In reading Cinema/Ideology/Criticism by Jean-Luc Comolli and Jean Narboni I found myself trying to classify popular films I knew by the template of different types of film they described based on both their execution and the way they interact with the status quo or the hegemonic principles that all films are subject to. Does Fight Club, for example, belong in the (a) category because in some ways it embraces the dominant ideology though its discourse if political or would it fall into the (e) category because it uses the medium of film to try to dismantle the system from within? I suppose the distinction between the two lies in how effectively the film accomplishes its goal, or at least that was my understanding. I am not familiar with many of the French titles Comolli and Narboni list as examples so I did my best to think critically about some of the more well known films I have seen and categorize them.
Comolli and Narboni say "We would stress that only action on both fronts, 'signified' and 'signifiers' has any hope of operating against the prevailing ideology. Economic/political and formal action have to be indissolubly wedded" (816).
This was a particularly interesting paragraph to me. I do need to brush up on my Saussure, but my understanding of this is that in order for a film to actually go against the prevailing ideology (in my mind, that means hegemony) it has to "deal with" the political subject, this being the concept itself (the 'signified'). It also has to accomplish this through sound image, (the 'signifier'). I'm wondering if in film the sound image would be all the mechanics of editing, cinematography, narration and so forth that become the basis on which the concepts are attempted to be conveyed. This is the best way I can think to link the concept of 'signifier' and film, but I could be wrong and would be curious to discuss further if others have different concepts linking these two.
This becomes an issue with what they call "live cinema" because one assumes that by altering the 'signifier' or the mechanics of the film, one is being subversive. This negates, according to Comolli and Narboni, the need to address the hegemonic political concepts (the signified) directly. It linked back well to the beginning of the article as these seemed to be examples of films that attempt to exist outside of or "parallel" to the hegemony and established systems.
Hello Erika,
ReplyDeleteThis was an interesting article to read. When I was reading the Comolli and Narboni article, I too found myself trying to classify films I had seen in the categories they had organized, even though I did not fully understand them myself, because I was not familiar with any of the examples that they had listed. I feel like this is something we should discuss further in class so that each of can understand what these categories are and how me may classify the films we know best; especially American films which in my experience are very political in most cases.
I agree with you and Shaelene! I would love to brainstorm some more modern examples with the class.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I am unfamiliar with the work of Saussure so your paper helped to clarify some points for me with the idea of the 'signifier' and the 'signified'. Thank you for that. This is something I'd like to cover in class too.
Excellent work here, Erika. And yes Comilli and Narboni exactly want you to begin thinking about the films you know in terms of their categories. We absolutely want to practice doing this and understand the difference between the types they enumerate. We will also want to keep in mind that the "goal" of the film may not correspond to its political position.
ReplyDeleteYou include a great quote form the essay. How to consider and relate the economic, political, and formal qualities of a film is the necessary task of film analysis.
We will also want to distinguish between ideology and hegemony. You are right to identify sound image as the constructive qualities of film production that we have been addressing with the yale study guide. They want us to ask how are ideas and concepts created, challenged, affirmed through this production process.
However one is not off the hook with "live cinema." In that case, we have to contend with that paragraph on page 815 that identifies that "reality is nothing more than the prevailing ideology." What is their conception of "reality"?