IT IS NOT A FAIRY TALE
Film theorists and media theorists. Their fields of interest ought to be different, as it is suggested by their names, but in fact, film theorists are, for some reason, allowed to engage in everything, including media, whereas media theorists are more limited to media alone. “It seems that film theorists will always have a lot to do,” Matylda could think if she was not on holiday; but she is and so – she does not think. Still, on one hand, Matylda’s possible thought seems correct, on the other it does not. Film theorists, as perceived by film theorists, appear to be quite a strong group, whose members, taking into account a constantly increasing number of films, are not endangered by unemployment in the nearest future. Their situation, however, seems quite different when seen from the perspective of media theorists. What they, with quiet satisfaction, notice, is that films may soon be much less important – their place seems to be more and more at multiplexes, instead of among new, post-postmodern studies. Students of film theory in Cracow (at least some of them) believe, and make others believe, that they are accepted by both film and media theorists. Whether it is only a kind of palliative care provided to dying film theory or a project of cooperation with some perspectives for the future – time will show (time can also do other things, which will be presented later on in the text). Researchers of audiovisual arts from the Jagiellonian University in Cracow combine the old with the new on the pages of the university magazine “Pośrodku” (“In the Middle”). Their friends from the University of Gdańsk try to the same on the pages of Polish journal “Panoptikum” (registered in “Journals Showcase”). So much is there about films in the latest issue of the journal (5/2006), that one may almost miss the hidden presence of the media theory. Beware.
Another trouble connected to film theory is that it is so heterogeneous, divided into the historical and the theoretical part, with the analytical part squashed somewhere between the two. Much as historicists are more or less active, since there are countless amounts of new or not so new films to deal with, theorists have become totally flaccid. Those more vigorous have already historicized their work or combined it with the media theory. Film historicists at least ask who killed Laura Palmer, whereas theorists do not even think of taking interest in the fate of Ernest Wild. It is a pity, because from among all Polish film theorist, he is the one who deserves a little Golden Palm for a small but eminent entirety (among female theorists a similar position holds Alicja Helman). What results from the situation is that in “Panoptikum” one can read, in between the lines, about the sad fate of Lynch’s heroine but nothing about Wild. Yet, instead of complaining, it is better to heal the world by oneself, for instance by completing the next issue of “Panoptikum” with something theoretical, right? Well, I will think of it. However, now let us buckle down to work – let us talk about film.
Which one? Gaspar Noé’s masterpiece, Irreversible. Jarosław Pietrzak writes about the film in “Panoptikum” (the text entitled Przemoc i czas/Violence and time). He does it for the glory of the Krzysztof Mętrak. Competition, in which he has been favoured by the jury. Unfortunately, he has not been awarded. The awarded essays presented in “Panoptikum” are good but Pietrzak’s essay is better. I will not analyze it further. Instead, I will quote: “Gaspar Noe’s Irreversible is one of the most attacked films of the last years… There is a peculiar trend to compare Noé’s film with Rape me (Baise-moi), which is as reasonable as comparing a proverbial Swedish porno film with The Silence. I am aware that Noé, so far, is not Bergman, but the Swedish master of film direction after making his first two films also was still not the Bergman he is now. I use the comparison deliberately, because I consider Irreversible as one of the most remarkable films of the last years, deep inside – even as a masterpiece.” Bingo. I totally agree (also deep inside). Mentioning the Swedish context is very much to the point – not every film gets the first prize at the Stockholm International Film Festival and Irreversible has got it. Pietrzak was watching the film more carefully than me, (which is evident from his wonderful analysis of the film) and hence, was able to appreciate it more, but as far as the most controversial part of the film is concerned, i.e., the rape scene, we agree. We do not forget that a work of art is a work of art, so there is no rape on Monica Belluci, but on the character she plays, Alex. If this semi-real rape is really shocking, it is so for a reason. It shocked me, and made me at the same time understand that violence is serious: it results in somebody’s pain, scream and injury. The rape in Irreversible at the same time does and does not happen. It would become much clearer if somebody painted a Magrittean inscription on the screen: “It is not a rape”. Magritte painted a pipe and declared that it was not a pipe (although somehow it was); Noé should draw inspiration from the painter and declare that Irreversible “is not a fairy tale” (although in a sense it is). He has chosen a different motto for his film, a bit pretentious, but à propos: “Time destroys everything”. Perturbing the mood of the film, the motto shows clearly that Irreversible is characterized by its ability to leave a rather blasé spectator unsatisfied, a bit irritated, moved. Irreversible is a masterpiece, not in every inch, but it simply is one.
About films such as Irreversible the English and the American say disturbing. Sebastian Jakub Konefał appears to be the “Panoptikum” chronicler of such films (Poza granice horyzontu. Wycieczki po piekłach filmowych anomalii/Beyond the horizon boundaries. Excursions to the hells of film anomalies). Films of the kind can always be seen at (obviously) the New Horizons Film Festival (at first in Cieszyn, now in Wrocław, always organized by Gutek Film). Disturbing category, as every category, involves things of various quality, including the very bad ones. For instance, Catherine Breillat’s Anatomy of hell is a vile cesspit of a film. In the eleventh annotation to his text, Konefał focuses on the spectators of Anatomy of hell who seen the film in Cieszyn. Describing the audience’s reaction to the confusing scene in which a rake is stuck into the heroine’s anus (to be more precise: the rake’s handle), Konefał notices: “The confused… audience at first fell dumb, only to roar with laughter just a moment later”. In fact, the author’s knowledge of the situation is incomplete. If he had been sitting on the balcony in the theatre where the film was being projected, he would have known that the roar that, indeed, followed the moment of speechlessness, was not caused by the view of the rake’s handle in the anus, but by the verbal reaction of one of the female spectators, who exclaimed: “Good Lord!”. It was the balcony that raised the laughter of the rest of the audience. The pointed out oversight (or underhear) obviously does not belittle the cognitive values of Konefał’s article. The author should be praised for the fact that he endured watching several disgusting and, as far as I know, weak films. I, prejudiced and warned, did not even try. I can behave myself in front of the films that behave themselves in front of me, and I am kind but reserved towards those who are unable of it.
I have no more place here for anything but a coarse advertisement. I advertise the “Panoptikum” translation department (an old but lively tradition of scientific exchange – worth noticing and praising!), where one can find news from the world, works concerning the so-called visual studies. Among them, there is an article by W.J.T. Mitchell, “Visual media do not exist”. I have always sensed that, now I can say that I know.
Maciej Stroiński
Translated by Grażyna Chamielec
Discussed journals: Panoptikum