BazinianTheory

Towardasynthesisofcinemaatheoryofthelongtakemovingcamera,Part1

DavidGeorgeMenard,dg_menar2003@yahoo.com

August31,2003

ThistwopartpaperwillinvestigateOrsonWellesTheTrial(1963)asamodeltoexplicateBrianHendersonslongtaketheory.InsteadofarguingfororagainstHendersonscriticalstandpoint,itwilluseitsclassificationschemeasabasisforamorethoroughunderstandingofthetheoreticalgapthatexistsbetweenthetwoinstitutionalpillarsofcinema,thatis,theexclusivetheoriesofSergeiEisensteinandAndreBazin.Itshouldbepointedoutthatotherlesspopularizedtheoriesexistincinema,buttheyhavenotbeensoinfluentialonthepracticingfilmmakersastheEisenteinianmontageandBazinianrealitytheories.

Thisessaypointsthewayforanapproachtothedevelopmentofatheoryofthelongtakemovingcameraandinsodoing,itforeshadowsacinemaofthefuturewherefilmbecomesasystematicprocess(eg.acinemaofbecoming)thatexistsinagapbetweenrealityandmentality,betweenperfectregistrationandpureconceptualization,andbetweenthetheoriesofBazinandEisenstein.

First,thehypotheticalassumptionisthatcinemaisstronglydrivenbyanaestheticofsensationandthought[eg.thedirectperceptionoftime(timeimages),thekinestheticsensationofmovement(movementimages)orthefleetingfeelingofmemory(thoughtimages)].SuchathoughtsensationaestheticisthefoundationforanembodimenttheorywhichissupportedbySusanSontag,asdescribedinheressayAgainstInterpretation.Sheexplains(paraphrasingherwords)thatfilmmakingisdistinctfromtheotherartforms,suchasthenovel,becausethereismorethancontentinit.Cinemaisalanguageofformsthatcanoverwhelmcontent,andthisfactisexemplifiedincameramovements,cuts,andframecompositions.Moreover,theimmediatesensoryexperienceshouldbethesupremegoaloffilmart,andtheabilitytosee,hearandfeelshouldsupersedeinterpretationandfinally,

Sontagdefinesmetacriticisminfilmasanembodimenttheorybasedonanaestheticofsensation:Thefunctionofcriticismshouldbehowitiswhatitis,eventhatitiswhatitis,ratherthantoshowwhatitmeans.[1]

Furthermore,theaestheticsofsensationisdrivenhomebyBarbaraKennedywhodiscussesthecinemaofbecomingwhichshebasesonamolecularparadigmdevelopedfromDeleuzianideas.[2]Kennedyconcludesherbook(entitledDeleuzeandCinema)bysaying:

Ihaveestablishedhowthemolar(i.e.anassemblage)elementsoffilmtheorycanworkalongsidenewlycreatedideasdevelopingfromDeleuzianideas,amolecularparadigmIdontforeseethisuseofboththemolarandthemolecularasinanywayanewbinarydistinction.Rather,theinbetweenspaceofthemolarandthemolecularmaybecompared,thoughnotidentified,withthespaceofcyborgbecoming,aspacewhichhasnoboundarieswithinboundaries,aplacewhichisnotstrictlyhybridizedspace,butaspaceofcontinualmotion,movementandbecoming.Aneoaestheticsofsensationenablesthisconsiderationofhowfilmimpacts,howitinnervatesandengagesasamaterialcapture,asanevent,asaprocessualityVisionandsoundarenotpurelyexperiencedthroughrepresentation,throughthevisualandtheaural,butthroughthematerialityofawholerangeofbodies,fromdeeperengagementofbody/brainandworld,bodieswhicharehuman,nonhuman,technologizedandmachinic.(Kennedy,210)

TheDeleuzianconceptofbecomingasappliedtoaprocessualmechanicsofcinemamayshedsomelightonwhatthecinema(i.e.apostpostcinema)maylooklikeinthefuture.

In1971,BrianHendersonpointsout(inhisbookACritiqueonFilmTheory)thatnoapproachhadyetbeendevelopedtounifythefragmentedtheoriesofcinema.Hestatesthat:

whereasclassificationsofphilosophictheoriesusuallyconcernnotfragmentsoftheoriesorattemptedtheoriesbutonlyfullycompleteapproachestotheproblem,itispossiblethattherehasnotyetbeenacomprehensiveorcompletefilmtheory.Theunderdevelopmentoffilmtheory,however,mayitselfbeareasonforcloseanalyticalwork,includingaclassificationschemeoftheprincipalapproachesalreadytaken.[3]

Moderntheoriesofcinemaaresparseascomparedtootherfieldsofstudy(eg.ethicsandaesthetics)andthoseexistingformulationsarefragmentedatbest.Hendersonadmitsthatanewholistictheoryisneededsincethetransfigurationsofthecinema,especiallyaftertheadventoftelevision(i.e.early1950),cannotbefullyexplainedbytheclassicaltheories.Inordertoformulateanoveltheory,itisnecessarytoconstructawellrootedfoundation,onethatallowsforinclusionratherthanexclusion,onethatiscapableofmoldingitselftowhateverschematicapproach

thatmightcomeitsway(i.e.metaphoricallyspeaking,atheorythatisasfluidaswater,havingthepotentialtoshapeitselftoanycriticalreceptacle),andonethatincorporatestheprinciplesfromtheolderclassicaltheoriesandthepracticallessonslearnedtherein.

AndjustasEinsteinstheoryofrelativitycollapsestoNewtonslawsofgravityastheparticlesvelocitybecomesmuchlessthanthespeedoflightsotoo,mustamoderntheoryofcinemabeabletofoldoverintotheoldertheoriesofthepast,ascertaincinematiccategories(eg.styleandform)approachparticularclassicalsettings,suchasthefilmicframeworksofHollywoodsactionimages(mostlyclassical)orNeorealismsfactimages(mostlymodernandsometimessemiclassical).Themoderntheorymustbeabletounifytheoldprincipleswiththosenewinsightswhichemergefromtherenewedattemptstoreformulatecinema,asitpushestheboundariesofcinematicinvestigationsintotheuncharteddomainsofcinematicthoughtforinstance,Deleuzestimeimageswhichgobeyondthemovementimagesandexpressakindofmentalrealitywherecharactersseemdetachedfromworldlyevents.Furthermore,justasphysicistshavenotbeenabletomergetheforceofgravitywiththeotherfundamentalforces(i.e.theelectromagnetic,weakandstrongforces),thatis,toclosethegapbetweenspace,timeandmatterwithintheuniversalenergyfield),sotoo,filmtheoreticiansareleftwiththeuncertaintyofbeingabletoclosethegapbetweenmontage(cutting)andlongtake(notcutting).

EvenHendersonadmitstoacertainkindofunderdevelopmentintheevolutionoffilmtheory,aconditionthatmaybeinherenttotheprocessofcinemaitself,asheexplainsmoreconcretelyaboutbothmontageandlongtaketheory:

BothEisensteinmontagetheoryandBazinianlongtaketheorynotonlyignorethisstylisticarea[expressiveediting+miseenscne],theydenyitsexistence,bothpreferringtheeither/ormentalitythateachseesasnecessarytoitsownsurvivalStylisticcombinationsoflongtakeandcuttingtechniquesfallexactlybetweenthetwoschools,inthattheycombineelementsofthefavoredstyleofeachbuttheyaretreatedasfallingoutsideofeachbecauseeachprefersnottorecognizethem.Thisisaprimeinstanceofseriousomissionintheclassicalfilmtheories,indeedofanentirecategoryoffilmexpressionmissingfromthem.Thislimitationiscompoundedinimportancebytheexpressiveimpactthateditinghasuponthelongtakesequence.[4]

ItisadeterminedfactthatEisensteinrepresentsreality(i.e.realityismanipulatedasartremainsapureconstant),thatis,realityistakentoartwhileBazinpresentsreality(i.e.itistheartthatchangesandneverthereality),inotherwords,artistakentoreality.HendersonsargumentnaturallyleadsustoOrsonWelleswhoisoneoftheforemostlongtakeandexpressiveeditingdirectorsofthemodernfilmera,afilmmakerwhohassuccessfullyfunctionedintheforbiddengapofclassicalcinema.Butbeforeproceedingwiththediscussionsoflongtakedirectors(especiallyWelles)andtheirfilms,itisnecessarytoanalyzetherelevantlongtaketheoriesthatarealreadysetintoplacewithinthepresentcinematicframeworkofhistory.

AccordingtoLutzBachersMAthesis[entitledTheMobileMiseenscne(1976)],therearetwobasicapproachestothelongtakecameramovement.First,theproblemcanbeaddressedfromtheperspectiveofadecoupageofthespatiotemporalunityofthesequenceorscene.Secondly,itcanbeapproachedfromthepointofviewofauthorialstylewherethemovingcameraaestheticsbecomeexpressiveelementsinthemiseenscne.Bacherbreaksdownthelongtaketheoriesasfollows:ThereareonlytwolongtaketheoriesAndreBazins,whichissharedinessencebyJeanRenoirandRobertoRossellini,andJeanMitrys,whichisreallyanantilongtaketheorysinceitdeniesthatitisessentiallydifferent.[5]

AccordingtoBacher,Bazinslongtaketheoryisbasedonthecinemascapacityforverisimilitudewhichisderivedfromtheontologyoftheobject,theprocessofphotographyandtheconceptoftemporalobjectivity.BacheranalysesBazinsviewofcinematicrealisminthisway:

Accordingtohis(Bazins)lawofaesthetics,Bazinwouldinsistonthelongtakeonlywhereitisnecessaryforverisimilitude.ItsuseatanyothertimeisonlyaquestionofstyleandheindicatesnostylisticpreferencehereBazinjustifiedtheuseofthelongtakebythecriterionof"bringinganaddedmeasureofrealismtothescreenItis,infact,hismaincriterionforjudgingtherealismofshootingstyles."[6]

BachermentionsthatdepthoffieldisanothermajorcomponentofBazinstheorybecauseitallowsforthecontinuouspenetrationofspatialrealityandintroducesambiguityintheimage.[7]Furthermore,Bazinbelievesthattotaldramaticrealismcanonlybeachievedindependentlyfromthecamera,implyingthatheprefersthemethodofreframingovershotchangesinceheisconvincedthatcuttingintroducesspatialdiscontinuityandcontributestotheconstructionofnonreality.Bacheraddsthat:Bazinconsideredcameramovementasimportantatechniqueasdepthoffieldformaintainingspatiotemporalcontinuity.Therepeateduseofthetermreframing,whichrefersspecificallytocameramovementforthepurposeoffollowingtheaction,pointsupBazinsconcernwithcameramovementasatechniqueforincreasingrealisminfilming.[8]Bazinsconceptionofcinemaeschewsfromtheinterpretativepotentialofimagecontentediting,includingincamerasceneediting,andfavorsaformofmeaningthatoriginateswithinthespectatorsperceptualfield.However,therearesomelingeringdebatesaboutBazinspositiveattitudetowardthemovingcameraanditsroleasanexpressivetechnique(i.e.camerastyle).ThepolemicsaboutmovingcamerastylisticsthatsurroundBazinslongtaketheorycallintoquestionthemeaningofcinematicrealitybecause,afterall,thereisalwaysaformofmanipulativecinematographyatplayintheproductionofcinemaandforthisreason,authorialinterpretationofthedramaticeventsmustnecessarilyinflectthemeaningofwhatisperceivedbythespectator.

BacheraddressescameramovementfromJeanMitrysperspective,aviewthatembracesmanyofBazinstheoreticalargumentsbutonethatopposesthepossibilityofalongtakemovingcameraaesthetic(i.e.Bazinslawofaesthetics).Bachercomments:JeanMitryconsideredcameramovementintermsofitshistory,

psychology,dramaturgy,pointofview,etc.,stressingparticularlyitsabilitytocreatedramaticspaceHeproposedinstead(i.e.inplaceofalongtakeaesthetic)asynthesistheorywhichaccountsforallmeansofexpression.[9]MitryslongtakeformulationisanantitheorywhichhasnotbeenpopularizedasmuchasBazinscinematicrealismbutevenso,Mitrysconceptofsynthesis(longtake+montage)bringsbattletoBazinsontologicaltheory,callingintoquestionthemeaningofcinematicreality.Mitryscinemabecomesamatteroffreewill,consciousdecisionandstylisticpreferenceonthepartofthefilmmakerandasBacherargues:thisviewofthelongtakeissharedbyHitchcock,StraubandpossiblyWellesaswellasanyotherdirectororcinematographerwhoseesthelongtakeasmerelythestringingtogetherintooneshotofasequenceofsetupsWellesinsistencethateditingiscentraltohisstyle,whileshowingapreferenceforlongtakesatthesametime,canbeinterpretedasatleastageneralagreementwithMitry.[10]Mitrysconceptionofthemobilelongtake,asaseriesofsetupslinkedtogetherbythecamera(ascomparedtoaseriesofmovingimagescuttogetherintheeditingroom),suggeststhatastrongexpressiveinteractionmustexistbetweenthecameraandthemiseenscne.Therefore,italreadyappearsthatthisessayispushingtowardatheoryofthelongtakemovingcamerawhichisasynthesisofmontageandlongtake,wherelongtakeisnotanaestheticconditionbutamodeoffreemindedexpression,aswithOrsonWellescinema.

Bacherexplainsthat:they[miseenscneformulations]theorizeonwhathappensinthedramaticspacewhenthecameramovesinadditiontotheostensiblechangesinthecontentoftheframedeterminingwhatthecentralconceptsare[inmiseenscnetheories]isadifficultendeavor.[11]Thedifficultyinformulatingconceptsaboutmiseenscnecomesfromthevastcreativedifferencesthatexistamongdirectorsandthedifferentmodesofinquiryintothetheoreticalstatementsabouttheirwork(i.e.criticalinvestigationscanbebasedoninterpretationorinference).Hence,thetheoreticalargumentofthispapernowshiftstooneofmovingcameramiseenscne.

HerbertReadstatesthat:Thecameraisthefilmdirectorstool,hismediumisthelighttheimpactoflightonsolidobjectslightisthemuseSculptureistheartofspace,asmusicisoftime.Thefilmistheartofspacetime:itisaspacetimecontinuum.[12]ItisinterestingthatthetermspacetimecontinuumisbeingusedincinemabecauseitisaconceptthatismathematicallydefinedinAlbertEinsteinstheoryofSpecialRelativity.Thisisnotacoincidencebecausebothphysicsandcinemaarehighlydependentonrelativestatesofperception.Inphysics,thespacetimecontinuumisdescribedbya4vectorcalculus.Itcombinesequivalentspacetimecomponents(i.e.spaceandtimearetakentoexistonthesametheoreticalfooting),linkingarealspatialpart(3D)withanimaginarytemporalpart(1D),intoafourdimensionalholisticallyunitaryfunctionwhichdescribesthemotionofobjectsnearingthespeedoflight(includingthemovementoflightitself).AsimilardevelopmenthappensinfilmasRead(in"TowardafilmAesthetic"publishedinCinemaQuarterlyin1932)definestheartofcinemaintermsofthephysicalconceptofmotionormovement:"Thereareatleastthreedirectionsordimensionsinwhichmovementmaytakeplace:[a]movementofthecamera,[b]movementofthelight,[c]movementoftheobjectphotographed.Combinationsofsuch

movementsproducealmostendlesspossibilitiesofplasticform.Thetrueplasticityofthefilmisaplasticityoflight."[13]ItshouldbenotedthatReadsarticledatesbackto1932,beforetheregularuseofthezoomlens,andthatthereareotherdimensionstocameramovement(eg.the"cameramovementeffect"asseen,forinstance,inrearprojectioncinematography).Therelevantconclusions,drawnfromsuchabriefinvestigationintosomefundamentalaspectsofmiseenscnetheory,arethatthelongtakemovingcameraattemptstoexpressivelysustainacontinuum(somethingakintoBazinsrealitycontinuum)intermsofspatialplasticityandtemporalrhythmicality(somethingakintoTarkovskystimepressuretheory).Moreover,theplasticityofthemiseenscneisnotonlydeterminedbythereflectedlightthathitstheeyebutalso,bytheinterrelationshipofthemovingcamerawithallotheraspectsofthemiseenscnesystem.

Longtakecuttingstyleshavebeenattributedtomanydirectorsforexamples,MaxOphuls,KenjiMizoguchiandOrsonWellesarealllongtakefilmartistswhoeditfilmsinanexpressivemanner.ForOphuls,itisthelongsweepingtracksandcraneshotswhicharecombinedwithexpressivecutswithregardtodialogueandasanexample,considertheexamplenotedbyHendersoninhis"LongTake"essay,the'laddercut'inOphulsCaught(1949)whichcutstoadifferentangleofBelGeddesbehindaladder(asymbolofherimprisonment)justaftershesays:"Impregnant."ForMizoguchisonesceneonecutstyle,itisthelongtakerelationswiththesequencewhichinvolvetheintrasequencecuts.Henderson'sterm"intrasequencecut"referstotheprocessofeditingwithinasceneanditinvolvesacutthatmustprecedeorfollowalongtakebutnotnecessarilyinbetweenthem.Itmustalsobeexpressivesothatitcanbreaktherhythmofasceneandcreateanewtonalityforit.Moreover,itreflectsbackonthesceneandqualifiesitinaprocessoflookingback(i.e.verymuchlikeamemory).Andfinally,theintrasequencecutisalocalizededitingphenomenonsinceitdoesnotaffectotherpartsofthefilmbeyondtheshotsitconnects.

Mizoguchiutilizesseveralkindsofintrasequencecutsinhisfilmsforinstance,heusesthedramaticreversalwhereallmiseenscneelementsaretransposed,andthemultisegmentedlongtakesequencewherelongtakesarerelatedinacontinuousfashion(i.e.dramaticnonreversalasinanormalnarrativedenouement).ExamplesofthesespecialkindsofintrasequencecutsarenotgiveninBrianHendersonsdissertation[entitledClassicalFilmTheory:Eisenstein,Bazin,Godard,andMetz(1976)]ashesays:ConsiderationofMizoguchiinthisperspectivewillhavetoawaitforanotheroccasion.[14]Butwhatisimportanttorealizeisthatmanyvarietiesoflongtakerelationsexist,astypifiedinthekindsofintrasequencecutsmentionedabove,andthattheycontributetotheexpressivenessofthelongtakestyle.However,NoelBurchdoescommentonMizoguchissystemicutilizationofasimpleformintrasequencecuttinginSistersofGion(1936),afilmthatinvolvesverylongtakesandthesystematicabandonmentofconventionalformsofediting,particularlyreversefieldcuttingandthecloseup.Burchexplainsthat:

SistersofGiondoesnotcompletelyeliminatecloseups,norevensuchheavilycodedfiguresasthedollyinfordramaticintensification,asinthefinalshotoftheinjuredyoungersisterinahospitalbedOnthe

whole,however,thefilmdoestendtoturnitsbackonthelineardeploymentofthevisualsignifierssoessentialtotheWesternmodeInSistersofGion,Mizoguchismontagemethod,inboththenarrowandextendedsenses,isnotentirelyworkedoutoccasionally,asinglereversefieldcutwillbeintroducedintoasequence[asanintrasequencecut],neverseekingtoisolateacharacterortobringhimorherintocloseup,butrathersimplytointroduceacaesurawithinthesequence[tobreaktherhythmofthescene].[15]

Butthedirectorwhopushesthecinematicenvelopethefurthest,withregardstothesequenceshot,longtakemovingcamerastyleandexpressionisteditingtechniques,isthereputablyrebelliousandcontroversialOrsonWelles.

InWellescinema,themovingcamerabecomesanindexofcinematicstyleaswellasthecomplexsystematiccuttingstyleofhislongtakesequences.HendersondescribesWellesexpressiveeditingtechniquesinhisvisualsoundmasterpiece,ChimesatMidnight(Falstaff,1967),afilmconsideredtobeoneofthefinestexamplesofstylisticfilmmakingofthe1960s:

FalstaffpresentsuswithacomplexproblemsbeyondthatoftheintrasequencecutHerethecombinationandbalancingofstyles[montage+longtake]takeplaceatahigherleveloforganizationsuchconstructionsmakepossiblefarmoregreatervisualanddramaticvarietyandcontrastthanmoreorlesshomogeneouslongtakestyleFalstaffcouldserveasamodelofsequenceconstructionofsequencestylechoicesthefilmsconstructiongivesrisetoanadditionalcategoryoffilmicexpressionthatoftheintersequencecut.Thesecuts,augmentedbypowerfulsoundeditingtechniquesprovideinstantaneousandoverwhelmingchangesofmood,tempoandtoneaswellashighdramaticcontrast.[16]

Thetermintersequencecutreferstotheprocessofeditingbetweenscenesanditinvolvesacutthatfunctionsastheinstantaneousequivalentofanactchangeinclassicaltheatrical,sometimesaccompaniedbyastarkreversalofallmiseenscneelements(akintoMizoguchisdramaticreversalasdescribedabove).

WellesCitizenKane(1941)isuniversallyconsideredasoneofthegreatestfilmsevermadewhilesomescholarsandfilmmakersbelievethathissecondmasterpiece,TheMagnificentAmbersons(1942),isanevenfinerfilmandifacompleteprintofthistotalworkwastoexisttoday,thoughitisconsideredasaspeculativeworkofart,thislatterfilmwouldindeedbepossiblyregardedasthehighestmarkofcinematicexcellence.TheinfluenceofOrsonWellesinfilmhistoryandfilmmakingisubiquitousforexample,VidaT.JohnsonandGrahamPetriewriteabouttheopeningdreamsequenceofAndreiTarkovskysIvansChildhood(1962):

WhenIvanwakesfromthedreamheisseeninadark,narrow,enclosedwoodenroom.Hegoesdownstairs,shotfrombothverylowandhighangles,andisseenexitingthroughadoorthatisfilmedatatiltedangleworthyofOrsonWelles(CitizenKanewasoneofthefilms

mostadmiredbyTarkovskyandhisfellowstudents),withIvansfaceindisorientinglylowangledcloseup.[17]

EventherepeatedperspectiveshiftsinMayaDerensMeshesoftheAfternoon(1943),whicharethetheoreticalapplicationsoftheprinciplesofcinematotheoneiricexperience,areindirectlyinfluencedbyCitizenKane.Adecadeandahalflater,WellesproducesTouchOfEvil(1958),effectivelyendingtheHollywoodfilmnoirperiod.Withthislatterfilm,hedemonstratesthatthestylistictreatmentofgenrecanbebasedonthelongtakemovingcamerawhichformsastructuralcomplexitythatdeliberatelythreatenstheprinciplesofnarrativesuture.Butifthereissuchanentityasaunifiedcinematics(afterrevisingthisessay,themoreappropriatetermisnowasynthesisofcinema,astakenfromMitryssynthesistheory),acinemathatcombinesalloftheessentialaspectsoffilmhistoryandfilmmakingpractices,thenOrsonWellesTheTrial(1962),anadaptationofFranzKafkasDerProzess(1925),isitsparadigmaticfoundation.Thissymbolicfilmisapropheticmeditationontheexistentialstalemateofthelifeofanindividualwhoissuppressedbytheindiscriminatepowerofapervasivestatebureaucracy(i.e.the1960sversionofthenewworldorder).

TheTrialisacinematicexampleofastylizedsystematics,amodelforasynthesisofcinema,wheretheprinciplesoffilmmakingarepushedeversomoreclosertowardtheirmaximalboundaries(i.e.totheirbreakingpoints),stretchingsotospeaktheenvelopeofcinematiccreativityintothefutureoffilmhistory.Wellescinemagrowsoutofthegapbetweenthetwoclassicaltheoriesofcinema(i.e.EisensteinsmontageandBazinslongtaketheories)moreover,itcannotbecategorizedaseithermontageorlongtakebecauseWellescinemadoesnotstrictlyexistsinthosetwofundamentallyrestrictiveandoldertheories.Histheoreticalplaygroundisthenomanslandoffilm,avastandinexhaustiveexpanseofcinematicpotentialwheretheunboundedcreativemindofthefilmmakercanmakeitselfmanifestinacinemaofthoughtandsensationandpredicatively,itmaybecomethesourceforanewlyemergingformoffilmart,denotedbyDeleuzeasthecinemaofbecoming.MartinSchwabexplainsthat:

FilmisaparadigmcasefortheimageontologyFilmostensiblytracesthewaybackfrommoredifferentiatedtolessdifferentiatedimages,whichisalsoatrajectorythroughmodesofbeing(Deleuzesconceptofbecoming)adifferentiatedDeleuzianBergsoniancosmosconsistently,albeittrivially,fulfillstheBeckettBerkeleyanpostulateoffilmthatesseestpercipi.Beingcoincideswithbeingimage,andtobeanimageistobeperceivedaswellastobeperceivingDoesDeleuzenotimplyherethatthedifferentiateditemorsphereofsubjectivityformsaprojectandpursuesanactiontogobeyonditself,tobecomemovementofpurermotionalqualityWecanimagineNietzschearticulatingtheproblemofselftransformationintheseterms,butonthebasisofhisverydifferentontologyofcentersofwilltopower.[18]

InTheTrialbothNietzschean(ref.Voice:theenunciatorsvoiceoverasaformofwilltopower)andDeleuzian(ref.Image:theprocessofnarrativeimage

detachmentasaformofDeleuzianbecoming)metaphysicsareatworkandassuch,theyareusedheretopointthewaytowardatheoryofthelongtakemovingcamerathatdevelopsintoasynthesisofcinemawhichincludesastrongstylisticcomponentofthelongtakemovingcamerawithintheunifiedandexpressiveframeworkofWellescinema.

TheTrialisconstructedonasophisticatedsystemofenunciation(Voice)andvisualization(Image)whereKafkasimpressionofanobjectifieddreamispartiallykeptintactwhileWellesadaptationcreatesanexternalizedversionoftheinternalstrangenessoftheliterarywork.Inthefilm,theambiguousenunciatordoesnoteffacethetracesofhisexistence.TheTrialopenswithavoicewithoutabody(obviouslyWellesvoice)accompaniedbyillustrativelyfixed,highcontrastblackandwhiteimagesrepresentingastylizedformofrealitywhichconfersontothemanoneiricquality.ThevoicethatenunciatestheParableoftheLawisthesamevoicethatdeliversattheendofthefilm:IplayedtheAdvocateandwroteanddirectedthisfilmMynameisOrsonWelles.[19]WiththispronunciationWellesbecomesinternalizedwithinthefilmasHastler,thelawyerandsodoing,thefilmbeginstomoveawayfromthetraditionalapproachofcinema,becomingacinemathatseemstopursueitself.

ThefactthatWellesplaysthelawyer,notthepriest,createsambiguityofmeaninginthepositionoftheenunciatorbecausetheparableismoreembeddedinareligiousframeworkthanonedealingwithtruthandjustice.ThedirectorinitiallyvacillatesbetweenthesetwoinstitutionalfigureswhiledevelopinghisscriptbuteventuallydecidestointerpretthecharacterofHastler.AmbiguityalsopropagatesthroughoutthenarratorslaststatementoftheParableoftheLaw,wherehepronouncesthatthereisnomysterynoranyenigmatoresolve.[20]Asmentionedabove,TheTrialsmodeofcinematicexpressionfallsintothecategoryofanallegoricalmythiclegendwithquasireligiousovertones,asopposedtoatextualdiscourseabouttherulesoflaw.Thefilmissubmergedinanguishasitgoesbeyondthenormalexpectationsofnarrativecharacterization,toatreatmentofacharacters(JosephK.)tormentedmoralconsciousinresponsetoaneverincreasinguncertaintyaboutthequestionofguiltandinnocence.Insodoingitmovesintoaninterrogationofthelegitimacyofthecinematicprocessasatrueartisticcreation.

TherearefouradaptationsofFranzKafkasnovel:theplaybyJeanLouisBarraultandAndreGide(1947)Wellesfilm(1962)aneducationalfilmentitledTheTrialsofFranzKafka(1973)andafilmremakeofTheTrialin1991byStevenSoderbergh(Kafka).TheoverallcompositionofWellesTheTrialdefeatsthetheatricalenterpriseoftranspositionsinceitconservesagreaternumberofthetwentysixconversationsfoundinthenovel(includingmuchoftheircontent).ThenarratorsvoiceandtheotherconversationaldialoguearekeyinTheTrialbecause,asWellesmentionsinsomeofhisinterviews,eventhoughhebelievesthatthewordissecondarytocinema,hissecretmethodtomakingfilmiscompletelyfoundedontheword.Fromthefundamentalbasisoftheword,Wellesdeterminestheotherfactorsthatmakeuphislongtakecuttingstyleandinasense,thisfactputshiminthesamecategoryasMaxOphulswhousesexpressiveeditinginhisAmericanfilmswhicharecenteredondialogue(butthisconnectionisweak).

Overall,thefilmisextremelytalkativeandindeed,thisexcessissupportedbyarichnessofdecorandaprofusionofchiaroscuro,makingitstylisticallybaroque.AllofitscinematicelementscreateasensationofoverabundancethatseemsgushingoutofcontrolandfromaNietzscheanviewpoint,TheTrialisaDionysianformoffilmartwhereitdoesnotreconstructtherealityoflifebutdeliberatelydestroysit(i.e.thefilmisantiBazinian).TheTrialcomposesitselfhedonisticallywithinthedeathofreality.[21]ThefilmfollowsthelifeofJosephK.ratherthanorganizingitwithinpreseteditingpatternsorenclosingitinpreestablisheddiegeticnorms,asevidencedbyWelleslongtakecuttingstyle.Instead,itinflectsitselfproportionallytotherelativestrengthofantagonisticallyopposingelements(eg.immobilityofHastlermobilityofJosephK.)ortothemeasuredcontentofcertainphilosophicalideas(eg.Nietzscheswilltopower[Voiceasasignifierofpower]orDeleuzianBergsonianprocessontology[Imageasasignifierofbecoming])thatamounttoacriticallyreflexiveinterrogationofitself.

TheTrialdoesnotgivetheimpressionthatitisrepetitiouseventhoughJosephK.movesthroughavarietyofmeetingplaceswheredialoguepermeatesthenarrativeenvironment.ThisispartiallybasedontheimpressionthatK.evolvesduringthestory(i.e.aprocessofbecomingisatworkinthefilm),aconditionthatiscontrarytothenovelwhichmarksK.asastaticentitythroughoutthefable.Oneofthesourcesofnarrativedynamismisthatthereisagradationtowardaformofresistivenonconformity[ref.toBernardoBertoluccisTheConformist(1971)]andthegrowthofamostlypassiveaggressionintheattitudeoftheprotagonist.Initially,heisseenasaweaklyfragile,patheticallysubmissiveandapologeticallypatronizingcharacterandasthestoryprogresses,heiseventuallytransformedintoanoppositeversionofhimself(relativetothebeginningofthestory),becomingintheendatrulytragichero.Indeed,K.isonewhobloomsephemerallylikeadesertflower,triumphantlyresistingthesuppressivepowerofthesun(butonlyforamoment),andthenforeverdisappearingintheabyssofdeath,lamortdureeletlamortdeDieu.Infact,aNietzscheanideologyisfoundtoexistwithintheoppositionbetweenKafkanovelandWellesfilm,thatis,conflictingideasareexposedasamoralityofnegationintheimmobileformofaromanticpersonagestandinglikeastatuebesidethedooroftheParableoftheLaw,andasahopefulsentimentofaffirmationtothewilltoliveinthemobileformofatragiccharactermovingtowardtheonlytrueconquestinthisstory,thevictoryoverhimself.Thesephilosophicalargumentscangoonatlengthandwillbelefttoagreaterthesisforfutureinvestigation.

TowardaSynthesisofCinema,ATheoryoftheLongTakeMovingCamera,Part2

[1]Sontag,Susan.ASusanSontagReader.NewYork:Farrar,StrausandGiroux,

1982,

pp.95104.

[2]QuotingBarbaraM.Kennedy:ItisthisconcernwithlifeandthenonlinguisticforceofrealitywhicharefundamentaltoanunderstandingoftheconceptofbecomingRatherthantranscendence,becomingisexpressedthroughasenseofimmanenceoraprocessual(process+sensual)continuumofmovementandfluxTheconceptofbecomingisoneofthemostsignificantelementsofDeleuzeswork.Itisconnectedtohisaimofimagingtheprocessofthoughtitispremisedupontheprocessualityoftheaffectiveforcesofmaterialityasmolecularforcesincoagulation.ToDeleuze,becomingsaretheprocessofdesire,andthetermbecomingcannotbeexplainedaspurelynaturalorbiological.Deleuzesuggeststhatbecomingsaremolecular.Becomingsareseenasaffectsanditisthesubsumingofsubjectivitythroughthenotionofamaterialaffectthatiscentraltoaneoaestheticsofthecinematic.[Kennedy,BarbaraM.DeleuzeandCinema:TheAestheticsofSensation.Edinburg,Scotland:EdinburgUniversityPress,2000,pp.8688.]

[3]Henderson,Brian.TwoTypesofFilmTheory(1971).ACritiqueofFilmTheory.NewYork:E.P.Dutton,1980,pp.17.

[4]Henderson,Brian.TheLongTake.ACritiqueofFilmTheory.NewYork:E.P.Dutton,1980,pp.5354.

[5]Bacher,Lutz.TheMobileMiseenscne:Acriticalanalysisofthetheoryandpracticeoflongtakecameramovementinthenarrativefilm.Master'sThesis,WayneStateUniversity,Detroit,NewYork:ArnoPress,1978,pp.190.

[6]Ibid.,192.

[7]Bacherarguesthat:Theconceptofambiguityintheimagewhichcompelsthespectatortomakehisownchoice[i.e.interpretationoftheimage]basedonthefixed,deepfocuslongtakeisprevalentinBazinstheory.But,whileitislikelythatBazinpreferredthefixedlongtakebecausemanycameramovementsdirecttheviewersattentionandthuslimitambiguity,healsolinkedcameramovementwiththelongtake.[Bacher,Lutz.TheMobileMiseenscne:Acriticalanalysisofthetheoryandpracticeoflongtakecameramovementinthenarrativefilm.Thesis,WayneStateUniversity,Detroit,1976.NewYork:ArnoPress,1978,pp.193.]

[8]Ibid.,194.

[9]Ibid.,201202.

[10]Ibid.,203204.

[11]Ibid.,204205.

[12]Read,Herbert.TowardaFilmAesthetic.CinemaQuarterly.Vol.I,No.1,1932,pp.89.

[13]Ibid.

[14]Henderson,BrianRobert.ClassicalFilmTheory:Eisenstein,Bazin,Godard,andMetz.Dissertation,UniversityofCaliforniaSantaCruz,1975.AnnArbor,Michigan:XeroxUniversityMicrofilms,1986,pp.91.

[15]Burch,Noel.MizoguchiKenji.TotheDistantObserver:FormandMeaningintheJapaneseCinema.Berkeley&LosAngeles:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1979,pp.226,228.

[16]Henderson,Brian.TheLongTake.ACritiqueofFilmTheory.NewYork:E.P.Dutton,1980,pp.59.

[17]Johnson,Vida,T.andGrahamPetrie.TheFilmsofAndreiTarkovsky:AVisualFugue.Bloomington&Indianapolis:IndianaUniversityPress,1994,pp.70.

[18]Schwab,Martin.EscapefromtheImage:DeleuzesImageOntolotgy.InTheBrainistheScreen:DeleuzeandthePhilosophyofCinema.Ed.GregoryFlaxman.1sted.Minneapolis,Minnesota:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,2000,pp.120,122123.

[19]Fry,Nicholas,trans.TheTrial:AfilmbyOrsonWelles.Ed.SandraWake.London:LorrimerPublishing,1970,p.176.

[20]Theenunciatorsaysthat:Thisisastoryinsidehistory.Opinionsdifferonthispoint,buttheerrorliesinbelievingthattheproblemcanberesolvedmerelythroughspecialknowledgeorperspicacitythatitisamysterytobesolvedAtruemysteryisunfathomableandnothingishiddeninsideit.ThereisnothingtoexplainIthasbeensaidthatthelogicofthisstoryisthelogicofadream.Doyoufeellostinalabyrinth?Donotlookforawayout.YouwillnotbeabletofinditThereisnowayout.[Fry,Nicholas,trans.TheTrial:AfilmbyOrsonWelles.Ed.SandraWake.London:LorrimerPublishing,1970,pp.17.]

[21]FriedrichNietzschepublishedhisfirstbook,DieGeburtderTragodie[TheBirthofTragedy]in1872,ahighlycriticalworkonSocratesandmodernscholarshipthatspokeinrhapsodictonesofancientorgiasticDionysianfestivalsandtherebirthofDionysiantragedyinthemodernworld.Itscornedthecraftandtemperamentofclassicalscholarsinaconfusedandsometimesbadlywrittentext,yetitremainsoneofthemostimportantphilosophicaltreatmentsoftragedyalongwithAristotleandFriedrichGeorgWilhelmHegel.