3rd Audience

I professed last week (when I mixed up sections) that I am a Barthes fanboy, and this week I want to expand on that claim a little bit by tying in some of the ideas of the participatory and interactive media from lecture today with the discussion of Barthes and Benjamin these past two weeks. I remember distinctly in Walter Benjamin's essay that he claimed that eventually through the media of mechanical reproduction would allow the audience to take the role of producer: "Thus, the distinction between author and public is about to lose its basic character. The difference becomes merely functional; it may vary from case to case. At any moment the reader is ready to turn into writer" (232). Barthes also would become an advocate of the reader's ability to "write" text, and although we covered his pre-Death of the Author writings last week, his own method of disassembling and reassembling myth (the process of connotation) involves some level of reader creativity instead of absorbent passivity. Thus, it piqued me in today's lecture to hear Philip Rosen discuss how 3rd Cinema was an active event, something made "from the bottom" that got people potentially arrested and involved...well, involvement from the viewer. This is much different than Benjamin's discussion of the bored passivity of the public in his assessment of the film, but I think both Solanas/Getino and Benjamin are concerned with the possible participatory and revolutionary potentials of cinema. Are the writers of 3rd Cinema trying to respond to the commodification of film (the reinscription of aura into the film) by talking about this revolutionary cinema as a possible solution to the failures of Benjamin's visions for machine reproduced film? Is 3rd cinema created by a rebellious audience that refuses to consume 1st and 2nd cinema? Where does that line between producer and audience lie for something like 3rd cinema? Finally, looking at today's YouTube, DIY Video, grassroot media, and other participatory free exchange/information media groups that exist, where does their cinema fall?

Media: Windows To Another World

The subject that struck me most throughout the assigned articles is how different media presents images of war. In the aspect of mass media, Keenan illustrates Instant Media and News to be this powerful body which through interpreting images of war can effectively initiate humanitarian effort by causing emotional uprising in individuals and somehow bypass law and government and rationality. Keenan then goes on to say that this body tends to overexert itself with image to the point where its movements become so predictable that it can be manipulated into doing the exact opposite of its goals:

"images...can shame governments into action, armies will undertake humanitarian rescue missions for the publicity value alone, and publicity can bring the missions to an end" (108)

Keenan's argument about how the predictability of the media and its power lulls the audience into a state of comatose maybe because they believe that obviously something is being done already, that I myself need not take action, image overload overwhelms and desensitizes because of the displacement of reality film inherently possesses. Keenan's Panopticon popped into my head, the prisoner who guards themselves by constructing an inner prison. A thought: Is a person who watches One Tree Hill guarding themselves by indulging in a completely false reality (looking through a one way window) as opposed to a person who watches CNN who is watching interpreted images that represent a true reality, a still filtered reality (essentially a two way window)? Or are they both the trapped in the panopticon cell because light can only come through the TV as manipulated, filtered, images? Keenan argues that the interpreted image will always have more power than the uninterpreted image and this is where I disagree with Keenan, I believe the uninterpreted image is the key to reality and freedom, though definitions of "power" and "interpretation" come into discussion.

This is where Third Cinema and Ceddo come into play because Keenan's Media ascribes to the laws of First Cinema and Western aesthetics. When we watch the news we see professional, unnaturally good looking, unnaturally well spoken people (thats why its fun when they mess up their cues) with colorful banners and music, like its a movie in itself. Professionalism seems to detract from reality and this is what makes Third Cinema and Ceddo so incredibly powerful. Ceddo is full of unknown and not great actors, bad edits, in and out sound, slow subtitles, an at times incomprehensible plot, and cultural references to which I was certainly oblivious...and because of this I loved it. It was so cultural, so unorthodox, and so goofy that the message was emboldened. Its unprofessionalism  added a sense of rawness and reality to Ceddo for me. Again the image of war appears with the two nobles who attempt to kill the rebel Ceddo, they are images of war in a traditional (aesthetic?) sense with their traditional war attitudes, colors, and jewelry (Big Budgets?) including the mirror, which is slightly blingish though meant to blind the enemy...when put into practice all these aesthetic qualities are meaningless (First Cinema?), they are dominated by experience and a reality of the situation (Third Cinema?), although the end of the film promotes a return to tradition...

What is so revolutionary about the "True" unbiased Documentary is that it is designed to be a clear window to the outside your self prison of manipulated beliefs. Third Cinema is also designed to be a clear window, the director wants you to look out of yourself so that you may see the true cell which encloses you.

Third Cinema

One of the topics that I found most interesting about third cinema was the ways that it presents alternative histories. Philip Rosen comments on this as specifically related to Ceddo. Twice in the film, characters have visions of alternate realities. First, there is the imagined scene of the Catholic mass. Next, when Dior's kidnapper is killed she has a vision of offering water to him. Rosen says that these examples are "cinematically coded as subjective." The audience knows that these events do not actually occur in the narrative of the film. However, Rosen also notes the final scene, where Dior kills the imam, signifying the unity of the old nobility and the ceddo. This event actually happens in the world of the film, so it is different than the imagined scenes. However, Rosen shows that this is another alternate version of history, because this unity of the nobility and ceddo is not something that happened in Senegalese history. In terms of revolutionary cinema, this "objective" change of history is more useful, because it is presented as a real event. It also promotes active viewership, because the audience is forced to remove themselves from the world of the film in order to see this ending as an alternate history.

The notion of the audience being active in the watching of a film was also intriguing. Solanas and Getino note how different mainstream cinema is from third or revolutionary cinema in terms of the viewers. When watching a mainstream film, the viewer is ultimately passive. In contrast, Solanas and Getino state that the act of simply attending the screening of a revolutionary film makes one active, because the viewer is there with full knowledge that his attendance is not condoned by the system. Because of this the audience of a revolutionary film is a political community, and the film will be the beginning of debate and potentially other revolutionary actions. As viewers of mostly mainstream cinema, is it possible for us to become active viewers, or is the act of watching mainstream films inherently passive?

Is the public indifferent to reality or "reality"?

In reading Solanas and Getino’s “Towards a Third Cinema” and Keenan’s “Publicity and Indifference,” I was interested in the two articles’ differing accounts of the role an audience plays.

“Towards a Third Cinema” describes Hollywood cinema is making man a “passive and consuming object” (64). The way in which Keenan describes the public in his article somewhat implies a consuming entity; the way in which a camera “[waits] patiently for things to happen [at] particularly dangerous crossroads” (107) made me think of journalists as using elements of reality to create a product. Keenan admits that “the camera” effectively “[mutates]” what it normally “means for [an] event to occur” (107).

When I think of the broadcast news that Keenan describes as having a cinematic counterpart, documentary cinema is what first comes to mind. Solanas and Getino view documentary cinema as the “main basis of revolutionary filmmaking,” which is of course itself the antithesis of the consumerist world of Hollywood cinema. There is a blatant distinction between the depiction of real events which Solanas and Getino describe and that which Keenan describes.

Additionally, a certain quote from “Towards a Third Cinema” seemed to have much resonance in light of Keenan’s article.
“There is no knowledge of a reality as long as that reality is not acted upon, as long as its transformation is not begun on all fronts of struggle” (69). How does this quote affect Keenan’s arguments? If the news audience failed to act upon events in Sarajevo, does this mean they are interpreting the events as a not-quite reality? Is the audience’s response – or lack thereof – indicative of an understanding of their own consumerism, an understanding of the fact that things are happening in dangerous locations where cameras “coincidentally” and patiently lurk?

Third Cinema and Accessibility

"In our times it is hard to find a film within the field of commercial cinema, including what is known as 'author's cinema'-- in both the capitalist and socialist countries-- that manages to avoid the models of Hollywood pictures. The latter have such a fast hold that monumental works such as the U.S.S.R.'s Bondarchuk's War and Peace are also monumental examples of the submission to all the propositions imposed by the U.S. movie industry (structure, language, etc.) and, consequently, to its concepts."

This statement, and most of the other material we read about Third Cinema, suggests that cinema can only be truly revolutionary if it completely breaks away from the standard conventions of film-making. But whatever the content of the Third Cinema piece, this seems to me to be a dubious strategy for igniting the masses with revolutionary fervor. The sad truth is that the common person is so accustomed to the "Hollywood" film's method of communication, that a film composed in a completely unfamiliar way becomes quite inaccessible. I actually found Ceddo to be an extremely difficult film to watch. After it was over, I was able to think about the issues it raised and feel I took something away from the story that was told, but while I was watching it, every half minute felt like five. I seriously doubt I would have sat through it if I weren't studying it for a class. So, how do you get the everyman to watch a movie like that?

I guess my question is this: What would you lose if you allowed your political film to conform to the Hollywood model, as opposed to using an alternative, Third Cinema style of narration? Why is it important for some stories to be told specifically in this way (the Rosen article talked about how Ceddo's long takes and minimal editing mimicked African oral storytelling)? What is more important to a film seeking to effect actual change-- this Third Cinema integrity or accessibility to a wider range of people, who have probably already been conditioned by Hollywood to expect certain film conventions?

Effects of Third World Cinema

Third cinema rejects the ideas of Hollywood, and the idea of film solely as a means of profit. Third cinema came about as a way for the 'other' to speak, instead of having their story told as a narrative from an outsiders point of view. I wonder, though, who is truly able to give a completely objective portrayal of the insiders point of view.
Also, by rejecting the idea of cinema as a means of personal expression, does third cinema lose its ability to evoke the emotions necessary to stir up a change, or to sway the viewers opinion on anything-- and is emotional imagery necessary to do these things? I wonder if this idea of influencing the viewer is the most important aspect of Third Cinema, or if it is simply the true portrayal of the 'other'-- the portrayal of the past from the bottom, instead of as a narrative-- that is important.

I wonder if Gabriels is not simply creating yet another myth by his portrayal of the Ceddo. By telling their story, is he not putting up yet another frame around their story? What really constitutes a true insiders point of view, devoid of mythology?

Third Cinema as a Window of Vulnerability

I find the sense of vulnerability of "windows" resonant in the Third Cinema.

In the text "Windows: of Vulnerability," Keenan describes a house of a particular film as an object of vulnerability, imposed by the lighting, scenes, camera, etc. While Keenan's idea stems from the humanist window, it is certainly applicable on a much broader term, such as a form of signification - the Third Cinema itself.

Third Cinema is a different form of language, or a mode of production, that is created in the context of "struggle" of neocolonization. While it strives to serve a certain function - such as to bespeak the desire of national liberation -, to what extent is it a complete picture, a reliable source for understanding the situation? Consider that the Third Cinema's role parallels to that of "window" in a sense that it provides a view of interior to the outsider.  Then, (in Keenan's words,) "when a window 'gives a light [donner de la lumiere],' what happens? What is the force of the gift, and what arrives with this light?" (Keenan, 125)


Consider the following ideas on "windows":

"...what if the opening of the aperture that allows sight were to become uncontrollable, if the regulated light that makes seeing possible were to overexpose the interior? ... the opening risks the more violent opening of the distinction between inside and outside, private and public, self and other." (Keenan, 124) "the excess of windows both opens the house to surveillance from the exterior and allows interior scenes to be shot with all the brightness of the open sun."

"Human knowledge stems from the gaze, and the window perhaps even more than the mirror gives form to this tenacious ideologeme." (Keenan, 126)

How do we come to realize the ultimate reality, as opposed to the one introduced through Third Cinema that is in the end a kind of a filter or a representation? What ensues - when one "gives light or let the gaze pass through?" (Keenan, 127) According to Rosen, "the third a cultural code, the embodiment of a sociocultural function. ... connotes a public act, hence the performative, theatrical, proclamatory nature of speaking in Ceddo." (Rosen, 730) As said above, the window can hold a stronger signification - a product/ created image through a filter - to disseminate knowledge to the audience. However, how do we, as a spectator, perceive the message, when the depicted scenes are of "the performative, theatrical, proclamatory nature of speaking?"   I just attended a reception of an art exhibit titled "A Varried Terrain" in Providence.  In dealing with the role of human beings/ individuals situated in an ever changing environmental/ industrial community in the age of globalization, the show suggests to the audience that the community, when exposed to stimulation, faces the necessity of change.  What position do the subjects of the Third Cinema take, for example the community depicted in Ceddo? By being captured in the scenes, their struggles are shown but coincidentally they become an object of a representational image. Then what does the Third Cinema become, fulfilling its purpose but with issues that ensue subsequently? A window through which the inner world is shown, and yet because of such accessibility it takes a nature of vulnerability? 

Third Cinema today

All three articles this week talked about the definition of Third Cinema, and it's motivations and ideologies.  Some of these descriptions got me wondering about movies today, and if any could be classified as Third Cinema films--or, more accurately, as being Third Cinemaesque.  One movie that immediately jumped to mind as fulfilling many of the criteria for Third Cinema is Spike Lee's Do the Right Thing.  While it is an American film, and not from the third world or a postcolonial society, it was made by a member of an oppressed minority, and is very much about the struggles of African Americans, and more largely about racial tensions between groups in general.  There was even much speculation at the time that there would be riots in New York when it was released (even though there did not end up being any).  In addition to being made for a similar purpose as Third Cinema, it shares many other aspects that were talked about in the articles.  For example, it does not have a normal plot structure by any means--honestly, there is very little plot, with the only important action occurring in the last ten minutes or so of the movie.  In addition, while there is a main character--Mookie, played by Spike Lee himself--the story does not seem to revolve around him, but is much more focused on the idea of community.  It focuses largely on the different groups, and the tensions both between the groups, and within them.  It is not about Mookie's personal journey, it is about the journey of the community he lives in (which he happens to be a part of).

So then, can it be said that Do the Right Thing is an example of Third Cinema?  While technically it would not exactly be accurate (the concept of Third Cinema is tied with liberation movements and postcolonial struggle, and a specific period of time), would it be fair at least to say that it very much embodies the spirit of Third Cinema (i.e., the ideology and technique), if not it itself?

On a similar note, here's another question: what would embody Third Cinema better, a film such as Do the Right Thing, which borrows many of the devices of Third Cinema but takes place in a different (if similar) context, or a film that is made in the third world today and still speaks of postcolonial struggles--i.e., in a more literal sense is closer to Third Cinema--but does not emphasize many of themes that the articles attributed to Third Cinema (community, oral tradition, closeness with land, etc.)?

Windows: sight v. glare

Keenan posits in his "Windows: of vulnerability" that windows are either a means of sight, or a means of light, as he calls it, "glare". He states that

The more light, the less sight, and the less there is in the interior that allows 'man' to find comfort and protection, to find a ground from which to look. The light, while not exactly absent or available for representation, is not present either--it surprises and blinds the present, disrupts teh space of looking and opens an interior, opens it to a force over which it can exert little control (127).

What draws me towards Keenan's discussion of windows and public, is his dichotomization: he claims that looking is owning, but being shown something is to be owned. How can these be mutually exclusive, and how is there no interplay?

His later discussion of framing, and the media in "Publicity and Indifference" also seems to contradict this initial division. If "no image speaks for itself" (113), it follows that the viewer must take an active role in understanding and interpreting the image. At least part of the framing must be subjective. Ultimately, is it up to the audience to decide how much glare and how much image any window presents?

Some Problems?

I noticed a couple of potential contradictions in this week's reading/viewing.  

First of all, Rosen emphasizes how a major difference between Third Cinema and mainstream cinema is that while mainstream cinema tends to be individual and psychological, Third cinema is community and collective oriented.  This seemed to hold true throughout Ceddo, with dialogue being not just between characters but between groups.  At the end, however, when Dior shoots the imam, I really got the impression that she was acting out of her own agency.  While I understand that she was essentially uniting the nation (regardless of class divisions) against the muslim foreigners, she made this decision not by committee vote, but seemingly based on her own, personal, psychological choice.  I wonder what the significance of this is for the understanding of women in the film, as well as for individual agency in general.

On another note, the Keenan Sarejevo on Television article takes the position that perhaps the problem with televising horrors is that we (the public) wrongfully assume a connection between knowledge and a specific, fitting political action/response.  The more the public became exposed to images of Sarajevo, the more they assumed something MUST have been being done to help.  How can Third Cinema, which relies essentially on the same medium and techniques of exposing horrific, disturbing, emotional images avoid this pitfall?

News in Your Television

"Giles Rabine, reporting live for France 2 from Sarajevo just after the fall of Srebrenica, on 13 July 1995 commented simply that, after thirty nine months of televised siege, "the Sarajevans have had enough of being interviewed, being filmed, being photographed; they've had enough of us watching them die, live, without trying to do anything to save them. And who's to say they're wrong?" pg 110 Publicity and Indifference (Sarajevo on Television).

This particular paragraph made me stop in my tracks, grab a pen, and write "Wow!!" right next to it.

Just hours before reading "Publicity and Indifference" in my first year seminar, we were discussing the disappearence of over 50 Americans in Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, a border town. Not many people are aware of the on going drug war in Nuevo Laredo, let alone the many Americans who continue to be missing. After a long discussion through the eyes of my La Frontera/The Border class, these Americans of Mexican decent were concluded to be seen by the American society and by television networks as not "American enough" to make headline or any type of news in American television.

Of course, that is coming from 20 students who have been studying segregation in the border, and can possibly not think without these facts popping into their heads. Now what if we take the same situation and look at it through the eyes of Screen and Projections? Why isn't this horrible situation making news?

Keenan mentions the cliche that things don't happen unless a camera is there. The images reporters gather around the world "shame governments into action, armies will undertake humanitarian rescue missions for the publicity value alone, and publicity can bring the mission to an end." (108) So I'm left wondering if the underexposure of this situation, makes the situation unexistent to the public?

We could search the web for news instead of our televisions, but how would we know if that information is even real? If it's not regulated by some network, then it's most likely inaccurate in one way or another (not that it wasn't before). Our only hope is Third Cinema. Some neglected film maker must make a movie for us to be exposed and become aware of what is truly happening among us. But then in order to make a movie, won't this have to be regulated?

Perhaps the film maker can remain true to the cause, get the message across, and start some sort of revolution, but if his movie becomes too Hollywood-ized then we can have hope that the situation won't ever reach our televisions and that we will never have to feel guilty about something we don't know is going on.

Ceddo, "Third Cinema," and Keenan

For the week of September 22nd, we’ll be discussing Ceddo, the articles on “third cinema,” and Keenan. For the articles on “third cinema,” in particular, you should try to relate the readings to scenes or sequences that you found relevant in Ceddo. That is also true for the Rosen essay, which is a great place to start for any analysis of the film. Finally, think of what Keenan’s observations about the nature of TV images might mean for the kind of revolutionary action that “third cinema” advocates. How does Keenan’s theory complicate the relationship between revolutionary ideology and revolutionary film and video aesthetics?