From: malgosia askanas (email suppressed)
Date: Thu Feb 12 2009 - 18:07:45 PST
Simonetta, could you please explain what you mean by "a passive
viewer"? To me it would seem that, for example, focusing on "the
constant change of the shots rather than on the content of the shots"
- in general, focusing on one specific aspect versus all others -
already implies an active posture towards what is being viewed.
Assuming that the viewer is paying attention to the film, in what
sense(s) is the viewing ever passive?
-malgosia
>Hello everyone,
>
>I am writing to the list because I have a question and I would like
>to ask if anyone can help me understand something about Dada films.
>My question refers to the film Emak Bakia (Man Ray, 1926) in
>particular. I was discussing with some classmates (I am a grad
>students in Films Studies) today in one of my seminars about the
>power of the look/eye in Ray's film. The film literally "tries the
>patience of the viewer" at first sight. We questioned (but we could
>not find an ultimate answer) where we as viewers stand in relation
>to a movie like Emak Bakia. Are we active or passive viewers? I have
>studied that Dadaists do not want the viewers to think about what
>the viewers watch because they want the viewer to focus on the
>constant change of the shots rather than on the content of the
>shots. If that is true at a first viewing and the viewer is, then, a
>passive one, I think that after various viewings of the film, the
>supposed passive viewer feels the urge to become active. I found
>myself trying to remember what I was watching and I found it very
>hard, so I watched and re-watched the film many times. However, I
>think that the issue gets even more complicated right at the opening
>sequence of the film, where we have a medium shot of the director as
>he looks into the camera, while his eye looks at us being completely
>reversed in the lens. Is he "looking at" us, as we are looking at
>him? In other words, are we both active and passive viewers at the
>same time? I am interested in this (and this was my point during the
>discussion) because I have read that Dadaists are concerned about
>"the fixed object," however in Emak Bakia nothing is fixed. All the
>objects rotate somehow or move (the director's eye as well is upside
>down and suggests a sort of already-happened rotating movement.) The
>only element to be fixed at all times is us, viewers, as we watch
>the constant change of these rotating images. So, if the filmmaker
>is looking at us while the eye is upside down, thus, in an
>unconventional way, does it mean that what matters the most is the
>viewer in his/her passive or active role?
>
>I hope this makes some sense. I'll be very grateful for any thoughts
>you may have on this matter. I have never taken a class on
>avant-garde fims so far (this seminar is about modernity), but I
>watch a lot of avant-garde films, so I may have misunderstood to
>some extent Man Ray's project.
>
>Thank you so much in advance for your help.
>All the best,
>Simonetta
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.