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.
Beautifully written Shayna. I love your images too!
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed your analysis between story and discourse. It is kinda hard to separate the two, but you have done a wonderful job in doing so. Moviewatchers often take for granted the effort that a simple scene requires. As you can see with our workshops in class, the amount of discourse is overwhelming ad makes you see movies or any type of cinematic production differently.
ReplyDeleteYou do a great job of outlining the differences between story and discourse, but I don't know if Man with a Movie Camera is the best film to determine whether discourse must not be seen for the sake of story. As you point out, the filmmaker clearly did not have the intention of hiding discourse, quite the opposite actually. To me it seemed more of a vehicle for the viewer to explore the world and art of filmmaking, especially when considering the lack of a clear, manifest story line. I'm curious to hear what you think of Cache or Peeping Tom, whether they were successful in portraying a story. If I remember correctly, I don't think you enjoyed Cache, but I am curious to see if you thought its reliance on surveillance footage (a more subtle reminder of the camera's presence than Man with a Movie Camera, but still very apparent) prevented you from being engrossed in the story. Personally, I found it to be rather jarring, but at the same time I felt like a more active spectator trying to figure out which scenes were previously recorded and which were suppose to be realtime within the story.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Matt that the question you begin your blog with, "Can a film still be effective if the level of discourse is given a more obvious status within a film," is unanswerable when examining the case study of Man With A Movie Camera. The sole purpose of the film is only for discourse, as it lacks story completely. I think that this question can still be answered by looking at other films that we have viewed as a class, however. Films like Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang, which exploit the audience's obvious understanding of prior films, as well as the principles of genre and film that they are watching, definitely give the discourse of cinema an obvious status, while still remaining effective as a story and as entertainment. The identification of conventions such as voice-over narration, as well as convoluted endings through Robert Downey Jr.'s character in Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang allow the audience to examine the discourse that goes into making a film, without drawing them too far away from the story. Fight Club, too, does this, by introducing the idea of splicing frames into films, and then actually splicing clips of its characters in as the film moves along. This not only has the effect of pointing out a method of discourse, but also moves the story along, as these "splices" are often apparitions of Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt) seen by the Narrator.
ReplyDeleteVery clear and well supported blog separating discourse from story and expressing your opinions on it. I enjoyed reading your ideas concerning "The Man With the Movie Camera" and its relationship to the story/discourse issue. However, I only question the view when you say, "The actual “story” of the film seems to be a simple exhibition of the scope of the camera's recording ability," In my opinion, the film was not simply an exploration of the recording functionality of the camera, but rather the power that cameras give in their ability to capture the exact visual essence filmmakers wish to convey in their stories. "The Man With the Movie Camera,"in my opinion, explores the psychology of the camera, but also the importance of discourse and knowing how to use and edit film in presenting a piece of art.
ReplyDelete