19 May, 2013

Film - The Matrix


“I’ll be back.” (Terminator) The 1999, end of millennium, science fiction blockbuster film, The Matrix, goes a number of steps beyond, James Cameron’s Terminator. In Terminator to be human is not enough, Sarah Connor must become machinelike and ultimately align herself with the machine to defeat the enemy. In The Matrix, to be merely human or to be a machine is also not enough; but in the world of The Matrix, humanity, or at least one human, has the ability to grow beyond his/her present parameters and return to the rule bound world of personal limitation with a new freedom. Despite the cartoon look of The Matrix, Two-dimensional or even three-dimensional human beings are not enough; in The Matrix, a seemingly ordinary individual, Thomas Anderson/Neo, is required to embark on a journey of self-discovery, look deep within himself and enter a world of paradox. He must do this in order to see the lies about him so that he may grow into these other dimensions, beyond his own organic parameters and the machine’s virtual reality.

The Matrix reveals itself as a hypermodern, hypergeneric film, which is best defined as a science fiction melodrama with a preoccupation with digital images and a more than moderate interest in time and motion, reality and illusion. The Matrix blatantly appears as an amalgam of a cross cultural assortment of films. Unabashadly flaunting its sources such as Ghost in the Shell, Twelve Monkeys, La Jetee, Star Trek, Blade, Blade Runner, Terminator, Men in Black and numerous others. The Matrix proudly shows off these citations while skilfully retaining its own uniqueness and authenticity. There are also, references throughout the film to M.C. Escher, Harlan Ellison, George Orwell, James Cameron, Sergio Leone, and so forth with as well a number of visual and thematic references to The Wizard of Oz, and Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland/Through the Looking Glass. Most interestingly, The Matrix delicately draws on the films of Alfred Hitchcock, especially, it seems to me, Vertigo and North by Northwest. In doing this The Matrix, both visually and thematically takes some major Hitchcockian themes and proudly displays, expands, and reworks them.

The aim of The Matrix does not seem to be to recreate Hitchcock or Hitchcockian suspense, as such. Rather it seems to show off the film industry’s indebtedness not only to Hitchcock, but also a plethora of prominent filmmakers. In doing so, it introduces a number of what appear to be homage to Hitchcock moments and a number of interesting Hitchcockian strategies, worked together with Hitchcock’s trait of self-referencing. Or, maybe its just that Hitchcock is so ingrained into the cinema that his work surreptitiously invades all films without the filmmakers knowing. Either way the Wachowski brothers appear to have, maybe inadvertently, but I feel not, have created a typically Hitchcockian vertigo of Déjà vu with a spiral of filmic reference.

By referencing any Hitchcock films, you reference other Hitchcock films by proxy. The narrative, visual style and the dominant theme of deception within, for example, Vertigo, North by Northwest, Notorious and Psycho suggests that each of these films are themselves interrelated and that each is shaped by its predecessor. As suggested by the writings of Raymond Bellour, style and themes recur within these films such as melancholia, mania, and paranoia/schizophrenia. Melancholy, for example, is defined, as a mental condition characterized by extreme depression, bodily complaints, and often hallucinations and/or delusions is most evident in Vertigo and Psycho. Hitchcock’s style contains certain predictability enfolded in a world of the fantastic. Hitchcock’s films are set in a vague fantasy land that somehow resembles reality yet is estranged. The reference to fairy tales by Hitchcock can be seen in a number of his films including, Rebecca and Cinderella, The Birds and Goldie Locks, Notorious and North by Northwest both alluded to Carroll’s Alice adventures.

Like Hitchcock’s films, The Matrix works within the classic style of cinema, while simultaneously challenging it and taking it to its limits. Strategies and themes recognised as being typical to Hitchcock, by theorists like Wood, Modelski and Leitch, pop up throughout The Matrix. Included are such Hitchcockian strategies and themes, like the use of symmetry and doubles, claustrophobic corridors, shots of bits of body, ineffectual police officers, underlying anxiety, vertigo, necrophilia, playing with time, truth and illusion, attraction and repulsion, and the tension created by the conflict between self-determination and predestination. These are woven into a suspenseful and exciting melodrama within The Matrix.

Like the “ordinary men,” in the Hitchcock films Vertigo and North by Northwest, Neo the protagonist in The Matrix, experiences the extraordinary in his life, making him acutely aware of his own isolation, hollowness, and lack, which mirror the fabricated world in which he exists. Neo is propelled into a journey of search for inner identity, a rite of passage. As it is for Roger Thornhill/George Kaplan, in North by Northwest and John Ferguson/Scottie in Vertigo, this is a journey of paradox contained within the film narrative, which results in crossing boundaries and new and bizarre beginnings/endings. Roger Thornhill/George Kaplan, in North by Northwest, like many of Hitchcock’s heroes, seems to have escaped from a “Boys Own Adventure” story and like John Ferguson/Scottie in Vertigo, exists only in the fractured fairytale of the film narrative. Like Thornhill and Scottie, Neo appears to be not quite content, not quite fitting into his shallow adventures in the façade world in which he exists. Neo, also like Thornhill and Scottie has multiple identities. He lives a “double life,” one of which fits neatly into the rules of “the matrix” system in which he believes he exists, the other as a hacker or dissenter. But Thomas Anderson/Neo, like Roger Thornhill and John Ferguson is about to have “a most unusual day. ”

“Only Human.”
The Matrix represents a bounded system, which is constraining, precarious and threatening to any flaws or opposition within the system, yet once the system is breached, boundaries can change. In The Matrix, “the matrix” programme represents a “neural interactive simulation” that creates a mass illusion, in which each individual exists. Each individual that exists in, and experiences the matrix’s virtual reality is trapped into believing that he/she exists in actual reality. Thus, “the matrix” virtual reality is a sort of counter actualisation, a cybernetic tranquillisation of humanity. The technological colonization of the body by pacifying the mind, mirrors forms of dissolution and subjectivity through mass socialisation and media-isation , similar to that broached in North by Northwest. In The Matrix, techno-science advances its own goals at the cost of human concerns disempowering most of the humanity contained within the system. Technological advances lead to the destruction and dependency of the human body and its subsequent re-formation through non-human extensions spiralling out of technology, “the vicious prosthesis.” Humanity becomes crippled in this alien world, where the technological form re-presents and simulates an image of our former independence and mobility. In The Matrix, this develops into a virtual form, which both sustains and advances a deterministic world system, mediating humanity’s relationship with progressive technology.

As in many science fiction films, the machine-intelligence in The Matrix, developed by humanity, grows beyond its parameters, into a self-serving oppressor that opposes the individual and collective spirit of humanity. Yet, this renegade AI can still be seen to be serving humanity, in a paradoxical way. By opposing humanity, the machines are challenging and forcing individuals within the system to evolve and develop towards a new potential. Certain individuals, who could be classified by what Baudrillard refers to as terrorists, develop and come to a new reality, further developing the hubristic human need to reinvent our consciousness and reinvent our selves.

Science fiction film, despite its futuristic façade is rooted in the archaic symbolism of mythology and religion, through its use of archetypes. However, it is also a product of humanity’s hubristic love affair with technology, resulting in technology birthing a creation as a product of its own historical narrative. Technology, in The Matrix, becomes inter-dimensional with an ability to move between the organic and the cybernetic confines of “the matrix” system. To free itself, humanity must do more than breach “the matrix” system. It must mirror and improve on the traits of the cention programmes before it can gain the freedom to move freely both outside and within “the matrix.” The cention programmes, or agents, are digital computer programmes that have the ability to “move in and out of any software plugged into the system,” a concept that seems to make humans not only batteries but also software within this self-serving system. Interestingly this programme animates itself with only male personas, yet seems to remain sexually ambivalent.

“Ironically, it is science fiction film – our hoariest and seemingly most sexless genre- that alone remains capable of supplying the configurations of sexual difference required by the classical cinema.”The obvious pun on the word whore, coupled with the true meaning of the word, being old or ancient, gives added punch to the irony in this statement. The main basis for the truth in this is the interaction between human and machine in science fiction film, with the machine, usually taking the role of other, in the Lacanian sense. Often, the machine’s intent is war with, or suppression of humanity and it often becomes a struggle to tell the difference between human and machine. Machines become the enemy, yet humans become more machinelike and the machines humanlike. In The Matrix, through their classification and use, as batteries and software, humanity, is integrated into and serves the cyber-technology inverting the norm. The technology has attempted to “other” humanity, in the Lacanian sense. At least one agent, however, begins to display emotion that exposes a trait bordering on the human.

A chronicle on humanity’s love/hate relationship with technology, The Matrix, looks at a possible future technology, that has, through the advances in AI evolved into a vengeful, parody of humankind. This evolution continues through The Matrix, as can be seen in the development of Hugo Weaving’s character, Agent Smith, as he takes on hateful human traits because of his revulsion of humanity its displays of emotion that he sees as weaknesses. “The matrix” is simultaneously a multi faceted image of the body social; a sort of statement on reality and illusion and in this may be read as a film about cinema. The Matrix, ventures into many areas of mythology where Neo represents an anarchist, the antichrist or even Christ, or Dionysus crossing boundaries into Eastern philosophy such as Buddhism, New Age dogma, post-modern thinking and even Shamanism. Some of these are manifest through such things as Neo’s resurrection, the presence of an embryonic monster mother figure, the interaction of yin and yang forces and sexual ambivalence. On the other hand, through direct references to Wonderland and its white rabbit, The Matrix, presents itself as another interpretation of Alice’s fall into Wonderland, a personal rite of passage for the protagonist, who struggles with the different logic of a new world. Nevertheless, in all this The Matrix, is a film that deals with borders, the paradoxical turning point of between worlds.

Featuring a technology that evolves beyond its human creators, The Matrix questions the very nature of humanness. This technology is portrayed through brilliant, state-of-the-art graphics and exquisitely choreographed cinematography and combat scenes. The timing, tracking, editing and interpolation of the multiple cameras to create sfx together with the use of luminosity and colour creates sensuousness brutalised with pure sensations, which makes a bold statement in itself. The choreographed bodies and cinematography combined with the use of light and colour, create a surface texture throughout the film that stimulates raw nerve endings adding to the film’s definitive look, reflexivity, and narrative ambiguity. Affirming the paradoxical discord created by what Rascaroli describes as “the film’s body - with the camera as its perceptive organ” generating an amorphous spectorial position. The camera’s POV moves between that of subjective POV of both the individual characters and the POV of “the matrix” programme to the objective eye of omniscient other. The excess in technology and visual effects presented in The Matrix creates an extravagant visual banquet of filmic surface texture melding the actor’s bodies with the visual texture of the medium, making them inseparable from the visual imagery of the film. The use of the actor’s bodies add to and enhance visual effects, so that the body becomes a part of the mise-en-scene and inseparable from the physicality of the film itself.

“Did you see that?” (Neo, The Matrix)

Cinema is recognised as a medium of visual and aural images, and signs, with perceptual codes enhanced by but not primarily driven by the verbal. The psychoanalytic theorists, like Metz, would argue that the nature of the cinematic signifier makes it primarily a visual rather than a verbal or linguistic communication system. Christian Metz is interested in the role of the visual language of film as well as the Lacanian psychoanalytic approach to film theory. He describes cinema as looking into a mirror without seeing your own reflection. Metz’s writings emphasise the “language” of film, is not a language of words, he sees it not even as a language, despite the fact that dialogue is a fundamental element of narrative film. It is primarily in the qualities of its images and sounds that the expressivity of the cinema must be sought. The eye of the camera, like the eye of humanity sees not objectively but is subject to a systematic violence of philosophy, ideology, and a provisional knowledge that is constantly being re-evaluated. The eye both sees and looks; it is capable of receiving and delivering acts of violence, truth, or lies. No matter how passive or neutral it tries to be, the eye culpably interacts with what is happening on the screen sometimes without actually seeing.

Throughout The Matrix, it becomes evident that like the Hitchcock films, North by Northwest and especially Vertigo, one of its themes is about watching. In the Matrix, everyone is watching, many different groups and individuals look and subjectify others, in a similar way to the viewers, who made complicit through their watching. The crew of the Nebuchadnezzar watch “The Matrix” patterns, they watch each other as they enter and leave “The Matrix” and they watch individuals within “The Matrix.” They watch Neo, everyone watches Neo. “The Matrix” watches everyone and everything within the programme, as well as searching for those apart from the system. The cention programmes, the agents are fed this information through “The Matrix” programme, they can also tap into the programme to be able to watch individuals and place focus on them.

“In classical narrative cinema, to see is to desire” and what we choose to look at gives us access and power over that object or person. Both the psychoanalytic and the cognitive film theories revolve about viewer identification and POVS. The psychoanalytic theory circumnavigates character and directorial/camera POV, identification, while the cognitive theory revolves about editorial manipulation and omniscient camera POV. “We only see what we look at. To look at is an act of choice. As a result of this act, what we see is brought within our reach.” The “definitively masculine implications” recurring in classical cinema, position the male as spectator giving him power and pleasure through his voyeurism, which in turn defines his masculinity. Yet, the body as spectacle has the ability to stimulate the spectator and emotionally transcend the medium. Passing through its own physical limitations, this excess points to the incongruous nature of cinema enhancing the paradoxical emotional viewer response created by the film itself.

It is generally agreed that film has an identity in and of itself, which travels and changes through space and time. The complexity of film as an aural, visual, sensual, kinetic medium is an acknowledgment of its unique character . However, it is also important to realise that in the oscillations of our interactions we can never fully grasp the whole meaning of cinema. Film viewing is about looking, viewing, observing an imaginary world in which the spectator feels in control, but is being controlled. The tussle between the so-called primitive cinema and classic cinema has created many debates and varying theories, which ultimately show the one cannot survive without the other. Tom Gunning’s concept of the “cinema of attractions” has tried to reinvest the primitive cinema with a new status by relating the development of cinema to other forces than storytelling, such as new experiences of space and time in modernity, and an emerging modern visual culture with its ongoing love of spectacle.

As noted by Sobchack and Gunning, from the beginning, film has pushed its limits. As if the characters themselves want to jump out of the screen, and the viewer into it. This is seen in Porter’s The Great Train Robbery when the boundaries of cinema pushed toward its limits as a gun was pointed directly at the viewers and fired towards the camera and thus psychologically into their faces. The power of the gun’s gaze back at the camera alluded to the “shadows dancing across a screen” as an act of assault on the senses of the viewers. However, this may have roused the emotions of an audience in 1903, but would barely stir a present day audience as can be testified in The Matrix, when Neo shoots countless rounds from a machinegun into the camera with shells falling like rain while saving Morpheus. The cinema of attractions is bound up with this ability to create the illusion that characters can survive accidents, perform superhuman feats, dodge flying bullets and emerge unscathed, combined with an ability to affront a viewer by assaulting the parameters of the screen and the senses and thus stirring primal emotions.

Yet, another incident from the early days of cinema, both confirms the change in audience expectations and their love of the affront of spectacle. A film called The Wreck, which included a specially staged train crash, was so successful with viewers that film companies made a number of train crash films. There are also the famous stories of the Lumiere brothers train episode, when people were said to have left the theatre in fear of the approaching train. These early train incidences have continued to be acknowledged and referenced in film to the present day, examples being, the train episode in North by Northwest, and the scene in the underground station in The Matrix. Both scenes appear to have been used by their respective directors to further push the parameters of film. During his interview with Truffaut, Hitchcock explains his use of multiple cameras attached to the Twentieth Century to give the viewer the feeling of being on the train, while showing the train from the outside. The train scene in The Matrix features digitally enhanced multiple camerawork, putting on view the most recent innovative sfx, looking forward, to the Twenty First Century. Affirming the self-conscious narration with a juxtaposition of camera styles, startling POVS and extravagant use of sfx that is representative of the “cinema of attractions.”

The symbolism of the Mt Rushmore metaphor, in North by Northwest, places the characters at the edge of the void at a border or turning point, at that place where the viewer and the characters meet at the edge of the screen. The initial Mt. Rushmore scene occurs at the lookout site immediately after the scene at the airport, which concludes with the pivotal moment, in which the camera zooms in onto a MCU shot of Roger Thornhill’s concerned countenance. The illumination of his face and the sound of the engines of the passing plane, emphasise his concern for Eve and new understanding. The shot fades, and for a moment superimposes onto the next shot of the stone faces of the Mt Rushmore monument, which eerily appear to look back at him. The superimposition of Cary Grant’s face into the shot of the monuments melds him with the national icons acknowledging his status and star persona. Thornhill is looking through a telescope at the monument; the camera self-consciously focuses, with the help of a circular mask onto the stone faces, mimicking and amplifying the action of the previous shot. Thus, the Stony faces reflect the steeling of Thornhill’s emotional energy for the task ahead and Thornhill/Grant’s comment, “I don’t like the way Teddy Roosevelt is looking at me,” comments on the paradoxical simultaneous looking forwards, looking back nature of cinema and Hitchcock’s narratives. The method of telescoping onto an object is a recurring element of Hitchcock’s filmmaking. Whether, a camera lens as in Rear Window or a rolled up newspaper as in Suspicion is used, this iris effect as an extension of the eye by mechanical means is used by Hitchcock to focus the viewer’s attention both visually and narratively. Hitchcock uses it to draw attention to an aspect of the plot, to highlight a sense of foreboding, and as an element of the self-reflexivity, that steeps his films.

There are times when The Matrix violently pushes these boundaries, like when Trinity smashes into the skyscraper as if for an instant she is going to fly through the screen, but at other times the pushing of parameters is more subtle and remains within the narrative, like when Neo takes the red pill. As he reaches for the pill, the camera cuts to a CU of Morpheus and two images of Neo reflect back at the viewer in Morpheus’ glasses. Neo looks at his reflection in the mirror, which appears to be breaking up. At a point during this short SRS between the mirror and Neo sequence, Neo’s face disappears in the mirror and Neo looks into the camera to ask, “did you see that?” The question in the narrative directed at the others in the room but the look at the camera appears to be directly asking the viewer the question. “They are everyone and they are no-one; they are the gatekeepers.”(Morpheus, The Matrix)


17 August, 2009

Body Systems

1) Integumentary (skin, nails, hair, sweat glands)
2) Skeletal (bones, cartilage, joints)
3) Muscular (muscles, tendons )
4) Nervous (brain, spinal cord, nerves)
5) Endocrine (pancreas, glands, testes, ovaries, kidneys, pancreas, thyroid, pituary etc – containers of hormones and transporters)
6) Cardiovascular (heart, blood vessels, arteries, veins, capillaries, blood)
7) Lymphatic (spleen, lymphatic vessels, lymph nodes, spleen, thymus)
8) Respiratory (lungs, bronchi, pharynx, throat, larynx, trachea, alveoli)
9) Digestive (mouth, salivary glands, pharynx, oesophagus, liver, stomach, pancreas, gall bladder, large intestine, small intestine, anus)
10) Urinary (kidneys, ureters, urinary bladder, urethra)
11) Reproductive (mammary glands, uterine [fallopian] tubes, ovaries, uterus, vagina/dutcus deferens, seminal vesicles )

20 July, 2009

News

This is an old blog revamped to be a personal friend and family news update. Hope all will enjoy
love Jules

01 November, 2006

An “Other” THING


Linda Williams has pertinently described the curious affinity between monster and woman, the two 'Others' to normative male sexuality and desire, in classic and modern horror film in "When the Woman Looks," Mary Ann Doane, Patricia Mellencamp, and Linda Williams (eds.), Re-Vision: Essays in Feminist Film Criticism (Frederick: University Publications/American Film Institute, 1983), 83-99.


In this paper, I shall attempt to illustrate, through the evolution of the violent manifestations of the Thing organism, from its original conception through adaptation and readaptation, and its historical contextualisation, the power of the creative processes as a perception of the present as history.

29 September, 2006

Repetition of Image

Image is not something inert, static or unchanging, on the contrary, it implies some type of temporal process in its production, reception, and circulation. A temporal categorisation of repetition is therefore not as irregular as at first it might seem. Much contemporary theory, it seems, leads into and evolves from philosophicalthoughts on repetition. There appears to be as Samuel Weber states; "a genealogy of questioning that can be traced back at least to Kierkegaard, which is to say, to the immediate aftermath of Hegel, following the culmination of philosophical idealism. You can follow this question of repetition at work for example in Nietzsche's thought of the Eternal Return, in Freud's speculations on the repetition compulsion and the Death Drive, in Heidegger, in Derrida's idea of iterability, and in Deleuze's Repetition and Difference. The question of repetition imposes itself once the idealistic system of thought exhausts its resources, finds itself "blocked". In the wake of such a blockage, repetition can no longer be taken for granted as a mechanical, self-evident and subsidiary phenomenon. in Nietzsche's thought of the Eternal Return, in Freud's speculations on the repetition compulsion and the Death Drive, in Heidegger, in Derrida's idea of iterability, and in Deleuze's Repetition and Difference. The question of repetition imposes itself once the idealistic system of thought exhausts its resources, finds itself "blocked". In the wake of such a blockage, repetition can no longer be taken for granted as a mechanical, self-evident and subsidiary phenomenon."

02 August, 2006

Tonight, tonight

Music Video for Tonight, Tonight by The Smashing Pumpkins

17 May, 2006

14 May, 2006


John Carpenter
Posted by Picasa

06 May, 2006

YAHOO


20 April, 2006

MY BLOGMARKS

SAVE

Time for a Change?

Interested in making

money

and
saving on your groceries?

for more info.

EMAIL ; novacinefile.com.au

19 April, 2006

Scarey stuff


Hello,

Thank you for contributing your abstract to our proposed film remake collection. We are pleased to inform you that we would like to use your idea in our project. We will be in contact concerning the deadline for the final version of your paper once we have secured a publisher.

This was my dream and now it has happened it scares the crap outa me...LOL
But it has inspired me to get off my butt and start writing again...

04 March, 2006

A Remake Thing.

Every ostensibly new thing proves to have its antecedents. Perhaps we should not look for originality in some innovatively exceptional creation, but rather in the reworking of pre-existing material, in the ability to find new connections, contexts and hence meanings in what is already at hand. No film or in fact “thing,” thought or idea, can stand alone as a wellspring of innovation. As such, the film remake occupies a paradoxical position. On the one hand, however divergent or different a remake is from the original, it is still a repetition or maybe an attempt to hold onto the past. On the other hand, even the most mimetic of remakes differ from their reference points.
Like the myths of old that are told repeatedly in differing ways, film remakes offer-updated perspectives on old ideas. While remaking may attest to the intrinsic timelessness of the material being treated, repetition alone is not a criterion of timelessness. Repetition develops, expands and reflects on the previous occurrences, to elucidate the past turned present. Thus, all events and proceedings are formed of precedings. The practice of repetition does not make or even attempt to make perfect but rather makes richer and more textured reproductions of unfolding revelations. Thus, humankind becomes a historicist.
In this paper, I shall illustrate, through the evolution of the Thing creature to its culmination in John Carpenter’s The Thing, that remakes not only reflect the time in which they are made, but they also, examine through restructure, the death and rebirth of the creative process reflected in the motifs of the “eternal return” and resistance to change. Further, I would argue that remakes like Kierkegaard’s concept of repetition are in constant motion and connected to the future. Thus the act of repetition forwards in a culture, where progress counts most, suggests remaking signifies humanities historicism through repetition.

24 January, 2006

Mythical Metamorphoses

Mythical Metamorphoses; Things are not always, what they seem.
Over the years, all manner of metamorphoses and magical transformations, even in their most prosaic forms, have continued to fascinate, allure and astonish, while invoking fear and reverence, in peoples from all cultures throughout time. The various representations and renderings of metamorphosis present the viewer with a sensate assault on vision of the uncanny processes of shapeshifting that question notions of “coherence and self-identity in space and time, of narrative and character, of evolution and devolution.” P xiv [1] Although metamorphosis can be found in most cultures and has been the subject of much theoretical discussion, for instance in relation to Ovid’s Metamorphoses, the medieval and renaissance metamorphic imagery, and to Kafka's Verwandlung it is impossible to give overview of the standing of metamorphosis within a historical and mythological context. Metamorphosis comes from the Greek meta beyond, over above and morph shape. It means “to change physical form, structure, or substance especially by supernatural means” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
In order for a change to be described as a metamorphosis, it requires a presupposition of an original form. Metamorphosis goes by a variety of other names, including mutation, morphing, transformation, transmutation, transfiguration or transmogrification. metamorphosis has been the subject of much theoretical discussion from its earliest to most recent presentations. In mythology and non-rationalistic cultural traditions, human beings are often viewed as having the ability to metamorphose. Those with such abilities are referred to as shapeshifters, doppelgangers, changelings, skin-walkers, mimics, mutants, and mimics.
Shapeshifting often refers to characters that change form or morph on their own, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, while transformation refers more commonly to externally imposed change of form or are morphed, whether by magic or sufficiently advanced technology. Those who morph or are morphed, such as werewolves, vampires and their victims, are generally considered monstrous and/or “other” within the narrative and social order.
To metamorphose is to change in appearance, character, condition, or function; it is the embodiment of change. Change as a fundamental certainty has been acknowledged from even before the time by the very first civilizations from around the world, yet many philosophical questions and arguments continue to resonate about the permanence of change.

23 November, 2005

The Premature Old Age of the Cinema

By Antonin Artaud

People have tried to make a fundamental distinction, a kind of division of qualities between two or three kinds of cinema.

On the one hand, there is dramatic cinema, in which chance, that is, the unforeseen, that is, poetry, is in principle suppressed. Not a single detail which does not originate from an absolutely conscious choice of the mind, which is not established with a view to a specific and certain result. The poetry, if poetry there be, is of an intellectual order; only secondarily does it draw on the particular resonance of the objects of perception at the moment they enter into contact with the cinema.

On the other hand, there is documentary cinema, the last refuge of the partisans of cinema at any cost. Here, a preponderant role is assigned to the machine and to the spontaneous and direct development of the aspects of reality. The poetry of things considered in their most innocent aspect, and as they relate to the external, is given full play.

I want, for once, to talk about cinema in itself, to study it in its organic functioning, and to see how it behaves at the moment it enters into contact with the real.


The lens which pierces to the center of objects creates its own world and it may be that the cinema takes the place of the human eye, that it thinks for the eye, that it screens the world for the eye, and that by this work of concerted and mechanical elimination it allows only the best to remain. The best - that is, that which is worth retaining, those shreds of appearance which float on the surface of memory and whose residue seems to be automatically filtered by the lens. The lens classifies and digests life, it offers the sensibility, the soul, a nourishment that is ready-made, and presents us with a world that is finished and sterile. Moreover, it is not certain that, of what is worth recording, it really lets through only the most significant and the best. For it must be noted that its vision of the world is fragmentary, that however valuable the melody it manages to create among objects may be, this melody is, as it were, a two-edged sword.

On the one hand, it is subject to the arbitrariness, the internal laws of the machine with the fixed eye; on the other, it is the result of a particular human will, a precise will which has an arbitrariness of its own.

What can be said under these conditions is that insofar as the cinema is left alone in the presence of objects it imposes an order on them, an order which the eye recognizes as valid and which corresponds to certain external habits of the memory and the mind. The question that arises here is whether or not this order would continue to be valid if the cinema tried to carry the experiment further and offer us not only certain rhythms of habitual life as the eye or ear recognizes them, but those darker, slow-motion encounters with all that is concealed beneath things, the images - crushed, trampled, slackened, or dense - of all that swarms in the lower depths of the mind.

Although the cinema does not need a language, some kind of convention in order to connect us with objects, it nevertheless does not take the place of life; these are broken pieces of objects, cutouts of views, unfinished puzzles of things which it binds together forever. And this, whatever anyone thinks, is very important, for we must realize that it is an incomplete world which the cinema presents, and from a single remote point; and it is very fortunate that this world is forever fixed in its incompleteness; for if by some miracle the objects this photographed, this stratified on the screen, could move, one dares not think of the figure of nothingness, the gap in the world of appearances which they would manage to create. I mean that the form of a film is final and without appeal, and although it allows a sifting and a choice of images before it presents them, it forbids the action of those images to change or to transcend itself. This is incontestable. And no one can claim that a human gesture is ever perfect, that there exists no possible improvement in its action, in its influence, in its communication. The world of the cinema is a world that is dead, illusory, and fragmented. Apart from the fact that it does not contain things, that it does not enter the center of life, that it retains only the epidermis of forms and then only what can be included in a very limited visual angle, it rules out all repetition, which is one of the major conditions of magical power, of the rending of sensibility. Life cannot be remade. Living waves, inscribed in a number of vibrations that is forever fixed, are waves that are henceforth dead. The world of the cinema is a closed world, without relation to existence. Its poetry exists not on the other side but on this side of images. By the time it collides with the mind, its dissociative force has been broken. There has been poetry, to be sure, around the lens, but before the filtering by the lens, the recording on film.

Besides, since the talking film, the elucidations of speech arrest the unconscious and spontaneous poetry of images; the illustration and completion of the meaning of an image by speech show the limitations of the cinema. The so-called mechanical magic of a constant drone of images has not survived the onslaught of speech, which has made this mechanical magic appear as the result of a purely physiological surprise attack on the senses. We have quickly tired of the accidental beauties of the cinema. To have one's nerves more or less pleasantly massaged by abrupt and unusual cavalcades of images whose sequence and whose mechanical appearance eluded the laws and even the structure of thought may have delighted a few aesthetes of the obscure and the unexpressed who were seeking these sensations systematically but without ever being sure that they would appear. These elements of chance and of the unexpressed were part of the dark and subtle enchantment which the cinema exerted over certain minds. All this, in addition to a few other, more precise qualities which we all went there to find.

We knew that the most characteristic and the most striking virtues of the cinema were always, or almost always, the result of chance, that is, a kind of mystery whose fatality we never managed to explain.

In this fatality there was a kind of organic emotion in which the objective and steady buzz of the projector blended, even as it contrasted, with the amusing appearance of images as precise as they were unexpected. I am not talking about alterations in rhythm imposed on the appearance of objects from the real world, but life passing at its own rhythm. I believe that the humor of the cinema arises partly from this security regarding a background rhythm on which are superimposed (in comic films) all the fantasies of a movement that is more or less irregular and vehement. For the rest, apart from that sort of rationalization of life, whose waves and patterns, such as they are, have been emptied of their fullness, their density, their range, their interior frequency, by the arbitrariness of the machine, the cinema remains a fragmentary and, as I have said, stratified and frozen, conquest of reality. All fantasies concerning the use of slow motion or speeded-up are applied only to a world of vibrations which is closed and which does not have the faculty of enriching or nourishing itself from its own resources; the idiot world of images trapped as if in birdlime in a myriad of retinas will never live up to the image that some persons have managed to form of it.

Therefore, the poetry which can be distilled from all this is only a poetry of contingency, the poetry of what might be, and it is not to the cinema that we must look to restore the Myths of man and of the life of today.

(1933)

© Copyright 2005 Synthome Productions

28 August, 2005










In his role as a musician, Carpenter formed a band The Coupe de Villes in the mid 1970s. Over the years, John Carpenter's career as a director has been a rollercoaster encompassing critical and financial successes, acclaim and failures, alternating between periods of working for Hollywood studios and smaller independent companies. A phenomenon that leads to the question: to what extent have production circumstances generated Carpenter’s career in the form of both his finished product and critical and public reactions to it? Characteristically of Carpenter, the action for The Thing, is located in an environment of intrigue and forced change framed by an expansive isolated, hostile wilderness of isolated frigidity, suspicion, mutual distrust and fear, haunted by the encroaching, enigmatic presence of the border crossing, transmuting, alien Thing. Such themes recurs through his work evidenced from his earliest 1974 film, Dark Star, to his more recent, the 2001 sci-fi film Ghosts of Mars.