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.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI love your reading of this film. I think you figured out just why we were all a little skeptical of this film, and the general sentiment after we finished watching it. I certainly felt this way. Your use of Metz's to add to this personal reading was great because it really connected the movie with the reading and added to your analysis. You are completely right, during a time when all we watch are narrative stories, it was refreshing to see something that celebrated the camera and the making of films in a very obvious way. Metz is able to explain to us just why we're afraid of a film without narrative and the reason we find it intriguing and why these films are important to watch. I think you have captured Metz's sentiment as far as films like this. I think we've learned this semester that studying film is more than just studying the narrative, and you have described the fun of studying the technical aspects.
ReplyDeleteThanks for this candid response! Amazing how Vertov's film can still shake our spectatorial foundations so many decades later. This is because cinema pursued its addiction to storytelling (which Vertov resisted) rather than mind-boggling (which he felt could be the future of cinema). Imagine if it had gone the other way...
ReplyDeleteI like the time you spent on the stop motion, time lapse, and double exposure aspects of the film. While the imagery was certainly striking, and the juxtaposition of man and machine definitely had an impact, I was most impressed by the crazy editing techniques that they used. Also, from what I've gathered from the comments made in class, that was kind of what was most important to the director as well. As Shilyh mentioned, he felt the future of cinema could be mind-boggling images rather than in narrative. I have seen other films from the era with similarly impressive images, and similarly deep symbolism, but I have not seen one that put as much effort into providing interesting visual effects. I guess what I'm saying is that the director's emphasis was placed on using the medium of film to create cool visual effects, and it definitely shows in this film.
ReplyDeleteVery cool post! A lot of things you said here really got me thinking--so this response post should be easy to do. Though I like the response you gave about hesitation toward new films that break general conventions, I'd like to add a little bit to this.
ReplyDeleteFor me, this hesitation comes from the fact that this film doesn't really fit into a genre (at least not the familiar ones). Having this idea before watching the film makes me uneasy because it means that I'll have to work harder to figure out what's going on in the film--rather than being able to just sit back, relax, and let the generic conventions do most of the thinking for me. Still, it's films like these that redefine genres and the film industry in general, so they are important risks to take.
I like how you explain your intial misgivings about "Man with a Movie Camera." Your statement that approaching a film without a definitive narrative or really any means of suture aside from images conveyed with a musical score is true; such tasks are tedious and I doubt many of us would voluntarily watch the film in our free time. The power of the narrative and its means of using discourse for suture still dominates our perception of film. I found your statement about how you had to create the narrative in the film to be interesting as well. For even in abstract films we look to create patterns out of purposeful randomness. So, in a way, we expect film to organize and convey ideas in a similar manner.
ReplyDeleteI too went in thinking "Man With a Movie Camera" was going to be awful. I mean what's a silent film without Charlie Chaplan. Although, I didn't really like the film, I do agree with your reading of it. The different things the camera shows us, and the way it shows us are very different from what we're used to. It is rather enlightening. Your point about not feeling like a voyeur is also a good one. The people in the film knew that a guy with a camera was watching them.
ReplyDeleteI think what I most liked about your post was your revelation that you narrated the film yourself since the director provided no narration. That may have been the key to your enjoyment of the film and it also might explain why I did not. Although I understood the purpose of the film (and your reading of it is spot on), I just could not get into the movie. I needed some kind of narration to give me a sense of continuity and investment in the viewing experience. I think that if I watched the film again and tried your trick of self-narration, I would get a lot more out of the film.
ReplyDeleteYou know, I totally had a very similar reaction. I was amazed and so impressed by The Man with the Movie Camera. I loved how the film captured all these candid moments in real life. It was fascinating to see all these moments sutured together in a movie. it also amazed me how creative this guy was with the camera--the way he did all those special effects with a very primitive camera was so interesting. It made me think of what that one cinematography movie said about how if sound had come later, cinematography would have progressed much further.
ReplyDeleteLike you, I was already getting antsy in my seat before Negar pressed the play button for this movie. All that I knew of this film was that a) it was silent (with a musical soundtrack) and b) that it did not have a straight narrative. But I was pleasantly surprised, like you. I cannot quite decide what made the experience of watching this film enjoyable, but I have some ideas of what it could have been. For example, in lieu of the entertainment of fictional characters, I found the intrigue of real life people in candid settings almost equally captivating. Moreover, I think that the fact that these people lived so long ago, and that their activities took place in an entirely different time, contributed to my interest. I kept on thinking about how similar the people and their actions were to our own. Another thing: even though there was not necessarily a traditional narrative, there was an underlying story surrounding the life of the city that was extremely multifacted(we saw work, play, birth, death, marriage, divorce, etc). Certainly, it was enough to maintain my attention.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing that you touch on is the idea that traditional film, according to Metz, “obliterates all traces of enunciation and masquerades as story.” Watching a film that did not necessarily present itself in narrative form, and that didn't disguise all forms of enunciation (ex. the example of the reflection of the camera that you discuss)was somehow refreshing to me. It was a new kind of experience, in which I was allowed (and encouraged) to contemplate discourse in film.