Reflections on the Walker, Viewer Subjectivity, Boredom

Doane’s work in “Technology’s Body” is really interesting to think about. Cinema distorts images and sounds in order to provide a more pleasurable viewing experience for its spectators. The moving image we see on screen is several singular images sped up (I’m being redundant). We, as spectators, take these moving images to be real. When the image is slowed down, however, the diegesis we’ve created is disrupted, and it’s an unpleasant experience.

            I think this idea is a really interesting one, especially in regards to our recent experience at the Walker. When we watched that one film (you’ll have to forgive me, I can’t remember what it was called) where we were shown several film reels, and were exposed to their construction, almost everyone fell asleep (at least for a few minutes). This was because we were so disengaged with what we were being shown. The film’s content was interesting, but conventions were so exposed, by the mise-en-scene (if I can even call it that) of a light projector with film on it, that it became impossible for me to even try and follow what I was being shown. All I could think about was how intentionally he was showing us film on film and I shut down.

            Even as people in the process of being trained in film analysis, we are still deeply rooted in our love for the constructed diegesis. We were shown a film that, based on our education, should have been compelling, but instead we fell asleep. In contrast, when we watched Removed, or even A Movie, we (at least I) were (was) really into it. Even though both films are explicit about the construction of film (Removed by scratching out its women, and A Movie by mixing newsreel footage with fake ones to create mini narratives), I still read them as film. I still find them entertaining. Even the moving China Girls in China Girls were more compelling than their images on filmstrips.

Because I can still enjoy them based on how I’ve been trained to enjoy film, I could argue that they fail to fully expose the film’s construction. The one that made us fall asleep in contrast can be considered the most successful.

This illuminates a big problem with oppositional abstract films. How can their existence be validated outside of the power/knowledge construct of mainstream cinema? Keeling would have a field day with this I think. In a way, that film that’s name I can’t remember (I feel really stupid saying that) is the best, because it takes the spectator further out of their subjectivity. It’s a shame then that we found it so boring, because it isn’t in fact boring. That’s just how we’ve been trained to see it.