causal and have been otherwise — e.g., medievalor — effects, I would still argue that the type of

Chinese art. If there were only one way to. approach I recommend would be a necesrepresent the world in painting and/or film — sary, methodologically prior aspect of his/her

culture and period notwithstanding -—we _ research. would not talk about the ideological implica- That is, if we are making causal argution of our representational practices. If we |= ments about the effects of given techniques can carry off an analysis of the ideological on audiences, we would have to use some significance of the evolution of visual art form of inductive proof in making our case. since the Renaissance, we could only do this |For example, suppose we claim that the ideoby contrasting it to otherlarge-scalerepresen- _logical effect of a smooth eye-line-match is tational styles. AsI said, amskeptical about to instill the belief (or illusion) in the specthe value or success of this sort of project. — tator that the event so represented 1s authorBut if it can succeed it will still require the less. To argue this we would have to resort to type of account I’ve advocated, showing, for | something like Mill’s Method of Difference.® example, how the style emerged through the § We would assert that given a normal diaamplification and/or repudiation of existing logue scene, where all the variables are held

options including classic, Byzantine, medi- constant save the editing, when eye-lineeval and oriental art. The type of analysis |§ matches occur the audience believes the film

remains the same but the scale of the is authorless but whenever the eye-linealternatives becomes greater. Of course, a matches are either intentionally or accidenresearch program of this scope would no _ tally subverted — e.g., the characters look in longer be simply an Institutional Theory of — the wrong direction — the audience believes

Film but a research program under the _ the film has an author. From this argument banner of my version of the Institutional | we might go on to postulate the psychologiTheory of Art. What is important, however, cal, perhaps unconscious, mechanism that is that it is still a study of the institutionalized — gives rise to this phenomenon. And, we

interplay of the options afforded by the might further claim that we performed this

traditions of art. entire analysis without ever taking recourse Lastly, both of these arguments might be __ to the elective gamuts stressed so far in this rejected on the grounds that they assume _ essay. But have we really?

that when we talk about the ideological For inductive arguments like Mill’s Methimplications of film, we are talking about ods to be of any use, we need a way of what is expressed that is ideological in isolating ahead of time the factors we intend nature. Instead, it might be said, we should __ to vary in our experiments or the factors be talking about the ideological effects of | whose variations we intend to track in our films, that is, the ideological beliefs that | observations. In the above case, we have to films cause in spectators. On this matter, I choose the eye-line-match as the pertinent believe that we are well advised in film independent variable to consider in relation studies to stick with the idea of expression _ to its contrary stylistic option. That is, in and eschew causal claims, not only because — even a short sequence of film there might be

the problems of designing and defining such hundreds of possible causes for a given a program would be hair-raising, but be- — effect. We require a way of ascertaining a 400

Art, Film and Ideology: A Response to Blaine Allan

limited list of possible conditioning proper- Allan found himself up against a wall. He ties to which we can apply Mill’s Methods — huffed and he puffed but he didn’t blow it (or some variant form of inductive argu- down. Now, if the wall really belongs to me, ment) in order to isolate the cause. The only __ I wish he’d stop leaning on it. -way to accomplish this is to introduce some criteria of pertinence — i.e., some antecedent induction — to the data which enables us _—— Notes

to set up a manageable range of indepen- L. Before Ib h | villain of this vj

dent variables that are worth considering. I » Betore 1 pecome the total villain OF this plece

. ws . I should add the disclaimer that though I

think that it is obvious that we would use ft-headed socialist I d distri hat I have called the alternatives within the am @ sotineac ee’ Socialist © eo anor cismiss

what Marxism tout a@ fait. Who could? Too much

elective gamuts of the processes of articula- brilliant, painstaking research — mostly in fon as the prime candidates or possible fields other than cinema — has occurred unconditioning factors of the effects we are der its aegis to reject Marxism out of hand, concerned with. Again, I wish to add that I although these achievements, at the same believe that the degree to which causal time, do not compel us to accept it uncritianalysis is appropriate to answering the cally and without large-scale modification. leading questions of film theory is severely What I do reject is Allan’s sloppiness as well

limited. But if ideological analysis is a as the current presumption that merely by species of causal analysis, what I have called hawking Marxism — either of the professo-

oe ; rial — or Theory’s of themakes journalistic/cheering squad the Institutional research program oe to as oo varieties one a contribution film is still unavoidable because it provides the studies

likeliest means for isolating the variables to 2. This objection extends to many aspects of be considered as possible causes of given film studies. Obviously, I cannot argue all its

ideological effects. ramifications here. However, when conThe above arguments on their own do not fronted by all the supposed illusions specta-

incontrovertibly prove that the research tors suffer, I feel like The Philosopher program I sponsor is methodologically prior (Brecht’s voice, I take it) in Messingkauf to ideological analysis per se since a given Dialogues when he tells The Dramaturg and

theorist may have a concept of ideology, a nine Actor tat no bw Tine under the concept of ideological implication or an idea Miusions of t wit ourth walt cory:

oo. . 3. Noél Carroll, “Organic Analysis,” The Drama

of the scope of investigation different from Review. T79

the ones canvassed above. My intuition is 4. It is true that Perkins ends “The Sins of the that the basic strategy of these arguments Pioneers” by calling for a “definition of film as can be extrapolated to accommodate differ- it exists for the spectator” but I think it is clear,

ent ideas about ideology, its means of given the rest of the chapter and the one that implication and the scope of ideological follows, that “film as it exists for the spectaresearch. It is Allan’s task to show that these tor”.means “film as seen,” which Perkins, arguments for the necessity of the type of throughout Film as Film, wants to argue can analysis I endorse to ideological analysis are only be appreciated in light of certain invalid, wrong or beside the point (due to hermeneutic principles. In fact, these protheir assumptions about ideology or the posed guidelines are for critics, exegetes and

; ; or . prospective connoisseurs, not the viewer at

nature of ideological implication). Until he he level of hip th h Ivti d that his charges of barren formalism bre icve! OF speciatorsiup Har Psyenoanalyne

oes 8 film theory purportedly investigates. Also, the

are themselves bar ren. Mor cover, the accu- appearance of the concept of the spectator at sation of insularity is moot if examining the the end of “Sins of the Pioneers” is really a red

traditional options of the medium is a herring since the point of this chapter and of prerequisite for “non-insular” research. the next, “Minority Reports,” is that the great 401

False Starts problem of film theory is “in imposing obliga- critic. If the problem with earlier film theo-

tions on the artist.” [Film as Film (Har- rists is that they excluded real spectators, mondsworth: Penguin Books, 1972), p. 26.] then that is a problem for Perkins as well. As Perkins says of past theories, “Each of 5. This claim about Peckinpah may be too these positions presupposes a philosophy, a strong. The gunfights at the beginning and temperament, a vision — terrain which the end of The Wild Bunch could possibly be a theorist should leave open for the film-maker repudiation of a certain convention of the

to explore and present” (Perkins, 39). classical western which we might call the

, , . “one slug/one cut” style of editing gunfights.

Perkins does have an entire chapter called “Partici- That is. in most classical westerns a char-

pant Observers” in which he discusses audience ’ . .

identification in order to dispel the puritanical acter fires a six-shooter (or Winchester ? etc.) notion that movies are escapist. He argues that the and, if there is a cut-away, it generally is to spectator’s emotional response is necessary to the person hit or just missed. In the classical completing the effect of a given film. But as you western, in other words, the editing often is read on you realize that Perkins is not concerned structured around keeping track of where with the type of spectator that Allan wants us to the bullets fly. Sometimes this gets obsestalk about — “the spectator as an individual or even sive; in Stagecoach, I think, a character fires in terms of heterogeneous classes” — but rather twice and there is a cut to two — not one — with the spectator’s response as “a key to meaning” Indians falling. The Wild Bunch rejects this (Perkins, 141). Perkins writes “In order to discuss oo . . critically we have to find ways of defining not only convention; at points the hail of bullets

images, actions and interpretations but also the becomes too thick to figure out who is nature of our involvement. The precise manner in killing whom, and the editing surely does not which any spectator involves himself in the action disambiguate the mayhem. This possible of a movie, the nuances of his alignment with the repudiation, moreover, does seem to be an actions and aspirations of particular characters, will ideological reflection on the times. If the necessarily be controlled by his personality and “one slug/one cut” schema correlates to an experience. But critical judgment depends on American vision of the infantry as marksmen

demonstrating the validity of a response, on (a tenet of faith through the Korean War), showing that it is inherent in the logic of the then the editing in The Wild Bunch, as a

presentation and therefore depends on a predict- or . ability of dominant responses” (Ibid.). repudiation, correlates to the saturation fire fields of Vietnam. I call this a “possible”

Now Perkins doesn’t give us a method for repudiation because I have not seen The finding “the logic of the presentation” but he Wild Bunch in years and my “memory” may does offer examples from Preminger, Mann, be my imagination. Hitchcock, Fuller, etc. And he does show 6. John Stuart Mill, System of Logic (London, how certain spectator responses are presup- 1843), 2 Vols. G. H. Von Wright examines the posed if the “meaning” in his examples is to theoretical foundations of Mill’s Methods in be conveyed. I find nothing wrong, in princi- A Treatise on Induction and Probability (Patple, with what Perkins is doing. But it should terson, N. J.: Littlefield, Adams and Co.,

be clear that the kind of spectator he is 1960). I do not mean to suggest that Mill’s discussing is miles away from Allan’s. Per- Methods could be used as a “logic of discovkins’ spectator is a theoretical invention or ery” nor as an absolute guarantee or proof of critical construct of the probable responses of causation, but we would use the methods to someone abiding by Perkins’ recommenda- establish the adequacy of our hypotheses.

tions for and constraints on interpretation. Some readers may feel that the considerThe spectator embodied in this chapter is an ations raised in my third argument are only explanatory abstraction supporting Perkins’ relevant to experimental research. However, overall hermeneutic program. Perkins’ specta- see Hubert M. Blalock Jr., Causal Inferences tor is already a critic —a critic in Perkins’ in Nonexperimental Research (New York: vein — or perhaps the silent partner of such a Norton Books, 1961).

402

.= = importantly, there is no wrong one either.

, , This is a strong disanalogy with language.

, = or ;

, CHAPTER XXVIII = Further, a shot generally contains more information than a word, or a phrase,

Toward a Theory thereby challenging the view that the characof Film Editing ™ teristic shot chain is like a string of words or phrases.

These objections, of course, are moti[ vated by aconsideration of the standard practice of cinema. We could redirect our manner

of making films in such a way that these objections would be subverted. For instance, The material basis of film editing is the cut, |= we could construct a cinematic dictionary —

the physical joining of two shots. We can _ shots tinted in certain colors would be easily account for this process with a little | correlated with specific words. We would chemistry. Of course, there is alsoin-camera __ only use shots tinted to our specifications in editing. To discuss this we have toadd some making films. Moreover, we could expropri-

mechanics to our story. But editing involves ate a grammar from language as well. For more than chemistry and mechanics. It isa | example, shots corresponding to personal means of communication within the social pronouns should be in their objective case institution of world cinema. It provides a tints, when following shots corresponding to means of articulation whose practice enables the prepositions “on,” or “between.” In filmmakers to convey stories, metaphors other words, we could make film a language,

and even theories to spectators. the filmmaker a writer and the spectator a Because editing is a form of communica- __ reader. But, save such a momentous deci-

tion, there has been a perennial tendency in sion, shot chains are not characteristically the history of film theory to associate editing | sentences either to be written or read.

with that paradigm of communication, lan- To understand editing, we must underguage. For instance, Pudovkin writes: stand it as a form of communication, with-

oo out attempting to reduce it to a model of

Editing 1S the language of the film director. S writing and reading. But how does this

Just as in living speech, so one may say in editing: ae oH do ideas there is a word-— the piece of exposed film, communication take place? How ; the image a phrase — the combination of these and attitudes eMerE’e from the sequential

pieces.! flux of disparate images? Whereas montagists analyze the way editing communicates Here Pudovkin makes the filmmaker’s from the point of view of the filmmaker, my work in editing linguistic, and implicitly the |= approach to this question is to attempt to spectator’s work becomes a kind of read- characterize editing by examining what the ing.* The film/language analogy, of course, | spectator must do when confronted with an

has been taken up by more voices than array of shots. I will consider a wide range Pudovkin’s and though it is highly sugges- of narrative and non-narrative examples tive, it is susceptible to some rather straight- | asking in each case what must the spectator’s forward objections. In terms of editing, itis | response be as each new shot is added if he or often pointed out that there is no grammar _. she is to comprehend it?

in film. A series of shots, for instance, of a Thinking about traditional, commercial, gun firing, a man falling and a woman narrative films first, it is important to note screaming, can come in any order. There is _ that the average spectator does not respond no correct formula for this scene, and, more _ to the addition of shots as individual shots. 403

False Starts : Rather, the new shots add information or in induction, I am not holding that the imagery to an ongoing story. The alternation operation must be conscious at all times. In

from one shot to another is neither experi- most traditional narrative films, the audienced nor remembered primarily as a dis- — ence assimilates new information through crete physical event, marked byasplice, but tacit inference. But this reasoning process is regarded as an increment of information can become manifest. For instance, in concerning the progress of the narrative. Chaplin’s The Immigrant, there is a shot of The spectator responds to new shots as _ the Tramp from behind. He is sprawled over sources of new facts or details of facts about the rail of a ship and his shoulders are the fictional or documentary environment of — heaving. This shot appears in the context of the story. Most often, the task of the viewer =a scene where other passengers are seasick.

is to incorporate these new facts into a One naturally infers that the Tramp is coherent framework with the earlier infor- | vomiting over the side of the boat. But after mation that the film supplies. Thistaskisnot that hypothesis is engendered, the Tramp

analogous to reading. Rather, the task turns around wrestling with a fish. We engages the viewer’s inductive capacities. realize that he had been fishing, not vomitThe viewer must infer the relation between ing; when this is revealed, our original the new material and antecedent informa- judgment about the shot can be seen as a tion. Editing does not supply the whole piece of speculation. A moderately thoughtstory; the very concept of editing implies ful viewer might even enjoy reviewing the that it is only a partial representation. The — grounds of the earlier inference.

viewer must fill in the gaps. Usually, he or Hitchcock’s celebrated red herrings proshe does this by supposing an account which _—— vide even more dramatic examples of our

makes the new information in the shot chain constant process of inference by contravenmaximally coherent with what he or she ing the audience’s natural hypotheses about already takes to be the facts of the story. The — the ongoing action. In Strangers on a Train, spectator’s role involves inference while the one postulates that Guy Haines’ wife is

filmmaker’s involves implication. murdered in the tunnel of love. Given the For instance, imagine a shot of a rifle narrative context, when we hear her offgoing off, followed by a tight close-up of a —_ screen screams, we presume she is being woman screaming, followed by a shot of a _ strangled, though it turns out that she has man lying on the ground. These could be _ merely been flirting raucously. Part of Hitch-

innocent details of a carnival scene—a _ cock’s genius is to reveal to the spectator shooting gallery, followed by animage from how much tacit inference from the narrative an exciting rollercoaster ride, followed bya — context shapes our comprehension of the

shot of a tired, homeless drunk. But in the indeterminate visual information on the context of a mystery, where previous scenes __ screen. Suspicion, of course, is a spectacular establish threats against the woman’s hus- —_ example of this.

band, one interprets the shot chain as a In most cases the audience’s inferences murder. This interpretation need not be are based on its knowledge of the particulars necessitated by the details of the shots, but — of the ongoing story. If a character says he is

rather is the best hypothesis for making — going to his lawyer’s office and this is those shots coherent in light of what has followed by a shot of an office building the gone before. The story progresses by audience infers that the lawyer’s office is prompting the audience to infer the most inside. If characters are concerned that a coherent account of the relation of earlier | murder witness will be assassinated and

material to later details. there is a close-up of the barrel of a rifle, the By arguing that the audience is involved audience presumes that it is aimed at the 404

Toward a Theory of Film Editing

witness. Subsequent information may prove not able to comprehend this simply through these hypotheses wrong, though in the tra- __ the visual imagery. Rather, we refer what we

ditional narrative film the vast majority of | do see to a well-precedented schema of the audience’s first impressions will be cor- human action. The woman’s doleful appear-

rect. Here, inference is based on weaving ance, the letters, the unidentified man’s the new information into the already pat- |§ambulating and probably departing legs are terned design of previous dialogue and assimilated as elements of remembering an

action. old affair. That is, the best account of the The ways that audiences extrapolate from details of this film is to relate it to a

previous action and dialogue to the signifi- | motivated type of action that we already are

cance of new details can involve many familiar with. Our activity is not like readdifferent factors. The film may simply pre- ing. We must make a judgment about the dict the next sequence, as in the case of the significance of the film. We infer that the lawyer’s office. Or it may insinuate it, as best account of the juxtaposed details is that with the assassination. However, even with- —_ they represent an instance of remembering

out overt prediction or insinuation, the an affair, because the film has more eleaudience may still infer that Character A ments in common with such an event than murders Character B when it sees an ex- with other types of action that we know.

tremely close shot of a knife being plunged In some cases, earlier scenes do not into someone’s back without either mur- predict or even suggest later ones. What derer or victim being identifiable. The audi- —_ factors ground the interpretation of the shot ence’s justification might be that Character — chain of a gun firing, the woman screaming

B had just cuckolded A. The audience here and the man prostrate where there is no would be falling back on a family of related —_ previous talk of threats nor available action ideas to make this judgment, including ideas — schemas to adduce? The kinds of factors at about human motivation and action in non- __ the audience’s disposal, here, may be quite fictional contexts, and, perhaps more impor- complex. The audience may have a general

tantly, ideas about human psychology in idea of the kind of film being viewed. That popular media, including not only films and __is, we may believe that it is a mystery film

novels, but newspapers as well. That is, and, for that reason, surmise that the these sources suggest that being cuckolded __ likeliest interpretation is of a murder, just provides a motive for murder. If a killing is | because mystery films usually have murders

introduced it is coordinated most easily with in them. Before the particulars of the antecedent material as the probable out- mystery emerge, the audience could form come or effect of the preceding social — the idea that a film is a mystery in a number situation. Ideas about human behavior, and of ways. Most simply, the film may be about human behavior in popular narra- advertised as such. Or the music may be of tives, supply us with schemas to integrate — the sort that is commonly associated with

the new details of the decoupage. mysteries. A Bernard Herrmann score, for Kirsanov’s Brumes d’Automneisanexam- instance, is probably a dead give-away. As

ple of the importance of such schemas in _ the film ensues, the type of lighting may comprehending editing. It is a silent film. | become significant, e.g., shadows, mists, There are no inter-titles. The shots include and night are associated with one kind of Nadia Sibirskaya burning letters, shots of film and not with others. The general tone chimneys and roofs, of rain splashing in a __ of the dialogue, apart from what is said, may

pond and close shots of a man’s legs. One also be a clue. I am not saying that there is

infers that the subject of the film is a an invariant set of lighting, vocabulary and memory of a past, perhaps lost, love. We are —— musical cues that all mystery films employ. 405

False Starts

But there are nevertheless conventional between earlier and later material. Howapproaches to mystery material that are — ever, the direction of thought is reversed, employed often enough that the viewer can _—susing what comes later to explain what infer that the film involves mystery even happened earlier.

before the plot is set out. Of course, the I do not wish to claim that all of the viewer can derive pretty sound foreknowl- —_ inductions that a spectator performs when edge of the kind of film he or she is about to — confronted with an edited array are exactly

see easily enough from newspapers, from alike. Sometimes the spectator will rely reviews, advertisements and friends. But — simply on the story to render a new detail whether from sources external to the film, intelligible. At other times, the grounds the or through conventions the film employs in spectator employs are quite different, using its earliest portions, including the titles, a | knowledge about the kind of film or story

spectator can form an idea of the kind of | being viewed, as well as notions about film being watched. And since the spectator familiar types of human action, to evolve an also knows what kinds of events such films interpretation. In all these cases, the aim is generally comprise, he or she can use that — to develop a coherent account of the given, information to infer the significance of the — often indeterminate visual material that the new details that editing supplies,even where _ editing introduces. This is done in terms of the story itself does not initially afford a | something familiar though, of course, what

hypothesis. is adduced as a familiar ground for inference I am not claiming that the only way a may differ from case to case, at one time

film is understood is through inference. _ relying on the preceding story alone, and, at Some individual shots are completely self- | other times, on our knowledge of the kind of explanatory, sometimes through dialogue or _ story it is. In many cases, we could reach the commentary, or simply through verisimili- | same interpretation about the new details of tude. In editing, however, the new informa- the shot chain by several routes, e.g., by tion of new shots must also be assimilated _ relying on the genre or some invocation of a inferentially either in terms of making the — schema of action. This is not problematic.

new details coherent with the previous As with most forms of communication, the particularities of the story or in terms of a narrative film is highly redundant.

conception of the kind of story we are So far, though I have mentioned some viewing. Here our knowledge of the kinds _ film conventions, I have not discussed editof events such films and stories involve can ing conventions as such. Among editing

be used to interpret new details. We also conventions we may begin with two broad employ rather broad notions about human categories — conventions of subject matter psychology, especially human psychology in —and conventions of narrative presentation.

popular narratives, to help us. In some — By conventions of subject matter, I am cases, of course, we may not have enough referring to the fact that for the representaprevious beliefs to grasp the details of the tion of certain events, for instance train editing —a film, for example, may begin trips, certain elements are typically invoked with a mystifying pretitle sequence. Eikhen- _in the editing, e.g., the wheels and pistons of baum dubs this situation “the regressive trains. Such typifications of events are abbrephrase.’’* In this case, we may wait for later — viated representations employing salient elesequences to interpret the action —succes- ments of the event synecdochically. These

sive events will elucidate the situation. devices may appear to require a response Here, the audience acts retrodictively. Its | more akin to reading than to inferring. posture is still inductive and still involved Against this idea, I would urge several with postulating the most coherent account — considerations. Though the content of such 406

Toward a Theory of Film Editing

passages is conventionalized, they seem to of humans multiplied scores of times in an be generally understood because of their image composed of dozens of irises of the place in the narrative and not in virtue of | people. Given the storyline, we assume that

being conventions. Moreover, such se- this is a giant, perhaps hungry ant’s quences have a great deal of visual elasticity; | viewpoint — the multiple irises representing

numerically different examples of a train the structure of the eye of the family trip, for instance, can differ widely in the Formicidae. We do not understand the shot amount of shots, angles and screen-time as a result of empathy, nor need it induce involved. They lack the uniformity of a | empathy or implicate us in the ant’s attempt linguistic symbol, like a word, yet they are — to conquer the world. The whole story about still understood. Where the narrative does _ this POV is that postulating it as what the

not supply a hypothesis to understand sucha ant is seeing is the best hypothesis for sequence, the audience may still compre- making that shot coherent with the rest of hend one, not because it has recognized a ___ the narrative.

symbol, but because it has inferred the Nor do POV shots have to be spatially whole event from some of its salient parts. | plausible. Even if a filmmaker mismatches The question arises as to whether elements, — the eyelines in a POV structure or cuts an like train wheels, are salient parts because object against a glance that enables a charthey are conventionalized representations or acter to see something that would normally whether they are used in conventionalized — be impossible for him/her to see (e.g., Wayne

representations because they are salient seeing Fonda’s death in Fort Apache), we still parts. Obviously the question isa hard one. _—_ infer the POV structure when it affords the Most probably there is a reciprocal relation most coherent relation of the shots involved

between the two terms of the argument —- to the rest of the narrative. elements are selected for conventional repre- As you might expect, I do not see the sentations because they are salient, andtheir need for a psychoanalytic interpretation of salience is heightened by being conventional- =the POV schema; rather like other types of ized. But even with this compromise, I, at narrative editing it is premised on eliciting a least, still have the intuition that initially the tacit induction in the spectator to the effect features that are selected by typical ap- _ that “character x sees y” is the best explanaproaches to events are selected because _ tion of the shot interpolation in relation to those features are the most salient in the _ the narrative. Of course, a given director

culture. may use the POV structure in a way that

It could be remarked that the types of '| merits careful critical attention. But from action schemas mentioned earlier are often ‘the perspective of theory, as distinct from conventions of subject matter. I do not criticism, the analysis of the POV is similar disagree, but I do think that since action to that of any other action schema. schemas are such a statistically large subset The second type of editing convention, of this group that they deserve special which I have called conventions of presentaattention. I should also remark that, forme, tion, comprises the type of editing arrays

the narrating format called the point-of-view — that film theoreticians have often enumeris an action schema. Its ultimate theoretical ated, including parallel editing, flashbacks

explanation, I believe, is rather simple, and flashforwards. The first point to be though, of course, it may be used in very made about these structures, one made for sophisticated ways by certain filmmakers. instance by Christian Metz, is that it is The POV need not have anything to do _ generally not the case that the narrative is with audience identification. In Empire of — understood in virtue of these structures, but

the Ants there isa shot where we see a group that these structures are understood in 407

False Starts

virtue of the narrative.” Most often, it is Most narrative films will simply repeat because the story has set out psychological _ the types of editing that have been popular conditions where a memory or fantasy is — since the early twenties. We are so accusappropriate that we interpret a flashback as —_tomed to these that we assimilate them as such. We don’t need music and elaborate — effortlessly as we calculate the sum of ten fades to grasp a flashback or a flashforward. — plus twenty-four. But, as the last series of Consider Roeg’s Don’t Look Now; the fact examples might indicate, some narrative

that the plot concerns clairvoyance is — editing will demand extremely conscious enough to allow us to infer that the funeral rather than tacit activity on the part of the that the major character sees is his own. No _ spectator. This is theoretically significant, I formal decoration is required; coherence is _ think, because it suggests that the forms of

our basic criterion. We infer that a shot narrative editing are not set for all time but

introduces a memory or a fantasy or a are open to development specifically bepremonition because that is the bestexplana- cause narrative editing fundamentally intion that this new material has in light of _ volves triggering inductive hypotheses in the

what has gone before. audience.

Though in the general case conventions of For example, more and more recent Hollypresentation do not play a constitutive role, | wood films are employing what might be there are some examples where our knowl- _ called high context editing, e.g., elliptically edge of the existence of these forms does _ breaking into scenes in media res as in Close enable us to interpret sequences that cannot Encounters of the Third Kind. This demands be coordinated with previous narrative mate- —_ that the audience work harder at constructrial. For instance, in Easy Rider, a shot ofa ing the context and meaning of the new shots motorcycle burning is inserted in the middle —_ through inference. This stylistic deviation

of the film. No narrative preparation is from the practice of classical editing serves a supplied nor do the surrounding, succeeding specific function in Close Encounters, enshots disambiguate it. Here, the viewer must — hancing the mysteriousness of the story (in

either disregard the shot as senseless and _ terms of its subject) by using a style that absurd or he must find a way to make it makes transitions from scene to scene puzzlecoherent. Because the viewer knows that like. Thus, intensifying the audience’s inducstructures such as flashforwards are part of — tion activity becomes a way of amplifying the the repertoire of devices of narration, he — effectiveness of the narrative.

may provisionally infer that the shot is a All narrative editing involves induction; flashforward. The audience’s knowledge of but this example suggests that by making the

structures of narration, such as parallel induction more complex through stylistic development or prolepsis, is derived from departures from established editing pracmany sources, including not only film, but tices, the aims of a given narrative can be historical narratives, newspaper stories,nov- amplified and the techniques available to els and everyday conversation. The film- narrative editing in general can be enriched. maker can exploit the audience’s knowledge — At one point in film history, parallel editing

of the practices of narration by inducing the amplified the resources of the narrative in audience to infer that a practice, like the — just this way. flashforward, must be in operation if the se- Since narrative editing is so deeply inquence is to make sense. This kind of infer- volved with inference, heightened elliptience becomes especially important outside — cality is an almost natural direction for the realm of traditional film, asin the avant- | experimentation for it. Recent commercial garde works of Markopoulos and some of films like Looking for Mr. Goodbar have

408

Brakhage. taken to using unmarked flashbacks, flash-

Toward a Theory of Film Editing

forwards and fantasy cuts at a very pro- or parallel modality, either alethic or nounced frequency. Here the high context _deontic, to the facts of the story.

style is being exploited in order to achieve a Both Bunuel and Rainer have experidenser sense of a character’s psychology or mented with juxtaposing scenes where the experience by miming the mind’s easy move- same character is played by different acment from the present to remembrance, an- __ tresses. The audience grasps this technique ticipation, desire or anxiety. In other words, by inferring these are two possible ways the the narrative film’s concern with repre- character might look. In Rainer’s case, this senting characters is amplified in these cases __ use of alternate modalities serves a thematic

by the high context ellipticality that de- purpose, suggesting that, since this charmands that without the benefit of elaborate acter could look like more than one person, markings (like dissolves) or an established her situation can be understood as somecontext (like a character’s remark “Iremem- what generic. As with parallel temporal ber. ...”) the audience infer that the new __ editing, the use of parallel modal editing can shots are of different temporal orders or amplify the resources of narration precisely

fantasies, in virtue of being arepresentation by inducing the audience to infer more

of a character’s thought process. complicated explanations of the relation of This is not to suggest that narrative | the new shots or sequences of shots to the editing can only develop in terms of psychol- _ details of the ongoing stories.

ogy, i.e. in terms of miming the mental To summarize briefly, in the narrative processes of characters. One rarely explored _film, the audience infers the significance of possibility of amplifying the resources of — new shots on the basis of the particularities narrative editing would be to cut from what __ of the story itself. Where this fails, the basis is (in the context of the narrative) to what for inference shifts to the kind of film or the

might be, or to what ought to be. This need kind of story being presented. Human ac-

not be motivated in terms of a character tion schemas or part/whole relationships thinking, or wishing, or fearing what could) may also serve as grounds for inferring or should happen. Here the crosscutting coherence. As well, the audience may postuwould not be over different times but over late the existence of a narrative structure different modalities, increasing the power of — such as a flashforward or what I have called

the filmmaker to draw out the moral signifi- a parallel modality, if other grounds for cance, the irony, contingency, complexity or | explaining the new material fail. In each

generality of his or her story. case, the audience operates inductively, For instance, a film might establish thata | seeking the best explanation of the new given character is poor andthencuttoanew material, though the various bases for inducshot or a sequence of shots where he is well _ tion may shift.

dressed, before returning to a scene where So far I have discussed predominantly he is again poor. The audience will have to _ narrative bases for inference, but even in the

deal with this inferentially; since the narra- _ traditional narrative film there is nontive confirms his poverty, the shots of the narrative editing. Often such editing 1s character as well dressed will have to be predicated on emphasizing a particular senassimilated by postulating that the directoris | suous quality of the object, event, or state of

arguing that the character ought to be better affairs represented. The barrenness of a off, or perhaps that he could be better off. | desert could be made salient by a brace of That is, the interpolation will be rendered = shots showing vast stretches of dry wastecoherent in relation to the rest of the — land yawning before the horizon line. Or the narrative by postulating that the shots of the | speed of an event might be accentuated character as well dressed are of an alternate — through its representation by a rapid series 409

False Starts

of brief shots. Or some plastic feature of an work to a search for sometimes complex object, like its circularity, could be empha- _—_ sensuous regularities.

sized by following it with shots of other As the Leger example should indicate,

circular objects. editing predicated on drawing attention to Within narrative films, emphasis by edit- | sensuous properties can supply the basis for

ing on sensuous characteristics is often an entire film. In such cases, the audience subordinated to the overall goals of the must not only infer the particular sensuous story. And, of course, a given shotinterpola- _—_ qualities being emphasized (on the basis of

tion may be intelligible both in terms of _ regularities in one’s experience of the work) emphasizing sensuous characteristics and but also infer the significance in the given under a narrative interpretation. For in- film of editing solely in order to emphasize stance, in M both the gangster chief andthe __ the specific sensuous qualities that are being

minister of police make the same gesture in foregrounded. Leger, for instance, used successive shots. In the context of the — editing to make the physical rather than the narrative, this is grasped within aframework functional properties of objects salient in of the parallel development of the two _ order to call attention to an aspect of the scenes. However the cut also heightens our _—-world that is generally submerged in ordi-

sense of the visual similarity of the two nary film practice. Without making this meetings. Thus, the relation between shots second inference the audience will not grasp can be overdetermined. Nevertheless, even the full thrust of the work, which is continwithin the context of the traditional narra- —_— gent not only on its internal unities, but also

tive film, a given shot interpolation may _ on the relation of those internal unities to

have as its sole aim calling attention to other films. sensuous, including rhythmical, qualities of Analogously Brakhage’s Text of Light the objects, states of affairs, and events — uses editing (as well as other strategies) to represented. When this occurs the audience —_ draw attention to color as such. At one level must leave off the kinds of inductive bases _ the spectator identifies pure chroma as the previously employed and incorporate the — subject of Text of Light by inductively gen-

new material in terms of the inductive _ eralizing from what is emphasized in each similarities between the basic sensuous quali- — succeeding, out-of-focus shot — a pattern of

ties between new shots. light and its vicissitudes. At the same time, Sometimes, where the similarities be- this approach to color stands in sharp tween the shots are not ones we customarily — contrast to more traditional uses of color in think about, the new shots may be experi- _film. Brakhage’s editing, because it stresses enced as subversions of expectation. The _ color as such, repudiates the narrative use of

spectator may palpably feel the shift from color as a means for directing the viewer’s narrative bases for induction to sensuous _ eye to key narrative elements or as a means ones. This, of course, is an effect sought by — of evoking emotive associations. Brakhage’s

certain avant-gardists, such as Leger in editing additively underlines the sensuous Ballet Mecanique where the whole film is character of color, a feature repressed in based on foregrounding the sensuous dimen- _— most traditional cinematic practice. In order

sions of objects. In Leger, we infer that to comprehend the editing in Text of Light, movement as such is the key locus of _ the spectator must inductively identify pure attention. What is important even in this chroma as the subject of the film and must context is that the spectator’s relation tothe — further infer that this is a repudiation of editing is still inductive, though the basis of _ traditional (especially narrative) filmmakinduction has shifted from a narrative frame- _—_ing. (A similar point has been made about 410

Toward a Theory of Film Editing

69, and 70.)° forms. The sensuous regularities that emerge Related to the use of sensuous similarity Robert Breer’s single-frame-editing in 66, thematic functions of similarity in other art

through editing may sometimes be just that __ is the use of categorical similarity. Here the and nothing more. Or they may function as_ _—_ objects or events edited together need not

a means of repudiating the practices of | resemble each other in some manifest way, narrative film by shifting completely from but belong together in virtue of being editing based on causal or chronological members of the same category, usually a categories to ones of a more aesthetic very culturally entrenched one. Ruttmann, nature. In still other cases, sensuous similari- —_—‘like most practitioners of the city symphony

ties between shots may portend other simi- form, employs this format when, for inlarities of a more thematic nature. Vertov,in — stance, he organizes separate parts of Berlin

Man with a Movie Camera, compares the _ by editing whole sections in terms of shots activities of the Soviet filmmaker with vari- ona given topic, like going to work or travel ous exemplary, everyday work processes. or entertainment. To follow this editing, the The cameraman cranks his camera in a audience must infer the category that makes movement analogous to the way that factory all the disparate kinds of things included in a workers manipulate certain of their ma- _ run of shots fall into one sequence. Actually,

chines. Here the point is a rhetorical one- in Berlin, shifting categorical judgments to posit the Soviet cameraman as a worker, | becomes one of the central pleasures of the

as a proletarian participating on a par with film, since Ruttmann is often involved in

other workers, doing the same kinds of narrowing or broadening the pertinent things in the industrialization of the Soviet | framework for organizing the shot chain. At

Union. one point, it is lunchtime. Initially, this is set

Thematically, similarity may also suggest out with many shots of people and animals the unity or identity of disparate events and _ eating. As you begin to settle into eating as

actions. In Eisenstein’s The General Line, the proper categorical framework, then Martha throws down her plow in anguish. shots of preparing and serving food are This is intercut with a shot of her speakingin included, though in terms of chronological favor of the formation of a cooperative. In — editing these would have come first; and the latter shot, she defiantly thrusts her fists _ finally images of cleaning dishes and dispos-

downward to emphasize a point. The move- _ing leftovers appear. At each point, the ment is exactly the same as the one in the constituency of what belongs in the category shot with the plow, suggesting that her of eating lunch is widened, and the spectator anguish and her defiance are both ofa piece, inductively responds by supplying a richer,

parts of the same revolutionary act. more detailed framework for organizing the The use of sensuous similarity — whether _ shots.

in terms of the repetition of visual forms or Contrast, especially in terms of culturally kinds of movement — may have either a significant oppositions such as up/down, formal or a thematic motivation. The specta- fast/slow, large/small, light/dark, organic/ tor tests both possibilities, opting forthe one = mechanical, circular/angular, etc., can also that fits best. The use of similarity to both — function both formally and/or thematically, these ends is, of course, well-precedented in |= emphasizing sensuous qualities through dif-

the practice of music, dance, fine art and ference or signaling thematic conflicts. In poetry and the spectator may often derive a Sunrise, Murnau strongly contrasts the illicit coherent framework for a sequence from his _love affair in the swamp with the pure love or her knowledge of the various formal and — of mother for child, cutting a darkly lit shot 411

False Starts

of the former against a brightly litshot of the To fully comprehend a flicker film the specta-

latter, using a sensuous cue to heighten a tor must infer not only this contrastive dramatic tension. Likewise, high and low __ dialectic but also the way in which it underangle shots may be alternated in order to cuts and repudiates simple traditional views articulate the different social positions of — of the cinematic space of the shot by suggest-

various characters. ing that it is not only contained “in” the frame Flicker films represent a very interesting but also “on” the screen, and, by way of the use of cutting for the sake of contrast. The afterimage, “in” the mind of the beholder as

editing is predicated on a strong tension well. between looking focally into the screen or The use of contrast or similarity as a looking at it globally as a square block of | means to understand a shot interpolation color or light. In Vicki Z. Peterson’s Etudein may be motivated by the sensuous qualities R-Y-B: with Film and Electronic Sound the _ of the shot or by the types or categories of

tendency toward focal attention is height- the events or situations juxtaposed. Rich ened by shots that include ahumanthumbas versus poor was a type of strong editing well as shots of handwritten notes which — contrast, developed very early in film hisdraw you into the screen as you attempt to ‘tory, appearing in Porter’s Kleptomaniac read them letter by letter. But these images —_ and Griffith’s Corner in Wheat. Recognition are counterposed by color fields whose rate _—_ of strong contrasts of this sort may be based

of projection makes you see the screen as___ on the narrative or on the fact that the such, i.e., aS a geometric colored surface contrast invoked, such as rich versus poor, is resembling a minimalist painting. Thespecta- | deeply embedded in the culture. Often tor notes the regularity of this contrast in his avant-garde films, such as Baillie’s earlier or her experience and postulates it as partof | works, call upon the viewer to account for the explanation of the coherence of the work. the shot interpolations by postulating exBut to understand the full significance of the — tended series of thematic, often tendentious flicker film, the spectator must also infer its | oppositions on the basis of culturally motiposition within the context of the history of | vated contrasts. The accumulation of similar film, observing that by juxtaposing focal events from shot to shot may also function in attention with an apprehension of the screen _ this way — Eisenstein in the Odessa Steps

surface as a gestalt, the flicker film repudi- | sequence emphasizes the deaths of two ates the presupposition of narrative film (as mothers, two children and a number of old wellas certain avant-gardeformslikeSurreal- —_ people to suggest, by repetition, the cruelty

ism) that cinematic space is “inside” the of the czarist regime, which employs inordiframe. The dimensionality of the screen, nate force to brutalize those who are tradimost often repressed in film, is asserted by __ tionally thought of as the weakest members the flicker film. Indeed, the flicker film is —_ of society.

even more complicated than this in its Whether or not a narrative hypothesis meditation on film space because itcharacter- —_ accounts for the linkage of shots in editing, istically involves an essential thirdtermthatI _—_ similarity and contrast, used either formally

have not even mentioned, viz., the afterim- or thematically, can provide further grounds age which is evoked by the pace of cutting. for inferring a means to understand a shot

The afterimage figures in the contrast, using interpolation. In the context of certain editing to manipulate the spectator into narratives, the spectator will have to abanlocating the space of the image as “off” the don narrative grounds for dealing with the screen, in counterpoint to focal attention shot chain and use similarity and contrast as which places it “in” the screen, or global the sole basis for induction. Within a thorattention which identifies it “as” the screen. oughly, non-narrative context, the spectator 412

Toward a Theory of Film Editing

will, in all probability, even more quickly — of nature, the spectator must infer, not read,

shift from narrative bases of induction to a description of the natural event, choosing contrast and similarity as the grounds for from a variegated set of everyday personinference. Of course, the similarity or con- __ifications, the one most appropriate to the trast invoked, especially in a non-narrative dramatic qualities of the portrayed human context, may not be patently obvious, as _ events. when in The Dead, Brakhage unifies the The play between language and editing is editing of the film through an inventory of | not always as conventional as the above poetic images of death which is not basedon _— paragraph may suggest. In Potemkin, Eisen-

sensuous similarities, but on not immedi- stein cuts together a series of still images of ately apparent categorical correspondences. ___ lions in order to evoke, in a Breughelesque A spectator may also infer unity ina shot manner, an old Russian proverb to the effect

interpolation on the basis of an associationof that public matters arousing great moral the shot chain with a word, a phrase, or a _—s indignation can make the very stones roar.

concept. A very obvious example of this Eisenstein follows the Odessa Steps massaoccurs when a filmmaker cuts from an _ cre with a series of shots of stone lions in emotionally tense scene to a natural scene, — different postures in a way that the still shots generally some sort of landscape, predomi- _ of the lions appear animated. A stone lion nated by physical turmoil. A character is stands up and roars. This is meant to invoke angry or a Situation is charged, and there are the proverb in the viewer’s mind. Attempts

ensuing shots, for instance, of the sea with like this are frequent in silent Eisenstein. waves pounding against the shore. The tem- —_ Recall how Eisenstein cuts from images of pestuous sea, as a personification, isinferred | Kerensky to a peacock. To understand the

as a correlative to the human event. In interpolation, one must remember the sayeveryday language, we analogize human ing “proud as a peacock.” In October, actions to the natural world through innu- Eisenstein cuts between shots of a new merable metaphors; for instance we might 75mm cannon being lowered off a factory speak of waves of emotion. The filmmaker, rack and a soldier, thousands of miles away,

as if playing a charade, can attempt to crouching in his trench. The downward characterize a human event in light of the | movement of both shots create the sense metaphors of everyday language. He or she __ that the new cannon is being lowered on the

does so by presenting a concatenation of soldier. The cannon seems to be “crushing” images that will evoke the everyday personifi- him; armament manufacture “oppresses” cation sought after. Consider our hypotheti- __ the soldier.

cal example. We often speak about turbulent This type of editing is not idiosyncratic to seas. In our case, the filmmaker depicts an _ Eisenstein — in Orson Welles’ The Trial, K.’s appropriately turbulent body of water. This being lost in the legal system is emphasized

is juxtaposed to an emotionally charged through spatially inconsistent editing in event. We surmise that the charged event is — which the spectator becomes spatially disorialso “turbulent” in light of what appearstobe — ented or “lost.”® In Pabst’s Secrets of the

a commonality between a plausible descrip- Soul, Fellman’s impotency is suggested tion of such a human event and adescription — through images of the character falling. Nor

of the juxtaposed natural event. Since lan- is this practice restricted to artistic films. guage is so deeply implicated in this kind of | The idea of the gunfighter’s skill is often interpretation, one might be temptedtoliken articulated by the fast cut that deletes much the operation to reading, but reading assuch of the movement between reaching for the

is even less in operation here than it is in weapon and its hitting its target, thereby charades.7 From a concatenation of images —_ projecting a kind of fantasy of speed and 413

False Starts

precision. Nevertheless, as the frequency — under the notion of a race, which, within the and complexity of linguistic references in- | context of the whole film, is yet another creases in proportion to the morechronologi- —_— pejorative metaphor for Parisian bourgeois cally marked and causally oriented editing —_ society.!! The spectator does not add up the

of straightforward narration, this type of | new information in each shot to reach his ideational cutting can come to function asa _ —_— conception of the shot chain. Rather shots

repudiation of narration, seemingly turning are assimilated under a general hypothesis, away from the short story, the drama and _ the metaphor of the race, that accounts for the realistic novel as the models for film, to —_ the shot chain as a whole. I am not claiming

certain kinds of poetry or essays as the that there are never contexts where the

paradigms for cinema. spectator incorporates an interpolation in Concepts, proverbs, words and meta- _ terms of shot-by-shot articulations. Rather I

phors can serve as pretexts for editing. | am emphasizing that the shot-by-shot apHere, editing is a subclass of the larger proach is not always (and I suspect only practice of pictorial communication that _ rarely) in operation. In Entr’acte, the abrupt Freud calls dramatization.? In ourexamples, shifts in the final quasi-narrative event are the spectator incorporates the shot chain by — all comprehended under the metaphor of inferring its reference in language or in the _ the race. Successive shots are integrated into realm of ideas. This is not like reading; itis | this overarching metaphor rather than the more akin to the types of induction prac- metaphor being deduced additively from the ticed in charades. Imagery evokes an idea,a __ succession of shots. Early in the shot chain, metaphor, a word, a phrase, or even, asin _— we infer the metaphor of the race as the best

the Gods sequence of October, an entire explanation of the sequence and then we

philosophical argument.!° assimilate the ensuing juxtapositions into Of course, the spectator is not free to _ this overall notion. Not every new shot adds make any inference he or she chooses fora — to our comprehension, nor does the metagiven shot interpolation. Rather the induc- __ phor of the race simply “fall out” of the shot tion must be constrained in terms of what is chain; it must be inferred.

plausible to infer in virtue of the rest of the The language used by contemporary film and in terms of the cultural context of | French theorists to discuss the problem of

the film. For instance, it is implausible to how the spectator understands editing is explain a shot interpolation in a Harry highly psychoanalytic. They ask how a shot Langdon film in terms of the way it evokes _ chain is “sutured,” a striking metaphor for some Taoist metaphor. Both the filmandthe — the experience of unity the spectator has of cultural context of the film canbe broughtto the fragments of the events and states of bear to judge such a hypothesis incoherent. affairs editing represents.’ Their approach

On the other hand, in the case of Eisenstein, seems to me to have several liabilities. a cut based on an ideogram would be _ Because they are dealing within a psychoana-

eminently plausible. lytic framework, they develop accounts of Before leaving the topic of editing based — the spectator’s understanding that rely on on linguistic or conceptual inferences, one _ notions of the unconscious and repression.

general point remains to be made: the They are forced to postulate many complex significance that the spectator attributes toa and ghostly operations in the spectator’s shot chain need not be built up atomistically unconscious, which, moreover, are re-

with each shot contributing an original pressed. The repressed nature of these element to the whole conception. Forexam- — ghostly mechanisms makes them difficult to

ple, in Clair’s Entr’acte, the entire finale, evaluate and confirm. Furthermore, it with its myriad shots, may be subsumed seems to me that though spectators are often 414

Toward a Theory of Film Editing

initially unaware of the tacit operations they _—_its ambiguity in terms of the way it invites

perform when assimilating editing, they are the mobilization of different strategies of not in principle unaware of these opera- interpretation. The picture I have stressed is tions. The French approach is based on the _ of a viewer sifting through alternative patidea of repression; for the audience to _ terns of explanation to hypothesize the best understand a shot chain unconscious, re- interpretation of succeeding shots. In some

pressed operations must take place. The cases, it may be that there is no one best audience is of necessity unawares. This interpretation, insofar as two competing position seems to me to fly in the face of our explanations may emerge from different normal experience of films. Initially un- applications of the bases of inference, even aware of why we inferred a given sense toa _in light of the direction of the whole film and

shot chain, we can, without reference to its cultural context. This 1s, of course, not earlier psychosexual stages, reconstruct the | something peculiar to film editing, but a conditions that led us to the induction that feature of many complex communication we performed. In Freudian terms, the posi- _ practices, and a possible source of aesthetic tion that I hold argues that the operations __ richness as well as annoyance. we perform to assimilate edited arrays occur Undoubtedly, some readers will be struck

in the realm of conscious or preconscious by the general absence so far of any susthought rather than in the unconscious.° tained discussion of matching shots. For Many of the inferences made by audi- some, matching may appear to be the real ences are tacit (or if you prefer, “precon- foundation of narrative editing. But for me, scious”). At the same time, the logic of | matching is more a matter of cutting than of these tacit inductions can be made apparent _ editing. As the sequence involving the dissans psychoanalysis. The audience has cer- __ cussion of acting in Rainer’s Kristina Talking

tain strategies available for comprehending Pictures demonstrates, the ability to postua shot chain, not only in virtue of familiarity late a coherent unity of action rather than with films, but also perhaps even more _ the spatial continuity associated with matchimportantly, on the basis of knowledge of a _— ing is more fundamental to the flow of the broader culture that employs narrative, sim- _ narrative. ile and metaphor in ways that can be mimed At the same time, matching can be used in editing. The audience can infer significa- | nonnarratively; for instance, in one section tion in a shot chain on the basis of the story of At Land, Deren matches the movement of the film, on the basis of human action _ of different men walking down the roadside schemas, on the basis of linguistic meta- in order to identify them in terms of some _ phors, on the basis of similarity and contrast sort of anaclitic, psychic significance. between shots, or via the other strategies of Essentially, matched movement cutting is interpretation that I have outlined. These | ameans of directing the audience’s attention strategies or procedures are a repertory of to a certain sector of the frame; it is akin to inference tickets which, when combined _ the use of a compositional device like the with the material of the film and the cultural use of the diagonal in a medium shot. It context of the film, license specific hypothe- engenders a definite pathway of audience ses about the shot chain. It may be that a attention; for instance, if a character moves

given shot chain remains systematically am- from right to left in shot A, then the biguous between two or more interpreta- audience will look to the right side of shot B tions. Indeed, some filmmakers may inten- _ for his entrance. Using this type of cutting to tionally strive after this type of ambiguity. direct attention, however, may or may not But on my account, such a shot chain is not serve narrative purposes. It can function mysterious. We can reconstruct the basis of | metaphorically or even formally (e.g., by 415

False Starts

developing a strong sense of a line of _ there is a cut to a broader shot in which we movement for its own sake). Matching may _ see an unidentified couple carrying on the or may not be incorporated in a narrative, | exchange that we had just attributed to the

symbolic, or formal program of editing, narrator and the female lead. We realize being a technique of cutting that only takes the error of our earlier hypothesis; the on significance in the context of the specific editing reveals our assumptions, making us

films in which it is used. self-consciously aware of our participation I have been presenting a limited number in the process of classical narration. of induction bases for the audience to apply Postulating this kind of significance to the to a shot chain. My sketch suggests that the — editing in Last Year at Marienbad would, of

audience, given a shot interpolation, sifts course, be consonant with the reflexive through its package of templates, searching concerns of modernist art, as well as with for the best fit. But what if none of them the reflexive posture of phenomenology. seems to work? Must the spectator consign Since modernism and phenomenology conthe shot chain to senselessness? Andifthisis stituted dominant currents of the cultural so, what of the filmmaker who is striving to context from which Last Year at Marienbad introduce a new template? How is such an emerged, we can argue that the editing in aspiration to be realized within my approach _ the film represents an attempt to articulate,

or am I doing nothing more than briefly in film, recognizable preoccupations of enumerating traditional lines of editing? other cultural spheres. To deal with innovation in editing, I do Last Year at Marienbad may defy interprenot think that it is necessary to change our tation along the traditional narrative lines conception of it as acommunication practice previously outlined, but we can use the that functions by eliciting inferences from __ social, cultural, and even political context of spectators. We need only make clearersome __ the film in order to evolve a hypothesis to of the grounds for inference that we have _ account for the organization and manipula-

already alluded to. tion of the editing. Of course, such a hypotheConsider the editing in a film like Last sis must be plausibly motivated by the

Year at Marienbad. The editing consistently — cultural context. One should not postulate frustrates interpretation along the narrative that an unintelligible cut in a Broncho Billy

lines adumbrated so far. Yet, throughout Anderson film is an example of modernist the film we attempt to apply the narrative reflexivity. That would be historically abrepertory of induction bases. The film surd, although the same claim for a Resnais tempts us. A narrative is constantly sug- __ filmis patently plausible. Much of the editing gested though it is impossible to nail down. __ of the films in the New American Cinema can

Here, we postulate the hypothesis that the — be understood as the attempt to articulate editing is predicated on revealing our stan- —_ broader cultural themes in film form. At dard presuppositions of coherence in works different periods in that movement’s history, of art as well as detailing what we generally | themes of romanticism, of Jungian psycholuse as the bases for coherence in narrative ogy, phenomenology, and modernist art films. The editing takes on a meditative, forms, such as abstract expressionism and reflexive aspect, illuminating our standard minimalism, served as the grounds for editmodes of inferring significance by eliciting — ing. This did not require a qualitative change

and then frustrating the success of those in the spectator’s relation to editing. Rather, inductions. For instance, we see a close it required that the spectator infer the signifishot of the female lead and hear a male _ cance of shot chains on the basis of broad voice-over; we assume that itis the narrator — cultural preoccupations.

speaking to the woman onscreen. Suddenly Innovative editing, like innovative art, is 416

Toward a Theory of Film Editing

involved in part in repudiating traditional stylistically and thematically. The editing in artistic and cultural practices and their — the central section of Zorn’s Lemma emphaassociated values. The bases for inferring sizes another possibility of editing. Neither the significance of innovative editing often narrative, nor reflective on the nature of depends on inferring the traditional prac- _narrative, nor associative, Zorn’s Lemma

tices and associated assumptions that are proposes instead that film editing can be being repudiated as well as the newconcerns _ predicated on what can be called its own that are being introduced in film form. In internal logic, a formal system in the strongLast Year at Marienbad, what is repudiated — est sense of the term which relates neither is traditional narration in favor of areflexive directly nor obliquely to narrative while stance toward the processes of diegesis that also not relying on principles of associative

are rarely bared or interrogated in tradi- thought. This alphabetical system is comtional films. Innovative editing most often __ pletely arbitrary — virtually sui generis when foregrounds aspects or possibilities of edit- | compared to traditional practices of editing.

ing that are generally repressed in more The central section of the film forges its traditional editing. In Last Year at Ma- own formal pattern and replacement rules rienbad, self-consciousness is the repressed = which the audience identifies inductively

possibility that is being explored. The task not only to order the great diversity of of the spectator in such a case isto compare _ shots, but also to predict the end of the novel editing with more familiar editing in —s sequence.

order to discern the difference between the The situation of the spectator in regard to two in regard to how the novel approach — each new example of editing is analogous to reveals and exploits an aspect or possibility the museum curator who must decide of editing that is repressed by more tradi- | whether or not a newly made object can be tional approaches. In order to do this, the — exhibited as a work of art. Both must take Spectator must consider both the traditions _into account the traditions of the art form of film and the concerns of the broader and the culture as a whole, as well as new culture in order to infer the place of an developments in art and culture, in order to example of innovative editing in larger | determine whether or not the new object

historical frameworks. correlates to some recognizable preoccupaNarrative reflexivity, of course, is not the tion of the culture. In most cases, the new only form that a repudiation can take. Un object or new example of editing will simply Chien Andalou, for example, defies the repeat past concerns and forms. Most editaudience’s attempts to infer narrative coher- _—ing, for example, will fall back on the kinds

ence in order to foreground the associative of narrative, comparative, and contrastive possibilities of editing, eschewing the nar- —_ templates discussed earlier. In the case of rative film’s reliance on causality and chro- innovation, however, the relation to tradinology as the basic ordering structures of — tional forms may be one of amplification or cinematic succession in favor of patterns of | repudiation, where repudiations also corre-

combination that refer to the processes late to developments in other spheres of the of irrational thought. Whereas shots in Last larger culture. For editing, this is a matter of

Year at Marienbad are linked non-rationally inferring the place of the new example in respect to the norms of rationality estab- | within the framework of existing cinematic lished by narrativity, the cuts in the Bunuel/ —_and cultural concerns. Dali film are more specifically irrational, To summarize, editing is a communication alluding to symbolic processes like conden- _ practice based on cutting which prompts the sation, displacement and dramatization, oc- — spectator to infer the significance of a shot casioning a return of the repressed both _ chain in terms of the best available account

417 ,

False Starts

of the shot chain. The grounds of inference the same bases for induction, and more are numerous and varied, including several broadly, the same twentieth-century world types of narrative considerations, as well as __ culture.

sensuous and thematic comparisons and contrasts, and linguistic and conceptual evo- _ Notes

cations. These grounds serve as inductive . . . premises, which, when combined with the 1. V. I. Pudovkin, Film Technique and Film

; ; ; green Press, 1970), p. 100.

particularities of the film itself, and the Acting, trans. I. Montague (New York: Ever-

broader historical context of the film, yieldI>am By “reading.” denotine th Fe o f ee . By “reading,” denotingIthe practice

hypotheses about the significance of the shot getting the meaning from a string of symbols

_ linkages. The spectator may have to sift solely in virtue of the established association through his or her repertory of inductive of those symbols with their referents and strategies to unpack a sequence; this search their combination via a grammar. Throughis predicated on postulating the most coher- out this paper it is this rather technical notion

ent account of the material of the film. In of reading that I am attacking. I have no cases where the editing resists interpretation qualms about metaphoric uses of the term by means of traditional bases of induction, reading where it means “interpretation.” the spectator will have to note how the shot 3. In part of what follows some of my proposals

chain relates to film history as a possible will overlap with those of Jean Mitry. How-

. i ever, throughout this paper, I have attempted

amplification or repudiation more en- to treat experimental film both , ,ofperimental film both more seri7

trenched practices, as well as turning to his or ously and more sympathetically than does

her experience of the culture to find an Mitry.

explanation for the cutting. The spectator 4. Boris Eikenbaum, “Problems of Film Styliswill not read this explanation, but infer it. tics,” trans. T. Aman, Screen, Autumn, 1974,

Where no explanation is forthcoming, the p. 24. spectator will designate the editing as sense- 5. Christian Metz, Film and Language, trans.

less orasa mistake. M. Taylor (New York: Oxford University

I have offered this account from the Press, 1974), p. 47.

ar ae y; » Pp-

perspective of the spectator’s terminus in 6. Lois Mendelson, Robert Breer: A Study of his the circuit of communication. On the film- Work in the Context of the Modernist Tra dition

or (New York: an unpublished doctoral disserta-

maker, my characterization places the re- tion at New York University, 1978) 347

sponsibility for eliciting inferences from 7. I think that charades may sometimes be more

spectators by cutting. Of course, most film- like reading than editing is, because in makers will demand an even heavier respon- charades one may break words into syllables

sibility. Namely, they are determined to and virtually “spell” them out. elicit a specific, preordained comprehension 8. For further elaboration see my “Welles and of the shot chain from the viewer. I do not Kafka,” The Film Reader, no. 3. believe that it is necessary for an intended 9. Sigmund Freud, On Dreams, trans. J. Strameaning to be communicated for a cut to be chey, (New York Norton, 1952), pp. 40-50. a successful piece of editing. Some shot 19. See my “For God and Country,” Artforum,

interpolations may suggest inferences the Jan. 1973. i, ;

. 11. ThisYet, interpretation is set.;outen in greater length filmmaker had“Entr’acte, not planned. most .Méillen» AG: ; . in my Paris in and Dada,”

cases, it probably is true that the intended nium Film Journal, no. 1. communication is conveyed. How is this 42 For examples of the suture approach see possible? In our model, the answer is that Jean-Pierre Oudart, “La Suture,” I and II in the filmmaker and viewer, as members of Cahiers du Cinema, April 1969 and May the same institution of world cinema, share 1969, and Daniel Dayan, “The Tutor Code of 418

Toward a Theory of Film Editing

Classical Cinema,” in Film Quarterly, Fall submit, the viewer is aware of participating 1974. The Oudart article has been translated in something like a game. It is true that most with an accompanying interpretation by Ste- spectators cannot always verbally reproduce phen Heath in Screen, Winter, 1977/78. all the rules or procedures of this game even 13. My complaints in this paragraph reflect a though they abide by them. But this is no general dissatisfaction with the current use more a matter of repression than the fact of Lacanian psychoanalysis in film theory. To that most speakers of a language can’t spell speak very broadly, I feel that this enterprise out the grammar of the language. Perhaps if is founded on a misconception. It presup- it were true that spectators were in the queer poses that a film viewer is somehow under psychological state of believing in the untam-

the spell of an illusion that verges on a pered re-presentation of pro-filmic reality delusion, i.e., what is on the screen is while watching a film, we would have to supposedly taken for reality rather than for psychoanalyze them, showing how they suthe artifact it is. Because this approach ture the discontinuities of editing through a

begins by postulating a spectator in the panoply of subterranean repressive/regrescomplex psychological state of in some sense sive operations. But the need for such an believing or being deceived into believing approach disappears if we do not attribute the film is real while also obviously aware such a bizarre delusion to the audience, but

that it is not, it seems appropriate to instead try to outline the tacitly held rules or psychoanalyze him. That is, it seems reason- procedures that the audience employs in able to hypothesize that for the spectator to playing the institutionally established game

be in the thrall of such an illusion, some of cinema. This essay is an attempt to mechanism of repression or regression must outline a number of the procedures that the be operative. But I want to argue that such spectator uses in regard to editing. an illusion does not characterize the specta- Moreover, I do believe that the current tor’s relation to the screen. The idea of film expropriation of Lacan has been misguided. as reality is an extremely theoretical one. At (N.B.: The foregoing objections are to the times it sounds as though proponents of the overall assumptions of suture theory as apLacanian line are assuming that something plied to film. But the approach also has deep like Bazin’s theory of film is an account of problems in terms of internal coherence. For a the ordinary presuppositions of filmgoers. bracing introduction to some of these, see This seems to me to be highly dubious. In Barry Salt, “The Last of the Suture?” Film narrative and representational films, I would Quarterly, Summer, 1978.)

419

BLANK PAGE

=

|| ||

Index

| | |

acoustic mirror, 336—42 Battle of Chile, 235

Adebar, 162 329, 330 Adorno, T., 312 Baumgarten, Alexander, 297, 396

Act of Seeing with One’s Own Eyes, The, 230 Baudry, Jean-Louis, 286, 291, 292, 294, 303, 304, 327, 328,

African Queen, The, 143 Bazin, André, ix, xiv, xv, 1, 4, 23, 37, 41, 42, 43, 48, 55, 56, Age of Gold, The, 16, 191 72, 78, 93, 240, 244, 275, 280, 286, 287, 312, 313, 376, Alexander Nevsky, 178 377, 390, 419 Allan, Blaine, 392—402 Beardsley, Monroe, 35, 46, 48, 115, 159, 210, 240, 252,

Allen, Richard, 320, 366—70 391

Allen, Robert, 119 Benjamin, Walter, 292, 306, 310, 311-12 All My Children, 120, 122 Berger, John, 273, 355, 357

All That Jazz, 99 Bergman, I., 1 Althusserianism, 276-8, 286, 287, 288, 289, 346 Bergson, Henri, 148, 297, 379

Althusserian-Lacanian Film Theory, 310 Berlin: Symphony of a Great City, 411

Althusser, Louis, 286, 346 Best Years of Our Lives, The, 284

Altman, Robert, 67 Big, 155

Amacord, 98 Bigger Than LIfe, 187, 198, 204, 209

Ames experiment, 39, 48 Big Heat, The, 266 Amos ‘n’ Andy, 118 Birth of a Nation, The, 103

ampliation, 169-86 Blood of a Poet, The, 45

amplification, 283-9, 395, 417-18 Blue Gardenia, 208

Andalusian Dog, An, 45, 171, 384, 417 Blue Thunder, 79

Andre, Carl, 313 Boat, The, 151

Apocalypse Now, 187 Bogart, Humphrey, 66, 143

Arbuckle, Fatty, 157 Borden, Lizzie, 6, 24

Aristotle, 177, 186, 280, 282, 287, 307 Bordwell, David, 72, 125, 137, 138, 157, 286, 320, 323, 332, Arnheim, Rudolf, ix, xiv, 1, 4,9, 19, 23, 30, 35, 275, 286, 334, 335, 369

295, 313, 376, 378, 387 Boy’s Ranch, 191

Arnulf Rainer, 51, 162 bracketing, 85-7 L’Arroseur Arrosé, 146 Brakhage, Stan, 65, 81, 178, 181-2, 230, 292, 294, 303, 313,

At Land, 415 355, 357, 408, 410, 413

Attack of the Killer Tomatoes, 47 Brand, Bill, 165-6

Austin, J. L., 194 Brannigan, Edward, 126, 127, 135, 136, 138

Avedon, Richard, 45, 46 Braque, Georges, 60 Breakfast, 191 Back Roads, 169 Brecht, Bertolt, 29, 307, 310, 351, 352

Back to the Future, 155, 282-9 Breer, Robert, 411 Back to the Future IIT, 288 Bridegroom, the Actress and the Pimp, The, 27

Baillie, Bruce, 412 Bride of Frankenstein, The, 115, 281, 339 Ballet Mécanique, 178, 410 Broderick, Lorraine, 120 Balasz, Bela, 227, 250, 376, 378 Bringing up Baby, 121, 265, 339

Band of Ninjas, 64 Brook, Peter, 189 Banes, Sally, 24, 73 Brooks, Virginia, 93

Barnouw, Eric, 226 Brown, Clarence, 140 Baroque Dance, 233 Browne, Nick, 136 Barr, Charles, 72 Brueghel, the Elder, Pieter, 188

115 Buckland, Warren, 320-35

Barthes, Roland, 5, 23, 25, 35, 37, 48, 94, 95, 107, 113, Brumes d’Automne, 405

Battle of Algiers, 232 Bunuel, Luis, 409, 417 421

Index Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, The, 15, 36 Dickie, George, 375, 380, 381, 382, 390, 391, 394, 395

Cabiria, 85, 265 direct cinema (cinema verité), 224—5 Cagney, James, 68 Dirty Harry, 102 Camera Lucida, 5, 23, 25, 35, 48 Divided Loyalties, 177 Cape Fear (1962), 95 Dr. Mabuse, The Gambler, 210

Capricorn I, 210 documentary film, 224—56 Cargo of Lure, 187, 196 Don’t Look Now, 296, 408 Carmen Jones, 199, 200 Dracula, 129 Carné, Marcel, 136 Dreyer, Carl, 132, 306 Carpetbaggers, The, 239 Drifters, 222 Carriage Trade,H., 17743Duras, M.,121 99 Cartier-Bresson, Dynasty, Casablanca, 62, 241

categorical editing, 411 Eastwood, Clint, 72, 90 Cavell, Stanley, 23, 37, 41, 43, 44, 48, 66, 73, 377 Easy Rider, 408

CD-ROM, xv, 51, 65 Edison, Thomas, 18

404 Eggeling, Viking, 65

Chaplin, Charles, 17, 150, 151, 152, 156, 222, 306, 307, 312, editing, 403-19

Chariot of the Gods, 242, 255 Eikenbaum, Boris, 191-2, 208, 406, 418

Chariots of Fire, 102 Einstein on the Beach, 16

Cheaper by the Dozen, 284 Eisenstein, Sergei, 176, 177, 178, 185, 186, 191, 199, 212,

Childs, Abigail, 178 292, 306, 310, 411, 412, 413, 414

Chong,scene, Ping,336—42 67 Ekman, Paul, 137 choric El Cid, 55 Chronique d’un Eté, 225, 231 Electric Horseman, 187 cinematic, 1—2 Eleventh Year, The, 235 Citizen Kane, 45, 54, 190, 239, 280 Elson, Matt, 60 Clair, R., 414 embourgeoisement, 306 Close Encounters of the Third Kind, 408 Empire of the Ants, 407

closure, 90, 121, 122 Enforcer, The, 191, 200 cognitivism, 320-35 enthymeme, 280, 287-8

College, 151, 153 Entr’acte, 414

comedy, 109-10, 146-58 entraining effect, 170, 183

Comolli, Jean-Louis, 236, 237, 239, 286 erotetic narration, 88-91, 96-100

computer imaging, xili, xv, 60, 65 essentialism, grecian, 49, 55, 71

Conrad, Tony, 164 essentialism, real-definition, 49, 55, 71

constitutory conditions, 195-7 Etude in R-Y-B, 412 Copland, Aaron, 139, 144

Cops, 103, 150 facial emotion, 129-33

Corman, Roger, 60, 223 Fahrenheit 451, 74 Corner in Wheat, 412 Fairbanks, Douglas, Jr., 139

counterfactual dependency, 57-8 Fairbanks, Douglas, Sr., 157

Crawford, Donald, 22—3, 24 fallibilism, 323

Creature From Black Lagoon, The, 46 Fall of the Romanov Dynasty, The, 229

Crimes and Misdemeanors, 269 Fantastic Four, The, 60

Croce, Arlene, 71, 74 Fantomas, 103, 210

Cronenberg, David, 213 Farmer’s Daughter, The, 397

cultural invention, 82-3 Fatal Attraction, 269-70

Currie, Gregory, 73 Fatty’s Magic Pants, 157 Fellini, F., 99

daguerreotype, 35, 52 feminism, 257-74, 336-42 Dame Vraiment Bien, Une, 156 fetishism, 263-8

Danto, Arthur, 114, 280—1, 287, 375, 382-3, 390 Feuillade, Louis, 156

Darwin, Charles, 130, 137 fiction, 236—9 David Holzman’s Diary, 232 Films d’Art, 17

Davidson, Donald, 325-7, 335 film language, 403

Dayan, Daniel, 136, 286, 390, 418 Finley, Hamilton, 11 Dead, The, 413 First Knight, 55 Dead Men Don’t Wear Plaid, 136 Fishing at Stone Weir, 245

depiction, 47, 240-1 flicker films, 51, 412

Deren, Maya, 226-7, 292, 415 . Fly, The, 216 Derrida, J. , 224 Flying, 172 de Sade, Marquis, 208 focusser (emotive), 132, 133 de Sousa, Ronald, 268, 274, 287 Force of Evil, 143

Devereaux, Mary, 304 Ford, John, 128

Devil’s Wheel, 192 formalism, xv, 258, 259, 319, 320, 332, 365, 374, 392, 396

DiBiaso, Tom, 163 formal object, 132, 147, 268 422

Index

Fort Apache, 407 History Lessons, 66 Fort Apache, The Bronx, 359 Hitchcock, Alfred, 1, 103, 106, 111-13, 116-17, 128, 146,

Fortini-Cani, 264, 267, 40493 Fosse, Bob, 99 66 Hochberg, Julian,

Fourier, F., 17 Hoffmansthal, H., 377 Frampton, Hollis, xvii, 6, 24, 64, 163, 164, 292, 313- homospatiality, 214-15

17 Huillet, Danielle, 66

Frankenstein, 383 Hume, David, 137, 169, 170

Fred Ott’s Sneeze, 146 Humphrey, Doris, 183 free association, 206, 210 Hunters, The, 245 Freeburg, Victor, 386-7 Husserl, E., 94, 303, 330 free imagery, 206, 210 Hutcheson, Francis, 298 French Connection IT, 102 hysteron proteron, 176 Frenzy, 117

Freshman, The, 148 “Ideological Effects of the Basic Cinematic Apparatus,”

Freud, S. 205, 210, 333, 414, 418 330 Fried, Michael, 7 ideology, 224, 234, 237, 251-2, 257-89, 399 Frozen North, The, 153 limura, Takahiko, 64

Fury, 190, 197 illocutionary acts, 194-5; verbal images as, 194—203 image of women in film approach, 260-74

Gallipoli, 102 Imaginary Portrait of D. A. F. de Sade, 221 Gance, Abel, 133 Immigrant, The, 151, 404 Gandhi, 354 Inauguration of the Pleasure Dome, 190, 202

Gas, 223 incongruity theory of humor, 147

Gehr, Ernie, 163, 164, 385 indexing (documentary films), 232, 237—9 General, The, 100, 115, 149, 388 indexing (editing), 85—7 General Hospital, 120, 122 India Song, 99 General Line, The, 176, 189, 411 Ingarden, Roman, 64, 66, 73

Getino, Octavio, 232 Ingres, Jean-Auguste-Dominique, 131 Gidal, Peter, 165 inner speech, 191-4 Gillette, Frank, 6, 24 institutional theories, 375—90 Godard, Jean-Luc, 64, 66, 163 Intolerance, 98

Goldman, Lucien, 231 Into the Night, 90

Gold Rush, The, 103, 121, 150, 222 Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956), 90, 288-9 Gone with the Wind, 240, 241, 265, 383 Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978), 102

Goodman, Nelson, 11, 38, 48, 232 I Remember Momma, 339

Gorin, Jean-Pierre, 64 Itch, Scratch, Itch, 191, 200 gossip, 122-4 Wonderful Life,190 284 Graduate, The,It’s 255AIvan the Terrible, Green Berets, 227 Izard, Carol, 137 Greenberg, Clement, 1, 4, 7, 8, 25, 313, 385 Gregory, André, 45 Jagged Edge, 121 Grenier, Vincent, 163 “Jail Break,” 11 Grierson, John, 222, 225 Jane Eyre, 339

Griffith, D. W., 307 Jettée, La, 64 Grotowski, Jerzy, 22 Johnny Eager, 136

Guiding Light, The, 119 Journeys from Berlin/1971, 14, 66, 198, 338, 340-1

Gunga Din, 139, 140, 142 Juggernaut, 108-9

Gunning, Tom, 77 Juliette, 208

Jurassic Park, 60

Halloween (I and II), 116 Just Plain Bill, 118 Hammett, Jennifer, 320, 360-6

Hansen, Miriam, 273 Kant, I., 297, 298 Hanslick, Eduard, 141, 145 Keaton, Buster, 48, 100, 115, 149, 150, 151, 153, 154, 155,

Haskell, Molly, 260 156, 388

59, 390, 419 Kindness, 67

Heath, Stephen, xiv, 93, 116, 245, 320, 327, 329, 335, 343- Keystone Kops, 146

Heaven and Earth Magic, 45 Kirsanov, D., 405

Hegelianism, 315-16 Kivy, Peter, 141, 145 Heiress, The, Kj¢rup, S¢ren,412 195 Henry V, 11189 Kleptomaniac,

Hepburn, Katherine, 48, 338-9 Kracauer, S., xiv, 1, 4, 12, 114, 223, 292, 377, 387

Herman, Pee Wee, 155 Kristina Talking Pictures, 415 Herrman, B., 405 Kubelka, Peter, 45, 51, 128, 162 Hills Have Eyes, The, 102 Kuleshov Experiment, 129-30

Hill Street Blues, 121 Kuleshov, Lev, xv, 4, 12, 23, 88, 96, 113, 130, 386,

His Girl Friday, 265, 270, 339 387 423

Index

Lacan, Jacques, 210, 337, 343-4, 419 Miami Vice, 121

LaGuardia Story, The, 230 Michels, Duane, 18

Lakoff, George, 218, 222 Michelson, Annette, 176, 185, 304, 312

Lang, Fritz, 184, 190, 208, 212, 387, 388 Michotte, Albert, 169-72

Langer, Susanne, 183, 293, 296, 377, 378 micro-question, 89-90, 100, 103, 104, 121

Last Laugh, The, 189 Million Dollar Mermaid, The, 180

Last Year at Marienbad, 99, 303, 416-17 mimed-metaphor, 150—1

launching effect, 170, 171 Miracle Worker, The, 267, 273—4

LeBrun, Charles, 131, 137 Mr. Hulot’s Vacation, 150 Léger, Fernand, 410 Mitry, Jean, 135, 344, 418 LeGrice, Malcolm, 69, 165 modifying music, 139-45

Lessing, G., 7,9, 11, 12, 24, 30, 35, 396 Moholy-Nagy, Laszlo, 5, 23

Lester, Richard, 108 Mondrian, P., 16 Letter to Jane, 64 Monkeyshines, 146 Letter to Three Wives, 337, 339 Mon Oncle, 150 Lewin, B., 328 Monster Film, 69 Lewis, David, 73 montage, ix, 29, 241 Lianna, 248 Morin, Edgar, 225

Lifeboat, 11 Mosaik im Vetrauen, 128

Lindsay, Vachel, 23 movie-as-indicator, 142—4

Line Describing a Cone, 4 Mulvey, Laura, 261-8, 337, 339

Lizzies of the Field, 198 Munsterberg, Hugo, xvii, 128, 291, 293-304, 377, 378

Lloyd, Harold, 148, 151, 156, 388 Murder on the Orient Express, 111

Logan’s Run, 238-9 music-as-modifier, 142—4 Loker, Altan, 95, 113 mutual interference gag, 148-50 Lola Montes, 191 My Night at Maude’s, 11 Lonedale Operator, The, 99 mystery, 110-11 Lonely Villa, The, 102 Longest Day, The, 266 Naked City, The, 339

Looking for Mr. Goodbar, 408 Nanook of the North, 245 Lost, Lost, Lost, 235-6 Napoleon, 133 Lowenberg, Ina, 218, 223 narrative enthymeme, 258, 281-8

Lumiére, Louis, 294, 307 National Velvet, 102 Native Land, 233

M, 46, 85,Colin, 410 286 Navigator, The, 153 MacCabe, Nelson, Robert, 167

McCall, Anthony, 4, 5, 23 Neorealism, 42, 243, 397-8

Mac Low, Jackson, 11 Neptune’s Daughter, 293 macro-question, 89-90, 100, 103, 104, 121 Netherlandish Proverbs, The, 188 Made for Each Other, 106 Newman, Alfred, 139

Magellan, 316 Nietzsche, F., 141,233 144, 145 Magritte, René, 67 Night Mail, male gaze, 263, 264 Nixon, Agnes, 118 Mannheim, Karl, 184 nominal portrayal, 47, 241-2

Man of Her Own, A, 339 nonfiction, 224—56 Man Who Knew Too Much, The, 107 Nosferatu, 67

Man with a Movie Camera, 172-7, 212, 213, 235, 240, 411 (nostalgia), 314, 315 Marker, Chris, 64, 224 Notorious, 295

Markopoulos, G., 408ofNova, 237 210 Marnie, 264 Nymph the Waves, Marx, Groucho, 32 Marx, Karl, 17, 251 object analog, 153-4 mass art, 125-6 objectivity, 224, 226-36 materialist conception of history, 292, 305, 308, 310 object of emotion, 131

Matewan, mattes,277 60October, lin 10,190, 64412

Maynard, Patrick, 56, 73 One Life to Live, 118, 121, 122 medium-essentialism, 49-74 One Second in Montreal, 64

medium-specificity, xv, 1-63 One Way Boogie-Woogie, 16

Meet Me in St. Louis, 107 Ophuls, Max, 190-1

Mekas, 236 Osgood, Charles, 211 Nagisa, 64 . Méliés,Jonas, Georges, 146, 307 Oshima,

metahistory, 313-17 Oudart, Jean-Pierre, 136, 418 metaphor, 212-23 Metropolis, 212 Pabst, G. W., 412 Metz, Christian, 33, 80, 93, 224, 237, 273, 291, 294, 303, Paik, Nam June, 7, 126

304, 313, 328—9, 335, 377, 407-8, 418 Painted Dreams, 118 424

Index

Panofsky, Erwin, 36, 66, 166, 207, 211 Rebel Without a Cause, 139, 140

paradigm scenarios, 268-72 Red Desert, 190 Paramount Pictograph, 293 Red Dust, 102

Pat and Mike, 210 Red River, 79 Pawnshop, The 150, 152, 153 refunctionalization of objects, 153-4

Peck, Gregory, 70, 95, 140, 265, 339, 360 Renoir, Jean, 163, 243, 244, 384, 387, 388

perceptual leveling convention, 157 repetition, 383-9, 395

Perceval, 18, 45 repudiation, 384—9, 395, 417-18 Perils of Pauline, 265 Resnais, Alain, 294, 416-17

Perkins, V. F., ix, 199, 210, 286, 376, 379, 384—5, 396, 401- retrospective editing, 127, 136

2 Return of the Killer Tomatoes, The, 133

perlocution, 194, 203 Reveberation, 164 perspective, 276-8 rhetoric (and ideology), 279-89 Phillips, Irna, 118 Rhythmus 21, 81, 305, 385

photographic realism, 37—49, 55-63 Richter, Hans, xvii, 81, 291-2, 305-12, 385

photographic transparency, 58—9 Riddles of the Sphinx, 338, 340-1 photography, 3—24, 37—49 Rink, The, 150, 153 physical portrayal, 46, 240-1 Rise to Power of Louis XIV, The, 233

Piaget, J.,54 170,Ritt, 183 Risky Business, 89 piano, Martin, 189 Picasso, Pablo, 60-1, 188 Rohmer, Eric, 18, 45

Pickled Wind, 164 Ronde, La, 115 Pick-up on South Street, 189, 206 Roseman, Leonard, 139

picture recognition, 80-3 Rossellini, Roberto, 233 pictures, transparent, 58-63 Rouch, Jean, 225, 232

Pierrot le Fou, 163 Rude Awakening, 177-82

Play Misty for Me, 269 Rules of the Game, The, 243, 266, 387, 388

Play Time, 150, 267, 388 Russell, Rosalind, 338, 339

Plow that Broke the Plains, The, 232 Ruttman, W., 411 Poetic Justice, 314

point/glance shot, 126—7, 132 Sabini, John, 123

point/object shot, 126-7, 131, 132 Safety Last, 151, 191, 200

point-of-view, 227-8 Salt, Barry, 136, 419

407 Sankowski, Edward, 20—2, polaroid, 52 Satyricon, 99 24 point-of-view editing, 125-38, 227, 228, 262, 263, 276, 277, sampler, 53

political correctness, 259, 319, 320, 365, 366, 374 Sayles, John, 248, 271

polyvalent montage, 177-9 scaling, 85-7

Porter, E., 384, 412 Scenes from Under Childhood, 303 Portrait of Dora Maar, 188 Schelling, F. W., 184 Potemkin, 107, 131, 178, 194, 199, 369, 412 School of Athens, The, 64—5 Potter, Sally, 201-2 Schopenhauer, Arthur, 145, 297, 298, 300 principle of charity, 325-7 Schwechater, 162 Private Lives of Henry VIII, The, 308-9 Scruton, Roger, 56, 73 projective illusion, 366—70 Search, The, 190

prolepsis, 408 Searle, John, 93 propaganda, 234—5 Secrets of the Soul, 413

prosthetic device, 57-8 Selling of the Pentagon, The, 235 prospective editing, 127, 136 Sennett, Mack, 146 Pryluck, Calvin, 322, 323 Serene Velocity, 385 Psycho, 46, 47, 79 Sesonske, Alex, 240, 385 psychoanalytic feminism, 260—7 70, 411 Pudovkin, V. I., 88, 93, 95, 96, 113, 114, 291, 296, 403, 418 Shaw, G. B., 31

Pulp Fiction, 216 67 Sherlock Jr., 156172 Pumpkinhead, Sherman, Stuart,

Pursuit to Algiers, 237 She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, 280 Shitomirski, Alexander, 39

Rainer, Yvonne, 24, 66, 166, 167, 409, 415 Siegfried, 387, 388

range finder (emotive), 132, 133 sight-gags, 146-57

Raphael, Sanzio, 64 Silver, Maury, 123

Raw Deal, 339 Silverman, Kaja, xiv, xvii, 320, 336-42

Ray, Man, 221 Singer, Jerome, 210

Ray, Nicholas, 13919, Sitney, P. Adams, Read, Herbert, 24 66, 411 165

Ready to243-4 Wear,Smith, 67 69,Harry, 411 69 realism, Rear Window, 128, 264 Snow, Michael, 163, 191, 294 425

Index

soap operas, 118-24 TVChair, Buddha,77 So Is This, 64 TV Solanas, Fernando, 232 type, 66-70 solution gag, 154-5

Sonbert, Warren, 177-82 Union Maids, 241

Song of Ceylon, 232

Sontag, Susan, 23, 37, 41, 380 Vampyr, 132-3 Sorcerer, 104 variable framing, 84—7 Sorry, Wrong Number, 337 verbal image, 187-211

Sparshott, F. E., 62, 73, 377 Vertigo, 131-2, 264

Spies, 103, 184 411 Stagecoach, 128 Victory at Sea, 241

Spellbound, 339 Vertov, Dziga, 167, 172-7, 212, 223, 225, 233, 250, 306,

Stalking Moon, The, 95 video, 3-24, 25, 26

Star Trek (TV series) , 281-2 Videodrome, 213

Star Trek IT, 60 Virtually Yours, 60 Sternberg, Josef, 264, 266, 267, 387 Visiteurs du soir, Le, 136 Stevens, George, 139 voice, 336—42

Stothart, Herbert, 140 Von Ryan’s Express, 102

Strand, Paul, 5, 23 voyeurism, 263-8

Strangers on a Train, 111-12, 117, 195, 200 Vygotsky, L. S., 192—4, 208 Straub, Jean-Marie, 27, 66

Street Scenes, 143 Wages of Fear, The, 104-5

/ Strike, 212, film, 213 Walton, Kendall, 90 56, 73 structural 163 Wargames,

Structural/Materialist film, 166 warranting/facilitating conditions, 197-203 Suite California Stops and Passes, 167 Wavelength, 191

Student Prince, The, 307 Warrendale, 244

Sunrise, 86, 189, 190, 411 Way Down East, 101 Superman (TV series), 103 Wayang Kulit, 71 Surface Tension, 315 Wayne, John, 227, 265, 407

suspense, 94-117 Ways of Seeing, 162 Suspicion, 404 Welles, Orson, 54, 413 suture, 414-15, 418 Weitz, M., 379, 390

switch images, 151-2 Western History, 181-2, 186

switch movement, 152-3 Weston, Edward, 5, 12, 15, 19, 23 White Gorilla, The, 129

Tarzan and the Leopard Woman, 102 White Heat, 68

Tati, Jacques, 150, 156-7, 387 Whittock, Trevor, 212, 222

Teagarden, Jack, 54 Wicclair, Mark, 301, 304 Text of Light, 410 Wiener, Norbert, 127, 136 That’s Entertainment, 180 Wild and Woolly, 157 Thin Man, The, 110, 187 Wild Bunch, The, 402 Third Avenue: Only the Strong Survive, 233 Wild Geese, The, 105

39 Steps, 103, 105, 146, 148 Willeman, Paul, 189, 192, 197, 209 Thompson, Kristin, 54, 72, 137, 273, 274 Window Water Baby Moving, 190 Three Songs of Lenin, 235 Wiseman, F., 224, 225, 226-7, 250

Thriller, 201-2 Wittgenstein, Ludwig, 33, 368, 379, 380 tintype, 52 Wollheim, Richard, 73, 131, 325 Today’s Children, 119 Wolterstorff, Nicholas, 115, 250 Todorov, T., 110 Women, The, 196, 165 199 token, 66—70 Works in the Field, To Kill a Mockingbird, 339 Toland, G., You 54 Yearling, The, 140, 142 Toni, 67 Are There, 239 Toward a Poor Theater, 22 You Can’t Take It with You, 284 Tree of Wooden Clogs, The, 98, 100, 115

Trial, The, 99, 204, 413 Zavatini, Caesare, 240 Triumph of the Will, 234-5 Ziff, Paul, 382, 391 Trotsky, Leon, 184, 391 Zinneman, Fred, 190

Truffaut, 107 Lemma, Zola, E., 42315, 417 Turksib, 248F., Zorn’s 164, Turner, Mark, 218, 222 Zukor, Adolph, 293

426