From: Simonetta (email suppressed)
Date: Fri Feb 13 2009 - 07:18:39 PST
Dear Malgosia, Bryan, and Kim,
thank you for your replies and thoughts. Yes, I do think that the issue is
about clarifying what we mean about active and passive viewer. In class it
was suggested that at that time the goal of a film like "Emak Bakia" was to
be seen once, hardly multiple times. So, in that sense the viewer did not
have the time to think through what he/she was watching and could be defined
as passive. It is a little reductive as an assumption, but it may be true.
At the same time, I wonder about those people like us who at that time
wanted to understand the film as much as enjoy it.
In relation to Bryan's reference to the nihilistic effect of contemporary
montage, I would argue that here the opposite happens because the viewer
focuses more on the cuts rather than on the actual repeated shots. The
images never disappear, but become less pregnant, at least some of them. I
have not read Dorsky, but it seems an interesting way to talk about what is
included in the cut as opposed to what is excluded by the nihilistic effect
of editing. I think that after further viewings from an initial passive
status the viewer becomes active and start thinking about the cinematic
techniques. (I am still convinced that at the beginning the film produced
"shock" in the viewers.) The example of the washer woman in Léger's "Ballet
Méchanique" fits perfectly. The viewer is more drawn to perceive the cut
rather than the 20-times repeated shot. Thank you for reminding me of that.
It was a good example to further understand.
I will definitely look for and read the readings you all suggested.
Thank you for helping me better understand this. I really appreciated.
Have a good day,
Simonetta
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 9:12 AM, Kim Knowles <email suppressed>wrote:
> Hi Simonetta,
> I think you've already begun to answer your own question. Perhaps one of
> the best ways to understand Emak Bakia (and this holds true for all of Man
> Ray's films) is to look beyond the aesthetic parameters of Dada and
> Surrealism and to look at the way Man Ray effectively problematizes much of
> what they were doing (whilst also adhering to certain principles). It's a
> complex issue though and MR's films are constantly fluctuating between Dada
> and other issues related to cinematic specificity and the photographic
> image. The notion of the look is a recurring theme in Man Ray's work so that
> might be a good starting point. However, I'm not sure that I would agree
> with what you say about the Dadas not wanting the viewer to think about what
> they see. Most films associated with the Dada movement try to break with the
> illusionist nature of film and draw attention to cinematic techniques
> (consider the washer woman sequence in Leger's Ballet Mecanique for
> instance, or indeed the opening sequence of Emak Bakia that you mention).
>
> Not that I want to use Frameworks as a plug for my own work (!) but look
> out for my new book on Man Ray's films which will be published by Peter Lang
> in a few months. It's called 'A Cinematic Artist: The Films of Man Ray'. I
> talk about some of the issues you're raising here, although I never actually
> came to any definite conclusions about how to read the images. I think this
> is beauty of the film is it not? ...
>
> Nice to see Man Ray on Frameworks. Thanks for bringing it up :-)
>
> Kim
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 19:46:30 -0500
> From: email suppressed
> Subject: question on Emak Bakia (Man ray, 1926)
> To: email suppressed
>
>
> 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>.
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Share your photos with Windows Live Photos – Free Find out more!<http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/132630768/direct/01/>
>
> __________________________________________________________________ For info
> on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
>
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.