Foucault’s “What is an Author:” A Retrospective

I thought it would be interesting to revisit the notion of author discussed at the beginning of the semester in retrospect to Godard’s later work. In light of Godard’s Histoire(s) du Cinema screened in class, I was curious to make a few parallels between Foucault’s “What is an Author?” and the issue of history, ownership and citation given Godard’s referencing to other films in this work, especially in Historie(s). This is not a claim to right an argument for or against the notion of  “author,” but merely to pose a few rhetorical thoughts on the intention of authorship, and history. Foucault brings attention to the historical relevance of ownership to text arguing that discourse was not always just a thing, but an act of decent in some cases (108). However, the most interesting claims are his explanations of the “author function.” Foucault writes, “the author function is therefore a characteristic of the mode of existence, circulation and functioning of certain discourses within a society” (108). In short Foucault goes on to describe the issues that pertain to the author function; however his fourth characteristic of the author function seems to be an intriguing parallel to thinking about Histoire(s) du Cinema and Godard. Foucault states the fourth characteristic as follows: “it [the author function] does not refer purely and simply to a real individual, since it can give rise simultaneously to several selves, to several subjects—positions that can be occupied by different classes of individuals” (113). This characteristic describes the complexity of authorship and influence of a given work. Foucault has mentioned earlier of the plural nature an individual because when one hears the name, one also relates the name to multiple references.  In regards to the plurality of the self or “several selves” it is interesting to think about influence being a part of authorship. For Foucault there is a distinction between ownership and authorship. While ownership suggests an inherent right to the work, authorship suggests a beginning or a process set in motion. With this quotation in mind, it is curious the role of ownership/authorship in regards to Historie(s). 

Godard composes a film that is entirely composed of references to other films, but simultaneously Godard put the project into motion. It is not just films that are referenced; it is individuals, media and art. Here, the question of ownership of these referenced texts are sometimes obscure, but other times familiar. The question is: Is it important for Godard to claim ownership or authorship to the film? Leading up to Historie(s), especially in his earlier films, he has laid claim to authorship in his work. However, this claim does not mean for Godard a method set completely in stone. Historie(s) is an interesting example because is lies in the somewhere in the in-between. One could trace the extensive references in the film; however, that only seems to be one component of the larger whole. Godard seems to be one step ahead of critics because it takes time before one finally catches up to his work, and as one does Godard has moved on to something else. That said, one final parallel to Foucault and Godard that needs mentioning is a line in the concluding paragraphs of the essay, Foucault writes,

“…as our society changes, at the very moment when it is in the process of changing, the author function will disappear, and in such a manner that fiction and its polysemous texts will once again function according to another mode, but still with a system of constraint—one which will no longer be the author, but which will have to be determine or, perhaps, experienced” (119).

It seems as though Foucault is speculating a time when the term author is no longer used to describe a work, but examined by, what he calls “the modes of existence” (120). It is interesting to draw attention to how history is portrayed in Histoire(s) du Cinema because it is everything, but simple. The title is a double if not triple meaning, but the content too has multiple meanings because each individual experiences the references a number of ways due to their own personal histories. It means something different for Godard as well. Histoire(s) becomes this working example of a work that could be examined using “the modes of existence.” One possible meaning or application of existence to the film could be the way the references function in the terms of personal memory to the viewer or someone writing about the film. However, this would be only one of many possible modes. The film is unique to those who experience it, an experience that goes beyond the individual who set it in motion, but more importantly how it exists. 

jml

New Psychology New Cinema

For this post I was rethinking the discussion last week about Godard, Delueze and the issue of cinema in relation to Eisenstein. This got me thinking about going back to Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s chapter “The Film and the New Psychology.” Merleau-Ponty discusses the issue with modern psychology in regards to film. He calls for a new methodology for thinking about man’s place in the world. Merleau-Ponty writes, “The new psychology has…revealed man to us not as an understanding which constructs the world but as a being thrown into the world and attached to it by a natural bond” (53). Although his emphasizes on a new way of thinking about man, the world and his place in it, Merleau-Ponty is really concerned with an essence that predicates intelligence. Now, intelligence for Merleau-Ponty is linked closely with perception. His claim for something that predates or something that is more deeply rooted than perception seems to be that of presence—that which creates a biological bond between man and the world. This is quite a heavy topic in and of itself; however, what Merleau-Ponty is getting at is the notion of a new way of viewing the world that is interdisciplinary, combining psychology, philosophy and a technological advancement, cinema. He writes that psychology, philosophy and filmmaking share an essential link to the world. This link seems to lie in the realm of consciousness, but also the inseparable connection between the body and the mind. Merleau-Ponty’s last line writes,

“if philosophy is in harmony with cinema, if thought and technical effort are heading in the same direction, it is because the philosopher and the moviemaker share a certain way of being, a certain view of the world which belongs to a generation. It offers us yet another chance to confirm that modes of thought correspond to technical methods and that, to use Goethe’s phrase, ‘What is inside is also outside’” (59).    

The correspondence Merleau-Ponty writes about between philosophy and cinema becomes an interesting predicate to thinking about Godard and Delueze. He creates this connection between the possibilities of cinema to create a different way of, as he states, “…presenting consciousness thrown into the world…” (58).  The chapter begins with critiquing the methods of psychology and image, but ends up optimistic about the parallels between philosophy and cinema. However, he also recognizes the adolescence of this pairing, tying these disciplines to a unique generation of individuals who will develop with this ability to capture through the cinema what philosophers have been doing through written language. For Merleau-Ponty, the technology of cinema has enabled this new manner in thinking—a new manner to portray the unity of consciousness of body and mind. 

jml

  

A thought on style

After having watched Tout va bien (1972), I believe we all could not help but notice the “dollhouse” effect at the beginning of the film. This dolly shot right across the stage of the factory reminded me, as was briefly mentioned in class, of a Wes Anderson film. In The Life Aquatic, Anderson uses a similar, but tightly framed dollhouse effect as a stylistic technique. This prompted me to rhetorically ask the following question: what is the difference between a political film resulting in a particular style, verses personal style for style sake? One could argue that style for style sake is some higher concept of post-modernism at work, but that does not sit right with the relationship to Godard’s work.  Quotation and citation in a Godard work seem more than just empty references. In Tout va bien there is this consciousness about what is a film. At the beginning there is this uneven ground between the narrative lead-in to a film and contemplation of what a film consists of and what a film needs to be in order to become a film. Self-reflexivity only briefly describes the workings of the film, because Godard is accessing all the medium’s formal components, not with the intention of creating an aesthetically pleasing style, but the intention of creating a specific image, a specific political gesture. There is this multiplicity in a Godard film. Underneath the structure of the film, there is also an underlying struggle in distinguishing life from film, film from art, and art from life. Part of this is Godard’s pursuit and commentary on his own work, but another part is the philosophical struggle of a work of art itself. Then there is another contemplation of the politics, labor and modern French society.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnx7mxjm1k0&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL8

The result of this dollhouse effect in Tout va bien is less about style, but what this effect does for the film. Film is normally perceived as limited to linear motion like a time line moving in forward motion from the beginning to the end of the narrative. Here, Godard uses the dollhouse effect as a temporal vision of spatial depth. The audience has the privilege of witnessing events simultaneously in real time, like one would in everyday activities. Events do not occur one right after the other, events happen simultaneously all at once. The dollhouse effect is an expression of time as what Eisenstein would consider, a form of spatial depth or temporal depth.[1] This notion of spatial depth is an extension of Eisenstein’s argument of superimposition to two conflicting images.[2] Instead of conflicting images, Godard creates a shot of congruent images distinguished by the frame of each individual room. Each room is uniquely different than the other, and each event taking place is uniquely different; however, the participants are only aware of the room they inhabit, and unaware of the happenings in other spaces. The factory becomes a vision of time as it exists, but only through an abstract representation like the dollhouse effect could this take place. For the purpose of this film, pursuit seems to trump style and rather style is a result of pursuit. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IENwEk7BJ7A

In the Anderson film, it is more about homage to Godard’s work or simply the focus on aesthetics. The Brechtian influence is part of Godard’s film, and not so much as Anderson’s. I guess there is a struggle between what is homage, quotation, citation, style and aesthetic. What makes these methods powerful and what makes this just style for style sake? There is seems to be a contributive factor distinguishing these terms and that is usage. It is not enough to use homage without an engaging in the usage in a critical manner. The effect is similar to having a dangling quotation without a reference and without any knowledge from where it came without critically engaging with the material. In Tout va bien the audience never gives into the narrative, for that matter the style does not work to engage, but works to disengage the viewer from the film. However, this description only describes a fleeting moment; the self-reflexivity of the film only lasts for a moment, while Godard actively switches to something new, something we haven’t seen before. It is an experiment in progress that the audience bears witness, rather that a style we are expected to admire or take pride in recognizing.  

1 Eisenstein, Sergei. “A Dialectic Approach to Film Form” Film Form: Essays in Film Theory

Ed.Trans. Jay Leyda. San Diego HBJ Book. 1949. PDF File. Pg 4

² Eisenstein, 6

jml

Cinema, Life, and Stream of Consciousness

Early on in Douglas Morrey’s book Jean-Luc Godard, he mentions Godard’s fascination and some might say obsession with life as it pertains to cinema. This comes toward the end of Morrey’s discussion of Pierrot le Fou (1965) on page 25 of Scenes from a Domestic Life: 1960-1965. Morrey acknowledges this impasse between life and cinema as a paradox, he writes,

The paradox is, if anything, all the stranger in cinema which composes with real bodies, real objects and real light: the film image is that obscure point of convergence where fantasy becomes reality and reality fantasy, where the unconscious desire of both filmmakers and spectators achieve a fleshy incarnation just as the recorded reality recedes behind a fictional representation (25).

I think this citation, one could argue, is at the core of Godard’s efforts. Certainly this does not sum up the entire intricacies of his body of work; however, there is something about the notion of the stream of consciousness that is evident in a Godard film. In several cases, Godard mentions writer William Faulkner, who is well known for his stream of consciousness style, as well as the attention he gave to the use of language. In fact, Faulkner died in the early 60’s and because of Godard’s attention to Faulkner in his films would have been well aware and conscious of his death. Morrey briefly describes Godard’s stream of consciousness writing style that he wrote regarding Pierrot le Fou for Cahiers du Cinema (25). One cannot say exactly how Faulkner’s style influenced Godard, but the relationship is interesting. Morrey acknowledges the relationship between life, cinema, and Godard’s efforts to tackle this impasse in his work. Godard, like Faulkner, found a working methodology in the stream of consciousness. When Godard name-drops Faulkner he does so through this shared methodology. The difference is the medium in which the work is produced. Godard extends upon what Faulkner strived to do in his writing—create a text that is both life and work. Stream of consciousness is no longer language printed to paper, but in the cinema, the stream of consciousness engages with multiple sensory experiences in the form of sound, image, text, and language. Godard was inspired by Faulkner’s efforts to revolutionize the way we think of narrative structure. Cinema allows this paradox, as Morrey says, of real images, and real bodies to become both reality and fantasy.  

jml