Contemplating story and discourse

Sitting in the new classroom, the lights dimmed, I sat back in my seat in anticipation of watching another movie in film class that I had not seen before. I was skeptical when I heard we were watching Man with a Movie Camera. I knew nothing about it except that it was labeled as a silent film- so I predicted it had to be bad. However, the film went far beyond all my expectations. Truly, I was thrown off, but in a good way. This was the first movie I had ever seen that had no clear storyline. I had no protagonist to relate to and cheer on, nor was there a plot that would suture me into the film. However, I enjoyed it. I enjoyed seeing how films were made and how much work goes into it. This includes placing a camera and getting a shot underneath a moving train, which is something remarkable for a film made in 1929 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gvz83LqkSC4 seen at 9:09-9:19).  I liked seeing how normal people became an actor/actress and how mundane situations we go through every day became a part of a film. I also did not feel voyeuristic when watching this film, probably because instead of being sutured into the film, I was able to learn from the film. The film incorporated creative elements, like stop motion techniques which displayed a camera and chairs moving on its own and time lapse sequences innovative of its time that made the film even more unique. The movie allowed me to appreciate all that goes into making a film.

            However, a few questions troubled me after the film. Why are we as audiences so hesitant to view films that change the conventions of a typical film? Why did I label this film as bad as my first instinct? Even the director of this film issued a warning about his film in the introduction stating, "The film Man with a Movie Camera represents an experimentation in the cinematic transmission of visual phenomena without the use of intertitles without the help of a script without the help of a theater.” As analyzed by Christian Metz in Story/Discourse: Notes on Two Kinds of Voyeurism, the movies we are accustomed to watching are the conventional films that Metz calls “the kind of film which it is the film’s industry’s business to produce.” I believe that we watch films for the story that they tell, or their narration. We go to movies to watch others engage in situations and behaviors that we would not, or could not take part of. Metz says the film “obliterates all traces of enunciation and masquerades as story.” The story allows for its audience to become sutured in.

            In the same respect, discourse is equally important. As Metz states, it is discourse that the filmmaker’s intentions are based from and that create the film. The filmmaker ultimately has the ability to control the film. Discourse refers to the elements and techniques that are used for production. Normally a film covers up the discourse (the production elements) with a stronger storyline.

            Man with a Movie Camera is a silent experimental film that stripped away narration and became artistic and visually captivating through the use of its discourse. It used cinematic techniques, including different camera shots and angles, which transformed various aspects of everyday life into art. Therefore, even though there was no clear narrative, the audience became its own “authoring agency.” I enjoyed narrating this film myself, with only the aid of the camera and its shots. The film juxtaposed life to machinery, which in a way created a visual storyline. At times, Man with a Movie Camera was hard to watch as I’m used to sound, narrative, action, stunts, etc., but I had to step out of my boxed in mental notions of conventional films to appreciate that this movie is incredible for its time and set the bar high for films after it. The clear lack of narrative allows for the audience to explore every day life and the art of filmmaking. An important scene is when the camera pans around and we are able to actually see the camera in the shop window (seen here from 9:07-9:15 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZCglRzB5Zc). This scene feels as if the audience is being filmed as they are placed directly into the film. In other scenes we see the camera, but we are seeing the camera through another camera’s lens, which makes the audience aware of the camera producing the film. The shop window scene is incredible because for once film and audience become one- the enunciation is clear. Man with a Movie Camera helps places an emphasis on the importance of discourse in film and breaks down the once scary notion of a story-less film.

 

The mysterious Cache

            The thought that persisted in my mind while watching the French film Cache directed/written by Michael Haneke was that Cache was no ordinary film. Cache is about the Laurent family and their suspicion that they are being stalked, as strange surveillance videos of their house and mysterious drawings show up at their doorstep. The film follows Georges Laurent as he attempts to solve the mystery. Cache maintains a sense of tension throughout its entirety not only because of the tense scenes onscreen, but also because of the directorial choices Haneke made to leave important information out. Cache breaks many of the traditional conventions of a typical narrative film and produces an uneasy feeling for its viewers. The audience is left with confusion, no clear resolution, and self-doubt over what they had just seen.

            In The Tutor-Code of Classical Cinema, Daniel Dayan writes about the techniques film has created which allow the viewer to become a part of the film. According to Dayan, “falling under the control of the cinematographic system, the spectator loses access to the present.” The audience roots for the protagonist and is satisfied when the villain is destroyed. The techniques used to make the film believable include eyeline matches, continuity editing, and the shot-reverse-shot. In typical narrative films, such as Rear Window or Sleepless in Seattle, eyeline matches connect one shot to another through the use of the gaze to produce meaning. In Rear Window, Jeff looks down and the next shot is of Miss Lonelyheart on the bottom floor. The audience believes Jeff was looking at Miss Lonelyheart. In Sleepless in Seattle, eyeline matches connect Annie and Sam across continents. Annie looks to the side and the next frame captures Sam looking at that side. The camera uses eyeline matches to motivate the narration of the film. The audience identifies with these two shots, which are separate frames in reality, but joined together in the film to create meaning. Eyeline matches are a part of continuity editing. This continuity editing allows for the audience to become totally immersed, or sutured, into the film because the editing allows for fluidity and consistency. The audience becomes lost in the movie and follows its storyline. Eyeline matches and continuity editing are important qualities that a movie will have if it wants its audience to become sutured in. Cache often broke these typical conventions, especially the technique of shot-reverse-shot.

             With the shot-reverse-shot technique the meaning of shot 1 is conveyed by the object/person in the reverse shot 2. Dayan also includes Jean-Pierre Oudart’s analysis on the theory of the “absent-one.” The reverse shot in shot 2, which creates meaning to complete shot 1, satisfies this “absent one” in shot 1.  This furthers the suturing of the viewer into the film. In Cache, there often was no shot 2, and therefore, no meaning to shot 1. This is discomforting and creates confusion. The audience feels uncomfortable because in Cache the “absent one” Dayan referred to, remains absent. The reverse shot is not revealed. In addition, a guilty feeling rides over the audience that they are seeing things they should not. The audience wonders if they become the voyeur. The audience develops a creepy sense that they may be that “shot 2.” At some points in the movie I wanted to just get out of my seat and click the off button on the surveillance camera that we were viewing through. I believe that in Cache, the viewer is constantly reminded of this discomforting presence as the viewer yearns to know who is the face in shot 2.

            Cache was one of the most unsettling and frustrating movies I have ever seen. With no clear resolution, the viewers are left sitting in the lightly dimmed theater, questioning what they have just watched. Georges leaves his wife out of his hunches and the audience is left out as well. There are no answers to the many questions that come up throughout the film. Who is watching the Laurent family? Is this a surveillance tape or is this a scene in the film? There are many drawn-out conversations that are filmed with a long shot, without different angles or close-ups, and that often have no purpose. The normal conventions of film guarantee a seamless narrative. Cache does not have a seamless narrative. For example, a shot is shown and then a sound is heard but they are not connected. In addition, Haneke usually left out the reverse shot and therefore the movie maintained its tension even after its ending. For example, there is a shot of a scene in Majid’s kitchen, but the audience never knows who is in the reverse shot. In another example there is a shot of boys swimming in a pool, but it’s unknown whose watching these boys- it a coach, a parent, or is it us as the audience? Also shown is a scene of a house, the audience assumes it is George’s childhood home, and there is action in front of the house, and again the audience questions whose watching it? The audience becomes aware that they could be the “absent one”- and this is something the audience is not conditioned to conceptualize. Haneke also allows actors to appear in the shot and then leave and not come back, allowing for more questions to arise in the viewer’s mind. The director knew what he was doing when he named his film Cache, which in French means hidden, as the movie leaves the audience with a eerie sense that there is a lot of missing evidence.