modern times, by charlie chaplin

When Film Club last convened, it was to watch (of all things) Paul Verhoeven’s Showgirls. Viewed through a certain lens, Showgirls is “about” the way that modern centers of capitalism (Las Vegas and Los Angeles, specifically) seek to transform the human body into a commodity to be consumed.

This week we move to Charlie Chaplin’s Modern Times, a film which is also very interested in the human body, and the transformations that capitalism enacts upon it.

Unlike Showgirls, however, Modern Times is not really interested in the body as an object for consumption. What is is interested in, however– and these are, of course, related –is the body as an agent of production, contemporary industrialized mass production in particular.

As the film opens, we’re treated to the sight of Chaplin’s Tramp working as a bolt-tightener on an assembly line. In this early sequence, the film explores, to great effect, the spectacle of working bodies synchronizing or de-synchronizing with the unvarying industrial pace of the belt. This shot, from late in the sequence, should give you the basic idea:

OK, so this is used for grand comic effect, but the underlying point—about the relationship between man and machine—is deadly serious. The machine is unvarying, which means that the component in the industrial production process that needs to be “corrected” is the worker. In effect, the worker needs to become more machine-like.

The assembly line ends up warping the Tramp in precisely this way: in these early scenes, he’s been so hard-wired to tighten bolts that even when he’s not working on the line he continues to automatically seek bolts to tighten, coming to resemble nothing quite so much as a robot run amok.

This is fairly prescient, given that the very concept of the robot was only given a name for the first time in 1921 (in Karel Čapek’s play R.U.R.), and is presented in film for the first time in 1927, by Fritz Lang’s Metropolis.

The film grows even more prescient if you consider the Tramp-and-machine system less as an early cinematic example of the robot and more as an early cinematic example of the human-robot hybrid, the cyborg (a concept that wasn’t even named until 1960). The film does feature some pretty arresting images of human-machine hybrids, which, divorced from their comedic contexts, border on the nightmarish:

Thinking about Modern Times‘s prescient aspects in this way leads one to consider the possibility that the opening twenty minutes of Modern Times fit squarely within the tradition of the science-fiction dystopia. If that sounds odd, check out some of these shots, which seem, to me, like they could be slotted comfortably into Metropolis, Alphaville, A Clockwork Orange, or Brazil…

Oddly, despite all its futuristic trappings, it’s worth noting that at the time Modern Times was likely experienced by audiences as something that was engaged in a bit of looking backwards as well as a bit of looking forwards. The Tramp had long been a mainstay of silent cinema, making appearances as early as 1914: by 1936, when Modern Times is released, he’s a figure with a twenty-year history. Furthermore, he’s a figure largely associated with the silent era, which, by 1936, is definitively over—as sound had debuted in 1927 and been largely embraced by the industry by 1929.

Modern Times is not, strictly speaking, a silent film—it utilizes synchronized sound effects, and delivers some lines of dialogue through loudspeakers, radios, and song—but it delivers the majority of its dialogue through intertitles, and is still shot at the silent rate (19 frames per second). These choices are interesting, given that as early as 1931, when Chaplin released City Lights (next week’s pick, btw), he was allegedly worrying about whether audiences would still be open to silent films (at least that’s what this Wikipedia article says).

If the use of silent film conventions might have seemed dated in 1931, then by 1936–nearly a decade into the development of sound film –it must have seemed willfully anachronistic, nostalgic even. By approaching a movie very much about the future with this sort of determined focus backwards, Chaplin makes an interesting point about “the present”—the “modern times” of the film’s title. He seems, in essence, to be saying that the present is always the sum total of our memories and experience of the past and our thoughts, feelings, hopes and fears about the future. That is as true today as it was in 1936, and Modern Times, in its best moments, still works to capture that peculiar ambiguity.

ghost in the shell, by mamoru oshii

Note: the seventh image in this post is Not Safe For Work. Scroll at your peril.

So. As the first of two (delayed) Sans Soleil follow-ups, Film Club opted to watch Mamoru Oshii’s 1996 anime Ghost in the Shell (based on a 1989 manga by Masamune Shirow). Marker’s interested in the ways that technology and media manifest in the Japanese cityscape, although he’s interested in it from an outsider’s perspective: we thought it might be appropriate to see how those topics are tackled by folks who are actually from Japan.

Turns out it’s not actually that different. There are no shortage of shots in this film that one can comfortably imagine being slotted somewhere into Sans Soleil:

Both films are pretty deeply interested in the boundary line between the contemporary present and science-fictional future. Oshii’s film, of course, actually is science fiction, so it gets the opportunity to allow the visualization of speculation in a way that wouldn’t quite be admissable in Marker’s film. It reserves its most inventive speculation for the futuristic body:

It’s hard to imagine that Marker wouldn’t be intrigued or even delighted by the sublime forms that Shirow and Oshii have concocted for us, even when they surge into extremity:

As for what, exactly, he might think that they indicate about the present, I cannot say.

Anyway. We’re still waiting on Funeral Parade of Roses to arrive from freakin’ Bangkok, and I’m going to be travelling for a bit, so it might be a while before we proceed to the second part of our Sans Soleil follow-up. It’s likely that we’ll be finishing up with the Production Design Blog-A-Thon first…

the blood of a poet, by jean cocteau

After a one-week hiatus from Film Club (Spring Break!), we returned with Skunkcabbage’s pick to follow up Cronenberg’s Naked Lunch, Jean Cocteau’s 1930 wonderment The Blood of A Poet.

From the title, Cocteau’s film sounds like it’s going to be another film about the life of a writer—it isn’t, really. One could possibly argue that the film is about writing: there is, for instance, a brief moment where a some of Cocteau’s own [untranslated!] writings are inserted directly into the film:

That’s not the only place writing interrupts the film, either: it breaks into the narrative a number of times (especially early on) in the form of intertitles. It’s not incredibly notable for early films to use intertitles, of course, but Blood of a Poet isn’t a silent film, so the intertitles here aren’t serving a traditional function, such as conveying dialogue. Instead they’re operating in a manner one could describe, perhaps, as “poetic” (Cocteau himself refers to them as “commentaries”). So you get stuff like this:

So possibly about writing, yes, but not really about a writer: although the main character (Enrico Rivero, chosen for his “dispassionate appearance”) identifies himself as a writer once, we never actually see him doing any writing, although we do see him working on some drawings:

This would seem to imply that the film is more about the visual than it is about the linguistic. It’s probably not an accident that the film’s opening shot has a ton of lighting gear visible in the background:

And, indeed, one way that we can enjoy The Blood of a Poet is to disregard the (disjointed) narrative and (indecipherable) allegory and to enjoy the film solely as a series of arresting and enigmatic images. Cocteau, for all his inscrutability and pretention, seems legitimately interested in giving something to the audience: using the cinema generously, by making us see things we haven’t seen before. Towards this end, the film ends up being something of a special effects tour-de-force, using illusionistic makeup, cleverly constructed sets, composite shots, expressive processing, editing gimmickry, reversed film, and basically every other cinematic and theatrical trick available in the 1930s to make us see the unseeable. From a modern perspective, it’s not too hard to figure out how some of the images and effects were created, but many of them remain pretty arresting:

And it’s this tendency towards optic weirdness (and psychosexual ferment) that ultimately bears out the Cronenberg parallel that Skunkcabbage had in mind. At one point, early on in the film, our “poet” ends up with an extra orifice on his hand—not really world’s away from the vaginal slit that opens in Max Renn’s abdomen in Videodrome (1983):

And our protagonist responds to this bodily mutation with a mix of disgust…

and fascination…

and, eventually, aroused pleasure…

…which is pretty much the key three-way Cronenberg mix right there. Long live the new flesh!

Next week: short films by Maya Deren.

aswang, by wrye martin

I’m a little bit behind on my Film Club writeups, and in the interest of catching up, I’m going to skip No. 16 (Herzog’s Nosferatu) and jump straight to No. 17, a low-budget oddity entitled Aswang (1994).

We’re still in our run of vampire films, although this film represents something a little more cross-cultural: the vampire-type creatures that the film centers around (the eponymous “Aswang”) are drawn from a Filipina folkoric tradition rather than the familiar Euro-centric tradition. We first see one of these creatures in a painting, thusly:

That stuff coming out of its mouth isn’t blood, but rather a kind of feeding tube, which the Aswang uses to—there’s really no delicate way to put this—consume fetuses out of hapless pregnant women. Needless to say, we need a hapless pregnant woman to come along… oh wait, here’s one now!

That’s our protagonist Katherine and her boyfriend, engaged in that cinematic standby, the in-the-car, you-could-go-get-an-abortion-right-now conversation. But Katherine doesn’t get an abortion, instead she signs her baby over to these two:

…who, surprise surprise, are up to no good. They eventually take her out to meet Mother…

…who actually turns out to be one of those Aswang things. Let the baby-eating hijinxs ensue!

This actually isn’t half bad as a first act, but it presents something of a screenwriter’s dilemma—you’ve written a situation where you have one defenseless, pregnant teenage protagonist, without resources, versus a clan of supernatural beasts (with a diabolical Filipina maid / witch thrown in to boot). She’s hopelessly outgunned, but in order to survive to the end of the movie she has to escape not one but several attacks on her person, which she manages to do through luck, intervention, or some other (increasingly silly) deus ex machina-type contrivance. And then once she’s escaped she needs to get back into peril, usually by some staggering lapse in logic (running back to the house once she’s escaped into the comparative safety of the woods, for instance). (The failure of the script during this portion of the film gives me an all-new appreciation of the utility of the one-killer / many-victims formula as a screenwriting device.)

But anyway. It’s a maxim of Film Club that the films we watch don’t necessarily need to be good, as long as they’re interesting. The emphasis on the unborn as the nexus of desire and anxiety certainly has some promise (insert your own Juno joke here). Even more intriguing is the way that the villains are adamant that they have a legal authority to do what they’re doing—after all, Katherine has signed over the rights to the infant, way back in the first act. “This is America!” bellows the male Aswang, after Katherine has once again escaped into the woods. “We have laws!”

There’s the germ of something interesting there—some kind of anxiety about surrogate motherhood? It was, after all, the mid-Nineties—but ultimately Aswang lacks faith in the interesting elements of its own premise. Instead of exploring that stuff in any kind of sustained way, Aswang is all-too-willing to fall back on the most shopworn stuff from the horror-movie playbook:

And I’ll leave you with Aswang take on the “cop who gets a little too curious.” Not exactly breaking the mold:

Go ahead and guess what happens to him. (Hint: nothing good.)

This is the last Film Club post for 2007; we will re-convene in early 2008. Happy holidays!

on the act of seeing with one’s own eyes, by stan brakhage

[This entry is not part of Film Club proper, but is rather an entry for Short Film Week, organized by Ed Howard (Only the Cinema) and Jeff Ignatius (Culture Snob).]

Stan Brakhage (1933-2003) is perhaps best remembered for his abstract, hand-painted films, but he also did a number of films that, for lack of a better word, we might call “documentaries”—although Brakhage’s films are radically more personal than most documentaries. Think of them, perhaps, more like records of things seen, documentary in the same way a diary is documentary.

In 1971, Brakhage completes a set of three of these “documentaries,” known collectively as “The Pittsburgh Documents.” They include: “eyes,” covering three days of activity witnessed while riding around the city with a pair of policemen; “Deus Ex,” shot in the surgery wing of a hospital, including footage of open-heart surgery; and “The Act of Seeing With One’s Own Eyes,” also shot in a hospital, but this time in the coroner’s area.

“Act” is widely available (it is included on the By Brakhage 2-disc set available via Criterion), and before viewing it the good people at Criterion gently warn you to “please be advised,” for “this film consists entirely of footage of actual autopsies.” And so it does.

They are perhaps right to warn you, for many of the images in this film are difficult to look at, and once seen, they are difficult to un-see. (As is my fashion, I’ve included some stills with this write-up, but I’ve hidden them behind a cut to protect the squeamish.) Brakhage himself, in an interview with Richard Grossinger (collected in the Brakhage Scrapbook (scavenged here)), writes about the experience of filming in these terms:

“I just began photographing desperately. I really overshot because I was so desperate to always keep the camera going; every moment I stopped photographing I really felt like I might faint, or burst into tears, or come apart, or something like that.”

And yet I don’t think it is Brakhage’s intent to terrify us with this film. Over and over in his writings he has said that his intent is only to be faithful to certain types of experience, to use film to aid us in seeing things that he has seen: certain qualities of light, etc. (Prior to screenings of “Act,” Brakhage reportedly said to audiences “that it was nothing to be afraid of, it was only about light hitting objects and bouncing back and seeing it with your eyes.”) If Brakhage wants us to see what the inside of a body looks like, it is likely that he thinks there is a virtue to the experience of seeing (with one’s own eyes) what the inside of a body looks like. (A similar motive likely influenced his 1959 film Window Water Baby Moving, a film which depicts his wife in childbirth.)

It is difficult, for me, to look at these things—a body cut apart on a table, a scalpel moving through flesh, a hand removing organs from a cavity—and not think that I am watching “violence.” But is that apt? More likely this is a result of my own imaginings, my horror-film-induced ability to think of these things being done in malice to a person still living. We can perhaps critique the whole idea of an autopsy as a Western-logic act of violence in the name of dispassionate observation (possible), but unless we are willing to take that step then we must concede that there is, in fact, no violence in this film; we don’t even see evidence of a callous joke at the dead’s expense. No one engages in mischief like propping a Santa hat up on a corpse. What we see is carnality, as close to the reality of it as a film can get us, and when we are done watching the film we have added something to the catalogue of things we have observed. This is one way to become incrementally more complete as a human being.

Stills here, but please exercise your best judgment when considering whether or not to click.