Cinema/Ideologi/Criticism 1
-
Upload
elena-oroz -
Category
Documents
-
view
239 -
download
0
Transcript of Cinema/Ideologi/Criticism 1
-
8/10/2019 Cinema/Ideologi/Criticism 1
1/4
CINEMA/IDEOLOGY/CRITICISM
683
JEAN LUC COMOLLIND JEAN
N R ONI
CINEMA IDEOLOGY CRITICISM
Scientific criticism has an obligation to defineits field
and
methods. This implies
awareness of its own historical and social situation, a rigorous analysis of the pro
posed field
of
study,
theconditions
which
make the
work necessary
and
thosewhich
make it possible,
and
the special function it intends to fulfill.
It is essential that we at
ahiers du inema should
now undertake
just
s uc h a
globalanalysis of
ou r
position and
aims
. Not
that
weare startingentirely from zero.
Fragments
of
such an analysishave beencoming ou t
of
material wehave published
recently articles, editorials, debates, answersto readers letters) bu t in an imprecise
form and as if by accident.
They
are
an
indication
that
ou r readers,
just
as
much
as
we ourselves, feel the ne ed f or a c lea r the ore tic al ba se to w hich to r elate ou r critical
practice
and
i ts f ie ld, ta king the two to be indivisible. Programmes and revolu
tionaryplans
and
declarations tend to become an end in themselves. This i s a t ra p
we intend to a void. Ou r objectiveis no t to reflect upon what we
want
would like)
to do, bu t
upon
what we aredoing and what we cando , and this is impossiblewith
ou t
an analysis
of
the present situation.
WHERE?
a) First, ou r situation. ahiersis a group of people working together,
one
of the
results of ou rworkappearing asa magazine.
A magazine,
that
isto say,a particular
product, involving a particular amount of work on the part of those who write it,
those who produce it and, indeed, those who r e ad it) . We do no t close our eyes to
the fact
that
a product
of
this nature is situated fairly
and
squarely inside the eco-
nomic system of capitalistpublis hing modesof production, spheresof circulation,
etc.). In any c ase it isdiff ic ult to see how it could be othe rw ise toda y, unle ss one is
.Others includedistribution,screening, and discussion offilms inthe provinces and thesuburbs,
sessions of theoretical work .
682
led astray by Utopian ideas
of
working parallel to the system.
The
first step in the
latter approach is always the paradoxical
one of
setting up a f alse f ront, a neo-sys
tern alongside the system from which one is attempting to escape, inthe f ond be lief
it w illbe a ble to negate
the
syste m. I n f ac ta ll i t
can
do isreject it idealist pur
Ism) and consequentlyit isvery soon jeopardizedby the enemy upon whichit mod
e ~ e d
itself.
This
parallelism works from
one
direction only. t touches only one
Sideof thewound, whereaswe believe thatboth side sha ve to be w or ke d upon. And
the danger
of
the parallels meeting all too speedilyin infinityseems to us sufficient
to argue
that
we
had
betterstay in
the
finite
and
allow
them
to
remain
apart.
This assumed, the question is: what is our attitude to our situation?In France the
majority of films, like the majority of books
and
magazines, are produced
and
dis
tr ibute d by the c apita list economic system
and
w ithin the
dominant
ideology.
I ndee d. , strictly spea king a ll a re , w hate ve r e xpe die nt the y adopt to try and get
around
it. This being so, the question we have to ask is: which films, books, and
magazines allow the ideology a free, unhampered passage, transmit it with crystal
clarity, serve as its chosen language? And which
attempt
to make it turn back
and
reflect itself, intercept it, make it visible by revealing its mechanisms, by blocking
them?
b) For t he s it ua ti on in w hi ch we are
acting
is the f ie ld of
cinema ahiers
is a
film magazine), and the precise object of our study is the history of a f ilm: how it
isproduced, manufactured ,
distributed,
understood .
What is the film today? This is the relevantquestion ; not, as it possibly once was:
whatis thecinema?We shall not be a ble toa sk that a ga in untila body of knowledge,
of theor y, has be en e volved a proce ss to w hic h w e c e r tainly
intend
to contribute)
to inform what i s a t p re se nt an
empty term
, w ith a c onc e pt.
For
a f ilm ma ga z ine
the question isalso: what w or k i s t o b e
done
in the f ie ld c onstituted by f ilms?
And
for
ahiers
in particular. what is our specific function in this field?
What
isto dis
tinguish us from
other
film magazines?
THE FILMS
What isa film? On the
one
hand i t isa pa rticular product, manufactured within
a g i ~ e ~ system
of
economic relations,
and
involving labour w hich a ppe a rs to the
capitalist as money) to produce-a condition to w hic h e ve n independent film
makers
and
the newcinema are
subject-assembling
a certain
number of
workers
for this
purpose
even
the
director,
whether
h e i s M ou ll et
or
O ur y, is in the last
. Or
to.leraled, and jeopardized by this very toleration . I s ther e a ny nee d to s tr es s that it is the
tned tactic of covertly repressive.systemsnot to harass the protestingfringe? T he y goout of their
w ayto take n.o
n ~ l c e
of them,
th
the double effectof making one halfof theopposition careful
notto try theirpauencetoo farand theotherhalfcomplacent inthe knowledge that theiractivities
are unobserved .
2Wedo not to s ~ s t by this tha t w e w a nt toe r ec t a c or pora tis t f ence r ound our own
field, and neglect infinitely l r g ~ r field.where so much is obviously at stake politically.Simply,
w e a re c onc entra ting on tha t pre cise point of the s pe c tr um of s oc ia l a ctivity in this a rtic le in
I eSf.lnse to precise operational needs.
. A mor,eand more pressing problem. t would
be
inviting confusion to allowit to
be
tackled in
bitsand pieces and obviously we have to make a unified attempt to pose it theoretically later on
Forthe
moment
weleaveit aside. .
-
8/10/2019 Cinema/Ideologi/Criticism 1
2/4
.Capitalist ideology. This term expresses our meaning perfectly. but aswe are going t? use it
withoutfurtherdefinitionin this article, weshould pointout that weare not u.nder any I I I ~ s l o n that
it has some kind of abstract essence. We know that it is historically an.dsocially determmed,
that it hasmultiple forms at anygiven placeand time, and variesfrom nistoricai penod to historical
period. Like the whole category of militant c i n e ~ a whichis
tota,JIY
vagueand undefined at pres
ent . Wemust a)rigorously definethe function attnbutedto It,Itsalms, Itssideeffects information,
arousal. critical reflection, provocation which always has so effect . : .); ?efine the exact
political line governing the makingand screening of these films- revolutlonary
IS
too .much
ofa
blanket term to serve any useful purpose here; and c)Slatewhetherthe supportersof mlhtantem
ema are in fact proposinga lineof action in which the cinemawould become the poor r e l a t l ~ n , in
the illusion that the lessthe cinematicaspect isworked on, the greater the strength and clarity of
the militant effectwillbe . This would bea wayof avoiding thecontradictions of paralleP cinema
and getting embroiled in the problem ofdeciding whether underground f i l ~ s should bel.ncluded
in the category, on the pretext that their relationship to drugs and s e ~ their preoccupatIOn it
form , might possiblyestablish newrelationships between film and audIence .
analysis only a film worker).
t
becomes
transformed into
a
commodity,
possessing
exchange value, whichis realized by the sale
of
tickets and contracts, and governed
by the laws of the market. On the other hand, asa result o f b eing a ~ a t e r i a l product
of
the system, it isalso an ideological
productof
the system,which In Francemeans
capitalism.* . .
No filmmaker can, b y h is own individual efforts, change the economic relatIOns
governing the manufacture
and distribution
of his films. t cannot be pointedout
tOO
often
that
even
filmmakerswho set
out
t o b e
revolutionary
on the level of mes
sage
and
form
cannot
effect
any
swift
or
radical change in
the economic
system
deform it, yes, deflect it, but not negate it or seriously upset itsstructure. Godard s
recent statement to the effect that he wants to stop workingin the system takesno
account of the fact that any other system is bound to b e a reflectio n
of
the
one
he
wishes to av oid .
The
money n o lo ng er comes from the Champs-Elysees bu t from
London, Rome, or New York.
The
film may not be marketed by the distribution
monopolies
but
i t i s shot o n film stock from another monopoly-Kodak.) Because
every film is part of the economic s ys te m i t i s a ls o a part of the ideological syste.m,
for cinema
and
art are
branches
of ideology. None can escape, somewhere, like
p ieces in a jig saw, all h av e their
own
allotted place. The system is
b ~ i n d
t o i ts ow n
nature, bu t i n s pi te of that, indeed because of t ha t , w he n a ll the pieces are fitted
together
th ey g iv ea v ery clearp ictu re. B ut th is d oes n ot meanthat everyfilmmaker
plays a similar role. Reactions differ.
t isthe
job of
criticism to see wherethey differ,
and
slowly , patiently,
not
expect-
ing any magical transformations to take p lace atth e wav eof a slogan,to help change
the ideology which conditionsthem. . . .
A few p o in ts, wh ich wesh all return to ingreaterdetaillater:
~ v e r y
f i l ~ p o l J ~ l c a ~
inasmuch as i t i s determined by the ideology which produces It or WIthinwhich It
is produced , which stems from the same thing) .
The cinema
is. all the.more thor
oughly and completely determined because unlike other arts or IdeolOgical systems
its very manufacture mobilizes powerful economic forces in a way thatthe produc
tion of literature which becomesthe commodity books , does not-though once
we reach the lev el of distribution, publicity ,
and
sale, the two are in rath er the same
position).
. Clearly, thecinema reproduces reality : this iswh at a c a m ~ r a ~ l fJ I TI ~ ~ C k ~ ..
~ ~ - : - ~ says the
i< eol()gy .
B ut the to ols
and
techniques of filmmak ing are a p art
of
r r a l l t ~
t h ~ m s e l v e s ,
and furthermore reality is nothing but an expression of the
~ e v ~ l m g Id.eology. Seen in th is lig ht, the classic theory of cinemathat the camera
I m p a r t l a l l ~ s ~ m e n t w?ich grasps, or rather is impregn ated b y, the wo rld in
c o ~ c r e t e reality ISan eminently reactionary one . What the camera in fact reg
Isters ISthe vague, unformulated, untheorized, unthought-out world of the dorni
i d ~ o l o g y .
~ i n e m a
is
one of
the languages through which the world cornmu
~ f a t e s
t.tselfto Itself.They constitute its ideology for they reproduce the world as it
islexperienced when filtered through the ideology. As Althusser defines it more
pfecisely: Ideologies are perceived-accepted-suffered cultural objects, which work
f ~ n ~ ~ m e n t a l y men b y a p ro cess they do not understand. What men express in
tqelr ideologies
IS
not their true relatio n to th eir conditions
of
existence, but how
r e a ~ t to their
conditions
of existence;which presupposesa real relationshipand
Imaginary relationship.) So, when we set ou t to make a film, fro m the v ery first
~ o t we are encumbered by the necessity
of
reproducing things
no t
as they really
f a s t he y appear when refracted through the ideology. This includes every
s t t t g ~ .In the process of p rod u ctio n: su bjects, styles , forms, mean ing s, n arrative
t 1 d ~ t l O ~ s ; all u ~ d e r l i n e the general ideological discourse.
The
film is ideology pre
Itselfto Itself, talking to itself, learning about itself. Once we realize that it
.__ . t h e nature ofth.e
s y s t e ~
to t.urn cinemainto an instru.ment. of ideology, we
n
s that
the filmmaker s first task IS to sho w u p thecinema s so-called depiction
.?
/eallty :lfhe can d o s o t he re i s a
chance
that wewillbe able to
disrupt or
possibly
e {ensever
the connection
between the
cinema
and
its ideological function.
The v ital d istinction b etween films to day iswh etherth ey d o th is or whether they
dt not.
a. The first a.nd largest ~ t e g 0 I ? c o m p r i ~ those films w ~ i c ~ ,
a:
reimb u through
t h ~ o u ~ With the ~ o m I n a n t IdeologyIn pure
and
unadulterated form,
and
give
n ~ n d l c a t l O n
t h ~ t
their m ~ k ~ r s were even aware o f t h ~ fact .,We are not
just
talking
a f - ut ~ commercial films. The
m jor ty of
films In all catego ries are the
~ f c o n s c l O u s Instruments of the ideology which produces them . Whether the film
r c o m m e r ~ i a l or
a m b i t i o ~ s
or raditional , whether
i t i s the type that
g ~ t s shown In art houses, or In
smart
Cinemas, whether itbelongs to the old cinema
the young c i n e m ~ is most likely to be are-hash of the
same
old ideology . For
films arecommodities and thereforeobjects of trade, eventhose whose discourse
I e ~ p ~ c i t l y
~ l i t i c a l - w h i c h why a rigorous definition of what constitutes polit
ICfU
~ m e m ~
I Sc al le d fo r a t t hi s
moment
w he n i t i s b ei ng w id el y
promoted
. This
~
of Ideology
and
film is reflected in the first in stan ce b y
the
fact that audi
e .cedema.nd and economic resp o nse h av e also b een redu ced to one
and
the same
t ng. I.n di re ct continuity with political practice, ideological practice reformulates
t e
.SOClal
need b ack s it u p with a d iscou rse, This is not a hypothesis, bu t a sci
e tifically e s ~ b h s h e d fact. The ideolog y is talk ing to itself; it has all the answers
r y before It a sks the questions. Certainlythere issuch a thing as publicdemand,
b twhat the publicwants means what the dominant ideology wants . The notion
o a PU?li can ? its tasteswas-created by the ideologytojustifyarid perpetuate itself.
A d t his
can
only.exp,ress itselfvia the thought-patterns
of
the ideology.
The
W o le thing IS a closed circurt, endlessly repeating the same illusion .
i
684
FILM : PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIETY, AND IDEOLOGY
CINEMA/IDEOLOGY/CRITICISM 685
-
8/10/2019 Cinema/Ideologi/Criticism 1
3/4
686
FILM: PSYCHOUX;Y SOCIETY, AND IDEOLOGY
CINEM A/IDEOLOGY/CRITICISM
687
The situation isthe same at the level ofartistic form, These films totally accept
the established system of depicting reality: bourgeois realism and the whole con
servative box of tricks: blind faith in life , humanism, common sense , e tc. A
blissful ignorance that there might be something wrong with this whole concept of
depiction appears to have reigned at every stage in their production, so much so,
thatto usit appears a more accurategauge ofpictures in the commercial category
than box-office returns. Nothingin these filmsjars against the ideology or the audi
ence s mystification byit. They are veryreassuring for audiencesforthere isno dif
ference between the ideology they meet every day and the ideology on the screen.
would be a useful complementary task for film critics to look into the way the
ideological system and its products merge at all levels: to study the phenomenon
whereby a film being shown to an audience becomes a monologue, in which the
ideology talks to itself, by examining the success of filmsby, for instance, Melville,
Oury, and Lelouch.
b) A second category isthat offilms which attack their ideological assimilation
on two fronts. Firstly, by direct political action, on the level of the signified, that
is, they deal with a directlypolitical subject. Dealwith ishere intended in an active
sense:they do not just discuss an issue, reiterate it, paraphrase it, but use itto attack
the ideology this presupposes a theoretical activity which is the directopposite of
the ideological one). This act only becomes politically effectiveifit islinked with a
breaking down of the traditional way of depicting reality. On the level of form,
Unreconciled, h Edge and Earth inRevolt allchallenge the concept of depiction
and mark a break with the tradition embodyingit.
We would stress that only action on both fronts, signified and signifiers has
any hope of operating against the prevailing ideology. Economic/political and for
mal action have to be indissolubly wedded.
c) There is another category in which the same double action operates, but
against the grain . The content isnot explicitly political, but in some waybecomes
so through the criticism practised on it through its form. To this category belong
We are not shutting our e ye st o t h e f a ct t ha t i t i san oversimplification employed herebecause
operationally easier) to make such a sharp distinction between the two term s, This is particularly
so i n t he case of the cinema, where the signified ismore often than not a product ofthe pennuta
tions of the signifiers,and thes ign hasdominanceover the meaning.
2This isnot a magical doorway out ofthe system of depiction which isparticularly dom inant
i n t he c in em a) b ut r at he r a r ig or ou s, detailed, large-scale wor k o n t hi ssystem-what conditions
make it possible, what mechanisms render it innocuous.The method isto draw attentionto the
system sothat itcan be seen for what it is,to make itserveone s own ends, condemnitselfout of
itsown mouth.Tactics employed may include turning cinematicsyntax upside-down but itcan
not bejust that. Any old film nowadays can upset the normal chronological order in the interests
of looking vaguely
modern
. But
The Exterminating Angel
and
The Diary
of
Anna Magdalena
Bach though wewould not wishto set them upas a model) are rigorously chronological without
ceasing to besubversive in the waywe have been describing, whereas in many a filmthe mixed-up
time sequence simply covers up a basically naturalisticconception. In the same way, perceptual
confusion avowed intentto act on the unconscious mind, changes in the texture ofthe film,etc.)
are not sufficient in themselvesto get beyond the traditional way
of
depicting reality . To realize
this, o ne h as on ly to remember the unsuccessful attempts there have been of the Iettriste or
zacurn t yp e t o g iv e b ack its infinity to language by using nonsense words or new kinds of ono
matopoeia. In the one and the other case only the most superficial level of language istouched.
They create a new code, which operates on the level ofthe impossible, and has to be rejected on
any other, a nd is thereforenot in a position to transgress the normal .
Mediterranee, The Bellboy, 2 t l l . . . For Cahiers these films b and c)consti
.
tuiethe
e s s e n t i a l - i ~ t h ~ - d n e ~ ~ and shouldbe the chiefsubject ofthe magazine.
d) Fourth case: those films, increasingly numeroustoday , which have an explic
itly political content Z is notthe best exampleas itspresentationof politics isunre
mittingl y ideological from first to last; a betterexample would be Le
Temps de
Vivre
but which do not effectivelycriticize the ideological system in which they are
embedded because they unquestioningly adopt itslanguage and its imagery.
This makes it important for critics to examine the effectiveness of the political
criticism intended by these films. Do they express, reinforce, strengthen the very
thing they set
out
to denounce? Are they caught in the system they wish to break
down . . .? see a)
e)Five: films which seem at first sight to belong firmly within the ideologyand
to be completely under its sway,but which turn out to beso only in an ambiguous
manner. For though they startfrom a nonprogressive standpoint, ranging from the
frankly reactionary through the conciliatory to the mildly critical, they have been
worked upon, and work, in such a real way that there isa noticeable gap, a dislo
cation, between the starting point and the finished product. We disregard here the
inconsistent-and unimportant-sectorof filmsin which thedirectormakesa con-
scious useof the prevailingideology, but leavesit absolutely straight. The filmswe
are talking aboutthrowup obstacles in the way ofthe ideology, causing itto swerve
and getoffcourse. The cinematic framework letsus see it, but also shows it upand
denouncesit. Lookingat the framework one can seetwo momentsin it: one holding
it back within certain limits, one transgressingthem . An internal criticism istaking
place which cracks the filmapartat the seams . Ifone reads the film obliquely, look
ing forsymptoms; ifone looks beyond its apparent formal coherence, one can see
that itis riddled with cracks: itis splitting underan internal tension which issimply
not there in an ideologically innocuous film. The ideology thus becomes subordi
.nate to the text.
no longer has an independent existence:
is presented by the
film. This is the case in many Hollywood films, for example , which while being
completelyintegrated in the system and the ideology end up by partially disman
tling the system from within. We must find out what makes it possible for a film
maker to corrode the ideology byrestatingit in the terms ofhis film: ifhe seeshis
filmsimply asa blow in favourof liberalism, it willbe recuperated instantlyby the
ideology; ifon the other hand, he conceives and realizes it on the deeper level of
imagery, there isa chancethat itwillturn out to bemore disruptive. Not. of course,
that hewillbe able to break the ideology itself, but simply its reflection in his film.
The filmsof Ford, Dreyer, Rossellini, for example.)
Our
position with regard to this category
of
films is: that we have absolutely no
intention ofjoining the current witch-hunt against them. T he y a re t he mythology
oftheir own myths . They criticize themselves, even
if
no such intention is written
into the script, and itis irrelevantand impertinentto do so for them. Allwe want
todo isto show the process inaction.
f) Films ofthe live cinema cinema direct variety, group one the largerof the
twogroups). These are films arising out of political or, it would probably be more
exact to say: social) events or reflections, but which make no clear differentiation
between themselves and the nonpolitical cinemabecause they do not challengethe
-
8/10/2019 Cinema/Ideologi/Criticism 1
4/4
688
FILM : PSYCHOLOGY. SOCIETY, AND IDEOLOGY
CINEMA/IDEOLOGYjCRITICISM
689
cinema straditional, ideologically conditioned method of depiction . For instance
a miner s strike willbe filmed in the same style as Les randesFamiliesThe
mak
ersof these filmssufferun der the primary and fundamental illusion that iftheyonce
break off the ideological filter of narrative traditions dramaturgy, construction,
domination
of
the component
parts
bya central idea, emphasis on formal beauty)
reality willthen yield itselfup in its true form. The fact isthat bydoing sotheyonly
break offone filter, and not the most importantone at that. For reality holds within
itselfno hidden kernel of self-understanding, of theory, oftruth, like a stone inside
a fruit. We have to manufacture those. Marxism isvery clear on this point, in its
distinction between real and perceived objects.) Compare
hiefs
Leacock) and
a good numberof the May films.
This is why supporters
of cinemadirect
resort to the same idealist terminology
to
express itsroleand justify itssuccessesas others useabout productsof the greatest
artifice: accuracy , a sense oflivedexperience ,flashesof intense truth , moments
caught live , abolition of all sense that weare watching a film and finally: fasci
nation. is that magical notion of seeing is understanding : ideology goes on dis
play to prevent itselffrom being shown up for what itreally is, contemplates itself
but does not criticize itself.
g)The otherkind of live cinema . Here the director isnot satisfiedwith the idea
ofthe camera seeing through appearances , but attacks the basic problem ofdepic
tion by givingan active role to the concrete stuff of his film. then becomes pro
ductive of meaning and is not just a passive receptacle for meaning produced out
side it in the ideology):
La Regnedu
Jour
La Rentreedes
Usine
s Wonder
CRITICAL FUNCTION
Such, then, isthe field
of
our critical activity: these films, within the ideology,and
theirdifferent relationsto it. From this preciselydefined fieldspring four functions:
I in the case ofthe films in category a): showwhat they are blind to; how they are
totally determined, moulded, by the ideology; 2) in the case of those in categories
b), c)and g),read them on two levels, showing howthe filmsoperatecritically on
the level ofsignified and signifiers; 3)in the caseof those oftypes d)and
f),
show
how the signified political subject matter) isalwaysweakened, rendered harmless,
by the absence oftechnicaljtheoretical work on thesignifiers; 4)in the caseof those
in group e)point out the gap produced between filmand ideology by the way the
films work, and show how they work.
There can be no room in our critical practice either for speculation commen
tary, interpretation, de-coding even) or for specious raving of the film-columnist
variety).
must be a rigidly factual analysis of what governs the production
of a
film economiccircumstances, ideology,demand, and response) and the meanings
and forms appearing in it, which are equally tangible.
The tradition of frivolous and evanescent writing on the cinema isas tenacious
as it isprolific, and film analysis today is still massively predeterminedby idealistic
presuppositions. wanders farther abroad today, but its method is still basically
empirical. has been through a necessary stage of going back to the material ele
ments of a film, itssignifyingstructures, itsformal organization. The firststepshere
were undeniably taken by Andre Bazin, despite the contradictions that can be
picked out in his articles. Then followed the approach
based
on structurallinguis
tics inwhich there are two basic traps, which wefell into-phenomenological pos
itivism and mechanistic materialism). Assurely ascriticism had to gothrough this
stage,it has to gobeyond . To us, the only possibleline of advanceseems to be to
use the theoretical writing of the Russian filmmakers of the twenties Eisenstein
above all) to elaborate and apply a critical theory ofthe cinema, a specific method
ofapp rehending rigorously defined objects, indirect reference tothe methodof dia
lectical materialism.
is hardly necessary to point out that we know that the policy of a magazine
cannot-indeed
, should
not-be
corrected by magic overnight. We have to do it
patiently , month by month, being careful in our own fieldto avoid thegeneral error
of putting faith in spontaneous change, or attempting to rush into a revolution
without the preparation to support it. To start proclaiming at this stage that the
truth has been revealed to uswould beliketalking about miracles or conversion .
Allwe should do is to state what work is already in progress and publish articles
which relate to it, eitherexplicitly or implicitly.
Weshould indicate briefly how the various elementsin the magazine fit into this
perspective. The essential part of the work obviously takes place in the theoretical
articlesand the criticisms. Thereis comingto be lessand lessof a differencebetween
the two, because it isnot our concern to add up the merits and defects of current
films in the interestsof topicality, nor, as one humorous article put it to crack up
the product . The interviews, o n th e o th er h an d, a nd a ls o t h e diary columns and
the list of films, with the dossiers and supplementary material for possiblediscus
sion later, are often stronger on information than theory. i s u p t o t he re ad er t o
decidewhether these piecestake up any critical stance, and ifso, what.
1969