ads without products

exception / rule

with 5 comments

From Benjamin’s Work of Art essay:

The shooting of a film, especially of a sound film, affords a spectacle unimaginable anywhere at any time before this. It presents a process in which it is impossible to assign to a spectator a viewpoint which would exclude from the actual scene such extraneous accessories as camera equipment, lighting machinery, staff assistants, etc.–unless his eye were on a line parallel with the lens. This circumstance, more than any other, renders superficial and insignificant any possible similarity between a scene in the studio and one on the stage. In the theater one is well aware of the place from which the play cannot immediately be detected as illusionary. There is no such place for the movie scene that is being shot. Its illusionary nature is that of the second degree, the result of cutting. That is to say, in the studio the mechanical equipment has penetrated so deeply into reality that its pure aspect freed from the foreign substance of equipment is the result of a special procedure, namely, the shooting by the specially adjusted camera and the mounting of the shot together with other similar ones. The equipment-free aspect of rea1ity here has become the height of artifice; the sight of immediate reality has become an orchid in the land of technology.

Even more revealing is the comparison of these circumstances, which differ so much from those of the theater, with the situation in painting. Here the question is: How does the cameraman compare with the painter? To answer this we take recourse to an analogy with a surgical operation. The surgeon represents the polar opposite of the magician. The magician heals a sick person by the laying on of hands; the surgeon cuts into the patients body. The magician maintains the natural distance between the patient and himself; though he reduces it very slightly by the laying on of hands, he greatly increases it by virtue of his authority. The surgeon does exactly the reverse; he greatly diminishes the distance between himself and the patient by penetrating into the patient’s body, and increases it but little by the caution with which his hand moves among the organs. In short, in contrast to the magician–who is still hidden in the medical practitioner–the surgeon at the decisive moment abstains from facing the patient man to man; rather, it is through the operation that he penetrates into him.

Magician and surgeon compare to painter and cameraman. The painter maintains in his work a natural distance from reality, the cameraman penetrates deeply into its web. There is a tremendous difference between the pictures they obtain. That of the painter is a total one, that of the cameraman consists of multiple fragments which are assembled under a new law. Thus, for contemporary man the representation of reality by the film is incomparably more significant than that of the painter, since it offers, precisely because of the thoroughgoing permeation of reality with mechanical equipment, an aspect of reality which is free of all equipment. And that is what one is entitled to ask from a work of art.

Now, take a look at this:

In Children of Men, it is the virtuosic resistence to montage that marks the most “thoroughgoing permeation of reality with mechanical equipment.” Can we be far away from the feature film in one shot? (Perhaps we’re already there – if so, enlighten me…) And, in light of this, what do we make of Benjamin’s aspect of this aspect of film? Is there a formal / revolutionary vectoring of the montage-free, the all in one shot?

More to come on this to be sure… I want to say something related but different about this….

Written by adswithoutproducts

April 11, 2007 at 12:01 am

Posted in Uncategorized

5 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. hitchcock’s “rope”? somewhat experimental–all one shot, except for breaks when they had to switch film reels (and those breaks are rather comical–the camera will zoom in on someone’s jacket or something, and then zoom back out again to “mask” the break). that the “action” (or lack thereof) takes place all within the space of one small apartment adds to the claustrophic effect that the one-shot technique produces.

    thelizabeth

    April 11, 2007 at 10:48 pm

  2. Maybe Wenders’ 70s writings on the shock of ‘slowness’ in John Ford could come in here? Montage-as-disruption of temporality has something in common with other forms of disrupting capitalist time…? The long tracking shot could be as jarring as montage, if taken to an extreme.

    Owen

    April 12, 2007 at 2:39 pm

  3. both very helpful suggestions. Thanks!

    CR

    April 12, 2007 at 10:42 pm

  4. russian Ark (2002), dir. Alexander Sokurov, one take shot on hi definition video, with a Steadicam.

    Children of Men worries me. It’s too slick.

    Laura Carroll

    April 17, 2007 at 10:41 am

  5. Thanks for the suggestion, Laura!

    CR

    April 23, 2007 at 10:14 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: