Story is what you tell your friends about a movie after having just seen it. Discourse, on the other hand, refers more to the elements of a film’s production. It is the process of the coming into being of a film- what goes on in the editing room, the capturing of sound, etc. It also incorporates self-reflexive elements, which tell us when, by whom, and at what time the film was captured. In essence, discourse relates the “I, NOW, HERE” of the film.
In any film, story and discourse are constantly at play. Every time we see a television or camera on the screen, we are subconsciously reminded of how the film was created and that the film is in fact a product of human labor. However, the story usually covers over most of the discourse, which is what allows us to become absorbed into a film.
Can a film still be effective if the level of discourse is given a more obvious status within a film? To answer this question, let’s examine Dziga Vertov’s film, Man With a Movie Camera (1929).
Man With a Movie Camera is essentially a montage of the life of the citizens in Moscow through the lens of a movie camera. The film is a succession of images that are supposed to demonstrate to the audience what the eye of the camera is in fact seeing. There are no real actors, nor is there any kind of plotline to follow; the people of the city are simply recorded in various everyday situations. The actual “story” of the film seems to be a simple exhibition of the scope of the camera's recording ability. Vertov explained his film with these words:
“Construction must be understood as the co-ordinating function of Constructivism. If the tectonic unites the ideological and formal, and as a result gives a unity of conception, and the factura is the condition of the material, then the construction discovers the actual process of putting together. Thus we have the third discipline, the discipline of the formation of conception through the use of worked material. All hail to the Communist expression of material building.” (1)
There are many moments in Man With a Movie Camera, when the film speaks about itself as a film. Starting at the very beginning of the film, we see a theater where a film is to be projected, which steers us to reflect upon the film as a product. In another scene, the camera guides us into a room through a window frame, which reminds us that our view is being framed through the frame of the film. We also see picture frames on the walls of the room, which have a similar effect. In a later scene, we see a woman cutting and splicing together strips off film in an editing room. This compels viewers to think about the different stages of the coming into being of the film.
I will admit that Man With a Movie Camera was not one of my favorite films by any means, as it was simply not engaging. Perhaps this was due to the fact that the story did not cover up the discourse, even though that was clearly the intention of the filmmaker. To me, Man With a Movie Camera seems to have succeeded on the level of an art form and as an educational tool. Watching something speak so eloquently about itself is truly beautiful. The film is also very enlightening for those without prior knowledge of film to learn exactly how the camera sees, and that what it projects on the screen is often a heavily manipulated reality. Although it may have succeeded in the aforementioned areas, Man With a Movie Camera unfortunately failed entirely as a source of entertainment.
1. DeBartolo, John. “Man With a Movie Camera.” 2001. 26 March 2009. http://www.silentsaregolden.com/DeBartoloreviews/rdbmanwithmoviecamera.html.
