I find the mechanism of myth to be similar to that of camera in the age of mechanical reproduction. If I understand correctly, the qualities of myth -- the versatility, mutability, distortions that lead to possibilities of characters of the signification -- strike a resemblance to the possibilities of film and the reproducibility as discussed by Benyamin. Consider the two passages that follow:
"Myth is a value, truth is no guarantee for it; nothing prevents it from being a perpetual alibi: it is enough that its signifier has two sides for it always to have an 'elsewhere' at its disposal. The meaning is always there to present the form; the form is always there to outdistance the meaning."
p228, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction by Benyamin
"The film has not yet realized its true meaning, its real possibilities... these consist in its unique faculty to express by natural means and with incomparable persuasiveness all that is fairylike, marvelous, supernatural"
"...The sequence of positional views which the editor composes from the material supplied him constitutes the completed film. It comprises certain factors of movement which are in reality those of the camera, not to mention special camera angles, close-ups, etc. Hence the performance of the actor is subjected to a series of optical tests... The audience's identification with the actor is really an identification with the camera"
(As discussed by Professor Chun, such analysis implies that an actor is merely a 'prop,' but nonetheless allows for opportunities for the mass to become an actor.
I would like to explore the idea of possibilities behind myth and camera of mechanical reproduction. (And their adaptability to history and situations.) Perhaps it is a bit farfetching and requires further elaboration - but I think the logic is worth comparing.
No comments:
Post a Comment