There’s a beautiful
idea at the heart of the 100th issue of Trafic, which is to get thirty-six different writers to write their
equivalent of Serge Daney’s Tracking Shot in
Kapo – to reflect on an important essay or film book that has personally
marked them. The issue is at its best when the essays are the closest to the
original spirit of Daney’s journal: cinephile, erudite, personal, heartfelt and
as Deleuze would characterize Daney’s thought, both optimistic and pessimistic.
If Daney was able to reflect on his life and pinpoint Jacques Rivette’s On Abjection as offering a moral compass
for his life, then these responses are too at their best when they conjure a
life, morality and a way to live with the cinema.
The issue
proceeds chronologically from the foundational studies of the early twentieth
century through the Occupation to the post-war period to the events of May ’68 all
of the way the present day. This is an ethos that developed in the
context particular to the history of French film culture.
So Jacques
Aumont joyfully imagines a conversation between Jean Epstein (whose Bonjour Cinéma graces the cover) and the Cinema screen, Jean-Louis Comolli goes
in depth on the influence of Freud’s L’Avenir
d’une illusion on his life and its appropriation to film analysis, and
Pierre Gabaston writes about André Malraux and his importance. Two of Trafic’s committee member Patrice Rollet
and Raymond Bellour both write on Surrealism through their essays on André
Breton and Ado Kyrou. While the other two editors Sylvie Pierre Ulmann writes
about introducing Glauber Rocha to France and Marcos Uzal on Barthélemy
Amengual’s fine book on Jean Eustache.
The essays work
best when there is a sense of surprise to the choices and when the most obvious
work by their authors are not the ones that are discussed. Though you can find
Luc Moullet writing on François Truffaut’s Certain
Tendency essay (perhaps already too commented upon, but the more Moullet
the better) and Jean Narboni on André Bazin’s Montage, Interdit (one of his most famous essays), you can also
find Dominique Païni on Rivette’s Lettre
sur Rossellini and how it helped him both as a critic and programmer, Fabrice
Revault meditating on his own film-going pleasures that parallel Roland
Barthes’ in En sortant du cinéma, Jean-Michel Alberola on the relation
between music and film spring-boarded from Louis Skorecki’s Contre la Nouvelle Cinéphilie, and Dork
Zabunyan on how Daney’s essay on Federico Fellini’s Ginger
et Fred articulated how he perceived Rome when he was living there. The
essays on Claude Ollier and Jean Collet are also superb and the filmmakers Eugène
Green and Philippe Grandrieux respectfully have essays on Robert Bresson and Samuel
Beckett.
The pleasure
from reading these articles comes from how they offer new perspectives on
previously read texts and how they create a desire to revisit them. They
provide historical context about the earlier pieces and how they were received
and how their meaning has evolved over time. The articles provide thoughts and
understanding that go beyond their particular analysis. For example, Jean
Louis Schefer in his letter describes the influence the bible had on the cinema
(you can probably imagine a dozen classical Hollywood films based on its
scripture), which for me was particularly resonant after seeing Martin
Scorsese’s Silence whose testing of
faith while the world is collapsing is another new example. A
recently discovered Daney essay Godard,
morale, grammaire analyzes the use of language in Godard films, which made
me think of the complexity of language mixed with the disruption of social
norms in the films of Matt Johnson. And
if I had to play this game myself I would probably pick one of the following books: Peter
Bogdanovich’s Fritz Lang in America, Raymond
Durgnat's Films and Feelings, Annick
Bouleau's Passage du cinéma, 4992,
Don Owen's Captain Donald’s Quest for
Crazy Wisdom or Zoé Bruneau's En
Attendant Godard.
One wonders what
Daney would think of the journal, cinema or even of the depressing state of the
world today? Zabunyan would highlight how Daney described the mannerism of the
eighties as cinema’s second death,
which implies that it would live through it and reemerge. The importance and continuation of
cinema would be that there are still films that communicate a thought and which necessitate a rebounding, an engagement (to use of Daney's tennis metaphors) that would necessitate a response through
film criticism. When I think of some films that illustrate some of Daney’s
last ideas they would include the scenes in Joaquim Pinto’s What Now? Remind Me (which he has a cameo in, through archive
footage) of the gay couple watching an old Hollywood film on their couch together
or the utopian environmentalism of Sebastião Salgado in Wim Wenders’s The Salt of the Earth (Wenders being an
early close friend to Daney).
If there is
anything a little disappointing with Trafic
is that there is something non-unified about it and some of its different
essays can appear to be contradictory. Other times it can be bland, obscure, too theoretical or
set in its past views. In this particular issue some of the debated
points throughout the essays include the merits of Bazinien realism, the fragmentation
into groups, the respectability of cinema, and a hope for its future. Not that
contradictions are bad or that the journal doesn’t have its own editorial position
(which it does) but it's its constant return to its same old positions and polemics (with its
stiff text-only format, which wasn’t always the case) that can sometimes be stifling. I
would have also liked to have seen more on Stanley Kubrick or Alain Resnais in this issue (two of Daney’s
favorite filmmakers) or a mention of one of my favorite film critics, Iannis
Katsahnias. But as Trafic's full lengthy list of published authors at the back
suggests, it does regularly expands its scope towards others and its project
and history is quite impressive.
But to end on a
graceful note, it is perhaps Stéphane Delorme’s editorial Ensemble from the latest issue of Cahiers and his review of this issue of Trafic that made me better appreciate it. Delorme writes,
The word ‘ensemble’ doesn’t have a good reputation these days. What’s fashionable instead is fragmentation and specialization that leads quickly to narcissism and shortsightedness. We learn quickly to find our place and to claim our territory. We learn to judge too quickly the pieces without seeing the ensemble. We must instead rise to the occasion and see that an ensemble exists.
These days there
is too much a focus on dividing people and thinking about the individual.
Delorme at Cahiers and the Trafic team are trying to bring people together,
allow for thought to develop from a group, and to unite through the cinema. A
message that is even more vital now with every sad thing (and there are many)
that is happening in the world. It’s good to think with others. This issue of Trafic illustrates some new ways of
thinking about reading a text and opening up to the world to better understand how
to live with films.
No comments:
Post a Comment