“The main aesthetic problem for the movies, which were invented for reproduction is, paradoxically, the overcoming of reproduction”
(Richter cited in Dudley, 1976, p81)
‘Hark!’ The arrival of synchronous sound on film is projected to the masses, the year is 1927 and the golden era of silent film is unwittingly approaching an acrimonious end. Cinema is about to undergo a radical transformation in both theory and practice, a transformation that would not only alter the course of how film is produced but, equally as important, alter the way in which it was theorised. This technological development was the beginning of the end of of what is recognised to be one of the first major film theories; Formalism. The formalist school holds a distinctive place in contemporary film criticism. Considered by many as a pre-cursor to contemporary semiotics and the first major theory to thoroughly examine film form as a means of artistic expression, one of its most significant contributions to current film studies relates to its examination of cinematic narrative as a formal structure (Stam et al, 1992, p73). However, despite extensive research into formalism and it’s role in contemporary narratology, an injustice presents itself in this body of work, an area of disparity denied its importance in the understanding of how classical formalist theories impacted upon contemporary filmmaking, indeed, denied its place in contemporary film criticism. This is the role of classical formalist theory and its impact on contemporary processes of documentary filmmaking and documentary narration.
If we explore the core principles of documentary it comes as no surprise this mode of filmmaking was overlooked during the classical period of formalist criticism. Based upon the founding doctrine to observe, document and present life as it is, documentary immediately poses an opposition to the formalist approach to film. Formalism sought to explore the very aspects of its medium that differ from reality, aspects where technique could deform the viewers perception and create a distinct self awareness of form as a means of artistic expression (Dudley, 1976, p35). Indeed, documentary more aligned itself with the central opposition to formative theory during the early twentieth century; the school of Realism. Pioneered by early theorists such as Dsiga Vertov, this concept of filmmaking sought to liken film with science, to align the purpose of film with, as Vertov himself remarks, “a struggle to reveal truth, to decipher reality...observing and recording life as it is” (Vertov cited in Mamber, 1974, p6). However, if we scratch beneath the surface of documentary and explore the numerous forms inherent to the medium we find a highly stylised and constructive mode of filmmaking. It is a movement which brings in to question the very concept of ‘reality’ and constructs complex narratives based on a rich interplay between form and content. From poetic to observational we find a vast range of forms pushing the physicality of film in to territory, which in my opinion, can only be considered artistic by nature. This, therefore, begs the question of why such a diverse mode of filmmaking was not considered and, in fact, rejected from formalist film theory. To explore this, I will seek to provide suggestions from my own point of view on and examine how contemporary documentary narratives align themselves with the formalist theories of the early twentieth century, how these theories manifest themselves in contemporary practice and how contemporary documentary processes in narrative construction and filmmaking practice could be considered a new formation of classical formalism.
In order to explore this in detail it is necessary to focus the study on the work of a particular director who has a distinctive technique in their specialised field. For the purposes of this analysis I propose to examine the work of acclaimed documentary filmmaker Paul Watson and evaluate these debates with reference to two of his major contemporary works; Rain in my Heart (2006) and A Wedding in the Family (2000). Firstly though, to fully understand the nature of Formalism and how the early formalists approached the theory of filmmaking and structure of narrative as a formal system it is necessary to perform a textual analysis which tackles the central ideologies crucial to the approach.
FORMALISM AND LITERATURE
The term ‘Formalism’ is derived from the Russian Literary movement propounded between 1915 to 1935 and can be seen as the “first critical movement in Russia which attacked in systematic fashion the problems of rhythm and meter, of style and composition” (Erlich, 1955, p20). Largely influenced by the writings of two predominant literary figures Victor Shklovsky and Juri Tynianov, this movement was characterised by its emphasis on form and technique as a means of artistic expression. Formalist’s would argue that what defines an object as ‘artful’ is not the content itself, rather, it is the technique used to communicate that content, the form employed to transform that object from an everyday being into something which has a succinct style and system of formal attributes (Dudley, 1976, p80). It is precisely the manipulation of technique which the artist employs that denotes the text’s artistic integrity and allows the development of style and form. Thus, form can be seen as the building blocks or tools unique to an artistic medium for which the artist could implement, manipulate and deviate to construct a narrative. In his examination of classical Russian formalist theory, Andrzej Karcz summarises Tynianov and Shklovsky’s theories and deduces that “both view a work of literature as a dynamic and fluctuating phenomenon and as a intergrated hierarchical system” (Karcz, 2002, p80). In this sense, formalist theory is centered on the artist and the audiences self awareness of the artistic medium. It requires a conscious knowledge of what practices are unique to the medium in order to employ each formal attribute respectively to function as part of a whole. Further, it focuses on how those techniques are structured to impart a perception of an event, object or situation which is unfamiliar or ‘unnatural’ to the audience. The question this now poses is how does this hierarchial system relate to film and the processes of narrative construction.
FORMALISM AND NARRATIVE
The Formalist’s contribution to narrative theory, propounded during the classical formalist era of the early twentieth century, could be considered one of the founding principles in contemporary narrative analysis. It’s central philosophy, originally devised by Victor Shklovsky, was based upon the distinction between fabula and syuzhet (Stam et al, 1992, p70). The ‘fabula’, loosely translated as story, can be seen to constitute the chronological chain of cause and effect events which occur within a perceived dimension of space and time (Bordwell, 1985, p49). This concept relies upon the audiences ability to link and construct interrelated events in order to build a series of representations which inform the viewer as to the nature and direction of a perceived story. The ‘syuzhet’, loosely translated as plot, on the other hand, could be considered to be the formal devices used to organise and manipulate the events of the aforementioned fabula or story (Stam et al, 1992, p71). In filmic terms, the syuzhet is often associated with the stylistic devices unique to the medium of film that allow the filmmaker to alter the audiences perception of the spatial and causal relationship between chronological events. Such techniques or formal attributes could be the use of editing, sound design, art direction or shot composition to name but a few. Juri Tynianov argues, the least interesting examples of cinema were such texts which were heavily reliant on the fabula as a constructive factor in the process of narration (Stam et al, 1992, p71). Therefore, texts which employed a complex system of formal techniques to present a distinct style and conflicting pattern of the syuzhet in order to deform the fabula were considered the more artistic and formalist processes of filmmaking. For example, if we view the ‘odessa steps’ sequence from Sergei Eisenstein’s Battleship Potemkin (1925) below, we find a complex and innovative relationship between the events of the story (fabula) and formal techniques used deform and disrupt the natural order of the cause and effect relationship inherent to the perceived space and time.
In this in this classic example, Eisenstein intricately weaves the formal devices of montage, lighting, shot length and art direction to create a distinctive relationship between the story, plot and style. The sequence here begins with the title “suddenly” and is followed by a shot of a female which, as the scene unfolds, has no spatial relationship with the unfolding events. The viewer is then bombarded with series of shots cutting from close-ups to wide angles each telling their own story culminating in a group of images uniquely reflecting the angst and dismay of the characters within the story. Further, Eisenstein continuously intercuts the wide angle shot of the oppressors marching down the steps in the view of the great statue, when this is juxtaposed with various shots of the fleeing public, the viewer is presented with a complex arrangement of tonal montage whereby films form relates directly to the chaotic nature of the narrative. Here we find all the formal elements of the scene working in unison, each shot angle relates to each shot length which relates directly to the deformation of the fabula through the use formal technique. In essence, each element transfers effects onto one another, each gives responses to one another in the culmination of a whole experience. This is an example of the true, and I believe, intended value of formalism’s approach to narrative, where form is equal to content and the style is in direct dialogue with the story.
Perhaps the most influential and thorough consideration of formative film theory comes Sergei Eisenstein himself. Other prominent figures within this movement include, Rudolf Arnheim, Hugo Munsterberg and Bela Balazs, but undoubtedly the greatest contribution comes from the Russian theorist and Filmmaker for his sheer tenacity and remarkable intelligence. The concept of cinematic form is central to Eisenstein’s philosophies as both a theoretician and Filmmaker. In his essay ‘A dialectic approach to Film Form’ he notes that “art is always conflict” (Eisenstein, 1949, p46). In this statement, conflict as a dialectic principle which seeks to discover the syntax of filmic expression and create oppositions, or collisions, within films form to create meaning (Taylor, 1998, p94). He is able to recognise that the aesthetics of film work in unison with narrative and plot to create a system where the processes of storytelling and visual techniques of the medium are in constant flux. In essence, Eisenstein is searching out methods to deconstruct the nature of reality into components for the director to fashion (Dudley, 1976, p46). These components are then facilitated or reconstructed through the use of formal attributes unique to the medium in a complex interrelated system. In this sense, Eisenstein utilises film as a canvas to communicate a perspective of reality rather than reality itself. It is no surprise then that documentary, a mode filmmaking born on the principle to record and document reality as it is, could be seen to represent an opposition to this. How could the two definitions possibly correlate?
Perhaps the most influential and thorough consideration of formative film theory comes Sergei Eisenstein himself. Other prominent figures within this movement include, Rudolf Arnheim, Hugo Munsterberg and Bela Balazs, but undoubtedly the greatest contribution comes from the Russian theorist and Filmmaker for his sheer tenacity and remarkable intelligence. The concept of cinematic form is central to Eisenstein’s philosophies as both a theoretician and Filmmaker. In his essay ‘A dialectic approach to Film Form’ he notes that “art is always conflict” (Eisenstein, 1949, p46). In this statement, conflict as a dialectic principle which seeks to discover the syntax of filmic expression and create oppositions, or collisions, within films form to create meaning (Taylor, 1998, p94). He is able to recognise that the aesthetics of film work in unison with narrative and plot to create a system where the processes of storytelling and visual techniques of the medium are in constant flux. In essence, Eisenstein is searching out methods to deconstruct the nature of reality into components for the director to fashion (Dudley, 1976, p46). These components are then facilitated or reconstructed through the use of formal attributes unique to the medium in a complex interrelated system. In this sense, Eisenstein utilises film as a canvas to communicate a perspective of reality rather than reality itself. It is no surprise then that documentary, a mode filmmaking born on the principle to record and document reality as it is, could be seen to represent an opposition to this. How could the two definitions possibly correlate?
FORMALISM AND PAUL WATSON
If we now turn our attention to documentary narratives and the work of Paul Watson we can explore how the core principles of formalism discussed could be seen to manifest themselves in the formal systems inherent to contemporary documentary practice. The Bafta award winning director Paul Watson has firmly established himself as a contemporary documentarian of considerable force. Originally a painter by trade, Watson has developed a distinctive style of observational documentary which takes the some of the most challenging dysfunctions of modern society and wrenches them into a powerful, lyrical and poignant statement. One of the first and most striking aspects of his work relates to his technique of showing the audience his methods of production. It is this self awareness of the art form and willingness to reveal the form with which he constructs his narrative which I would like to discuss first and, I feel, draws comparisons with the formalist theories previously discussed
The exert from A Wedding in the Family (2000) featured above is a clear illustration of Watson making a direct connection between the formal devices of the medium and the processes he uses to construct his narrative. Based around the wedding ceremony of a young couple, A Wedding in the Family (2000) explores the institution of marriage in contemporary society through interviews with the respective bride and grooms wider family. Providing accounts of their experiences of married life and examining the various dynamics that operate within the family Watson formulates an objective argument within the narrative that brings in to question validity and sanctity of marriage in the twenty first century. In the scene above we see his methods at work. By using the reflections of the camera and presenting his methods in such a stark fashion, he directly communicates the canvas with which he is working with to the audience and challenges them to see this is a perspective of reality which is being purposely constructed by the filmmaker. In relation to the narrative, this process acts as a direct disruption or deformation of the perceived relationship between space and time. If we apply a formalist approach, we see that Watson employs a complex syuzhet pattern to deliberately disrupt the flow of the fabula. As we keep intercutting between images of the grooms parents with images of Paul in reflection Watson is pushing and pulling the viewer in to and away from the percieved reality of the filmic world. Utilising the formal devices of editing and shot composition, he creates a dialogue between the story and methods with which he tells that story. In my opinion, this is the very essence of formative theory where form collides with narrative to challenge the viewers perception of events. This view also aligns itself with Tynianov’s conceptions of a work of art, in his case literature, where the narrative fluctuates and switches dynamics in the methods it employs to reveal its formal systems. This process of revealing form is a common feature throughout Paul Watson’s work and is a strong indication of his deep understanding of how audiences interact with and receive narrative, this is also a strongest facets of formalist debate.
Perhaps the most defining aspect of the Paul Watson documentary is the distinctive way in which he constructs multiple narratives during the post production process. His vibrant use of sound and creative approach to editing are key components of how he is able structure these complex patterns of interlinking narrative threads in to an overall commentary on his chosen subject. Rain in my Heart (2006) is one of Paul’s most successful texts, it tackles one of the most problematic and challenging subjects in contemporary society, alcoholism, and is, at times, as disturbing as it is compelling. One of the prominent features within this text is the use of sound, in particular, the repetition and overlaying of multiple soundtracks. As we know, the technological development of sound in cinema marked a decline in the prevalence of Formalist film criticism during the early twentieth century. As a result, formalist theories relating to sound design are scarcely few, however, one major formative theoretician, Bela Balazs, suggested from a very early stage in the development of film sound “when isolated detail-sounds will be collated again in purposeful order by sound montage, then will sound have become a new art” (Balazs cited in Dudley, 1976, p89). If we take this definition and now apply this to the opening two and half minutes to the clip from Rain in my Heart (2006) featured below, we see a striking example of how early formalist theories of sound design and, indeed, the wider relationship between a films multiple forms manifest themselves in contemporary practice.
In my view, the clip we have just seen is clear demonstration of the formalist potential of documentary filmmaking. The basic narrative of Rain in my Heart (2006) is centered on four alcoholics as they delve in and out of hospital in the vicious grip of alcohol abuse. As we follow these four subjects Watson uses the techniques which we see in the above scene to build a narrative that weaves four individual stories to stunning effect. The use of image and sound montage here has a crucial relationship to the narrative. It serves as a dialectic not only between the subjects and their alcohol problems but between the very nature of the process of filmmaking itself and its relation to the external world. In a sense, it comments on itself, bringing in to question how documentary narratives are constructed by laying out the formal devices used in the construction process for all to see. Sound and image thus, alter our perception of the reality created in the fabula and challenges us to find meaning and draw comparisons between what we hear and what we see. An example of this can be found when the female (Vanda), speaking about how she gave in to drink once again, remarks “whos it gona hurt”, the screen then cuts to a still image of the male laying in hospital bed. This challenges the viewer to associate conflicting sounds and images, to consider what the filmmaker is communicating to his audience. Sound bites bounce off one another, collide with each other and are strategically repeated to deliberately pose questions to its audience. This is just one example of many in this scene where sound, image and story are in direct conversation with one another. This can be seen to reinforce Eisensteins theories that a films form exists as an interrelating system of formal attributes whereby each component is in direct dialogue with the other creating a systematic perception of reality. Further, this highlights how a narrative made up of four separate stories can be interlaced using a complex interaction of formal properties unique to the medium. In Rain in my Heart (2006) Watson displays an absolute mastery over form, style and narrative assimilation to, from my perspective, create a distinctive formative approach.
CONCLUSION
It can be seen in the examples of Paul Watson’s work that one could identify many formalist tendencies theorised by the early formative thinkers. The question this implies is can such theories be applied to contemporary documentary as a whole or is this simply a formalist branch of a theory akin to auteurism. Without proper investigation this question will remain unanswered here, however, I would suggest in contemporary documentary there is a greater reliance on the processes found in fictional narrative based filmmaking. If we look at the current trend of the ‘docudrama’ for example, we find the boundaries between fact and fiction are growing evermore blurred. Now, this certainly is not the case with Paul Watson’s distinctive brand of observational documentary, but what this does point to is that contemporary documentary form is evermore looking to alter our perspectives of reality. Rather than simply document and record, it is striving subvert; this certainly suggests a future of a formative nature. Something which can be answered within this analysis is, for all the pioneering theories of film criticism that formalism has influenced, it has certainly overlooked the potential of documentary as a distinctly artistic mode of filmmaking. Indeed, in ‘The Photoplay: A Psychological Study‘ Hugo Munsterberg, one of earliest propagators of formalism in film, makes a direct attack on the properties of documentary filmmaking, deducing that cinema could only be considered an art form in the pursuit of fictional narrative rejecting documentary as a mere slave to societal functions (Dudley, 1976, p16). Further, the area of disparity still remains, in David Bordwells contemporary revision of the formalist approach to narrative analysis, it is clear even in the title of his book ‘Narration in the Fiction Film’ the role of Documentary has no place in formalist conceptions of narrative analysis and modes of filmmaking. In my own view, documentary most certainly holds a place formative film theory. Perhaps the best argument or statement for this comes from the founder of what we consider to be filmic documentary itself, John Grierson. In his original conception of the term he considers the purpose of documentary to exist “as the creative treatment of actuality” (Grierson cited in Ellis and McLane, 2005, p4). For me, the emphasis on creativity here suggests that contemporary documentary narrative is not only a direct decedent of twentieth century formative film theory but is, in many respects, a twenty first century reformulation.
BIBLIOGRAPHY & FILMOGRAPHY
Bibliography
Dudley, A (1976) The Major Film Theories: An Introduction, Oxford University Press, New York
Mamber, S (1974) Cinema Verite in America: Studies in Uncontrolled Documentary, The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Massachusetts
Stam, R et al (1992) New Vocabularies In Film Semiotics: Structuralism, Post Structuralism and Beyond, Routledge, London
Dudley, A (1984) Concepts in Film Theory, Oxford University Press, New York
Eisenstein, S (1949) Film Form: Essays In Film Theory, Harcourt Brace & Company, Florida
Taylor, R (1998) The Eisenstein Reader, British Film Institute, London
Elrich, V (1955) Russian Formalism: History Doctrine, Mouton Publishers, Netherlands
Karcz, A (2002) The Polish Formalist School and Russian Formalism, University of Rochester Press, New York
Bordwell, D (1985) Narration in the Fiction Film, The University of Wisconsin Press, Wisconsin
Ellis, J and McLane, A (2005) A New History of Documentary Film, Continuum International Publishing Group, New York
Filmography
Eisenstein, S (1925) Battleship Potemkin [DVD]
Watson, P (2006) Rain in my Heart [DVD]
Watson, P (2000) Wedding in the Family [DVD]
Dudley, A (1976) The Major Film Theories: An Introduction, Oxford University Press, New York
Mamber, S (1974) Cinema Verite in America: Studies in Uncontrolled Documentary, The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Massachusetts
Stam, R et al (1992) New Vocabularies In Film Semiotics: Structuralism, Post Structuralism and Beyond, Routledge, London
Dudley, A (1984) Concepts in Film Theory, Oxford University Press, New York
Eisenstein, S (1949) Film Form: Essays In Film Theory, Harcourt Brace & Company, Florida
Taylor, R (1998) The Eisenstein Reader, British Film Institute, London
Elrich, V (1955) Russian Formalism: History Doctrine, Mouton Publishers, Netherlands
Karcz, A (2002) The Polish Formalist School and Russian Formalism, University of Rochester Press, New York
Bordwell, D (1985) Narration in the Fiction Film, The University of Wisconsin Press, Wisconsin
Ellis, J and McLane, A (2005) A New History of Documentary Film, Continuum International Publishing Group, New York
Filmography
Eisenstein, S (1925) Battleship Potemkin [DVD]
Watson, P (2006) Rain in my Heart [DVD]
Watson, P (2000) Wedding in the Family [DVD]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)