Walter Benjamin would have a lot to say about Man with a Movie Camera (and I’m sure he did say a lot), but there are strains of this is his work, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.” He discusses how the camera can affect the way we see things unconsciously in section XIII, “the act of reaching for a lighter or a spoon is familiar routine, yet we hardly know what really goes on between hand and metal, not to mention how this fluctuates with our moods. Here the camera intervenes with the resources of its lowerings and liftings, its interruptions and isolations, it extensions and accelerations, its enlargements and reductions. The camera introduces us to unconscious optics as does psychoanalysis to unconscious impulses” (680). This idea is brought to light as we watch people going about their day, doing the mundane tasks of everyday life. We watch both how the people perform these tasks and how the camera observes them.
The camera is picking up on the daily habits that we don’t always observe, and is making us focus on the daily acts that we do unconsciously. In Man with a Movie Camera we view people waking up in the morning, brushing their teeth, etc, all these ordinary moments that the camera finds and emphasizes, and brings a new meaning onto them. Benjamin says, “by close-ups of the things around us, by focusing on hidden details of familiar objects, by exploring common place milieus under the ingenious guidance of the camera, the film, on the other hand, extends our comprehension of the necessities which rule our lives; on the other hand, it manages to assure us of an immense and unexpected field of action… space expands; with slow motion, movement is extended” (680). He is right that there is a duality in this ability to observe things in ways that the human eye typically does not, and this film does an excellent job of portraying that duality. There are moments of extreme close-ups, and intimacy, and then shots of a vast city, of people un-distinguishable moving about, and the camera catches both of these extremes.
Man with a Movie Camera is both about the people it is observing and the camera that is occasionally in the frame. With this comes knowledge of what the camera is able to convey, both in its ability to be honest, and its ability to trick the audience. The stop-motion used to make the camera seemingly move on its own and dance across the screen illustrates this latter point well, there is a certain amount of “trickiness” that can go into making a film, even one that was made long before there were even computers to create the kind of special effects we have now. Along with this manipulation of the truth, there also comes an ability to “double-check” that what is on the film is actually what happened in front of the camera, as we are privy to both what the camera that is onscreen sees, and the filming of that. This film is an example of just what the camera can do, the scope of the ability of the apparatus, the detail and depth that can be captured, and both the honest portrayal and camera tricks that can be accomplished.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Putting Benjamin and Vertov together allows for lots of rich thought here! As you point out, both thinkers stressed the particular function cinema might play in the production of a new optics (and by extension, a new subject of the political). We can still push on this today. What happens when "man" + machine "see" the world in light of a new form of mechanization? What possibilities are opened up and how might cinema play a progressive role in the new vision of modern society?
ReplyDeleteGreat synthesis of the film and the essay here! I wanted to build on Shilyh's comments...You state that "[i]n Man with a Movie Camera we view people waking up in the morning, brushing their teeth, etc, all these ordinary moments that the camera finds and emphasizes, and brings a new meaning onto them." I think that HOW the "camera" finds/emphasizes meaning is important to discuss. The POV camera, as Metz point out, is really the POV of the film makers, and the film makers' also DETERMINE point of view based on whatever ideology/message/theme they want to convey. In this sense, the film makers, via the camera, find and create meaning, but this is based (typically) on a predetermined meaning that they aim to feed to the audience. This is interesting to consider regarding Man with a Movie Camera...Were there particular actions or events that were shot in a specific and peculiar way, such that we know what the intended message of the film maker was? I recall, for instance, the cigarette factory scenes, with the continual repetition of movement and process. What is the message here? As Comolli and Narboni say, every film is "part of the ideological system, for 'cinema' and 'art' are branches of ideology" (688). Film truly has a strong political role in society, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI definitely see how you are able to play off Benjamin and Vertov in your essay, especially with respect to "Man with a Movie Camera." All of these trivial acts that we take for granted in everyday life, the camera shoots and shoots in a certain way. The filmmakers (producers/directors etc.), do not choose these shots by accident, nor do they choose how to shot them by accident. In reality, these shots are planned out very specifically. It is very interesting to step back and think about why these shots were picked, and why they were filmed in a certain way. You do a good job of relating Benjamin to the film, and I am curious to how you think the reflexivity of the film contributes to its message (what Metz would think of these scenes, or what you think of the scenes where the camera/film crew is shown).
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with your interpretation of how film can help reinterpret and explain ordinary things, this “duality of film.” We saw this especially in Man with a Movie Camera. That’s one of the reasons why I enjoyed the movie because it made ordinary, almost mundane activities interesting to watch. The film basically re-interpreted a day in the life of the average person. Like I said in my blog, this film lets its audience appreciate the act of making a film and even every day life. You’re blog does a great jon in connecting Benjamin’s reading and your interpretatio of the film in a comprehensive way.
ReplyDeleteI love this movie so much. And one of the only things I like more is actually talking about it, because it's so good. SO GOOD. It's not only the most interesting thing that we have watched all year, but it's incredible in its visuals. You can see these machines go to work, like the factory scenes and you can also see the interactions that happen between people as they go about their daily lives. We watch the city wake up. THE ACTUAL CITY! The trains start and the windows open, as if the city were literally opening its eyes and using people to rub out the rheum. God it's good. But I like what you say about the duality of things in the film and I definitely agree with that. I think that there is like multifaceted duality. So many things have dual relationships it's incredible. And REALLY COOL!
ReplyDeleteThe concept of man and machine coming together to synthesize a new interpretation, a new reality, is quite fascinating. I'd like to think of myself as a pragmatist when it comes to questions of artistry - that is, I usually take factors like financial incentive, target demographics, etc, into consideration when I think of a film and the effect it achieves or the message it brings across. That, obviously, is highly dependent on the person, and not nearly as much on the machine. Still, having learned more about cinematography, camera techniques, special effects, etc, I can begin to understand how man can draw inspiration from machine, and how the technical workings of said machine can influence the end product. With that in mind, I don't feel as inclined to think that a film is just a product of what a person or group of people designed, but rather can be just as much a product of that same person seeing the world just a bit differently through the camera lens.
ReplyDeleteI think you covered the dynamics of this conceptual debate very well in your post, bravo!
Great take on Man with a Movie Camera. It is interesting to see the dynamic relationship between technology and humans, as one observes the other. The duality of viewing film is a great point because watching film is like a meditative experience, in which we take time out from our usual routine and observe small everyday experiences which we rarely notice. This film allows us to appreciate everday life and film making at the same time. Picking up on a theme that has been discussed in the comments, what was the ideology of the cameraman behind the lens? Was there a specific political ideology that he was attempting to sort out? I don't know but it seems like a good question to consider.
ReplyDelete