Itinerarie de Jean Bricard - Straub and Huillet: London Film Festival 2008

The final film made by Straub and Huillet is a pared down exercise in the ‘pedagogy’ once celebrated by the late critic Serge Daney. A fixed camera mounted on a motor-boat captures in one long take the passing bank of the Loire; the sky is leaden, the foliage sparse; the river swelling. The first ‘event’ in the itinerary of Jean Bricard – the film’s title – comes after several minutes when the boat slows to turn a bend. To the boat itself, the camera, the various floating objects in the river and a moored vessel which the camera has passed is now added the fifth sign of human occupation of this territory (although the camera is autonomous generator of the presence before us and in this sense inhuman): a sign with an arrow pointing the direction round the river’s bend. Halfway back in the opposite direction a voice – that of Bricard himself as recorded in 1993 by the author on whose book the film is based, Jean-Yves Petiteau - surprises us by announcing that what we are observing is an island in the river, an island where he spent his childhood. The boat and the camera continue their course, with a seemingly identical sign and an indistinguishable second bend completing the circuit. Then a fixed shot of a rude country house with loud traffic driving past. An image of the house where he lives shot from across the river, the microphone picking up sounds of traffic from the house rather than the vantage point of the camera.

The sound of various engines intrudes on this film which ends up being about the political ecology of the post-war period and a further entry on the work of this film-making team on this period and its conceptual, aesthetic and political legacies. The Loire was a boundary between the German soldiers and the Americans, the local resistance ferrying the latter and risking arrest and deportation. A plaque commemorates the uncle and associates who were captured doing this. In the middle lies the island, repository of the memory of a pre-war childhood not itself immune to terror – this is the house where rats ate my finger while I slept Bricard recalls.

With the fixed camera on the motor boat, the film frame achieves its own ‘level’ because of the water’s height. The buildings on its banks have been part-submerged by the silting which has occurred in the postwar period when human intervention altered the topography. Bricard’s voice recounts how they once pulled a hundred rabbits to safety from the flood plain, but also is fascinated by the space now not visible once occupied by the oven in a derelict bistro. A reflection on erasure, archival inscription, submergence and divergence: this is a fitting coda to a marvellous oeuvre.

Leos Carax, Merde at the London Film Festival 2008

To say that Merde is a surprising addition to the slim oeuvre of Leos Carax is to put it mildly. The last frames of celluloid to be screened in his name contained one of the most outré performances of the recently deceased Guillaume Dépardieu playing the publicity-shunning author who had descended in a clinamen-like fall from the stratum of the French haute-bourgeoisie to the world of the sans-papiers. Yet when Denis Lavant returns to Carax’s world – after a 16 year hiatus – he, in some senses, returns from the same depths as the neo-Mellvillian protagonist of Pola X.

The Melvillian dimension is once more in evidence. Faced with the threat of being hanged for his crimes M. Merde responds twice “I don’t want that”. This Bartleby for our times lives in an underground chamber in the subterranean sewer system of Tokyo. The torrents in which Pierre and Isabelle are swept up in the dream sequence of Pola X give another allegory of uncanny space in Carax’s imaginary. Here, as in the television version, and in the opening credits of Pola X, the backdrop is war. In M. Merde’s hideout there are vestiges of 1937, the "heroes of Nanjing", hand-grenades and even a tank.

Following a series of comically misanthropic incursions on social normativity M Merde, like a distressed Joker-Penguin hybrid from Batman deluges a busy Tokyo pedestrian street with hand-grenades. Tracked to his lair he is detained for three years before being executed.

The echoes of the grand guignol version of Batman to which certain directors of instalments have been drawn recur in the character of the French lawyer who takes on the case of M Merde, having become associated with his cause because he claims to be able to communicate with him. Prior to this revelation Carax shows us him in action as an older double for the man from the sewer, with the same puckish beard, one blinded white eyeball and the same twisted gait and half-palsied right side. He will come, then, to represent M Merde in both senses of the term.

The uncanny double is a feature of the gothic genre in literature which has echoes in Carax’s film, but which permeates the horror genre and finds itself revitalised in contemporary films by Ruiz and Lynch.

As Merde comes back to life, in a resurrection prefaced by the Christ-like figure arrested by the Tokyo police, and observed by his last-supper (flowers and money/fric) providing observers, the shot of an empty noose is followed by a caption: Next instalment: 'Merde in USA' over a close up of Abraham Lincoln with a M. Merde makeover beard.

Merde like Beckett’s O (played by Buster Keaton) in Film shuns self-perception. He has never seen his reflection; the skin of his back is adhered to by a black fabric square. He loves life but hates people. He eliminates perceivers, shuns representation, but communes with a (legal) representative.

It is testament to the fervour of Carax’s imagination and wit that in an instalment in an omnibus film like Tokyo! he can succeed in making such a playful and inventive genre film, pay homage to Godard (Made in USA), reinvent the irrepressible Denis Lavant and make the viewer feel that somehow, for these small wonders, it has been worth the wait.

Tennis and the supplement of family

With the proliferation of cameras covering big sporting events and modern editing possibilities has come more screen time devoted to inserts of spectators. At major international football competitions such as Euro 2008 the director selects from a deluge of crowd shots featuring attractive women and comedy-headwear sporting males a representative tableau of two particular niches which these two groups themselves traverse: individuals united in joy or despair. Lachrymose or merely crestfallen spectators have an enduring appeal, especially when matched to a reverse shot of defeated players collapsed on the turf. Tennis presents a different challenge to the television sports director. The fans of a Federer or Nadal are not identifiable by their adoption of a replica shirt, while the nature of stadia architecture and proportion, relative to the dimensions of the playing area means that identifying paraphernalia such as national flags are unlikely. More likely is a face-painting on the cheek of the national flag which only the most painstaking of camera operators will pick out. What is left? At Wimbledon at least it seems that the female beauty sensor has been disabled. Instead what the director favours is the family drama supplement to events on court. As mediated by the BBC the interpretation of almost every big match is channeled through a family narrative. It is one of the by products of Henmania. That and the execrable Henman Hill (I cannot bring myself to mention its new name). There has been a viral effect of this domestic prosthesis. The more a player's entourage is going to be on screen the more the tennis player is aware that the television audience is producing a particular image of the player as implicated in a domestic narrative. The Williams sisters cast of two and supporting cast has of course taken the supplement to a new level. The neutralising of the shot-reverse shot dynamic throws up an obstacle for the director. Indeed because they are sisters it could be argued that shot reverse shot between players is disabled. It is welcome however, that they perversely impact on certain of the cliches of this type of programme and so test the powers of the inane commentators who must struggle to find new ways of saying old things and must seize on, if not fabricate, any scrap of controversy to fuel conspiracy rumours and to find a reverse shot off-screen, in the unconscious.

Membranes, thresholds and the virtual

If, for Derrida, the lesson which Hamlet can teach in regard to representation is that the ghost dictates (in Spectres of Marx), for Deleuze the play offers a pedagogy of virtuality. One of the key differences between Deleuze and Guattari and Derrida in their respective approaches to texts and hermeneutics is in part clarified by Deleuze’s Logique du sens. Here, to the structuralist triad he had identified in his 1967 essay—of designation of concepts, manifestation of subjects and signification of concepts—he adds the fourth term, sense. Sense names the additional space of relation between language and objects/bodies. Sense is a transcendental field not exhausted by the operations of signification. It is, as Philip Goodchild points out, an empty place (Goodchild 1996, 38-48). By contrast, however, to the negative theology of deconstruction by which the absent process of différance produces all meanings (Derrida 1982, 6), inscription in Deleuze and Guattari is a synthesis of recording of the Body without Organs and is part of a contact with material bodies, culture and politics. The empty space works not to produce meanings, but rather to give rise to events. In the chapter of Logique du sens entitled ‘Fifteenth Series: of Singularities’, Deleuze sets out to articulate the characteristics of what he calls singularities; these are of the order of the Event, which escapes all of its actualisations/realisations, but which hovers over or under these latter as their condition and their impossible horizon. Taking his distance from the Sartrean perspective which holds on to consciousness and hence to person and individual, Deleuze wishes in fact to speak of the transcendental field, within which

emissions of singularities insofar as they occur on an unconscious surface and possess a mobile, immanent principle of auto-unification through a nomadic distribution, radically distinct from fixed and sedentary distributions as conditions of the syntheses of consiousness. (Deleuze 1969/1990, 124-5/102)

Only when one acknowledges the pre-eminence of such singularities “do we tread at last on the field of the transcendental” (125/103). Since singularities, although they preside over the genesis of individuals and persons, do not exhaust the virtual through actualisations in bodies, individuals or persons, they belong to the same order as the Event. The battle, in Deleuze’s example, remains an event withdrawn from its actualisations on the field of battle per se: it is an incorporeal event. The event is non-localisable, then. Deleuze quotes Gilbert Simondon in support:

The living lives at the limit of itself, on its limit...The characteristic polarity of life is at the level of the membrane; it is here that life exists in an essential manner, as an aspect of a dynamic topology which itself maintains the metastability by which it exists. (Simondon cited Deleuze 1969/1990, 126/104)

If below are to be found events and singularities, on the edges at the membrane are what pass for beings, bodies and subjects. In effect, however, these latter are nothing more than individuations (as opposed to presupposed individuation: see Deleuze 1969/1990, 128/105) within a transcendental field. The idea of incorporeal events, then, while attesting to sense and retaining this in common with phenomenology, significantly departs from phenomenology in so far as force is returned the status foreclosed in the phenomenological tradition.[1]
[1] It may however be true then that Derrida continues a project that can be thought of as an ongoing radicalisation of concepts and problems introduced by Husserl (Moran 2000, 436-7), and that in that respect deconstruction is a phenomenology.

Academic hoaxes of our time # 2

...terrifyingly true.

Reading Holby City, CALL FOR PAPERS

The editors of this forthcoming volume of essays from Palgrave Macmillan welcome submissions on any of the broadly designated themes listed below:

• Holby City at the crosscroads of utopia and dystopia
• Holby's physical relationships: masked polysexuality
• The surgical mask as subculture identity for medics
• Foucaultian perspectives on the architecture of Holby Central
• The apprenticeship of corporeality: inscribing in the flesh
• The patient as carcereal flea
• Holby to the power of three: performativity, unveiling and the medical gaze
• Disciplinary continuum: From Holby to Holby Blue

Submissions are not limited to the above. All articles should be 5,000 words maximum, including notes and bibliography.

Please address all correspondence to Dr. Smite Corpuscle, annex 359, University of Antibodies, Police/Corps/Esprit Interface Associates LTD, PO Box 21345, UK. email: smite.corpuscle@ant.ac.uk

Summer festival

Edwyn Collins did not sing the lines "Yes, yes, yes, it's a summer festival/A truly detestable summer festival" at Glastonbury last weekend - at least this what I am willing to wager. He has earned the privilege both of this about turn and repression of his back catalogue. No-one else would be forgiven this, but he is. He is. (To be subjected to psychoanalytic translation...that's what I call digging it).

Du Christ aux 'home counties'

Press and media reaction to Andy Murray's interaction with the Centre Court spectators has been divided. Some welcome his gesticulation after each hard-won point painfully garnered during his comeback against Gasquet, others lament the further decline of the decorum for which Wimbledon is anecdotally renowned, the most enduring symbol of which is that part of the sartorial fascism which decrees that 'ladies' be clearly identifiable as such by virtue of wearing dresses - a division of the sensible which many women players can unfortunately be relied upon to endorse - and that men should be, well, and here is where the divide manifests itself, manly in one way or another. Their privilege of course is to be able to choose between codes of masculinity. Manly, if effete, restraint a la Federer or manly battle-cry on home or adopted turf. The former was introduced by timhenam in an attempt to extract every last ounce (not gram) from the home counties and public school escapee/releasee contingent in order to help him on his way to the elusive title. But now with added actual perceptible bicep (just feel the quality) courtesy of Andy Murray. The difference between Nadal and Murray is that the former has his permanently on display (you imagine him in a customised sleeveless dinner jacket out sabadonoche-ing). A tanned armour-body continuum, a physique which has soared free of earth and taken on a Christic transcendence (yet made flesh), while Murray, with the round-necked T-shirt of the bedroom teenager in colder climes reveals his upon victory in an ironic riposte to those who would doubt that he exists, that he has presence, that he has staying power. timhenman retired at 29, JC at 33. Sampras? Who said Sampras? Borg retired only once and perversely early, but the most (paradoxically) jesuit of players he has never really been allowed completely to withdraw. He is there when the image of Wimbledon is viewed from a certain angle, like those wonderful pound shop images of the nazzarine.