The ultimate journey: remarks on contemporary theory

Nicole Brenez [Editors' Note: This article originally appeared in French in Art press, un second sicle pour le cinma, hors-srie 1 !1""#$: %&-'() *n e+ery translation there are ,ound to ,e a certain num,er o- errors) The editors o- .creening the past /ould li0e to ma0e use othe capa,ilities o- the internet to impro+e this one) 1e in+ite our readers to help correct the errors here ,y sending us email /ith their suggestions -or impro+ements) From time to time, as /e recei+e corrections, /e /ill update /hat appears ,elo/) 1e ha+e 0ept the re-erencing system in the original article -or this translation) Notes ,y the translator appear in s2uare ,rac0ets throughout /hat -ollo/s)3 This article attempts to describe what I know of contemporary French theory, in so far as it informs experience, as it matters to me and as I have need of it. There are bound to be some errors and omissions but to start with I will not omit the respectful silence that welcomed two publications by hristian !etz" 4'5nonciation impersonnelle, ou le site du -ilm #!eridiens $lincksieck, l%%l& and the hristian Bour'eois reissue of 6sychoanalysis and cinema ( the text that made possible a number of reflections on what was in )uestion durin' the ei'hties" the body, emotion, the fi'urative #in the rhetorical sense& economy of fiction. *uestion number one" what is it, today, that makes these texts, not in the least unreadable, but on the contrary so definitively beyond )uestion that they are unread and unused+ #,& The experience of theory does not take place -ust throu'h books, a lot is transmitted orally, particularly in the field of cinema. .ften films have to be introduced and film theory is manifested more euphorically in that always friendly and always problematic event in which a word suddenly chan'es what you see. These discourses are not always reproduced, but perhaps they are more alive than they would be in the state of published texts. / book would have remembered for me, but then I would have been able to for'et. 0ere are some instances of thin's that struck me deeply because I heard them" what 1ac)ues /umont, talkin' about 6uissance de la parole 23odard, 4%556, called the principle of symphonic editin' #this was in l%5%&7 8aymond Bellour9s analysis of emotion as the 'enesis and settin' into the world of the effective body #l%%,&7 Bernard :isenschitz9s portrait of Nicholas 8ay as an experimental cin;aste in 0ollywood #l%%<&7 or a'ain, =er'io Toffetti9s historical comparison of the double birth in l5%> of cinema and football in Turin and the mutual indifference of the two 'reat popular spectacles of this century #l%%?&. These theoretical discoveries remain to this day speech events. The desire comes to me all the more stron'ly to take note of this kind of thin' as somethin' proper to the analysis of cinema, which =er'e @aney9s posthumous book, 4'e7ercice aura t pro-ita,le 8onsieur #A.B, l%%?&, an interior monolo'ue where writin', speech and conversation, an intimate diary and a sketchy article are mixed to'ether, accomplished with sta''erin' facility. .n the other hand, now that I have done a little editin' myself, I have come to understand better what a book is and, for example, why the politi2ue des auteurs would be a more effective trap in the field of writin' than in that of the cinema. There was, for a time in the early ei'hties, one exceptional locus of theorisation, a collection of books in which each volume was e)ually important both for its conceptual invention and as a model of methodolo'ical freedom. 9amera lucida by

8oland Barthes #l%5.&, 4'homme ordinaire du cinma by 1ean Bouis =chefer #l%5.&, .ou+enirs cran by laude .llier #l%5l&, Nos-eratu by !ichel Bouvier and 1ean(Bouis Beutrat #l%5l&, 6our un o,ser+ateur lointain by Noel Burch #To the distant o,ser+er, French translation, l%5,&, 4e champ a+eugle by Aascal Bonitzer #l%5,&, 4a rampe by =er'e @aney #l%5?&...7 this was 1ean Narboni9s Ccollection 'riseC for 9ahiers du 9inma:3allimard, composed of texts which all irri'ated the theoretical monument of this decade, 3illes @eleuze9s 9inma 1 and ( #!inuit, l%5? and l%5D& and which above all demonstrated that the theory #of cinema& never manifests itself better than as a movement, capable of carryin' in a dynamic ensemble 2dynami2ue d'ensem,le6 thou'hts that would otherwise be absolutely sin'ular and irreducible to each other. *uestion number two" what runs throu'h all those books, compellin' us to read them, to 'et to 'rips with them over and over, to reflect on them to'ether 2ensem,le6+ /nother editorial determinant" certain ideas, certain formulations of the ancients #in the time( scale of the cinema& are only makin' their appearance today and, havin' remained secret until now, they appear very new both because they were unremarked and because now they appear wei'hted already with history" the clear history of political censorship, the mysterious history of the -ud'ements of taste. In this li'ht, I know nothin' more timely and dazzlin' ( in a word, more enablin' ( than two collections 2ensem,les6 of reflections datin' from early in the century. The first of these are the remarks on cinema by !eyerhold, who observed, with enthusiasm and melancholy, the cinema9s accession to power in the actor9s craft. !eyerhold, :isenstein9s teacher, played a uni)ue role in the weavin' to'ether of those historical and aesthetic lines that connect theatre and cinema. 0is work produced ma-or texts on actin' and the stylisation of 'esture, eminently cinemato'raphic material that has lar'ely remained unthou'ht. / fi'ural thinkin' 2une pense du -igural6 is deployed in !eyerhold9s work which deals with the actor9s performance in the unprecedented terms of cuts, a thinkin' which is the result of a lon' period of work bearin' simultaneously on the body and on the look. !eyerhold went behind the scenes of a ballet by Fokine in order to study the costume of a aucasian monta'nard at close ran'e, and this became the occasion for this incisive spectator to demonstrate that the body does not fit the shape of the silhouette" Cthere was too much thick linen, paddin', and the devil knows what 'ettin' in the way so that durin' the show I had not the sli'htest view of all the lines of the body 2;e n'en a+ais pas moins +u toutes les lignes du corps6C. #?& But I also like the infinite movement of invention in his work, that ;lan that embraces everythin' and stops at nothin'. I read him, wron'ly perhaps, as the 3odard of theatre history. 0ow could I do otherwise in the face of a remark like this" CEhen I sta'ed 4a dame au7 camlias, I was hopin' that some pilot mi'ht pilot his machine better because he had seen my showC. #F& In the same way that !eyerhold found he needed a for'otten article by Bessin' on the structure of the epi'ram #D& in order to understand 8odern times, so we can have recourse to !eyerhold9s work in order to envisa'e somethin' of that which, in an actor9s performance, partakes of experimentation, of +itamins, as he himself said about popular son'. /nd then there is Gachel Bindsay. C:xcuse me, I am late. I have -ust finished my book for the blind ( The art o- the mo+ing pictureC. /n /merican poet whose work 'enerously spills over into the field of cinema, Gachel Bindsay inau'urated no less than two traditions in the Hnited =tates" that of the 'reat film critics" BalIzs, @elluc, $racauer . . . up to =er'e @aney, the spinneret of the thinkers of the immediate #Bindsay was a -ournalist with The Ne/ <epu,lic&7 and that of theoreticians in the traditional sense of the term. Bindsay was able to elaborate an aesthetic system for the cinema at the same time that, as an enthusiastic spectator, he was in the process of discoverin' the

cinema himself. The art o- the mo+ing picture #4%4D& #>& constructs a vast comparative system ( how the cinema appropriates the other arts ( havin' as its outcome the production of a certain number of analytic cate'ories feedin' into a principal thesis" the cinema invents new modalities of the visible. #Ehence the -oyous and ironic remark that I cited above&. The cinema reformulates the world by means of li'ht and rhythmic effects. This theory thinks of films in terms of splendour and speed. CThe key(words of the sta'e are passion and character7 of the photoplay, splendor and speedC. #J& Ehat is it that is radically alive in Bindsay9s reflections, that transforms these for'otten pa'es, so beautiful and so witty, yet active in the history of the cinema #3riffith distributed The art o- the mo+ing picture to his actors&, into texts that are at last publishable and readable in French, into indispensable texts+ /nd another )uestion to put the response to that one in perspective" how are we to talk about the overthrow of theory when Bindsay made the first analysis of the cinema+ In fact, the history of theories of cinema demands to be rethou'ht in the li'ht of Gachel Bindsay, in the li'ht of what he called his proposition" C!y overall proposition is that the Hnited =tates is a 'reat movieC. #5& Ee should attempt to attend fully to such a statement, and this is not the place for that. But I can sketch out such a thin' here" if Bindsay has thrown out a thread that has been broken which mi'ht tie up contemporary theories a'ain, it is because he thou'ht of the cinema not as a simple reflection, the redoublin' of somethin' that already existed, but as the emer'ence of a visionary critical activity. The cinema is for him that art which renders ima'es first of all capable of detectin' the structure of the present. =eein' @ou'las Fairbanks in The thie- o- =agdad Cthe /merican ideaC can be understood, which is Cto destroy in the fraction of a second the repose one finds between two heartbeatsC. But ima'es can also anticipate phenomena to come, which fi'urative analysis brin's into the immediate present. For example, on the sub-ect of the representation of the crowd in films, in remarks that form a diptych with those written ten years later by =oviet cineastes or Ealter Ben-amin, Bindsay prophesied, Cas we peer into the !irror =creen some of us dare to look forward to the time when the pourin' streets of men will become sacred in each other9s eyes, in pictures and in factC. #%& In this way the cinema is much more than an heuristically hi'h(powered technolo'y" it is a mode of thou'ht, thou'ht based on visual #splendour& and temporal #speed& properties, /hich produces humanity. #A contrario, Bindsay wrote, Cthis book is intended to fi'ht a'ainst the non(humanity produced by undisciplined photo'raphyC&. /nd it is this fundamentally moral idea of a cinema with the power of political perspective and fi'ural responsibility which brin's Bindsay into today9s reflections on the cinemae by @eleuze, @aney, =chefer, =traub or 3odard. Thoreticians, like cineastes, base a part of their meditation #written or filmed& on two common premises which Bindsay ar'ued at the ed'e of cinema theory" the idea that film, because it does not imitate a referent but allows it to come forth from the real, can eventually provide the world7 and the corollary that an ima'e is not a plastic phantom but a dynamic principle endowed with powers that demand to be deployed and reflected. From that sprin' the three axes of theorisation which seem to me to have been of ma-or si'nificance throu'h this decade" work on the powers of the ima'e, on the fi'urability of the sub-ect, and on the thinkable relations between the cinemato'raph and history. In the be'innin' was 1ean Bouis =chefer, because he completely reconsidered the )uestion of analo'y in cinema. In 4%5< =chefer published three texts devoted wholly or in part to the cinema" 4'homme ordinaire du cinma #op. cit.&, 4'image, la mort, la mmoire #with 8aoul 8uiz, >a 9inma, /lbatros& and 4a lumire et la proie, anatomies

d'une -igure religieuse - 4e 9orrge 1&(% #/lbatros&. #4<& To which one ou'ht to add the four articles appearin' in the out(of(series issue of 9ahiers du cinma entitled 8onstresses, edited by Aascal Bonitzer 24%5<6. To describe what he was talkin' about, =chefer invented a new syntax which works in such a way that, -ust when you believe you are able to reasonably 'et hold of a firm thesis, suddenly the idea slips away by means of a false 'rammatical relation and the movement throws you back at the text like a spinnin' top. This stylisation of the un'raspable draws you alon' as part of the very proof of that which the theoretical elaboration is constructin'" the description of the unknown relations that the cinema installs between the sub-ect and its experience #of the world, of others, of the ima'e&. The cinema, accordin' to =chefer, comes to pass as a whole 2ensem,le6 #unsystematic in appearance only&. Aroofs of its stran'eness" it comes simultaneously as Cthe effect of the alterity of the worldC #44& and as the fecundity of the unknown in the very heart of intimacy. But this intimacy becomes the most precarious of places, it is no more than a decoy of interiority that the cinema transforms into a precipitate of anxiety by means of addressin' itself to the spectator9s Cyet more unknownC impulsive body #this man called ordinary that =chefer describes now as a vampire, now like a 'uardian an'el #4,&, about whom he solicits above all, aphasia and fear&. CI wanted to explain how the cinema stays within us as a final chamber where both the hope and the illusion of an interior history are cau'htC. #4?& For 1ean Bouis =chefer the cinema is neither a world nor a way of knowin' and still less a corpus of films, but a phenomenon" the problematic work of disproportion. For example, it is the disproportion of the visible that withdraws my body from myself and metamorphoses it into Cexperimental consciousnessC. It is the disproportion of sense 2sens6 that introduces a fable of death into the picture, unsticks it from its sta'e to pro-ect it in time and obliteration #see the section entitled CfilmC in CBi'ht and its preyC #4F&. It is the final improportion that will not synthesise all the Cends of humanityC presented by the screen into some ultimate lesson about the stran'er. It is time, the monster. It is in this sense that one should understand the assertion that analo'y is CevidentlyC a #lo'ical, optical& aberration. #4D& Nothin' exists in the future or the present of the cinema to which it would be analo'ous. There is only a protracted problem of resemblance #which is doubtless =chefer9s real sub-ect&, that is to say, that which, despite everythin' else, links all the terms of the disproportion. Aure proof of diversity, the cinema has affected us like Ca fold alon' which all the variation enters us #includin' what has not been done& in the spectacle of others, enlar'ed people and thin's, incomprehensibly cut apart and -oined to'etherC #4>& and havin' done this, it propels us into that dizziness which =chefer often calls Cthe newC and even, in a )uite 8imbaudian fashion, Cthe renewed world of affectsC #4J&. It is obvious that in this examination of the aporiae of the visible which is also an affective ethnolo'y of itself there is no lon'er a place for a terrestrial referent of any sort. #0owever, this is really a )uestion of a resolutely historical description, as will be seen a little later on&. The cinema leaves the referent, and analo'y 'ets to work on the terrain of resemblance, elaborates the presumptions of the sub-ect. /fter =chefer9s formulations, a dividin' line arises more clearly between modern theorisations whichever side of the ar'ument #in the literary sense of the term& they are on ( includin' Gachel Bindsay #the theoretical movement takin' up in its spiral a'ain the unreadable bits that floated in previous constellations& ( and classical theorisations, which postulate the existence of a world, or better, a sub-ect, to which the cinema is referable a priori" the work of hristian !etz, notably. 0avin' placed the world out of consideration, modern theories find their area in considerin' the cinema no lon'er as a scientific construction or as narrative, as classical readin's would have it, but as a critical proposition, a hypothetical 'esture, an essay. /ll the shots of a film do not

ori'inate in the same space or in the same time as thou'ht. Bettin' a body advance in a field does not necessarily en'a'e the advent of a presence. The interstices between shots reserve places for absent ima'es. These are some of the conse)uences, amon' others, that provoke the rupture of the analo'ic pact between ima'e and world. Ehether the film en)uires into somethin' or whether it problematises its linka'es with a bi' .ther #reality, experience, death&, either course has the effect of unleashin' it, of throwin' it into the history of humanity. /t the end of .oigne ta droite 2?eep up your right, 3odard, 4%5J6 we see presented in a very masterly fashion the event of the suppression of those closures #the 9clausal9 effect of end credits& which habitually serve not so much to politely dismiss the audience as to 'uarantee the inte'rity of the film and of the place where it has been shown. /s theory today reflects it, the cinema appears before everythin' else as the ne'ation of what art historians would call a CsymbolisationC, which desi'nates a work of conciliation, a Ccon)uest of the world as representationC #45&. .n the contrary, the cinema has not ceased tearin' itself apart, makin' its fractures deeper, makin' the powers of discontinuity and its double #repetition& deeper, workin' over caesurae and allowin' defection to work as if it was a )uestion, in /dorno9s words, of Ccapitulatin' before hetero'eneityC #4%&. Ehat has assisted the contemporary theorisin' of the cinema+ The massive recuperation of certain defective ima'es and the elaboration of economies of representation #filmic and textual& set in train by these ima'es themselves. Ehich ima'es+ The ones from the concentration camps. 8eturnin' endlessly to the unsettled character of the disappearances, the theory of cinema #which is, strikin'ly, produced these days by isolated individuals and not by schools or laboratories as is the case in other fields& is collectively and whether it knows it or not, Blanchotian. The two ma-or works of this period were actually structured like !aurice Blanchot9s @eath sentence. .n the absolute terror of the =econd Eorld Ear7 on the blindin' and absent ima'es of the camps7 on the necessity of retrievin' a body all the same, on this C8io KeroC #,<&, pivot the two theoretical a''lomerations that are most important for the cinema" 3illes @eleuze9s 9inema and 1ean(Buc 3odard9s 9inema Aistory!s$ #4%5%&. Both initially presented themselves in two volumes #video chapters in 3odard9s case&, both finished their first volumes and started their second with the same moment of the cinema and with the same cineaste" 8oberto 8ossellini, a tutelary fi'ure who had intensely taken as his char'e the narration of that catastrophe. @urin' this decade many ideas of the cinema and ideas of filmic analysis were born from his proposals or were verified on the corpus of the 8ossellinian pro-ect #,4&. .ne only has to consider the vital role that 8ossellini plays throu'hout the last pa'es of @aney9s 4'e7ercice aura t pro-ita,le, 8onsieur. .f all these ideas, let9s retain this one, which traverses @eleuze and 3odard" the cinema offers the possibility of a body. Ehat does that mean+ For @eleuze it means first that the modern history of the cinema is no lon'er oriented solely accordin' to movements and aesthetic schools but that across these sites there is a )uestion of describin' the invention of sin'ular anthropolo'ies. @eleuze9s lo'ical and philosophic models #Ber'son, Aeirce& have already been commented on, as well as the systematic construction and the variable relations of concepts to their ob-ect from The mo+ement-image to The time-image. #,,& In sum, the structure of the @eleuzian architecture has been well described. But this enterprise articulates two apparently incompatible ener'ies" it constructs a system at the same time that it maintains always an effect of bein' an en)uiry" it imports stron' conceptual models at the same time that it seems to be takin' its concepts from the films themselves. Ehat can be found to brin'

these two postulates to'ether+ @oubtless it is the analytic mesh that constitutes @eleuzian developments and condenses itself by returnin' to and varyin' the same )uestions" how does a fi'ure inhabit its body, how does the body concentrate itself or open itself out as a result of its 'esture, how does the 'esture splice or not splice space and time+ 0ere are some of the instrumental fi'urative concerns that permit a distinction amon' re'imes of liaison between phenomena" rational and or'anic liaisons in the movement(ima'e, intermittent and complex liaisons in the time(ima'e. But the @eleuzian innovation is not to be found entirely in the story of the evolution of forms by such clear and operative different routes, from action(ima'e to crystal(ima'e, perception(ima'e to description, affection(ima'e to pure optics and sound. This history of form#s& has already been sketched out elsewhere #,?&7 and the history of film has already thrown up several roadblocks in its path, like *uentin Tarantino9s <eser+oir dogs #4%%,& which, be'innin' as an ensemble demonstration of what the idea of performance si'nifies in an actor9s performance, finishes by completely confoundin' the narrative effect with pure optic and sound, which @eleuze had thou'ht of as two mutually exclusive ima'e re'imes. Ehat seems to me most precious in 9inema 1 and ( is the idea, nourished and intensified by each analysis, that the ima'e #its re'ime, the economy of its se)uencin' and its cuttin'& is char'ed with formulatin' an ontolo'ical proposition, in a mode of thou'ht where bein' does not necessarily precede its fi'uration where, as well, bein' is not necessarily oriented towards fi'uration. This is the reason for the privile'ed attention accorded by @eleuze to cinemas of anthropolo'ical decentrin' ( Eelles more than Ford, @reyer more than Ban', and even /ntonioni more than 8ossellini, the latter puttin' humanity where /ntonioni effaces it ( those stylistics that work inside and outside the human fi'ure, indeed a'ainst it, in the 'reatest sufferin', on the si'ns of its viability or of its impossibility of bein', on the si'ns of its disappearance and of its return. #=i'ns which will later be placed a'ain in play and with such plastic 'randeur in 3odard9s Nou+elle +ague 24%%<6&. =o that at bottom what structures 9inema, at least as much as a conceptual lo'ic, is the desire to restore confidence in the world, to rediscover a possibility of believin' in the body. Because he for'ets nothin' of the shockin' history, nothin' of the weakness nor of the fra'ility, because he has taken in obli)uely everythin' which in the cinema evokes absence and disinte'ration, @eleuze is able to write #and of course this is about Ahilippe 3arrel, who continues to burn the screen with black and white li'hts that reaffirm the fi'ure in apparition&" Ee must believe in the body, but as in the 'erm of life, the seed which splits open the pavin' stones, which has been preserved and lives on in the holy shroud or the mummy9s banda'es, and which bears witness to life, in this world as it is. Ee need an ethic or a faith, which makes fools lau'h7 it is not a need to believe in somethin' else, but a need to believe in this world, of which fools are a part. #,F& 8etrievin' a body. This motif often recurs in 3odard9s work also ( for example when he declares, CIf I make cinema it is already a resurrectionC. #,D& 0ow does such a phrase make sense, why isn9t it sheer insanity+ To understand it, one must take account of the movement of conceptualisation that 3odard has imprinted on the notion of the ima'e, intertwined with history, rethou'ht by him alon' three principle lines, three conditions of the theoretical possibility of establishin' a history of cinema. First, the cinema enters into a particular rapport with history" it proves that people have a memory, a predictive memory to boot #Cthe cinema bein' the souvenir or the presentment of a historyC #,>& it interro'ates the idea of havin' a history, reattributin' an experimental character to the very notion of history ( here 3odard invents a concept of his own" that of 0istory By

Itself 2Aistoire seule6" CThis kind of history unreels by itself, like the history of the stars. 0istory is independent, in a certain way, of characters. Novelists know this perfectly well" this history is by itselfC. This means also that it unreels between, between people, between temporalities, ,et/een ima'es, in that interval which exceeds the human and which only the work of monta'e is able to put into )uestion. =econd, three particular relations between the cinema and its own history exist. It is the only art which is able to conceive of its history in its #own& distinctive material, with ima'es and sounds #on account of which this history is called CtrueC&. Its history is that of a double betrayal" betrayal by industry, which has reduced the continent of cinema to a sin'le fiction by itself, and betrayal by the public, which is uninterested in documentary because it detests its work. It is necessary thus to recount a potential history for the cinema, to restore to the cinema the history of its potentialities. CThe cinema ou'ht to be spoken of as somethin' that has existed, which was able to exist otherwise and which is a trace of what people have between themselves and which they call historyC. This is why the Aistory!s$ o- cinema insist on unfinished films or films which were not able to be realised" !ax .phuls9 4'5cole des -emmes, Eelles9 @on Bui7ote ( and that the cinema responds better to this concept when it accomplishes itself as virtual, as the very idea of the possible, that is to say, when it anticipates effective history ( but it always anticipates it. CThe cinema does not show, it previsions ... when it is artisanal, it is ten or twenty years in advance, when it is factory(made, it is two or three yearsC. Now, from this predictive capacity is born precisely the ultimate scandal which always wed'es the cinema off from its own history, that in some way tears it away from itself and hollows it out, not in an external but in an internal way, creatin' that depression around which the Aistory!s$ will turn. CFrom Gienna to !adrid, from =iodmak to apra, from Aaris to Bos /n'eles and !oscow, from 8enoir to !alraux and @ovshenko, the 'reat directors of fiction have been incapable of controllin' the ven'eance that they have sta'ed so oftenC. #This citation and the followin' are extracts from Toutes les histoires&. 8enoir, !alraux, had previsioned the war and described 3uernica7 3eor'e =tevens9 colour film had recorded the discovery of the camps. But the cinema had been able to do nothin' to forestall 2pr+enir6 the catastrophe. The most exact premonitions, like that of the little rabbit killed in 4a rgle du ;eu, had not sufficed as a warnin'" the cinema found its terrible limit. =o the work of the possible is here confounded with historical powerlessness, and barren anxiety transforms itself into culpability. C4%F4, 4%F,, 4%F?, 4%FF. Nearly five years durin' which the people of the darkened rooms burned up the ima'inary so that they mi'ht heat up the real a'ain. Now the latter takes ven'eance and wants real tears and real bloodC. Third, a particular rapport exists between the history of the cinema and one who relates that history" history bein' Ca 'eneral model of feelin'C, the narrator recounts it as if he had lived it, in the form of a personal novel where chronolo'y does not intervene except as a reference point #Clike a railway si'nalC&. In this enterprise of identification between history and its narrator, history bein' that of all the virtualities and the narrator the one who evokes them and reconstitutes them with choleric melancholy, the sub-ect opens itself indefinitely and becomes, literally, the possible sub-ect 2le su;et du possi,le6. These principles inscribe themselves in the stylistic structure of the Aistory!s$ ocinema, in the inte'ral comparativism #,J& 2comparatisme6 of that style which slows down ima'es and speeds up monta'e. =hort alternatin' superimpositions become 3odard9s principle video'raphic fi'ure, this livin' beat that makes the ima'es palpitate, suppresses the very principle of the shot as a unity and makes it so that an ima'e is first an ensemble bein' 2Ctre-ensem,le6, the overlappin' of two motifs, of two procedures, of the ima'e achieved with that which remains to be achieved, the triumphant ima'e and

the scratched photo'ramme. /n ima'e, accordin' to the Aistory!s$ o- cinema, presents itself at once as a temporal atom that must be split by sheer force of slowin' it or by conflictin' it7 an ensemble bein' which has always already a rapport with its other, with what is editable 2monta,le6 ( and a proposition, a hypothesis, an openin' to sense which is able to authenticate itself by this warrant as unacceptable or as inaudible, the way all thou'ht is. #In the Aistory!s$ moreover, however familiar an ima'e is, it can become unwatchable by bein' shown with too much compassion ( little :dmund9s leap, for example. .r with too much pain ( :lizabeth Taylor9s happiness in A place in the sun.& This force of openin', the product of a systematic investi'ation into the powers of what is editable, carries the ima'e to its conceptual plenitude" it becomes that which constitutes the pro-ected sub-ect 2le su;et en pro;et6, it moves the human over to the side of the fi'urable, Cbecause it brin's it back to the earthC. The ima'e is what puts the possible back into the world. CIt is a property of ima'es to come from elsewhere, and that elsewhere is here, and in no way elsewhereC. #,5& In a very fine text entitled CB9accidentC, which perhaps could not have been written before the Aistory!s$ of cinema (whether its author had seen them or not ( 1ean Bouis =chefer revealed the settin' of his first time at the movies" I recall simply the hall lit before the pro-ection and a little 'irl two rows in front of us talkin' to her father, CAapa, you haven9t told me about 2,ien racont6 9Buchenwald9C. /ttentive, with a soft voice like a professor, CLou must say #pronounced in 3erman& 9Bukenvald9, it means 9beech forest9C. / kind of overwhelmed silence fell over the hall. The li'ht went out and the film be'an" Neapolitan children makin' a livin' shinin' shoes. #,%& =urely after this the cinema could no lon'er be anythin' other than the mutual anamorphosis of two incommensurable sorrows. @eleuze, 3odard, =chefer, the =traubs when they dedicated Antigone to the Ira)i dead whom the audiovisual media had denied, theorised the history of cinema in a 'enuinely scientific fashion, like Beverrier discoverin' Neptune as a conse)uence of the unexplained perturbations of Hranus" the history of cinema is made as a conse)uence of difficult ima'es and damned ima'es, those one does not know how to make, those one has not wanted to see, troublin' ima'es that perturb and darken. #?<& #.ne film tests this to the limit by or'anisin' an eclipse of ima'es" this is 1ean :ustache9s last film, which dates from 4%5< ( 4es photos d'Ali7)&

!odern theories of cinema in fact unceasin'ly return to Cthe simplest )uestion" the body, how do you find it+C #?4& The 'reat analyses of the last years have looked into the ways in which film presupposes, elaborates, 'ives or abstracts a body, not hesitatin' to pose a'ain such primitive )uestions as what texture is it #flesh, marble, plaster, affect, do7a&+ Ehat is its framework #skeleton, semblance, becomin', a structure of formlessness 2plasti2ues de l'in-orme6&+ Ehat destroys it #the other, history, deformin' its contours&+ Ehat kind of community does its 'estures allow it to envision #people, collectivity 2collection6, ali'nment with the same&+ To what re'ime of the visible has it submitted #apparition, extinction, hauntin'&+ Ehat is its story really #an adventure, a description, a panoply&+ Ehat creature is it at bottom #an or'anism, an effi'y, a cadaver&+ #?,& In sum, they have explored the ways in which a film invents a fi'urative lo'ic. Thus /lain Ber'ala9s work on Doyage in *taly or on /ntonioni9s first features #??&

shows how the real suddenly seizes the film, blindsides it 2le sidre6 in spite of what the human fi'ures 2les -igures6 expect and lead us to expect, accordin' to lo'ics of irruption #8ossellini& or of effacement #/ntonioni& which extract the characters from the narrative and transform them into sub-ects of history #of the human community in 8ossellini7 of the war in /ntonioni&. harles Tesson9s articles, in the very dispersion of their ob-ects and their methods #aesthetic, historic, economic& everywhere mark the problems of the constitution of filmic bodies, be'innin' with that of their mythic ori'ins. For example, in CBa momie sans complexeC and CArofils de monstresC #?F&, Tesson analyses scenarios of the body in fantasy cinema and retraces the fi'urative economies that presided over their be'innin's" the lo'ic of the assembla'e in 1oe @ante or the lo'ic of resemblances in 1ac)ues Tourneur. .r, a'ain, to take a very different cinemato'raphy, analysin' body(speech 2le corps-parole6 in =acha 3uitry #?D&, Tesson reuses a schema of Bessin'9s in desi'natin' 3uitry9s thoracic cavity as the centre of 'ravity around which his films turn. Ehich is to say that fi'urative analysis seizes upon problems in advance of their social admissibility and notably in advance of normal film usa'e as 'enre or within established aesthetic divisions. Aerhaps because of his pulmonary madness, 3uitry is more monstrous than the hero of Dideodrome with his G 8(abdomen. Aerhaps his theatrical realism is more profoundly fantastic than ronenber'9s simple or'anic and mechanic monta'es. There are a lot of texts and a lot of )uestions to point to here" those out(of(series issues of 9ahiers du cinma #8onstresses, 6hotos de -ilms&, !arc Gernet9s Figures de l'a,sence, 1ean Narboni9s CBa robe sans coutureC, Aascal Bonitzer9s books, !ichel hion9s which instruct us in the elaboration of the sonorous body, and still others. #?>& For me the invention of fi'ural analysis for the cinema definitively be'an in 4%J% with 3odard9s mise(en(pa'e for his issue ?<< of 9ahiers and, very precisely, with the monta'e that ar'ued, C=ee how $rystyna 1anda acts in a bad dream of what used to be Ecto,erC. =uch is the Bazinian exi'ency maintained in the heart of a type of non( Bazinian analysis that no lon'er takes the real as second nature or as the second nature of film and which, in every way, does not have the same conception of the real #rather Bacanian these days&" to find the way the cinema discovers human experience #and this could be a door as unexpected as octeau9s mirror(pools, the anxious face of an actress in a tendentious film 2-ilm F thse6, the formless shot of a bus with which nothin' can be done& and the way the cinema sets that experience forth naked, in its radical stran'eness, in that which is unnameable in it. !oreover, this is why we remain still a little behind Bazin, who was capable of writin' about Gm,erto @, CThe sub-ect #of the film& exists before, it does not exist a-terC. #?J& the look and the drama. If there is paintin' in 3odard9s cinema, it is there no lon'er only henceforth in the reprise of certain representations but in the appropriation, the renovation or the abduction of pictorial problems and more lar'ely in its relation to the visible. #?%& @ecisive also because of its historic frame" neither the pictorial nor the cinemato'raphic exist in themselves, they consist only of chan'in', conflictin' elaborations which su''est becomin' 2dont le de+enir doit Ctre pens6 #the history of the inventions of the frame in 4'Eeil intermina,le ou'ht to be followed by its mutations in focus 2en point6 in 3odard&. @ecisive for its conse)uences and notably for its reworkin' in @u +isage au cinma where the )uestion of the face allows a sin'ular enrichment of the )uestion of the portrait. From one book to the next, we move from a history of the problematisation of plastic constituents #the successive creations of the frame, color, li'ht ... by paintin' and by the cinema& to the analytic elaboration of the chief problem of the cinema" that of the face. In other words, the confrontation between cinema and paintin' has not been a matter of plastic forms, it has constituted the foundation of a poetics, no lon'er of

parameters, forms or styles, but a poetics of problems, which 1ac)ues /umont has inau'urated with the most important study of all. Face, portrait, self(portrait" three terms of the )uestion of identity have been submitted to an intense )uestionin' throu'hout this decade. 8aymond Bellour9s fine book, 4'Entre-images, which describes with 'reat delicacy the movement of the ima'e between fields of art that are apparently very close" photo'raphy, cinema and video, ends almost with these words" the works that we have traversed all pose the )uestion, CEho am I+C even if they do not formulate it exactly like that. They respond by makin' of this CIC, sometimes cau'ht fleetin'ly, a scattered entity, of excess, of drift 2dri+e6, of play, and the visible support of an anonymity that contrives an access to the seizure of the word as to the forces of personal anxiety. Lou see here sub-ects lured by the most intimate side of themselves 2attirs du plus intime d'eu7-mCmes6 towards a new form of Cthinkin' of the outsideC, based on the constraints and the possibilities of ima'e and sound. #F<& I believe that I can finish on this note" the sub-ect of the cinema as contemporary theories have 'rasped it is that creature haunted by hetero'eneity which, more than knowin' itself, prefers to verify that somethin' else is still possible #a body, a friend, a world&. The cinema that describes this is thus a cinema with a very elevated fi'ural responsibility. It employs and deploys the ima'e accordin' to its powers #without presumin' on its abilities &, #F4& and it be's for anthropolo'ical analyses in the manner of 1ean(Aierre Gernant drawin' the frontiers of the 3recian body thanks to the vocabulary of the *liad, in the manner of laude .llier describin' the modes of the destruction of the other in the films of Feuillade. #F,& 3illes @eleuze wrote ma'nificently to =er'e @aney, CLou find . . . that film itself still has endless possibilities, and that it is the ultimate -ourneyC. #F?& :n route I have omitted many thin's that were nevertheless outstandin'" texts by NoMl Burch, by Aatrick Bacoste. I would like to talk about the intellectual evolution that marks the different analyses of @reyer9s Dampyr, the theoretic fetish of this decade . . . and this piece is already too lon'. That will be for the third century. N.T:=
#4.& 2Trans. Note" This translation is by Eilliam @. 8outt, with immense and irreplaceable assistance from /drian !artin and @anielle Aottier(Bacroix, as well as the author herself. !ost of the notes are as they appeared in the ori'inal. Ehen one or another of us has been able to locate :n'lish co'nates for French references that information has been added to the Notes.6 #,.& /t the same time the theoretical work of hristian !etz found itself celebrated, feted, commented on . . . closed off. #=ee 9hristian 8etH et la thorie du cinma, Iris no. 4<, special issue, /pril 4%%<, !;ridiens $lincksieck and ,D ans de smiologie, dossier edited by /ndr; 3ardies, in;m/ction no. D5, 1anuary 4%%4, orlet(Tel;rama.& .n 4'5nonciation impersonnelle see the review by 8o'er .din in Iris no. 4F(4D, /utumn 4%%,, pp. ,<4(,44. 2Trans. note" an :n'lish translation of a portion of B9Nnonciation impersonelle appeared as CThe impersonal enunciation or the site of film #in the mar'in of recent works on enunciation in cinema&C in Ne/ 4iterary Aistory ,, #4%%4&" JFJ(JJ,.6 ?.& Gsevolod !eyerhold, 5crits sur le thItre, vol. F 4%?D(4%F<, edited and translated by B;atrice Aicon( Galin, Bausanne, B9/'e d90omme, 4%%,, p. ?,4. 2Trans. note" none of Brenez9s citations of !eyerhold appear in the two volumes of :n'lish translations I have been able to consult.6 #F.& Ibid., p. ?,J. #D.& Ibid., p. 5?. #>.& !acmillan ( due to appear in France thanks to !arc hOnetier, who has exhumed, established and translated Bindsay9s writin'. 2Trans. note" what this means is that the references in French are not keyed

to a published text. I have done what I could to tie Brenez9s )uotes to the 4%J< Biveri'ht reissue of the 4%,, version #see note J for complete reference&, but some of them come from places other than The art o- the mo+ing picture ( especially from Bindsay9s letters and from his unpublished book on the cinema, The greatest mo+ies no/ running. The first )uote is from a letter to !s. !onta'ue, 4> =eptember 4%4D, in the Hniversity of Eest Gir'inia /rchives #N.Brenez, letter to E.8outt, ,? 1uly 4%%J&.6 #J.& 2Trans. note" Bindsay, The art o- the mo+ing picture, New Lork" Biveri'ht, 4%J<, 4%?.6 #5.& 2Trans. note" The greatest mo+ies no/ running, 4?<, cited in Baurence 3oldstein, The American poet at the mo+ies #/nn /rbor" Hniversity of !ichi'an Aress&, ?,.6 #%.& 2Trans. note" Bindsay, J5.6 #4<.& 2Trans. note" portions of 4'homme ordinaire and 4'image, la mort appear in :n'lish translation under the title of C inemaC in The enigmatic ,ody: essays on the arts by 1ean(Bouis =chefer, edited and translated by Aaul =mith # ambrid'e" ambrid'e Hniversity Aress, 4%%D" 4<5(4?5&. The whole of 4a lumire et la proie also appears there, under the title of CBi'ht and its preyC #>D(4<J&. itations of =chefer in what follows will refer to the translations in The enigmatic ,ody whenever possible.6 #44.& CThe cinema makes visible the effect of the alterity of the worldC #4'image, la mort, p. FJ&. #4,.& CThis sudden raisin' within us of a phantom existence, of an unsuspected vampireC #4'homme ordinaire, p. 44?&7 C. . . like a 'uardian an'el that assists the spectator and would be the ideal place, the scarcely pro-ected place, of a realisation of a perceivin' body which is known only as the chimera of a livin' body #4'image, la mort, p. >J&. #4?.& 4'homme ordinaire, p. 4J. 2Trans. note" The enigmatic ,ody, 44F.6 #4F.& 2Trans. note" The enigmatic ,ody, %F(%>.6 #4D.& CThe notion of the analo'y is evidently, lo'ically, an 9aberration9 in the proper sense of the termC, cited in the illuminatin' and necessary historic analysis of =hefer9s work by 1ean(Bouis Beutrat in ?aleidoscope, A.H.B., 4%55, p. 4?. #4>.& CB9accidentC in 9et en-ant de cinma, edited by /lain Ber'ala, Institut de l9Ima'e, 4%%?, p. ?%. #4J.& 4'homme ordinaire, p. 4%5 #45.& 0ubert @amish discusses assirer9s phrase in CAanofsky am =cheidewe'eC in 6ano-s0y, cahiers pour un temps, entre Aompidou, 4%5?, p. 4<>. #4%.& 2Trans. note" the French translation of /dorno9s Aesthetic Theory, )uoted in Brenez9s note, has Cle monta'e est la capitulation intra(esth;ti)ue de l9art devant ce )ui lui est h;t;ro'OneC #trans. !arc 1imenez, $lincksieck, 4%5%" ,<4&. The :n'lish translation is CGiewed aesthetically, monta'e was the capitulation by art before what is different from itC #trans. 3. Benhardt, Bondon" 8outled'e P $e'an Aaul, 4%5F" ,,,&.6 #,<.& CThey are now convinced that they will perhaps one day find the source of this river, but they doubt they will ever find representatives of the human race. Father @uchartre baptises the river, 98io Kero9.C 1ean 8enoir, C!a'nificat IGC, 4%F4, translated by @omini)ue Gillain, in Eeu+res de cinma indites, collected by laude 3auteur, 9ahiers du cinma, 3allimard, 4%54, p. 4<%. #,4.& / pro-ect that one can now read as well as see" /lain Ber'ala collected 8ossellini9s writin' in 4e cinma r+l, for Nditions de l9Ntoile in 4%5F. Fragments d'une auto,iographie, translated by =tefano 8oncoroni, appeared in 4%5J #8amsay&. #,,.& =ee Bruno /lcala, CTemps et pens;eC and !arie( laire 8opars(Euillemier, CBe cin;ma, lecteur de 3illes @eleuzeC in 9inmAction no. FJ, 4%55 2CThe cinema, reader of 3illes @eleuzeC, 9amera E,scura 45 #=eptember 4%55&" 4,<(4,>6, 4es thories du cinma, a dossier edited by 1ac)ues $ermabon7 8eda Bensmaia, CHn philosophe au cin;maC, 4e magaHine littraire no. ,DJ, =eptember 4%557 1ean(Bouis Beutrat, C@eux temps, trois mouvementsC and CB9arai'n;eC in ?aleidoscope, op. cit. #,?.& =o Giktor =hklovsky wrote in Better ,, of Koo #4%,?, translated by Gladimir Aozner, 3allimard, 4%>?, p. %?& about literature insofar as it is able to be inspired by the arts of spectacle" C/ll contrasts end by bein' exhausted. =o only one solution remains" to move to 9isolated moments9 2passer aux 9moments isol;s96, break the relations which have become scar tissueC. 2Trans. note" a'ain there is a si'nificant difference in the :n'lish translation" CFinally, all contrasts are exhausted. Then one choice remains ( to shift the components, to sever the connections, which have become scar tissueC #Joo, or letters not a,out lo+e, Ithaca" ornell Hniversity Aress, 4%J4" 54&.6

#,F.& 9inma (: l'image-temps, p. ,,D. 2Trans. note" this )uote is directly from 9inema (: the time-image, trans. 0u'h Tomlinson and 8obert 3aleta, !inneapolis" Hniversity of !innesota Aress, 4%5%" 4J?.6 #,D.& 4<th interview with NoMl =imsolo, CQ voix nueC, France( ulture, 4%5%. #,>.& Ibid., 4st interview. The citations that follow are taken from this radio series 2ensem,le6. #,%.& In 9et en-ant de cinma, p. F?. #?<.& CTo make the visible a little hard to seeC, thus be'ins A. /dams =itney9s book, 8odernist montage: the o,scurity o- +ision in cinema and literature, olumbia Hniversity Aress, 4%%<. 2Trans. note" the phrase actually occurs in the second sentence of his book, and =itney attributes it to Eallace =tevens9s poem, CThe reations of =oundC. #?4.& Aierre Be'endre, 4e passion d'Ctre un autre, =euil, 4%J5, p. 4DF. #?,.& CThe body cannot be remade into a noble ob-ect" it remains the corpse however vi'orously it is trained and kept fitC, /dorno and 0orkheimer, The dialectic o- enlightenment, 4%FF 2Bondon" /llen Bane, 4%J?" ,?F6. #??.& 'Dogage en *talie de <o,erto <ossellini, Lellow Now, 4%%< and C/ntonioni ann;es cin)uante" une esth;ti)ue de l9oubliC in 9inmath2ue no. ,, Lellow Now, November 4%%,. #?F.& In 9ahiers du cinma nos. ??4 and ??,, 1anuary and February 4%5,. #?D.& C=acha 3uitry ou le th;Rtre au cin;maC in ThItre et cinma, =tudio F?(@unker)ue, 4%%<. #?>.& 8onstresses, 29ahiers du cinma, hors s;rie, 4%5<6, 6hotos de -ilms, edited by /lain Ber'ala, 4%J57 !arc Gernet, Figures de l'a,sence, Nditions de l9Ntoile, 4%557 1ean Narboni, CBa robe sans coutureC in <o,erto <ossellini, 9ahiers du cinma:Ba cin;mathO)ue franSaise, 4%%<7 Aascal Bonitzer, 4e champ a+eugle, op. cit.7 !ichel hion, 4a +oi7 au cinma, Nditions de lNtoile, 4%5,, 4e son au cinma, Nditions de l9Ntoile, 4%5D, #?J.& Bazin9s emphasis, C@e =ica, metteur en scOneC in Bu'est-ce 2ue le cinma, vol. F" Gne esthti2ue de la ralit: le neo-ralisme, Nditions du erf, 4%>,, p. 55 2Trans. note" Cthe sub-ect exists before the workin' scenario, but it does not exist afterwardC accordin' to the :n'lish translation #1hat is cinema+, vol. ,, Berkeley" Hniversity of alifornia Aress, 4%J4, JJ&6. #?%.& !y emphasis. C3odard peintreC in C1ean(Buc 3odard ( le cin;maC, <e+ue =elge du cinma, no. ,,T,?, edited by Ahilippe @ubois, p. F,7 reprinted with modifications in 4'oeil intermina,le, op. cit., p. ,,J. #F<.& 4'Entre-images) 6hoto) 9inma) Dido, Ba @iff;rence, 4%%<, p. ??<

Ultimatum: an introduction to the work of Nicole Brenez

/drian !artin

In 4%DD, 1ac)ues 8ivette wrote" CIt seems to me impossible to see Doyage to *taly 28ossellini, 4%D?6 without receivin' direct evidence of the fact that the film opens a breach, and that all cinema, on pain of death, must pass throu'h itC.#4& The history of hi'h level, theoretically(informed film criticism #and perhaps especially French criticism& contains many such ultimata" moments when a writer feels compelled, on the evidence of an unexpected experience at the movies, to declare a decisive sea(chan'e in cinema, an outbreak of modernity, a new 9crest line9 of radical achievement, an emer'ent kind of purity that instantly surpasses everythin' hitherto seen. Nicole Brenez has written on many kinds of films and filmmakers ( from Buster $eaton and horror cinema to C3odard and byzantine philosophies of the ima'eC#,& ( but there is somethin' of the ur'ency of an 9ultimatum9 animatin' her work, also. =he is not, in a strict sense, a film theorist ( she attends to theory in the followin' essay Cin so far as it informs experience, as it matters to me and as I have need of itC ( but then, who is a strict film theorist in these post(!etz years+ Bike many of the collea'ues whose work informs Brenez9s ( such as 8aymond Bellour, /lain Ber'ala and harles Tesson ( theoretical reflections arise from the work and pleasure of viewin', analysis, comparison, writin'" the decisive moments when the cinema itself leads theory, and 'ives rise thou'h its inventions, innovations and surprises to new thou'hts. It is one history of such moments, be'innin' at the start of the 4%5<s, which Brenez sketches in CThe ultimate -ourneyC. !oments that include not only new work #such as the telecast of 3odard9s Aistoire!s$ du cinma series, be'innin' in 4%5%& but the forcible rediscovery of old work" Tod Brownin'9s Freaks #4%?,&, the weird oeuvre of =acha 3uitry, or ( as ever ( 8ossellini.#?& In Brenez9s account, 4%5< loosely marks the be'innin' of a new period in this practical activity of French film theorisin'. =he by no means dismisses or discounts the importance of the structuralist and post(structuralist periods of the 4%><s and 9J<s that are marked by hristian !etz and his contemporaries ( part of her own academic trainin' was in the literary post(structuralist school. But, in a sense, Brenez9s story be'ins at the point where post(structuralism, havin' allowed an important way of thinkin' about cinema to emer'e, also reached its limit, even its impasse. The entire semiotic enterprise #across all fields& allowed us to think the autonomy of si'nifyin', textual systems. It allowed us #as Brenez mi'ht put it& to 'rasp the radical de'ree of the break between aesthetic, formal works and the 9real9 to which they refer. For Brenez, the act of understandin' and internalisin' this 9epistemolo'ical rupture9 ( bein' able #in a sense& to take it for 'ranted ( has enabled a 'eneration of film scholars to embark on a full(scale theory of 9fi'uration9. In a fi'ural model #Brenez9s doctoral thesis was devoted to the 9fi'ural problems9 posed by another breach(like work in cinema history ( 3odard9s 4e mpris, 4%>?&, the cinema leaves behind its last vesti'es of mimesis, copyin', or resemblance to the real" the cinema traces, fi'ures, weaves e7 nihilo its fully ima'inary, endlessly renewed repertoire of spaces, places, movements, 'estures, worlds and bodies.#F& This 9'oin' all the way9 with fi'uration is the impulse that Brenez sees inau'urated in the writin' of 1ean(Bouis =chefer ( because he Ccompletely reconsidered the )uestion of analo'yC in cinema. Keroin' in on the constitutive, fundamental oddness, even monstrosity, of cinematic bodies ( these bodies superhumanly lar'e and stron' or pitifully tiny and ab-ect in relation to our own, this panorama of truncated limbs, wheezin' apparatuses and twitchin' muscles in search of a coherent expression or identity ( =chefer9s powerfully eccentric meditation corrodes all of our common(sense, facile assumptions about analo'ical resemblance in film. /nd thus a 9breach9 is opened in our practical theory of cinema.

:xplorin' this breach, Brenez9s on'oin' examination of filmic fi'uration ( whose action she has traced in auteurs as diverse as /bel Ferrara, 8ainer Eerner Fassbinder, Ahilippe 3arrel and 1ohn assavetes ( is uncommonly dynamic #as well as systematic ( the notion of a film(text as an ensemble, a multi(layered whole, is crucial in CThe ultimate -ourneyC&. =he stresses )ualities of ener'y and plasticity, and finds everywhere dramatic points of transference, reversal, renewal or ruination. /nd her analytic ima'ination is clearly excited by films that, on some level of their form(content matrix, enact or tri''er some auto(reflection on the problems of fi'uration" films about performance #actin' or musical performance, from .hado/s 24%><6, The 0illing o- a 9hinese ,oo0ie 24%J>6and .penin' ni'ht 24%JJ6 to <eser+oir dogs 24%%,6, .na0e eyes 24%%?6 and 4es ,aisers de secours 24%5%6&7 about birth and death or creation and destruction7 or ( at a more buried, abstract but no less powerful level ( about the philosophical and anthropolo'ical problems of 9classification9 or cate'orisation, that is, how films navi'ate the treacherous 'round of decidin' or demarcatin' what is 9human9 from what is variously animal, alien, monstrous or non(human #a fertile drama she has traced in films from ?ing o- Ne/ Kor0 #4%%<& to *ndia #4%D5& via the bodily transformations of Bon haney&. This is slippery fi'ural territory, indeed, and its inherent confusion and dynamism 'ives a vivid life to the hi'hest works of avant 'arde cinema and the lowliest, trashiest works of popular, pulp cinema alike. /nd yet, the inter(linked, on'oin' pro-ects of film theory and critical analysis cannot merely stop at the acknowled'ment of the 9fi'ural revolution9 and the ima'inative freedom it brin's. The post(structuralist researches of the 4%J<s eventually allowed such an insi'ht, but they could not further it. I am reminded of a review in 9ahiers du 9inma by Aascal $an; in 4%J?. 0avin' scanned the ti'htly coherent and intricate textual systems of Billy Eilder9s A+antiL #4%J,&, $an; tried turnin' his attention to 9the real9, seemin'ly so far in the distance, and 'rimly mused,Cperhaps we should stop considerin' the referent as simply a 'rain of sandC in the textual mechanism.#D& /nd this is the second movement, the next and 'reater challen'e, that Brenez traces in the writin' and teachin' of the 4%5<s after the upset caused by =chefer" how to reconnect fi'ural texts with the tides, factors and calamities of real history+ .nce we have demolished all those simplistic notions of analo'y and resemblance, of film as mere mirror or reflection, where and how do we situate the mutual action of film(forms and historical forces+ Ee should not overlook the importance of the fact that, for all its dazzlin', fi'ural brilliance, Brenez9s work is also anchored in a profound interest in anthropolo'y and ethno'raphy, in the bein' and presence of the human body, in everyday movements and 'estures and their radical transformation or re(invention within a work of art. Bike =er'e @aney or many of her contemporaries the world over, she is committed to definin' Ca type of Bazinian exi'ency maintained in the heart of a type of non(Bazinian analysis that no lon'er takes the real as second nature or as the second nature of filmC. #>& In her introduction to the script of assavetes9 A /oman under the in-luence #4%JF&, for instance, she be'ins with a reflection on Cthe plasticity of creaturesC as mobilised by Cthe fi'urative powers of the cinemato'raphC" C ertain very simple acts ... remain absolutely incomprehensibleC. But, at the same time, Cinversely, certain very difficult and delicate phenomena, or those amon' the most ancient in the history of representations, are made the ob-ect of a resolutely clear treatmentC.#J& This passa'e hints at somethin' of the ethical drive behind Brenez9s investi'ations into the inscrutable mysteries of identity, history and politics as both complicated and illuminated by the work of film. From the semiotic era, Brenez takes on the irreducible

hetero'eneity of the film(text, with all its 'aps and multiplicities, bits and pieces, levels and interferences, monstrosities and phantasms7 but in an a'e where we look for some clarity, some faith, some dearly(won, fra'ile article of civilisation, she also looks for a fra'ment of common 'round. CThe sub-ect of the cinemaC, she writes near the end of CThe ultimate -ourneyC, Cprefers to verify that somethin' else is still possible #a body, a friend, a world&C. Ehich is its own kind of ultimatum for today, but a 'entle one. 3odard9s words from the 4%5<s still hold 'ood, and maybe even true" CThere is the 'oodwill for a meetin'" that9s the cinemaC.#5& N.T:=
#4&CBetter on 8osselliniC, trans. Tom !ilne, in 1onathan 8osenbaum #ed.&, <i+ette: te7ts and inter+ie/s #Bondon" British Film Institute, 4%JJ&, DF. #,& CBe film 9abyme9C, in 1ean(Buc 3odard au-delF de l'image, 5tudes 9inmatographi2ues, no. 4%FT,<, #4%%?&. #?& Brenez has written on CBe pro-ect t;l;visuel de 8oberto 8osselliniC, in;m/ction, no. DJ #.ctober 4%%<&7 CHne ;conomie du 'este. =ur les Fioretti de 8oberto 8osselliniC, ahiers philosophi)ues, no. >,, N@A #!arch 4%%D&7 and most recently on *ndia #C@;classer 2hommes, femmes, animaux" les espOces dans IndiaC6, forthcomin'&. #F& It is worth pointin' out that Brenez9s fi'urative model is ( at least in the first instance ( a formal and aesthetic one. Thus, it bears little similarity to the understandin' of fi'urality proposed in :n'lish( lan'ua'e film theory by @. N. 8odowick in a series of essays, such as C8eadin' the Fi'uralC, 9amera E,scura, no. ,F, #=eptember 4%%<&" 4<(FD. Brenez owes more to Byotard9s work on the plastic arts #for example in @iscours, -igure, 4%J4, or in :n'lish, the collection @ri-t/or0s, =emiotext#e&, 4%5F& than to the more situationally and socially centered model that 8odowick derives from Foucault and @eleuze. #D& Aascal $an;, C=ur /vantiC, 9ahiers du 9inma, no. ,F5 #=eptember 4%J?&" F5. #>& =ee the round(table discussion, C!ovie !utationsC, featurin' Brenez, 1onathan 8osenbaum, $ent 1ones, /lex 0orwath, 8aymond Bellour and myself in Tra-ic, no. ,F, #@ecember 4%%J&. #J& C@ie for !r 1ensenC, 4'A+ant-scne 9inma, no. F44, #/pril 4%%,&" 4(F. !y translation. #5& *uoted by Berenice 8eynaud, A-terimage 2H=/6 #1anuary 4%5>&.