Shaelene Moler
Prof. Richard Simpson
History and Theory of Documentary film
October 14, 2020
Reminiscent of Comolli and Narboni
As with nearly every film and reading in this course, to me, a lot of this week’s study content seems to be reminiscent of the teachings of Comolli and Narboni’s Cinema/ Ideology/ Criticism. As we can remember from this reading, Comolli and Narboni’s primary argument was that every film is political, regardless of their contents. Having read this week’s Bill Nichol’s reading Documentary Film and the Modernist Avant-Garde, and watched Drifters, Night Mail, and The Quiet One, we not only see clear supporting arguments, but also examples of this political film argument.
Starting with the Nichols reading, this reading has a strong emphasis on not only the political nature of documentary film, but also documentary films historical involvement in politics. One of the quotes that best represent this comes from Nichols’s argument on the nature of documentary film from page 582 which states “For advocates like Grierson, the value of cinema lay in its capacity to document, demonstrate, or, at most, enact the proper, or improper, terms of individual citizenship” (Nichols 582). To me, this single quote is entirely reminiscent of the quote from the Comolli and Narboni reading which reads “ So, when we set out to make a film from the very first shot, we are encumbering by the necessity of reproducing things not as they really are but as they appear when refracted through the ideology” (Comolli and Narboni 815). Since Comolli and Narboni have such a strong emphasis on reproduction based on ideology, I feel like Nichols statement that cinema has the capacity to document, demonstrate, or enact fits well with reproducing based on individual, or general interests or ideas.
As for this week’s films, overall I feel like all three fell into one of two categories, if not both. The first film Drifters, for example, while it is documenting a process, it is also an argument for a social and financial necessity; whereas it’s companions Night Mail and The Quiet One encompass different parts of those two categories separately. Night Mail is a documentary on the process of train work and transportation, and The Quiet One tells the story of a boy named Donald to emphasize a social necessity, although it is debatable if it is an argument for correctional schools, or companionship. I believe that what makes these films political, as Comolli and Narboni discuss, would be how each of these films seem to enforce a dominant ideology, whether they are outward about it or not. Drifters and Night Mail, although documentaries on work processes, are examples of the dominant ideology of that time period, although they don’t actively argue for it. The Quiet One, on the other hand, openly discusses the main character Donald’s past struggles, as an enforcer of the narrators beliefs.
Shaelene, That is an excellent connection you have made between Comolli and Narboni and Nichols. Indeed Nichols too emphasizes the subjective or ideological perspective of the filmmaker, and that understanding that perspective is important to creating and critiquing film. For Grierson, filmmaking is indeed about creating the identify of English citizenry. How can we understand films today doing something similar?
ReplyDeleteYou are right that Nightmail and Drifters expresses the ideology of the state in that they are financed by the state. But do keep in mind the Form of these film, which in their incorporation of the techniques of the avant garde (particularly the City Symphony) actually work against the conventional ideologies of filmmaking of the time. Always keep the politics of the form in mind just as much as the politics of the content. The Quiet One does openly address the crisis of poverty in America's urban centers, and as such, contains a critique of the status quo in its narrative as well as its attempt to portray an emphatic portrayal of African American youth in the late 1940s. How does the form of The Quiet One also introduce creative alternatives or even oppositions to dominant ideologies of filmmaking at the time?