Friday, July 14, 2006
That the still photograph is intimately associated with memory is beyond trite - in its most obvious sense, the photograph is, after all, the "capture" of a moment so that we may (among other things) remember it. Hence, the phrase "souvenir shot", with the notion of a memento in the noun "souvenir", and not least of all the connotations of its original French meaning, "to remember". In that sense, the photograph takes on a role akin to a substitute memory, albeit one that registers only a single instant. Thus, in this idea of photograph-as-memory also lies the full poignancy of the story of Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and Celine (Julie Delpy) in Richard Linklater's Before Sunrise: nearing the time (before sunrise) when they are about to part, Jesse turns Celine around and says, "I am now going to take a photograph of you so as to remember you forever." However, he does not (as might be expected) pull out a camera, but simply gazes at her for almost a full minute.
<$BlogItemCommentCount$> Comments:
Nice post, Jenna.
In the same vein, it's perfect that Chris Marker's LA JETEE is composed almost entirely of stills because it is such a quintessential "memory-film."
And somewhere I read the proposition that what stays in people's memory of Eisenstein's films is less the montages than the vividly striking images (as stills) themselves.
Also, the very last shot of BEFORE SUNSET is Jesse simply gazing at Celine ("taking her picture") as she "performs."
<$BlogItemCommentCount$> Comments:
Hey, Girish, thanks for your comment. Yes, you are right abt the photographic "nature" of La Jetee - and it is indeed ingenious.
I haven't heard that proposition before but Eisenstein must not be very happy about that! Since for E meaning is all in the cut and juxtaposition.
Ref Before Sunset: Girish, have you seen Tavernier's La Mort en direct? It's the same idea - of watching as recording. I am very interested in simply this idea of looking as a work/act of memory. There is actually a continuation to the paragraph of my post, which I didn't want to put up at first since I didn't want to spell it out, but well:
The mental act of remembering is thus conflated with its abstract concept inherent in the photograph, with the effect somehow of the sum being more than its parts: one cannot help but think that he is, in a way, remembering her better in that one long look of "photography" than if he had pressed the button of a tourist's camera.
<$BlogItemCommentCount$> Comments:
That's very interesting, Jenna. My work has been about images and memory/time, and that kind of "image of thought" (Deleuze via Turim) intrigues me.
I guess its time to stop putting off seeing that film like I have for the last two+ years.
js
<$BlogItemCommentCount$> Comments:
Jenna, that Tavernier film sounds interesting; I've never even heard of it. Just made a note.
I like your last paragraph; it rings true to me.
I'm also reminded of this exhibit I saw of Andy Warhol's "Screen Tests" at MoMA: a variety of people simply looking at the camera for a fixed amount of time (a minute or longer, if I remember right). Somehow, you get a richer picture gazing that way at someone that way than with a single still, even if the person is fairly (but not completely) motionless for that duration of time.
So, the ideas in this post are related to your thesis topic, if you don't mind my asking?
<$BlogItemCommentCount$> Comments:
Jason - Deleuze as in the crystal-image? The problem I find with Deleuze's discussion of the whole actual and virtual is that he throws into it alot more than memory, which makes it a tad confusing......
Watch it, watch it! I'd put it off for a long time too, but more in anticipation than anything else. This really is one of my personal favourites - well, mostly on a personal level (plus I generally like Linklater's films alot), but it's really good, and (as a friend said) probably one of the truest films on relationships one can find.
<$BlogItemCommentCount$> Comments:
Well, yes, Deleuze is focused on time for its own sake, more so than memory. The crystal images are just transparent layers of time, past-present-future in one, not memory, which Deleuze finds unattainable in a weird sort of way ("memory is not in us"). Because, I suppose, we can only move forwards and not backwards.
In retrospect, perhaps Turim's formulation doesn't quite work, since she's not focusing on memory, either, but rather--if I remember correctly--new modes of becoming, new possibilities ahead. NOT, however, capturing the past, as the film example would seem to suggest.
Then again, maybe Jesse is already looking to the future, really, in that moment.
<$BlogItemCommentCount$> Comments:
Hey Girish
La Mort made a huge impression on me. It's not a perfect film, so to speak - for one, it's Tavernier's first English film, and the awkwardness shows - but I was totally taken by its premise - on looking and the camera, the eye and the lens - along the Peeping Tom, Crash (Cronenberg) lines, if you will, but in a way that is so incredibly beautiful, emotional and memorable. It's out on DVD but might not be easy to acquire - I bought my copy from amazon.fr for what I considered an outrageous price - but if you get the chance it's definitely worth a watch. And let me know your thoughts! I always love to talk about this film.
Your point on "Screen Tests" is very interesting. It's the effect of duration, do you think? Which, of course, is the decisive difference between photography and cinema. I'm struggling hugely with this point right now - time actually means something to cinema, whereas (I would argue) it doesn't to the still photograph, or, at least, much less meaningful. Is that why you feel so affected by "Screen Tests", because you realise you are not just watching a person, frozen or crystallised, but in time (and time brings with it past, present, future...)? I would be very interested to hear your thoughts.
And, yes, :-) - these ideas are indeed integral to my thesis. In my current chapter I'm trying to explore time as within the ontology of film (more usually discussed in relation to reality) - I return to my earlier, lamely posed semi-question: time means something in the moving image and the question, then, is, What? Death, memory, pasts, futures...... (for there is no present, of course :-)). It's causing me more grief than I can ever describe, but these conversations do help enormously, and for that I do thank you. :-)
<$BlogItemCommentCount$> Comments:
Hi--
I posted something earlier, must have gotten lost. Basically, I rethought my earlier idea of Deleuze and the Crystal Image in relation to BS in light of your question, Jenna, because Deleuze really isn't interested in memory at all, but a kind of pure time ("memory is not in us," is the quote I referenced). So, Turim and Deleuze are talking about images of things still to come, new ways of being. If Jesse is looking back, it may not work--but if he is looking forward, well . . .
<$BlogItemCommentCount$> Comments:
I won't get into theory, since memory is not really my area.
But I will say both this film and its sequel are lovely. You might be surprised, Jason.
<$BlogItemCommentCount$> Comments:
Hey Jason
Sorry for not responding earlier - your comment(s) didn't get lost, just that I wanted to think about them properly before putting them up. They are really, really interesting - thanks so much.
You are right - Deleuze isn't interested in memory (good quote! on which page did you find it?) insomuch as the image of, as you say, pure time. But even that: his concepts of "actual" and "virtual" involve more than time, and that's what I meant by confusing: it's also about becoming (the seed), about doubles (mirrors, reflections), about shadows (the limpid, the opaque) etc. Massumi scolds readers for not understanding Deleuze's "virtual", but I say it's abit hard to understand it properly when it seems to mean so many things! Will very much welcome your thoughts.
Back to Deleuze and memory: I wrote that Deleuze isn't interested in memory insomuch as the image of pure time. Meaning I do think he is interested in memory but only insofar as it relates to time - see, for eg, his analysis of Fellini's Amarcord. Plus, I would argue, how may one speak of time without referring to memory, and vice versa? They breathe the same air.
What you say abt Turim's work is really intriguing - do you have the reference? I would be grateful for it - thanks very much.
Finally, on Before Sunrise/Sunset: it sounds like you've watched Sunrise, but not Sunset, I'm not sure I got that right? I do have my views on whether Jesse is looking back or forward, but that would require one to have seen both films, esp Sunset, and to know what had happened to Jesse and Celine. If you haven't seen it, I'm not going to lay out spoilers for you. But it's an incredibly interesting proposition you've put out and I look forward to reprising this discussion anytime. Or, if you've already seen the film, let's take it on!
Thanks again for your comments. Let me know what you think about Deleuze?
Cheers
Jenna
<$BlogItemCommentCount$> Comments:
There - the endorsement of Monsieur Balcerzak himself... Jason, what are you waiting for?
<$BlogItemCommentCount$> Comments:
I am guessing he is discussing “Postmodern Metaphors and the Images of Thought,” which is in Polygraph #13 (2001).
<$BlogItemCommentCount$> Comments:
Thanks, Scott! :-)
<$BlogItemCommentCount$> Comments:
That was the article I was referring to, but I'm not sure in retrospect that it fits here (not to knock that essay, `cause its still one of my favorites). I'd have to look it over again to check its compatibility with issues of time and, particularly, memory. The main reason I am so fond of that article is because it outlines--better than any article or book I've ever read--what it might mean to do "postmodern film criticism" in a way that's not superficial or reductive. But, I'm not sure about its relevance to BS. (its in Bloomington, and I'm here in Chicago, so I can't quite grab it for a quick review).
As to the other Deleuze questions, I'll have to get back to you.
js
<$BlogItemCommentCount$> Comments:
"Is that why you feel so affected by "Screen Tests", because you realise you are not just watching a person, frozen or crystallised, but in time (and time brings with it past, present, future...)?"
Yes, Jenna. Exactly. Unlike in a still, I could feel a certain flux in the image (the "models" were usually quite still but some were more distracted than others, and of course it's hard to be completely still for a minute).
I'm reminded of Barthes' distinction (Camera Lucida, p 78) between something being "posed" in front of the camera (in a still) and something "passing" (in cinema). He seems to prefer the former, I think, but with me it's the opposite. The ephemerality of the moment (and the attendant pose) somehow what makes it more precious. I can never quite own the moment as I can in a still, which makes me value it more, if that makes any sense....
"these conversations do help enormously..."
Oh I enjoy them too, and thanks for putting up with my untutored, autodidactic riffings. :-)
<$BlogItemCommentCount$> Comments:
"Flux" is a very good word indeed. Most people might say "movement", which basically refers to the same thing, yet "flux" captures an essence of... change? ephemerality? that doesn't exist in other words.
You are right abt Barthes's preference for photography. He does extend that preference to make some rather (to me) outrageous conclusions though: for eg, because, as you say, for Barthes in one time is captured, whereas in the other it passes, he writes (at p. 90) that "the cinema is protensive, hence in no way melancholic... it is, then, simply 'normal,' like life" (!!!)
To me, cinema is probably one of the most melancholic, even tragic, mediums, but I guess that's another story......
Not riffings at all, and many thanks again, Girish. :-)
<$BlogItemCommentCount$> Comments:
I always have a problem with Barthes's dichotomy of posed (photo) and passed (cinema). To me, cinema contains multiple variations on the pose, such as the example of Warhol shows as well as actual screen tests. In even lesser examples, as I actually wrote about in my MA thesis (currently in "under review" limbo, so don't put too much stock in it), I see this appear formally in cinema in strange places such as non-actor performance.
Consider this by Barthes: "The Portrait-photograph is a closed field of forces. Four image-repertories intersect here, oppose and distort each other. In front of the lens, I am at the same time: the one I think I am, the one I want others to think I am, the one the photographer thinks I am, and the one he makes use of to exhibit his art" (13).
I love Camera, but if that quotation couldn't be applied to how some physical bodies stand before a motion picture lens as well . . . then I might be misunderstanding cinema as a space in general. I cannot see image repertories necessarily dissipating when in motion. Also Barthes writes on the duration of the image in the age before some of our greatest manipulations of the image. He writes in the pre-digital age, before instant replay is a norm.
In summary, I never feel those two concepts are as dichotomous as Barthes suggest.
<$BlogItemCommentCount$> Comments:
I agree - when I wrote "duration has to mean something in cinema" I meant that to include duration in terms of stillness too. But that's also what's intriguing about cinema space - the absence of motion in that space is not the same as photographic stillness... or is it?
<$BlogItemCommentCount$> Comments:
Great post--I'd forgotten that ending. It's a lovely and intriguing thought. It makes me suspect that we record in literal forms in order to forget--because once we've recorded it, we're allowed to forget, or no longer have to remember (we can check the archives later). Thus to truly memorialize is to actively refuse to record--to give no excuse for forgetting.
It reminds me of Socrates' claim in Plato's _Phaedrus_ that he does not write anything down because he prefers to inscribe his thoughts in the souls of his students...
<$BlogItemCommentCount$> Comments:
Hi,
Thanks for dropping in - yes, I completely share your sentiment. Have you heard of this concept called "life-caching"? You basically go around with some kind of a camera and record every moment of your life, hence "life-caching". I actually find the idea repulsive - I'm not sure about whether "to truly memorialize is to actively refuse to record", but I agree that there is a concept in "true memorialization", and in that I think it is surely not a mindless recording process of automatism and mechnanical reproduction. I also like the Socrates story very much - thank you for that.
Post a Comment
<< Back to blog