Knowing Death

I'm a bit tired, so I'll keep it short and sweet. I came into this movie knowing it was about Tim Treadwell's death, and that seeing the opening where he gets dangerously close to the bears set me at unease, and made me realize that that man, whom the camera is pointed at, is dead. Although most people who probably came to see the movie knew the premise of the movie, the background information, coming in, Herzog put in a little subtitle of "Timothy Treadwell (1957-2003)" as a signifier to label him as a dead man. In a way I feel this is how Herzog tries to manufacture punctum, but that's not what I'm really going to talk about. See, there's Herzog's footage that he films and Treadwell's footage, and the two sources are sometimes not easily discernable from each other. The whole confusion that I felt between the switching of the two cameras seemed to link Tim's death with a reminder of Herzog's own mortality. The camera became a pointer of death, that in the hands of "Tim" (or rather Amy) the camera is both bringing the dead back to life and a constant threat to that life on film, that at any moment for all we know that man on film may be attacked, and we will witness his death.

Objects of "Mummy Complex" in Film

I find Bazin's comparison of aesthetics of painting and film quite intriguing (and a bit bothersome, from a painter's point of view.. ) I find it a bit problematic - his simplification of painting as a medium in pursuit of "realism" mainly... Yes, the question has become "the creation of an ideal world in the likeness of the real, with its own temporal destiny," and that painting is permanently tied with "inescapable subjectivity." (Bazin, 12) But what about the essence of the medium, the "presence" that is "the prerequisite to the concept of authenticity," as Benjamin argues? (Benjamin, 220) That authenticity that fades in the products of mechanical reproduction, the decay of aura, but of works of art? 

Bazin argues that at the origin of painting and sculpture lies a "mummy complex" - the psychological need in man that is the view of survival as "depending on the continued existence of the corporeal body."  Yes, originality in photography lies in the "essentially objective character" and thus is separated from the realm of painting in its different quality. However, consider the films La Jetée and Grizzly Man. A considerable number of scenes of both films captures objects that are mummified - the museum of "ageless animals" in La Jetée in which the couple is situated, becoming immersed in the world of the museum, the collection of past lives and memories - the scene that screams punctum of the mummified animals. (How do we view this merge of life (human) and the life ceased and yet captured in the frame of appearance/ resemblance to the life in existence of one point?) Also consider the scene in Grizzly Man in which a man is being interviewed in a room of mummified human adventurer and of a bear with his paw cut off - covered with a bandage.) The quality of "mummy complex" of painting is revived through the actual presentation of the mummified objects - thus a significant, defining nature of painting is examined rather unmistakably and evidently in film. Curious.

I am interested in comparing further the aesthetics and qualities of painting and film - and at which points they overlap... how Benjamin's idea of "decay of aura of mechanical reproduction" stands in relation to the appreciative speech of Bazin and Barthes of photography (and film.) One idea that I am strongly opposed to is to devalue a medium of art to another in order to set a hierarchy within the arts... "Painting is, after all, an inferior way of making likenesses, an ersatz of the processes of reproduction. Only a photographic lens... satisfy the deep need man has to substitute for it something more than a mere approximation, a kind of decal or transfer." (Bazin, 14)  I would like to consider the vast evolution of painting, not solely its period of rampant realism... What about other aspects of human judgment/ view/ interests? Is it only the psychological or aesthetic needs that one longs for, that are needed to define real - true - ? What about the sentimental, emotional, sensational, sensual values, the ones that are not necessarily evoked by realism but perhaps by purely abstract/ expressionist representation? 

...relating this thought to the projected theme of the moment: real - true - time..?

Moms, Bears, and Planes...oh my...

I found it interesting how in the beginning of Lucinda, Barthes describes his torturous shifts between genuine and pose and how lifelike we try to be we are still posing, muted and we become dead in this respect "to make oneself up was to designate oneself body as simultaneously living and dead"(31). The camera seems to always elicit ingenuity accept in the case of the surprise shot. This directly coincided with Mr. Treadwell's constant shift between persona and the genuine and in a very morbid analogy his obsession with not assuming but becoming the pose (and becoming a bear) lead to his very literal death.

Barthes states that punctum in the photograph is not coded, this seems to provide evidence of reality. Incapacity to name is a good symptom of disturbance. This is what I feel gave La Jete its very powerful visual performance. As a film composed of photographs it re-demonstrated to me the power of the photo, a medium I rarely have the patience for. The effort and care put into the composition and organization and pacing of the photos evoked a number of inexplicable feelings and emotions that in film i very rarely have time to process, to add. Using punctum as a measure of reality, does Jete exemplify a film which achieves authenticity?

I feel that punctum is rare in cinema but can be detected. For instance in Grizzly Man, one thing that really smacked in the face/disturbed me/sought out and destroyed me were the behavior of the foxes. This absolutely did not coincide with my understanding of nature, as the bears so predictably did, and made the movie authentic to me amongst an awkward director, cruel ironic edits used to foreshadow, and sentimental reenactments which are used to establish a history. If the fox behavior was in fact a punctum, this punctum would be exclusive to film in that a single photograph cannot properly reveal the in depth wild dog/treadwell relationship as movement and sound do.

Where I disagree with Barthes is his Winter Garden Photograph amongst digressions of his mother. This photo to him was just an image, but a just image that truthfully captured the essence of his mother, it was the photographic epitome of truth to Barthes. But in this scenario the truth is entirely specific to him and him alone, which he alludes to kind of, but I believe that it is impossible for a photograph's meaning and interpretation to be real because this truth it depends on varies to much, there is no constant.

Touching on the questions from the lecture, I believe that a raw photograph cannot lie about the objects in the frame under the laws of science. But the meaning and interpretation has no real base as soon as language, an unreal entity, is applied to it, if that makes any sense. Along the lines of the dead, death is an undeniable reality, it is a truth which is linked strongly with history, the photo seems to incorporate both of these...

Grizzly Man

Barthes idea of the punctum and the ideas of truth and reality are complicated in many ways in Grizzly Man. I agree with Ben that the version of himself that Tim Treadwell presents is not exactly truth. He does multiple takes a umber of times, comments on the different takes, and even suggests that his footage be used in a television series. He is clearly playing to the camera, as opposed to the camera being an unseen viewer to Tim's actions. He also presents himself as being alone the whole time, even though Werner Herzog reveals that for a few of his trips Amy was with him. The audience is distinctly aware of the camera because Treadwell speaks directly to it and at one point mentions that both cameras are rolling. We cannot be sure if the person we are watching on the footage is the real Tim Treadwell or the persona he has created for himself. The documentary tells us that Treadwell used to create alternate personas for himself before his trips into the wildnerness, and that his original name was not Treadwell. Besides his obvious love for bears, we can't be positive that what Treadwell tells us about himself is true.

In Camera Lucida, Barthes speaks of the punctum of being different for every person, and being unintentional on the part of the photographer. In Grizzly Man, Herzog narrates how some of Treadwell's shots show unintentional shots of extreme beauty. While these shots may not have been intended as beautiful by Treadwell, does this make them punctum only for Herzog or for the audience as well. It seems that by pointing out the punctum, Herzog destroys it for us by accepting what he sees as punctum and not being able to find it for ourselves. When Herzog tells us of the beauty in the shots, our attention is drawn to them, and we are specifically looking for a punctum. Barthes suggests that the punctum cannot be find by looking for it but that it seeks out the viewer. Is it possible for the punctum to seek out the viewer if the viewer is already looking for it?

Punctum in terms of mythologies

I am curious about how studium and punctum are related to mythologies, and whether or not they can each be used to manipulate an audience to think a certain way. It seems to me that any photograph will inevitably produce some sort of mythology, because its image has been taken out of context. I am confused as to the way in which a photographer can avoid the framing of a photograph.

Also, the punctum is meant to evoke a feeling of sensitivity or humanity in the observer. It goes beyond the symbolic, and resonates within an audience. Isn't this punctum necessary to successfuly sway an observer to believe a mythology? I understand that 'staged punctums' are not real punctums, simply because they are not natural. But can a someone use a punctum, taken out of context, to manipulate an audience?

I had one small problem with Barthes's concept of the “punctum” vs. the “studium.” Barthes description of it states that while one is able to engage with the photograph and the myth of the photograph—the statement that the photographer is trying to make with it. The punctum, on the other hand, is described as something that is unintentionally eye-catching.

In the example we looked at in lecture, the studium had to do with the social context of the image of the two Italian girls, and the punctum was the crooked front teeth of one of the girls. My problem is that Barthes seems to imply that the punctum is something that the author never chose to present in his photograph, something that is not part of the message he is trying to convey within his myth.

But, having some experience with photography, I find that things like that punctum are exactly what catches the photographer’s eye. Little visual quirks of composition are what make photographs unique and interesting, and it’s safe to assume that the photographer is aware of them, is probably even intending that your eye be drawn to them.

I know that Barthes says that the punctum is the result of the viewer’s engagement with the photograph, and that perhaps different people see different punctums. But if obvious visual quirks are incorporated into the composition of the image, it is likely that the photographer intended to capture them and intended for them to be noticed. How then can they really be separated from the studium, and the myth of the photograph, if you’re finding yourself visually attracted to something that the photographer intended you to be visually attracted to?

Oh man! I forgot to talk about Grizzly Man.

I forgot to talk about Grizzly Man. So I'll do that now.

When we see Timothy Treadwell cultivate this persona of a lone - but kind, lest we forget, warrior in front of his camera, I felt forced to question Bazin's ideas to an even greater extent. It seems that the camera becomes Treadwell's metaphorical paintbrush or chisel with which to create an artifical eternity that Bazin perceives to be the purpose of "plastic art."

I have an issue with what is illustrated as the mutually exclusive roles of "plastic art" and photography/cinema. To me, "plastic art" can seek to depict reality, and in turn, photography and cinema can seek to document and give life to a constructed reality. Bazin almost writes of photography with a language of machinery and technical aspects; he writes of the camera but not the human mind behind it.

While reading the Bazin, I thought of an episode of America's Next Top Model. Though my memory is escaping me, I remember that the models were made to resemble vampires, professional make-up artists devoting hours and hours to teasing hair and applying thick black eye shadow to transform these real people into characters. That which was depicted in these photographs were real people, yes, but real people portraying characters like those in a painting. Bazin does not account for photography's potential to be an art in and of itself.

Bazin and the Immortality of Photography

First of all, I was really interested in the link between the language of Bazin and that of Benjamin. Bazin writes that "in achieving the aims of baroque art, [the invention of] photography has freed the plastic arts from their obsession with likeness." For Bazin, prior to the onset of mass reproduction in the form of photography, art had a duty of replication, of manifesting reality. Benjamin also speaks of mass reproduction as freeing art of its previous obligations. Benjamin discussed how mass reproduction, in reducing the aura and cult value, emancipated art from its ties to ritual and tradition. It is interesting to me how both of these descriptions depict mass reproduction as freeing art of obligations it acquired in the absence of other media, and how through the development of these media, the so-called "plastic arts" were able to return to their essential purposes. For Bazin, photography enables plastic arts to regain their aesthetic autonomy...however, why can't painting and sculptury have the autonomy to create reality? The first counterexample that comes to mind, though this is by no means a perfect counterexample, is Michelangelo's "David." The two occasions on which I have been lucky enough to see the statue, I am in awe of how realistic the muscles and contours look; it seems to me there is merit to human hands replicating the work of a machine, the camera being a machine. Granted, Michelangelo carved David long before the age of mass reproduction, but the fact that we are still in awe despite the prevalence of photographs says something, to me.

I had a few issues with the role of time in Bazin's observations. He writes that "photography does not create eternity, as art does, it embalms time, rescuing it simply from its propery corruption." Though I am not entirely sure of what he is saying, I understood the distinction as photography embalming a real moment in time whereas art creates an artificial immortality, "create" being a key word in this distinction. But for me there is a problem with this formulation. Yes, the moment itself that a camera renders permanent is "embalemed," but this moment merely becomes the subject, or in Barthes-speak, the studium?, of a photography which is itself immortal. Do photographs, as artifacts, not have the same immortality of paintings and sculptures?

Death as Punctum

"I now now that there exists another punctum (another "stigmatum") than the "detail." This new punctum, which is no longer of the form but of intensity, is Time, the lacerating emphasis of the noeme ("that-has-been"), its pure representation." (96)

Barthes deduction of time as a second punctum somewhat confuses me. First, it implies greater universality than his earlier definition of punctum, which is completely subjective. Can anyone help but perceive time in a photograph? Can one just accept the pose in the aorist tense without trying to contextualize it?

To me, this comes as part of Barthes madness for photographs. Spending too much time with them, he can't help but fill in the missing spaces left, write in the stories, the cinemas of each picture.

Staged reality in Grizzly Man

Grizzly Man presents a very complicated view of reality.  Unlike many of the films we've watched, Mulvey's first two looks are not subordinated to the third--in this film, we are incredibly aware of the camera.  In fact, the camera is almost a character in the film--Tim talks to it, many times as if he were talking to a therapist almost, describing his innermost worries and fears, and at other times we see him wielding a separate camera than the one that is filming him.  This in addition to the fact that his work is documentary, and not fiction, would suggest that the film presents a more authentic reality than most films do.  

However, this idea is very strongly undermined in many ways by the movie.  For example, in many of the shots, we not only see the part Tim intended to film, but also the parts that would almost definitely be cut were he to have edited them--e.g., him setting up the camera, him offering commentary on his own remarks, him saying things after he's done shooting a scene, etc.  These scenes reveal the fact that the "reality" he sought to present with the camera is not an unfiltered one, but rather a highly thought out one that he himself created. Even though he is shooting scenes of nature, and of reality, at the end of the day he will still choose specific scenes and cut others.  Thus, the view he gives is not that of reality, but reality filtered through him, and through what he believes to be significant and important.  

In addition to his portrayal of reality, Tim's portrayal of himself in his videos is also extremely important.  He very much created a persona for himself, many aspects of which were completely false--e.g., his accent, his loner status (as Amy was there, a fact he hid in almost all of his footage).

In addition, just as Treadwell's hand is clearly shown in his portrayal of reality, so too is Herzog's touch very clearly shown in this film.  In multitude ways he appears in the movie, both with his extensive voice overs, and even appearing in the scene himself when talking to Treadwell's ex and listening to the tape of his and Amy's deaths.  His voice overs are also rather heavy handed at times, such as when he said that he did not see nature as being harmonious and gentle, but rather being full of chaos and violence and murder.  In these cases, Herzog is very clearly projecting his own interpretation onto the images he is presenting.

The troubled state of reality in this fill is even further complicated by the fact that in many of his documentaries, Werner Herzog actually introduces fictional aspects.  For example, in his ducomentary Little Dieter Needs to Fly (which I have not actually seen, but I did see Rescue Dawn, Herzog's fictional account of the same story), at one point Dieter tells the story of a dream involving flight that he had had.  However, he never had that dream, and it was Herzog who wrote that part and told him to read it.  Herzog felt that the dream perfectly represented the "truth" of the situation, and accurately revealed a part of Dieter, so it did not matter to him that it had actually not occured.  Thus, the actual reality of the situation is abandoned in favor of a fabricated hyper-reality of sorts.  Now, I don't know if Herzog had any such scripted moments in Grizzly Man for sure, but there are several scenes that I highly suspect might be. For example, when Treadwell's ex received the watch of his from the coroner (or whatever he was).  Why would she not have gotten the watch back before?  How did Herzog happen to be present when she got it back?  Obviously, these questions do have plausible answers, and it's very possible this scene was genuine--but, it's also fairly likely that it is not.  Another such scene was at the end, when the camera watched the airplane pilot as he flew off.  He was singing, mirroring the song that played in the background throughout the last sequence.  The fact that this singing matched the song (which provided an extremely apt soundtrack for the last scene) seems a highly fortunate coincidence--in addition to the fact that he ended his singing with "and Treadwell is gone."  There is something about that scene that struck me as being too perfect, too fitting of an end--and, with Herzog, even when he is shooting a documentary, if something seems too perfect, too real and true, there is a fair probability that it is (i.e., that he made it up).

Photographs

"When we define the Photograph as a motionless image, this does not mean only that the figures it represents do not move; it means that they do not emerge, do not leave: they are anesthetized and fastened down, like butterflies. Yet once there is a punctum, a blind field is created (is divined)..." p. 57

La Jetee was an extremely interesting film. Since you cannot see the story unfold before your eyes, you are are left with your own interpretation. When we read Mythologies, I didnt quite understand how it was possible for the creator of the image to have control of the emotions the photograph invoked. It seemed like a game in which the meaning had to find the myth, and the reader is the only one who defines this myth. To me in a film, it appears that the creator has several opportunities to create this myth. Not only do you get to see emotions and stories unfold, but the dialog places the desired idea into your head.

Now I feel like photographs only have one chance. In La Jetee, each frame had to deliver a message. The angles and lighting were choosen in hopes that the myth would be invoked. However, the reader finds a punctum. Something in the image that seeks the reader. That catches his attention and helps him interpret what is happening. It is not what the photographer is trying to invoke, and it varies from person to person. Sometimes it can invoke the emotions the photographer wished for or the complete opposite.

I don't know exactly how to explain this. However, The Grizzly Man seems to do what a photograph cannot. Film cannot posses this punctum. There are many scenes in which Tim seems to be acting out a scene in a play, finishes, and corrects himself. This shows that although the scene is supposed to be unedited, the scene is actually planned out. You probably could have believed Tim's argument if the scene had finished a few seconds earlier. Now a photograph cannot do this. It has one chance and hopefully it will work.

Blowup

I love that Barthes references Antonioni's 1966 Blowup on page 85 when he is exploring the boundaries of photographs as a kind of proof or evidence of reality, and what the implications of those boundaries are.  He talks about a situation that arises when he receives a photograph of himself that he does not remember being taken.  "And yet, because it was a photograph I could not deny that I had been there (even if I did not know where).  This distortion between certainty and oblivion gave me a kind of vertigo, something of a "detective" anguish (the theme of Blow-Up was not far off); I went to the photographer's show as to a police investigation, to lear at last what I no longer knew about myself."  

If you haven't seen Blowup, the idea put way too simply is that a photographer thinks he has unwittingly witnessed and taken photographs of a murder in the park, but he is not sure if it really happened or not.  Because he sees a vague image of a body as he is developing his film, he becomes obsessed with determining whether it is really there and blows up the image larger and larger but it becomes decreasingly clear each time.  The film never really resolves whether the murder actually happened, but it does raise the question: is photography surreal, or more true than our own knowledge/memory?  I think that is part of what Bazin is talking about too.

To connect Blowup with Barthes more overtly, it seems that the studium of the photograph is the couple frolicking in the park (what the photographer was intentionally shooting), while the punctum is the murder.  It is a small detail captured accidentally that pricks you.  I think it is interesting too that the specific punctum itself is a violent scene in Blowup, considering that Barthes uses violent language like "prick" and "wound" to describe the concept in Camera Lucida.