Page 41 - Studio International - November December 1975

'one crucial element' would wait 200 years to be unthoughtness of such work can devise routes back to
discovered. The lag between the possibilities for the apparent point of departure. One then ends up,
innovatory technical practices (such as camera and through this repressive re-routing, at a stage prior to that
photographic printing) and the realization of such of the anti-illusionist project. In fact, these mis-routings
practice (two centuries later) 14 is an ideological one. At can lead further back, to the original point of aggression,
the same time, when a new technical practice becomes the stimulus to one's film practice in the first place, ie the
operative, it bears directly on aesthetic practice 'straight' documentary against which the anti-
(whether it produces that aesthetic practice or is produced illusionist film project is working. In this example, black
by it is a complex matter). leader posits a direct representation of time, which it in
Technique, which is often categorized as separate fact is not. It posits a direct representation of an action,
from aesthetic issues, is in fact inseparable ; mass 'camera motor turned off', which it is not. Thus it is a
reproduction of photography had a considerable representation which does not present itself. It posits
influence on the aesthetic possibilities of the mass— itself as an image of something other than itself, which it
reproduction of photography, and vice versa. It seems in fact is not. It posits a gap between two 'realities', ie the
virtually a circular argument, which makes it all the more preceding shot and the following shot, thus attempting to
uncanny that it is so often belied. The aesthetics of annihilate its presence (thus representing and repressing
silkscreening as it is practiced (usage) by a Warhol has at the same time). Unquestioned in the above cited
considerable relation to the technical fact of silkscreening operation is the signifying area as well ; no investigation,
and to the techniques made possible by certain inventions let alone intervention, is undertaken a propos that area.
and their utilization at a certain period. In film, eg, the Thus the usage of black leader as posited in my example
flattening-out of space is possible through various (a minute example merely hinted at here) instantiates an
devices of camera (usage) and this is an involvement illusionist operation which is then covered, or masked.
with technique that is unavoidably present as the The demarcations must be drawn all the more strictly
aesthetic basis of the work. In film, also, slow motion is a when dealing with such work precisely because the
technical invention, inseparable from analytic work on rearguard revision it performs is seemingly not obvious.
representation. Thus involvement with technique refers That some films do not in any way posit such rearguard
to two phenomena : (1) Inventions which make possible, work, though their makers cannot bring to adequate
fulfil, technical needs (and those technical needs are speech the verbalized transcription of their filmic method
inseparable from the aesthetic which produces them and and practice, is in no way a contradiction in terms. The
which they produce) ; (2) Aesthetic usage, inseparable question of (artistic) intention comes up here, and
from technical possibilities. whether or not that intention can be said to exist
precisely by its presence in the work. More often than not,
Theory and Practice the non-verbalization of intention is not a sign of the non-
An important problem is the question of continuing and translatability of the specific film practice into words, but
broadening advanced practice without elaborating rather a mere absence of correct verbalization, which does
distinct theory. The filmwork itself is an ideological not deny in those cases the 'absolute' translatability into
practice, and in some cases a theoretical practice. Film words of intention. In some few cases, indeed, this is not
Theory, if such exists, takes the form of written the case. The root of this question is the mechanistic,
retrospective history which can function as a basis for its simplistic notion that without speech there is no
own practice (theoretical practice) and/or for the production. It is obvious, nevertheless, that those
practice of film-making as it correlates to the theoretical intentions brought forth to speech are often not what is in
embodied in it. (How it is how it is what it is). Much fact operating as inscription in (and of) the work. It is the
formulation taking place at the moment deals with work one deals with ; slight shifts in words, like slight
retrograde work, but this may bea step towards being shifts in filmwork operations, can radically alter the
equipped to deal adequately with structural materialist position and meaning. These slight shifts, which are in
film. Adequate work is indeed necessary in film-making fact, major shifts, exist in that untranslatability between
and writing 'on' film. A semiotics that is right-wing is not the maker's intention as thought in speech, the maker's
the only one I can envisage, though little else is at the intention as unthought in speech though verbalizable, the
moment forthcoming. One can cite, in support of the maker's intention as unthought at all, the maker's
above assertion, the lamentably reactionary, symbolic intention as untranslatable into speech, though thought
interpretation by Barthes of a series of Eisenstein stills. (ie 'I know what I want to do, ie in advance and having
Such a position needs combating, but so too does gone through decision-making processes, but I don't
Foucault's superb Marxist/Althusserian interpretation of, know why ie can't say why') etc.
for example, Magritte's retrograde picture-puzzle- Suppressed in Anglo/Saxon structural and
gimmicks. What we are stuck with is often advanced structural/materialist film is any attempt at theory.
theoretical formulation, critically adapted to work which Advanced (mainly French) theory (not necessarily
does not warrant such. This results in a reading into the directly concerning film) is either not capable of dealing
work. For such a critical operation, the most reactionary with film or else posits retrograde, illusionist, post-
work will suffice because, after all, one can read one's Bazinian manifestations of such. With the (at best)
'personal' list of wishful-thinking into virtually any film. nearly total demise (flourishing) of New American
Partaking of the primal scene and 'work on the signifier' Cinema 5 mainly through its resurgent romanticism, or
seem to be the two most current malpractices. (at worst) its continued operation as pseudo-narrative
'Left to itself, a spontaneous (technical) practice investigations, there remain the few English (one
produces only the "theory" it needs as a means to Canadian, one Austrian) structural/materialist film-
produce the ends assigned to it; this "theory" is never makers, lamentably largely existing without the
more than the reflection of this end, uncriticized, beginnings even of a theoretical/historical approach.
unknown, in its means of realization; that is, it is a by- Consequently, in most cases (at best) these films open
product of the reflection of the technical practice's end up contradictions between theory (not necessarily of
on its means. A "theory" which does not question the end film) and the practice of film-making as it embodies
whose byproduct it is remains a prisoner of this end and theory ie is theoretical. That these contradictions are
of the realities which have imposed it as an end. Examples opened up by films which are largely 'unconsciously
of this are many of the branches of psychology, of thought' on the film-makers' parts is another problem.
sociology, and of Politics, of Economics, of Art, etc ...' As to the theoretical practice of film theory, nothing at
(Louis Althusser, For Marx). all seems to have been even begun. The lamentably
We have, among English advanced film-makers, work derivative watered-down stuff regurgitated by the
which utilizes traditional, transparent documentary editors of Screen is merely importation from at most three
film-making in an unthought manner, under the guise of Paris sources, which though at moments useful is not
structural/materialist operation. The usage, for example, directed correctly, is not made to interact with avant-garde
of black leader to be cut into a film to be the image of the film practice in this country (or any other). Operating
time when the camera motor was not running is a thusly in a vacuum as far as avant-garde cinema is
mystification of the most dangerous sort. The concerned, it finds itself not coincidentally aligned with
193