Michael Renov The Subject of Documentary UMN Press 2004 PDF

t
.
" ..
�:'
. ·,I:' ..
.. . .,., .
.-·,{,•
_,}Y.;�
• ' •t
The Subject of Documentary
". -
. .�.....
:
•,,
. , i• ,,
'
�1;>
;'.,
. ·, ?· · ',
....;
I •'H
,i:
..,,
•I
'
·,, ..
-�. ,,•..·,.'
.,
,.
., ,,,
''
· .,·'
•'· .
•• <:
.',.
�-......
• ·. !
'.:.
,.
.:..,,
.
. ·'
·.';
. .
/,' .,;
:�.
\)�·
..,
..
. Digitized by Original from

HARVARD UNIVERSITY HARVARD UNIVERSITY
•
·'
"
VISIBLE EVIDENCE
Edited by Michael Renov, Faye Ginsburg, and Jane Gaines
•.
Volume 16 .. Michael Renov
The S11-b;ect of Documentary· '·
Volume 15 .. Abe Mark Nornes
Japanese Ooc11n1entary Film:
Th e Meiii Era through Hiroshima
Volume 14 .... · John Mraz
Nacho Lopez, Mexican Photographer .'
.. Jean Rouch
Volume 13
Cine-Ethnography
'
Volume 12 .. James M. Moran
There's No Place Like Home Video ,'..
Volumell .. Jeffrey Ruoff
"An.American Family": A Televised Life
VolumelO .. Bever ly R. Singer
Wiping the War Paint off the Lens:
;
Native American Film and Video ,
. Volume 9 .... Alexandra Juhasz, editor .•.•�-;
..
,vomen of Vision: ..
rlistories in Feminist Film and Video '
.. ,.
Volume 8 .. Douglas Kellner and Dan Streible, editors
Emile de Antonio: A Reader '
Volume 7 .. Patticia R. Zimmermann .. ,
States of&11 ergency:
Documentaries, Wars, Democracies
Volume 6 .. Jane M. Gaines and Michael Renov, editors
Collecting Visible Evidence
...
Volume 5 :: , Diane Waldman andJanet Walker, editors
Feminism and Documentary
Volume 4 .. Michelle Citron . ..,,
Honie Movies and Other N ecessary Fictions
.. Andrea Liss
j_.
Volume 3
'
Tre spassing thror,gh Shadows: ".':
Memory, Pho tograplry, and th e Holocaust ..

Volume2 ... Toby Miller .•
Technologies o{Truth: ·.:;-
Cultural Citizenship and the Popular Me dia
Volume l .. Chr is Holmlund and Cynthia Fuchs, editors
Between the Shee ts, in the Streets:
Queer, Lesbian, Gtry Doc1rmentary .
Digitized by Original from

HARVARD UNIVERSITY HARVARD UNI\/ERSITY
Cop)•tight infor mation for previously published m ate rial in this book is on page
2a
Copyright 2004 by the Regents of the Unive rsity of Min nesot a
All r ights reser ved. No p art of this p ublic ation may be reproduced, stor ed in a re
trieval system, or transmjtted, i n any form or by any means, electronic, mechani
cal, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, withouc the prior written permission
of the publishe r.
Published by tlic University of Minnesota Press

111 Thi rd Avenu e South, Suite 290
Mi nneapolis, MN 55401-2520
http://www.upress.umn.edu
Library of Con gress Cat a loging-in -Public ation Data

Renov, Michael, 1950-
T he subject of documemary / Mich ael Renov.
p. cm. - (Visible c. v idence; v. 16)
Inc ludes bibliographical re ferences a nd index.
· ISBN 0-8166-3440-8 (alk. p ape r)- ISBN 0-8166-3441·6 (pbk.: a lk. pa pe r)
1. Docume nt ary films-Histo ry and c r iticism. L Title: II, Ser ies.
PN1995.9.D6R44 2004
070.1'8-dc22
2003028176
. Pr in ted in the United State s of Americ a on acid-free p ape r
The University of Mi nnesota is an equal-oppor tunity educator a nd employer .
12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

.
VISIBLE EVIDENCE, VOLUME 16
The Subject of
Documentory
..
,,
.. Michael Renov
Univers'ity of Minnesota Press

Minneapolis
•
Londo,,
'. .

•
Copyright info rma tion for pre viously published material in rhjs book is 0 1\ page
269.
Copyright 2004 by the Regents of che University of Minnesota
All rights reserved. No pa rt of rhjs publication may be teproduced, store d in a re

trieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any me ans, electronic, inechani
cal, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written pefmission
of the publisher.
Publishe d by the University of Minnesota Press

111 Third Avenue South, Suite �90
• J\iinneapolis, MN 55401-2520 .
http://www.upress.u 1n1\.edu
Library of Congress Catalogi n g -in -Publication Data

Rcnov, Michael, "J 950-
The subject of documcntar>i / M ichad Rcnov.
p. cm. - (Visible cyiden ce ; v. 16)
In cludes bib liographical reference s and i1tdex.
· ISBN 0-8166-3440-8 (alk. paper) -1S1\N 0-8166-3441-6 ·(pbk., alk. p aper)
1. Documentary films-History and criticism. I. Title: fl. Series.
PN1995.9.D6R44 2004
070.1'8-dc22
2003028176
Printe d in the United State s of America on acid-free paper
The University of t.1in nesora is an equal-opportu nity educator and employer.
°
12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 I

For Cathy, Veronica, and Maddie

Contents
Acknowledgmems .. IX
Surveying the Subject: Ao lmroducti on XI
PART I. SOCIAL SUBJECTIVITY ..:

I .. Early Newsreel: The Construction of a Political Imaginary
for the New Lefr 3
2 .. The "Real" in Fiction: Brecht, Medii,.m Cool,
and the Refusal of Incorporation 21
3 .. Warring Images: Stere otype and Americai{ Representations

of the Japanese, 194r-199r 43
4 .. Lost, Lost, Lost: Mekas as Essayist
PART 11.·THE SUBJECT IN THEORY
5 .. Ch_arged Vision: The Place of Desire

in Documentary Film The ory 93
ff .. The Subject in History: The New.Autobiography'
in Film and Video 104
7 I> Filling Up the Hole in the Real: Death and Mourning
in Contemporary Documentaq• Fil m and Video 120
8 .. Documentary Disavowals and the D igital l30

9 .. Technology and Ethnographic Dialo gue

10 .,. The Address to the Othe r: Ethical Discourse
i n Everything's for You
PART Ill. MODES OF SUBJECTIVITY
II .,. Ne w Subjectivities: Documentary and Self-Repre sentation

in the Post-verite Age I7I
12 .,. The Electronic Essay

13 .,. Vide o Confessions I9I
14 .,. Domestic Ethnography· and the Construction

of the "Otber" Self
15 .,. Tbe End of Auto biography or New Beginnings?
(or, Everything You Never Kne w You Wou ld Know
abou t Some one You Will Probably Never Meet) 230
Notes 245
Publication History
Index

Acknowledgments
..
This book is the cesult of ma ny years of teachin g and wr iti_ng a bout do cu - ·

m enta ry film, so it is no t su r pcis ing that I am i nde b te d to a great many
peopl e: My st�dents, firsc a t the Uni versity· of Ca lifornia-S an ta Barb ara
(wher e l wa s teachi ng wh en 1 wco te the fir st chapters ), then , for the past
eighteen ye �rs , at the U ni versity.of Southern Californ ia, have i ns pire d me.
to think a�out the me anings and i m. plic ation s of s ubjectivity in the re al m
of non_f ctiqn. I wa s faced with cheir subje cciviry in r es p ons e to t he _fil ms ,
i
a nd it always changed my own u11d erstandi11g. S om e of those former stu
dencs (Ma rk \X'illiams, S uScheibler, Abe M� rku� Norn es , Jim Mo.ra n,
Valentin Stoilt>v, Bhaskar Sarkar, Da n Walku p, Christi e Milliken, Bobby
Si mmon s, Nithila Pet er, Allison defren , and Brody Fox) are now t hem
.
selves t�cbCCs and makers an d writers who are reshaping the documen
tary dOmain.
The Visibl e Eviden c e confer�nc e provided the occasion for writi ng
no less than six of the cha ptc.rs of this book. Si nce its inc e pti on in 1993,
Visible Ev ide nce has become a rally ing p oi n t for do cu mentar y devotee s,
the place to test id ea s, see new fil ms and t apes fr o m aro und th e world,
sa mple th e re gi onal vari ations of docum en tar y c,;lture, and expand che
· c r itic al _ ,<ernacular. The confer ence's incre�singly gl ob al rea ch has ce r tai n

ly enr iched my understanding of the b readth and v i tality of the documen
tary proj e ct, a fact I h op e is re flecc ed i n th es e pages, More than an ything,
Visibl e Ev idence has create d an open-ended, if ne cessarily i ma gi ned, audi
enc e for a ll man ne e of specul ati on in the real m of o onHcti on cultu re . I am
grateful co al .I th ose who have or ganized the annua l mee tings and whose
co ntributions h;ve made it tne co nferenc e that I cannot b ea r to miss.
.Tha n ks a re du e to. the su ccession of Unive rsity of Mi nnesota Press
editors with whom I have wo rked on this b ook ove r th e years. Owi ng to
its -lengthy ges tati on pe ri od, t here are ma ny: Janaki Bakhl e, Mic ab Kl eit,
Digitiz ed by Or ig inal from

-J en nifer Moore , Carri e Mulle n, an d An drea Kl e inhuber. Their patience
has bee n monume ntal, their insights en dlessly valua ble .
This b ook would not have b een possibl e to produce were it not for
the in tellig ence and technological know-how of Valentin Stoil ov and
Priscilla Ovalle, who transfo rmed ancient comput er files and ill-matched
software into a manuscript.
Finally, l ac knowl edge the comributions of my family, the thre e
women wh o share my life and b r ing me joy. To Cathy, Veroni ca, an d
Maddie, thanks for allowi ng .me co imme rs e myself in the documentar.y
world and for planning family va cation s arou nd the sice of th e next Vi sibl e
Evidence con ference . Yo u form rhe radiant cen ter of my subj ectivity.
• AClNOWLCOGMl:MTS
Digiti zed by Original from

'
Surveying the Subject: An Introduction
..
,•.
"S11rv eying the Subject." was deliv er e d as a keynote address a t the

"Crossing Boun daries" film-fe s tival <:>rganized a t the Daitish Film Insti
tute in Co penhagen in May 2006, an··eve nt that showcaSe_d tb e co nver
gence·of docum entary and experimental for ms in conte,np orar>• inde pen
dent (U,,;making. One of the festival's central stra,ids was autobiography
and the exploration or probl em-atizi ng'of personal or cttlti,ral identity ·
by fi(rn-· llnd videomak ers from around {he world. On this occasion, I
h oped to provide a context for the ·�turn to the subj eCt" in documentary
production i n the 1990s ibrough a broad s11rvey ofih e s ourc� s, varia
tio ns, and repressi o ns of s,!bjectivity in a century o f documentary fil rtJ
practice..
On more th an one o ccasion, I ha ve atte mpted t o de scrib e iliis book in ·a

•
si ngle sentence : it's all about auc obi og raphy io film and v id�. As defin ed
in li terary st udies, a utobiogrnphy is a form o f p ersonal writing that is re f
erentia ·(that is, imbu ed with hist ory), m ai nly retr osp e ctive (though the
l
temporality of the telling may be quite co mplex), a nd in which the :i ur hor,
the narrator, a nd the prota gon ist are identic al.' Autobi ogra phical prac tice ·
in th e West is a s old a s th e confessi ona l writin gs of Augusti ne (the l ate
fifth Century), ye't �s memoir, diary, personal essay, o r testimonia l, it c u r
rently erijo ys a popularit y and �_ritical promi nence ne ver b e fore ach ieved.
But I h ave alwa ys·felt unea_ s y with such a stand-a lone d escription
autobiography in film an d v ideo:It assumes too mu�h-and, u nle ss car e fu l
ly concep tua lize d a nd hi storic ized, off ers little . To b egin wi th· , shouldn't
the phr ase b e .pos ed in t he fonu'of a que sti on rather ch an as a statement
of fac t? As statement, it impJ;es a simple grafti n g of one se t of media prac
tices (film/video/Int erne t) onto an othe r (li te rature) with too littl e r egard
for the debates, new so ci al relations, and techn ological transformations

that are ,he v er y conditi ons of existe nce o f these new forms of se l f
inscription. It p osits a relatively nasce nt cultu ral for m as a fait accompli _
rather tha n a s a still- unfolding pheno menon .
When I publ ishe d a n essa y o n ne w autobi ography in film a nd video
in Afte,;.mage i n 1989,2 most o f tb e work discusse d in these pa ges w as
siill unproduce d; the I n te rn et was y ears aw ay f rom re alizing its pote ntial
a s a mass cult au to biographical vehicle. Wh at se nse can there b e in im ag
ining this d ynam ic mode of visual culture as an extension of traditional
litera ry praciic es? On t he other ha nd , autobiogr aphy has alwa y s b een
bounda r y d efying. Fe minist lite rary theor is1s Sidon ic Smi1b and Julia
Watson make the case succi nc tly: "A utobiographic al w riting surro unds
us, bu t the more it su rr ounds us, the more it def es ge ne ric sta biliz ation,
i
,he more its laws a rc broken, th e more it drifts toward other pra c tices, 1he
m ore former ly 'out-l aw' p ra cti.�es drift into its dornain."3 B ut what hap
pens when an outlaw literary practice moves b eyond liter at ure ?
A, least one litera ry c ritic has arg ued that there is no rea l cin ematic
equivalent for the auco bi ographical act; indeed, it is said, ci nema's cultu ra l
pree mi nence may be a sure sign of auto biography's demise.• Tw enty ye a rs
a fter this pronounceme nt, i t is clear ro me that, quite to the contr a ry,
16 mn1 fil m, c onsume r-gra de video, and ,he In tern et have provide d u niqu e
a nd increasin gly accessil,l e pla tfor ms f or self-expressi on while ope n in g up
n ew audience fr onti ers. Given cinem a's century-long h old on 1he popular
ima gi na ti on and its by n ow esiablished niche in the ac ademy, I fee l no
need to pl ead the ca s e fo r film's legiti ma cy. New cult ural forms alway s
b uild on a nd re inven t their antecedents. And e_qually, a ltho ugh thi s b<)ok
and other s like it o,ay ii:i th . e end expan d the vernac ular of au io biogra phi
c al st udies, I want t o asser t no new orthodoxies. I am less concerned
with (rc)defining a utc,biogra phy in th e stric, sense pr<>posed by Philippe
Lejeune a nd 01h er s th a n wirh examin ing a diversity of aui obiog ra phical
practices that en g age with an d per form subj ec tivity. Simply sta te d, I w all!
t o ask ho w an d to wha, effec t viable ve rsion s of. ,he self c o me to b e con
s t r ucte d th rou gh these lat e-tw entie th-ce ntury media practi ces. But eve n
as I anicul a te 1hi s c ore questio n, sear ching perh aps for a poeti c s of a udi o:
vi sua l autobiography, I'm str u ck by the instability of th e niost b asic ier ms.
The word "a utobi o graphy" is c<>mposed of th ree p rincipal par ts
'.'a uto,"' "bio," and "'gr3phy"-which ma ke up the esse ntial ingredients
of this re pre sentational for m: a self, a life,_a nd a writin g practi ce. As we
sh all s ec , che s elf is by n o means an uncom ested term. B u, n eithe r is it al
tog eth er dear just what is m ea nt by a life. Sur ely e ver y autobiographical
a ct c annot b e he ld acc ount abl e for the enti re iy o f a life, so wh a , tokens
of it a re deeme d wo rthy as embl ema ti c or a t l east e vocativ e of.th e whole ?
,u SU IUE'II NC THE suutCT
Digiti zed b y Original from

If the "auto" and the "bio" are at. issue for every species of autobiography,
it is n everth el ess the graph ological dimens ion th at must b e the recurrent
focal p oint f or a n examin atio n of th e filmic, e lect ron ic, or digital aut o
biogr aphy. S el f -inscripti on i s nece ssarily constituted t hrough its sig n ifyi n g
pr ac ti ces. As J erome Bru ner has argu ed, "autobiograpby is life cons true- ··
tion th rough ' text' c onst ruc tion."' Given the availability of these r el a tivel .y
flew vehicles fot self-expression, jt is clear to me that c ar eful attention
must b e given to the new-indeed, transformative-possibilities of auto-
biographical text consuucti on. .
The most striking concribution of Sidoni e Smith and Julia Warson! s
colletti on Getting a Life: Everyday Uses of Autobiography is its once-
a nd· -for-al l le veli ng of t he hi erarchy,that has separat ed th e traditi,m al .
lite r ar y autobiography from al l other (pr esuma bly corruptj forms. Now
we Can see a s never before that medic.al re.cOrds, curricula vitae, and per•
formanc e ar t a�e auto biographical ac t s of a mostprofound · sort and argu
ably more p er tinent to o.:.r liv ed experience th a n th eir p ed igre ed li te rary.
cousins. . This bo ok is al so devoted to a range o f self-inscriptive practices ••
b e.rond the bord ers of liter ature. Parr lll, entitled �Mod es of Subjectivity,"
..
I
stak es our the specificiti es of th e autobi ographical film, t he confess ional
vid eo, the el ec tronic essay; and the p erson al Web p a ge. But medium s p e ci-
fi city is not th e soie target of conc ern h ere . As dis cuss ed in th e cha pt e r
on d o mes tic tthnography (chapter 14), th es e modes of a utob iogr a phical
prac ti ce rnay b e defined l ess by tbe tech,iological app a ratu s th an by the
web of soc ial relations su rn,.:.ndi ng them. Dom es tic ethnogr aphy, a f orm' .
of self-p ortraitur e in which th e se lf is bound up with i ts fa mili al other,
tak e s as its unspoken prec ept . " ethnogr aphy b egins in th e h ome." S e lf
entails oth er; t he o the r refrac ts ,;elf.
. A nd it is n o singular self, as a ny d ecl en sion sh ows: I, me , the ego, the

se lf, th e subject, th e i ndi vidual, t he citize n._The troubl e with tb e subject
has quite a hi stor y . It has , in rec ent dec ades, b een l aid sie ge to on several
fronts. ls th e subject ·m erely a b ourge ois c ategory that occlude s our view of
�lass struggle, the arena that really c ounts (classical M arxi sm)? If-so, we
arc mi s guided in our focus on a �i ssocia ted sel f . Is th e subjec t me r ely an
e ff ec t of t he system (struc turali sm and L acaniauis m)? If so, w e mus t de 0
vote our chi e f at tention to the l arger mech anisms (l a ngua ge , id eology, the
unc onsc ious) th at offe r th e best ho p e f or underst andi ng a nd inte rvention.
H as th e s ubject bcon so de cenrered, hybridized, a nd now vir tua lized
tha t it ceases to support a meaningful s ense of a self ( poststruc turalism,
c yber-theory)?·Or is thi s ab so r ption in th e self a symptom o f nar cissi sm,
a . massive d efen se of tbe_ ego locatabl e in . the ar ti sts or in soci et y at larg e
(psych olo�y)? ls th e subject abstrac t or concr ete-a the or etic al construc t
SUJtVETINC TH£ SV8J £CT

r equiri n g learne d a llusi ons to e very philosopher sin ce Descar tes or a ves
t ige of the ever yday properly grou n ded in the materia lity _ of a gende red;
per formative b ody? Are w e, a s allege d by Ne al Gabler in a postmille nnial
Op-Ed pi ec e, liv i n g i n t he Epoch of Ego, in which the indiv idu al. occupies
center s tage, b oth for b e cce r a nd fo r worse ("the ego, the self, i s either a
maw ro be fed or a s crim through which to see ")?6 Thes e di verge nt visi ons
of s ubje cti v ity i n the lat e twen tieth c entu(f c o llectively lim n the comour s
of co nt emporary c ultu ral theory.7 .
There ar e c oun te rvailin g vo ices. Not ever yone a g ree s that subje ctivity
is central. A renowned cultu.ral critic of my acquaintance once announced
to me with some pddc that he ha d y et . t o use the term s "subject" or "sub
jectiv ity" in his own wr itin g. Taking up that implicit challe nge, sh ouldn't
we b egi n by aski ng h ow us eful the category of the subj ect is for media
studies a nd whethe r or no t ou r atten tion t o it is ill-adv ise d?_ Perha ps the
a ulObiographic al trend is mostly a n Ame ric an manifestation. (Herc it is
worth re callin g Georges Gusdor f's c on troversial stateme lll that autobiog
raphy ."e xpresses a concern pe culia r to West ern man," a claim that, m ore
than four d e cades later, se ems wro ng on two cou nts, that of gen der a n d of
geogra phy.)8 Sociologist Adie Russell Hochschild sees the t urn to the pe r
sonal a s a product of rece nt hi storica l c on ditio.ns in the Un ited States. In
a len gthy pi e c e in the New York Times on Ame r ican s' obs e ssive identity
questing, H ochschild writes the following:
Americ.an s who c�me of age io rhe 1.930s, 40 s and 60s have been branded by
IJige events-rhe Great Depre ssion, World Vlar II, Vie tnam-and the collec
tiv e moods they .-iroused. But from the 70 s th.rough the 90s, hi stor)''s signal
events happened elsewh ere. Communism collap sed, but not in the United
Scates. War s raged in Rwa nda, r.he Balkans and elsewhe re, but th ey had linle
effect here.. The forc es in the Unit ed St ates have been social and e conomic,
and th ey h�vc shi fted the focu s to personal i ssue s-matte.rs of lifest yle tha t
a re shaped by consumerism, the mass media and an incr easing sense of im
permanence in family and work.'
This analy sis ignor es the i n ro ads m ade by femin ist activism dur ing this
era. Increased att ention was actively accorde d the pe rsonal; the time·
honore d e mpha sis on "large e vents," as Ho chschild c alls them, was
shown to b e the resu lt of a ma sc uli nist bi as. Politics n(iw include d how in
di viduals, rather tha n nati on-sta te s, conducted them selves in the world.10
Mor eo':'er, I cannot agre e with an exclusively Americani st pe rspec-·
ti ve, a vi e w that argues that the autobiographical impulse has thrived _best
on American soil io an era of economic success and increase·d leisure time.
At leas t i n the rea lm of co ntemporary film and vide o pra ctic es, thi s see ms
not to b e so, as evide nce d by the em erge nce of exciting fi r s t p- erson work
xiv SURVtTINC THC S U8JtCT
. Digitized by Origfoal from

from Cana da , Eu rope, Asia , Australia , a nd the M-iddle Ea st. But the qu es
tion rema ins: s ho uld the matter of subjectivity be a central one for m edia
mak ers and sch ola rs, or is cur ren t inte rest in the personal� loca l, short
lived, and inconsequential affa i_r?
My firs t reply is intu itive, for my years of t eachi ng an d writing ab o ut
the self a s e xpres sed in film a nd vid eo tell me that subj ec t ivity c on ti nues
to m atte r a very gre a t d ea l. I know rha t it ma uers to my stud ents, who
have , over the y ears, been c o etfronted by- c ountless p erso na l films and ta pe s
· and, more often than not, h ave res ponded f rom th eir guts with anger and
with empathy, bui only r arely with in differe nce . Marlon R iggs's op-0n i ng
in ca nt at ion from Tongues Untied (1989)-"Brother t o brother, brother to,
·
.. br other"-cootinues to m esmer ize.mo re th an a decade lat er . Rea Ta ji r i's
evocation of he r mothe r�s i nte rnrnCn� camp experienc es d uring World
Wa r JI in History and Memory (r991) ne ver fails to e li cit imp ass ioned re
sponse. Alan Berli ner' s.verbal sparrin g s essi on s with his fathe r i n Nobody's
Business (1996) get laughs in a ll the r ight pl aces.

The qu a lity of the bes t work of this sort i s unq uestiona bi e, bu t · so is
the q uantity: th e au tobiographic a l is an eve r-exp anding ca tegory of pro
du ction at fe stiva ls, in the re pertory hou ses, an d on broadc. a st v enu es such
a s the·PBS seri es P.O. V., which si nce the mid-,99os h as provided a for um ·
fo r p ersonal, passi onate , and frequently con trov ersia l n on ficti on wort No r
i s the a utobiogr aphi ca l a un ique ly America n preocc upation { a lt hough I am
admitte dly most awa re · of fil�s and t ape. s made in the Un it ed.Stat� s). F,;{
five y ears (1994-1999 ), BBC Two broadc ast a s er ie s c;f sh ort fi rst-pe rson
pi ece s produce d by a divers e sample of i ndividual s who se .dispa rate iden ti
ties, persp ectiv es, and everyday exp·erien ce s were co be th e subject ma tte r
o f occa siona l "fi eld re ports." The se br i ef s el f -re flect ions (a su cces sion of
a utobiog ra phic a l miniatures ) cumul at ively evoke the b rea dth of soda I Hf e
_i n th e new B ritain . Video Nation, a s the program wa s aptly ti tled, intro

duc ed the life storie s of a.II manner of peopl e ( th e elderly upp er -class gentle
man , the ver y pr egnant A s i an wo man, th_ · e pa in fully i s o lated g ay man) into
th ou sands of Briti s h h omes, fo stering a ki nd of so ci al conta c t un likely to
occ u r under other ci r cums tan ces. Video Nation's shor t programs were
conceived as interventions in the national broadcast schedul e, capsule in tru ..
si9ns of the un re hear se d and· the di aristic into th e pr ofes si on ally prod uce d
image fl ow .
By n ow the re pertoir e of fi(st-pe rs on wo rk from which I s ele. ct texts
to b e s creened for my co urses i s iminens e, most o f it p rodu ce d in the
. .
1980 s and r99o s. Recen tly, the prQduction p rog ram i n th e USC Scho ol o(
Cin ema -Tele vi si on has begun off er ing a c ou rse in "persona l vide o," a fa (
cry from the Hollywood model that ha s prevailed t here for s even ty-five
SV 8'1CYINO ,TH£ SUBJCCT

yea r s . Th e adv anced d ocu mentary projects ma de in the scho ol te nd mor e
· fr e que ntly t oward the p er son al than they did a dec a de a go . So there a p
p e ar s to b e a n a udience for, a nd m yriad producers of, au tobi o gra phi ca l
work. Bu t how b on a fide ar e its cl aims 10 critica l a ttention? And her e the
int u itiv e a nd anecdot al ground s for my inter e s t re ceive suppo r t fr om other
quarters.
·B ack when I first b e gan to te ach auiobiographica l films (1he e a rly
r98o s), Michel Foucault wrote ,ba t in the fac e o f instit utiona l and s tat e
v i o lence a nd of ma ssiv e ide ologic al pressu re s , th e centr al ques ti o n of
our ti me r emained "\X'ho are we?"' 11 Fouca u lt claim e d that in previous
ep o chs , the s tru ggl e a ga ins t domin a ti on a nd expl oitation ha d take n cen
ter st ag e . Nc,w, for an in creas ing number of p eo pl e , th e fight was a g ainst .
subjecti o n, aga ins t the submission of subjectivity. I n Foucau lt's h a nd s, thi s
cir cu1nstance ca ll ed for a rigorous and bi st oricizing inter r oga tion of power
a s exet1ed and experie nc e d. S ub jectivity-tha t multi la yered c on s, r uction
of selfhood imagine d, pe rf o rmed, a nd assigned w -as pro pose d as the cur
rent s it e of str uggle th a t m a ttere d mos1.
For a cultu ra l cri1ic s uch as m yse lf, most a tt uned t.o the nuanc es o f
the cinema tic , it wa s crucial t o as k a slightly diffore m se t o f ques ti ons: Just
b o w does subj ecti�ity (as sel f - asse rtion or as cr itique) get expr e s se d on
film ? Wha, mo des of sel f0 inscription hav e been e mploy e d by filmmakers?
Ho w ind ebt ed are thes e m odes w cen tu ries-old lit erar y a utobi ogra phi
ca l.prac ti ces ? Wh a t difference s a ri se when the a utobiogr a ph er ch o os es
film, vid eo, or th e ln tcr n e, f o r h er n:iode of pro duction? Wha t are the
ethi cal issu es ,ha t au tobiogra phy en t ails? These questions a re intell ec t u
ally com pelling but a lso o f s ub st a nti a l politic al import. The a ssertion .
of "wb o we are," p articul arly for a citizenry massively separate d from
the engines of repre senr ation-.the advertising, news, and emertainment
indu sc ries-is a vital expression of a gency. We a�e no t only wha, we d o in
a world o f imag es; we are also whac we sh ow ou rselve s to b e . As a rgue d
by many femin ist and su�a lte r n critics, autobiography has become a cru
cia l medi um o f r e sis ta nce and count erdisc our se, "the legiti ma t e space for
producing tha t e xcess which throw s doubt on the cohe ren ce a nd power of
an exclusive historiography."12 Whether it is Alex Rive ra's comic rewrit·
ing of the hist ory of me stizo identity (with equa l time give n t o his lnc an
father's emigrati o n t o Ne w Yo rk and th e exploitati on of potat o produces)
i n Papapa1,a (1997) or Vanalyne Gree n's staging of tb e recover y of h e r
personho od a s the child o f a lcoholic parents in Trick or Drink (r984), ·
film ic/vid e o gtaphic aut o biogr aphy h�s become a tool for cou pling li b era
tory public ,estimony a nd private thera py.
It is not at all surpris ing that muc h current aut o bi ogra phy h as b een
..,t SU RVEYING T,_it SU!IJ CCT

.
Digiti zed b y Origi nal from
produce d at the margins o f c ommerci al culture by femini sts, g ays , p e opl e
of col or , and ,navericks of eve ry s tripe. Com rar y to critic s wh o view this
() utpouri ng as reac tionary-the in_dividu alist b acklash ag ain st mov ement
solida rity or th e ac ting out of u nbridl ed solipsis m-th e work is f re qu emly
· engaged i n com munity building and is d ee ply dia logic. In i n· sta�ce afte
in stance, th e fil ms and ta pes build bridg es b�twee n a self ac tively co
s tructcd and an in scrib ed o th er . This other. m ay be che family as in th
c as e of "domesti c echoo graphy" or me mbers of a community li n
t;y racial mc mor y · or electe d a ffinity. Tonally, th e work is tremendo us
diverse -c el ebrator y, el egi ac , sole mn, d eli rio us-but it is al most al way
a ffi rniational of a se lf cultu rally. sp ec ific and publi cly d e fine d. Public dee
l arations of p ri v ate se lves h ave co me to b e def ining acts of c ont empora ry
life, o ften imbued wi th gre at urgen c y. These are th e so cial stakes of fil mic
a utobi ography, but wh at of the di sciplin ary ones ? What h ave me di a sch ol
ars to gain from the study of the s e new autobi()g raphical mo d alities?
Docume nta ry studi es, a burge oning and d eeply interdisciplinar y f ield .
o f inqui r y, may be th e greates t b en e factor . I · am unash amed co say th at I
am an emhusi ast as well as a sc holar o f docu me nta ry . I believe th at the
a utobiogra phic al impetu s I am desciibing h as·i nfu sed th e documentar y
tradi1i o i1.wi1h a much-nee ded vit ality a nd e xp a nded its v er nacul ar . (Thi s ,,
is 3 claim· thac I have arrived at inductively; these essays, written over a
nearly twe nty-y ea r
period, will provid e th e evide nce of th at e nlivening and
expa nsion.) On the.s cholarly sid e, s ubjectivity h as l ong !>ee n an issu e in ,,
the study of filmic narrative, fictions whose structuring of point of view,
often via che u s e of ha nd held camer a and voic e-ove r narration, could pro-
. du ce th e se n se of a specif abl e and emb o died agency with whom a udience
i
me mbers might be temp<Jrarily aligned. Bue the do mai n of nonficti on was ,·
typi cally fu el ed by a concern for objectiv ity, a belief that what was s een
and heard must retain its integ rity as a pla usible slice of the soci a l w orld.
How. els e to p ersu ade vi ewers to invest b eli e f, to pro duce "vi sibl e ev id ence,"
and even induce S()cia l acti o n? Now ada ys there are ample gro unds for an
a ctive distrust of th at b o_pe d-for neutrality. The journalistic st and ard s o f
objec tive re por tage h av e bee n so e rode d by the n ews g athere rs and high-
prof(le T.V anchors, th.e emergence o f the digital has so undercut ou r faith
in th e indexic ali ty of signs, irony as master 'se n sibility o f ou r time h as
b eco me so perv asiv e that objectivity has b ecome a n empcy sh ell of a c on·
str uc t , kept a liv e by a v o cal mi n ority. Giv en the waning of objecti v ity as a
compelli ng soci al·narr at(v e , there app ea r to be ampl e grounds for a more
sus tained examination of the diverse expr essi ons o f sub jec tivity P.to duced
i n nonfiction texts.
But documenta ry studies , rooted in the G ricr sonia n t radition of high
.. ,
SUIIVCTIMG THE S08J £C T
Oigitiz� by Original from

s eriousnes s, tends still to conside r the a vowJ1l of sub jectivity a slightly
suspec t act. Bill Nichols has w r itten that the standard trope s of s ubj ec tiv e
e diting familia r from f cti on films become , in the realm of do cumentary,
i
the found ation for "a social subjectivity ...[a] subjectivity dis sociated
from any single individuated character." Here ouC' identification is wirh
the audie nce a s a c oll ectivity ra ther than with an individual.be hind the
ca mer a.13 I. s hare the belief that docume ntary c an b e se ri ous bu sine ss and
that much of its powe r is derived from a share d eng agement w ith the idea s
that can mo ve u s to acti on.Inde ed, Pa rt I of this bo ok, entitled "Soci al
Subjectivity," examines occasions in which personal conce r ns are shown
ro over lap w ith, or be ov er taken by, a kind of political u r genc y. But is it
not als o the ca se that rhi s notion of s ocial subjectivity ca n conc ea l even
a s it re veal s ? Weren't the class ic films of the Grier son gro up also marked
by the c lass values and s ensibilities of the young, Ca mbridge-educ ated

cin eas rs? We re the re not, as the wor k of Humphre y Jenning s be s t illus
tra te s, subjectivities on display despite the centrality of the group's avowe d
"proj ect"? Hasn't Ame ric an TV cove r age of battles fought from Vietnam
to Iraq always doubled as n ationali s t a nd eve n pers onal self-promo tio n?
P rivate vi sion s and ca reeris t goals have always c ommingl ed w ith the
av owed social aim s of collective document ary endeavors.
The repr ession of subje ctivity has bee n a persistent, ideolo gic ally
d r ive n fact of docum enta r y hi stor y; y e t subjectivity has never bee n
bani she d f ro m the document ary ranks. In fac t, ma ny of the mile s tone
achie ve ments of documentary film1nakiog's fi rst decade s we r e exerci ses
in sel f e- xpres si on. Here I'm thinking of Dziga Ver tov's Man with a Movi e
Camera (19z9 ), whic h ca ralogs the cor r e spondenc e s be tween human
pe rception (vi sual and audito r y) and the potentia litie s of the cinematic
app aratus, often in di zzying fa s hion." In t r ue Communi st style, Ver tov
suborns his own subjectivit.y to that of his comr ade s-br othe r Mikhail,
the eponymous cametaman, whose point of. view is repeatedly shown ro
be the source of what we see, and edito r/wife Yclizaveta Svilova, whose
c hoic es at the e diting bench ar c shown to bring the ft)Ota ge to life. Verto v's
wife and bro ther b ecome the de le gates of hi s p roj ec ted subj�ctivity. Je an
Vigo's Apropos de Nice (1930) contains seve ra l notJ1bl e instances ·of inte l- ·
le ctua l mont age, crossc uts be twe en indolent touri sts and_ c rocodil es sun
ning themselves or b etw een a haughty dowager and a n ostrich, se quen ce s
in which implicit perspective is displaced by o ver t c omment ar y.
Jor is lvens's Rain (19z9) is a cine-poem de vote d to replic ating the
filmmaker's expe rience of rainfall in Amste rd am.A numbe r of shots evi
dence an unapologetic fi rst-per son se ns ibility, as Ivens describes'in his
aut obiography:
xvi ii $ URVETINC THE S IJ8JE CT

At th'at time I live d w ith a n d for the rain. I rried to imagin e how everything I
saw w ould Jook i n the r3ln-.a n d o n the screen. It was part gatne, p3ct obses
sion, part actio n.... I nev�r moved without my ca mera -it was with me in
th e office� laborato ry, street, train.1 Hved with it and wh en I slept ir was on
• ;uy bedside t3ble so that if it was raining wh en I V\:<>.ke I coul� film the studio
wi ndow·ovcr my b ed. Some of .the bes t shots of raindro ps alon g che sl anted
studio wi ndows were actlla,ly taken fn?m my b ed \\'hen I woke u p15 .
.Jvens's subsequent move away from pe(sona l explorations to more
p ol iticized fra meworksfor his fil.m m aking is�xemplary of the_. historical
moment. In 1929 he h ad bee n inv.itcd to the Sovie t Union by ·th e ren own ed
filmmaker Vsev o lod Pud o vkin, who se film Mother (1926) had been on e of
the inspirati o ns for rhe fo undi ng of the Filmliga, Amsterda m's cine-club,
two years bef ore. Whe n a sked why be had issued the inv itation, Pudo vki n
repli ed: "Bec ause y our films hav e qualities which many of o ur a ocurncn.
ta ry directors l ack-q ualiti e s qf tensio n and emoriqo that are very val u
able in factual films."16 Ivens has recounted how the visit to the S.ov iet
Un io n reoriented �is p(ioritie s, alteri ng forever the ba lance bctween
aesthetic a nd so ci a_l factors in his ow n work. With the onset of gl obal eco
nomic uphe aval and heighten ed class te nsi onsi n the 1930s, I vens de ter
mined th at so cial o bligation o u tweighed person al a�d expressly a nistic
concern s.
Du.ring th e filmiog of Horirrage we sometime s h·ad t o d estroy a certain
· unwekome-supcrfldal beauty thar would o ccur whe n we did not w3nt it.
When th e clea n-cut shadow of th e barracks window fell on the dirty rags ·
and di shes of a tab e the p easa n t effecr of the shadow actually des1-royed the
l l
.
effect of th e dirtines.s we wanted, so w.c br oke the edges of the sh ad ow. Our
.
aim was to prevent agreeabl e photographic effects distracting (he audience
fro m the un pl easant truth s we wc·rc sh owi n g .17
Thus did Ivens describe hi s conscious embrace of a ki nd o f asceti

ci sm , a turn away from the p ersonal explorations tha t h ad driven hi m to
make The Bridge (1928) and Rai11, as well as th e "I� fibn (an unfinished
experi m ent employi ng an exclusively subjecti ve camera). It ,ya s a t u rn
enforced by hist ory.18 I am to some extent, then, endorsing Arlie Russell
· Hochschild's notion of historica l dererminancy inlhc for mation of cul
ture, her sense that "what makes� generation i sit sconnection to hi sto
ry."19 I n the ,930s, worldwide econo m ic cri sisa nd social upheava l defined
a generation .
The Griersonian initi ative in Great Britain dates to this moment of
. epochal social change (Grierso n's own Drifters was compl e ted in 1929), as.
d o the i m portant efforts o f A m erica's de pre ssion- era doc u mentaria ns such
as Pare Lore ntz, Paul Strand, and Leo Hu rwitz. The pri oritie s e nf orced
6URYETINC THC S USll:Ct'
Digitized by · ·original from

by the de pression a nd.Wo r ld Wa r l l re ined in th e experi�c nta lism a nd
un a ba she d su bjectiv ity of expressi on that b'ad so enliv en ed docum en tary
In
practice in the 1920s. t_ he cas e of the America ns, there is a de gree of
styliza tion a ppare nt in the early work of tbe doc u mentary L eft (e.g., Pie
i11 the Sky [19351), though it te nds toward a Sovi et -style exp ressionism
more tha n firs t-p erso n expl oration. But the collaborati ve document ary
effort s of rhe 193 os �the output of the \Vork ers' Film and Pho to L eague ,
Nykin o, an d Fronti er Films-best ill ust ra te the collectivist a mbitions of
..
the day . In dividu al subj ectivity was to be s ac rific ed t o the grea ter good,
the la rger historica l imp etatives.20 A similar Sovie t · or M ao ist-style colle c
tivism arose i n post-1968 Fr anc e: Chris Marker's SLON group, Jean -Luc
Go dard an d Jean -Pierr e Godn's Dzig a Ver tov Grou p. In dividua lism, even
· the ackno wledgme nt of authorship, wa s sp urne d by these disti ng uishe d
cineas ts, just as it was by t he ·e dit ors of Cahiers d1t Cinema, whose collc c·
tive texts were at the vangua rd of early 1970s film theory.
A paralle l de ve k,pment occurr ed in the U nite d Stat es with News re el,
the New L eft doc umen tary c;ollect_ ive fou nded in New York in Dec embe r
1967, discu sse d at length in chapt er 1. News reel's video equivale n ts, the
g uerrilla te le vision collectives of the ea rly 1970s suc h a s Raind anc e, To p
Value Telev ision, Ant Fa rm, an d Video Fre e A.med ca a ls o opt ed for a
collec tive, ra ther th an in dividua l, creativ e id entity.21 Owin g to the f r ag•
menta ti on or dispersal of the Le ft in b oth Fran ce an d the Un it ed St ate s as
we ll as in terna l disse nsion , these c oll ectiv es were in de clin e or de funct by
the mid-197os. 22 The_ se colla bora ti vely produc ed films and tape s, while
the y a bju red individu alism on politi ca l grounds and he nce ra rely hint ed
a t the aut o bi og ra phic a l, were deeply imp assi oned and far from o bj ective.
Energiz ed b}' the civil rights, student, and antiwar' 1noveme nts, the activ-
ist work s of this pe r iod wer e a t odds with the pr eva iling jour nalistic st a n-
da rds tha t preached neutra lity a s well as with-the docum ent ary for mat
that h ad, by the late 1960s, b ecorne dec idedly he ge monic, that is, direc t
cinema.
Beginning in l960, pra ctitiooe rs su ch as Ric hard L ea cock, D. A.
Pennebaker, the Maysles, a nd (somewhat late r). Frcder ic k \Visem an had
evo lve d an approach to documen tary filmrn akin g th at shunne d a ll tr ace s
of the maker's presence. Th ere ·we re to b e no voic e-over s, no · interviews,
no di rectio n of the films' su bjec ts. It was, in Step hen Mamber's phrase,
"uncon tr olled doc um en tary." Gripped by an abiding faith in th� spon·
taneou s, these f il r:nmakers refu sed to re -create events or even control the
behavi or of their subje cts. The filmmake r was to be "a re p orter with a
ca mera in stead of a no tebook."2' The re pression o f subje c ti vity was n o w
a c ar di na l v i rtu e. That precept is most clearly st ared by Ro bert Dre w, the .
SUllVtYING Tfft SOIJCC T

G r ierson of thi s movement: "The fi lm mak er's personali ty i s i n no way
directl y involve d in dir�cting the acti on." 24
Brian.Wi nston has wrin eu in cisivel y of the idt.-ol ogical under pin ni n gs
of di rec t ci n ema, t he ways i n which i t cl aimed th e high ground of sci
· .
ence tO support its super:ioricy t o its predece sso rs. a nd c ompecitors.2S The ·
debates surrounding the filnunaker' s presumptio;, of objc� tivity, the con -· .
str uc ti on of documentar y pta�tice as " p ure re p or tage ," �ec ome deeply
mire d by the end of �h e 1960s with Wis cman' s p roven anc e .J n. .Wi nston's
persuasiv!! ac count, Wiseman�s clai.tns to making " rea lity fi c ti�)ns," ·ap.t
.
vers ions of hi s expetience of a "rea l" instit ution y er shorn of all ma r.°kers
of the filmmaker's presenCe., were casuistri es, shr�wd .but .disi n genuOt�s re
bvt1als of rhc critique.
Dire ct Cinema's .disparaged predecesso r was the Qramatic. '
reehactment
uadition of Fl aherty and Gri erson, but ics real rival was the work of Jean .
Rouc h, che etli no gra ph� r/filmmaker whose ci nema verire a ppro ach was
devel o ped conte mporaneo usly in France . Rejecti n g the American�' pr e
ten se of-i nvisibili ty, RC> uch b elie ved i n the necessity of acknowled1fi ng the
impact of t he filtnmakc r's pr�sence. He chose to "generate rea lit y" racher
tha n all ow it to u nf old p assiv ely befo re him.26 To th at e nd, R ouc h pushed
p a rticipant obserVation to ne w l e vel s of inte.ractivit y; h e sa w the camera ·as :,..
a ''.psychoan alytic stim ul an t" cap able of precipitati ng acti on a nd cha racier
revel ati on . � ouch' s role a s a key prec,;rso� to the c�nfe�si on al effusi ons of
contemporary �ideo pra cti tione rs is explo_red in cha pter 13°. Herc it is most
i m po rtani to re c all Rouch's rehabilitation of that most-di_s paraged docu ,
mentary device, the voice-pvcr.
As describ
. ed by c oun tless t ri,ics, the vo ice - over has., in r ecent de- .
c ades , been de pl ored as dict ato r ia l, th e Voic e of G od; i t i mp ose s an om:
n isc i eni:e·bes p eaki ng a p os
_ iti on- of abs olute kno wl edg e . Cur rent not ions
of k no wledge a s more prop e rly "p ar <ia l" or "sit uated" seem at odds ,vi t h
th e authorial voice_- over.27 Yet i n the han ds of Rouch and otl1ers s uth as
.. M a rk er, Michael Rub bo, and Ros s l\1cElwee , the filmmaker's voice h as .
come to imply n ot c errainty so muc h as _a testimon ial pre senc e ti11ged by .
self-doubt or·b emusemen t. In s tead of doubl ing the image o r. certifyin g its
a uthe nticit y as fact, this mode of documentary voice-over i s as likel y to
questi on wh at is sh o wn as to i nte r pret it au,horitativcly. Emer gi ng-first
. with Rouch i n the 1950s (and more obliquely in the wnrk of Marke r i n
. films such as Letter fro_m Siberia [t957J and Koumik o Mystery (1965]),28
t he signifyi ng po<ential of th e au,hor ial voice gets de velo p ed with a .
subtlety a nd sophistic ati on pr eviously unkno wn .29 Althou gh I would not
a rgue for the participant camera style and fir st-perso n voicings of R ou�h
as.a utobiogra phical practi ce per se, they do forge a c r ucial histor ica l li n k
$QIIVtTINO THE SUIJCCT
· Digitized by Original from

be tween the ava n t-gardis m of th e 19,o s and the autobi og raphic al out
break o_f the ·r98o s and 1990s.
Sever a l of the chapters in Part I of thi s book he lp to fill in some of the
gap s that sep arat e the effus ive subjectivity on displa y iri the avant-garde
of tbe 1920s a nd the cu r rent sc ene. These ar c, fo r the most pa r t, textua lly
b ased hi storical a naly ses of film s in w hich the subjectivity of the i ndividu
a l filmma_kcr is expr ess ly de fin ed in relat o n to political s tr uggle or histor i
i
cal tra uma. Whe ther it is the so cia l revolts of the 1960s as in the c hapter s
o n Newsree l an d Ha ske ll We xlc r's Medium Cool, the sea rc h for diasp or ic
iden tity i n a dy nam ic p ostwa r New York (chapter 4 on Jonas Meka s's
Lost, Lost, Lost), or the r eclama ti on of Asia n America n identity (chap·
ter 3), these fi_lm ic or videographic explorations of self req ui re a histo r ic al
o the r: Me kas 's monu mental fil m offe r s a nota ble e xa mple. Beginning in
1949, Me kas began s h<> oti ng fo otage of hi s life as a Lithua nian emig re
and e mer ging arti s t in New York City. By the ti me of the r ele� se of Lost,
Lost, Lost m ore than a qua rter c entu r y la ter, Mek as had develop ed a
deeply pers ona l filmma king s tyle to which the film ser ves as · w itnes s a nd
p r oof . Diar i s tic though the work may b e, it offers a vision of a life c om
pl exly grounded i n rhe soci al a nd politic al uphea vals of the p ost war yea rs.
Yet de spite the documentar y qualiti es that this wor k so acutely di s plays,
it ha s, with some exc eption s, b een largely di sc oum ed w ithin the ra nks of
nonficti on, by maker s an d c r itics alike. Had it no t bee n, the explos ion of
per so n al wor k in rhe 1990s might have bee n more easily ass i milated to rhe
docuroenta'ry tradition.
Par t II, "The Subject in Theo ry," fearn res e ssays tba t a ttempt to con
c eptu,ilize s ubje ctivity w ithi n docu mentary dis c ours e th rough refer enc e to
idea s drawn from p sychoana ly si s, as well as fro m ce rtai n strands of post

modern i st theor y a nd ethica l philosophy. \Vhile I wa nt . to make it clear that
I'm n ot intere ste d in p roposing a globa lizing theory of the docu mentary
s ubje ct applicable i n a ll ca ses, I do wa nt to p ose some ques ti ons r egar din g
the u n derlyi ng dy namics that i mp el our inte rest in nonfictio n (chapter 5),
a s well as g rapple with so me ethica l iss ues that may ari se. Um.ii rec ently, it
�vas rare fo r docurnenta ry to be unde rstood in relation to tbe unconscious
a nd it s p roce s se s-des i re , fascin ati on, terror, fantas y . Eliza beth Cowie
ha s argu e d that documen tary ha s had a .long-sta nding vocarion for rep re
s enting the v isible sign s of p sy chic life; s he me ntions B ritish p ost W - orld
Wa r I documentar ies on wa r neuro ses, but Jo hn Husto n's Let There Be
Light (1948) or Cla ude Lanz mano's Shoah (1985) are .equally apposite.30
Moreove r, vi su al pl eas ur e, iod ee d ecstatic lo oking; ought not to be se g re
gated from the doma in of n onfiction as it has been sinc e Merz and Mulv e y
xxi.i SUllVCYINC TH£ SUIIJ CCT
Digitized by Or1ginal from

HARVARD UNIVERSITY HARVARD.UNIVERSITY
wro te th ei r gr oundbrea ki ng treati s es o f the x97o s. I echo Co wie's sense o f
the rightness o f t h e fi t b et ween psych oana lysi s and documentary:
Documentary filmsa s record ed actua lity therefore figure both in the dis
COUfSC of sci ence, as a means of obtaining the know;;iblc i n the world, a nd
i n the discour,se of desire-that is, the wish tc;> know the truth of the world,
represented by the question i nvariabl y posed Co acruality fi l m, Is thi's rea lly
so, is: it true? Ln that question is another, n�mely, the question of, finally,
. Do I exist? A question that is addre�sed t() anorher from whom we seek ;;1tid
d esire a response. This is the quest ioning that psychoanalysis ha·s sought to
.
uoderstand.31
. . .
Th e third and final part of th e . b o o k i s de voted ro anal yses o f the
'·
vari ous m od es o f sub jectivity from the el ectr onic ess ay t o th e vid e o
confession to the aut obiographic al -W�b site . Herc it is th e graph ol ogi
ca l dimen sion di scu ssed e arlier th at c o nies ir110 play, the w ay s in which
.
sel-f-iriscriptio11 i s consti tuted thr ough its c o ncrete signifying p ractkes. In.
·
ch a pter.xx ("New Subject iviti es"), l offer a co nte xt for th e recent·turn . t o
f il_mic auto bi o g raphy, sugg esting that the expl or at i on o f subjectivity h as

h een· th e d efini ng trend o f "post·verite" document ary pr actice fr om 1970
to r995. The ch a pters that foli o,.; trace in gre a ter detail the preci se prac
tic e-s in their variatio.n. In thi s ponion o f the book, it i s the "h ow" tathcr ,
(, .
t h a n the "why" th at b ec o mes i'�e f oc us.
Bey ond all a ttempts at de scription, analysis, and hi sto ri ca l conte x

tualizati
. on, I am als o interes ted in c.elebrating sub je ctivity in documcn-
r acy. In hi s critiqu e o f mud, c ontempor ary theorizi11g 011 do cum entary,

N o el Carr o ll o ffers illustr ati on _of hi s p o ints thr ough refe rence to PBS
b roadca st works such as \Vings ofthe Luftwaffe and Nova's "Ci t y o f
C or al." Th es e h e cla i ms. ar e m ore " st a t isti cally significant" th an the
documentary fil ms that film sch ol ar s tend to write about: The Thin Blue.
Li,ze, Tongues Untied, Roger and Me, Sherman's Morch, even Man with
o Movie Camero and Chronique d'un ete.32 Th ese fil ms he �all s " ar t
d o cume ntari es," and their existence {even aesthetic excell ence) ought not
to·sway us fr om our conc ern for divining how ,:a onficri on.fihn can satisf y
th e co nditi ons of ve rifi abl e knowled ge. The questi o n o f th e tr uth or falsity
o f nonficti o n's knowledge cl aims cl e arly enlivcn s·C arr o ll's i11ter est s for
more than u nd erst andi n g the s ource of any p art icul ar fil m' s app e aL Thi s
i s a vi abl e posit i on to ta ke -in th e academy, bur it produ ces rarified argu,
ment rath er than an invigoration of, o r (eal insight i nto, film c ulture. let s
not for me. The fil ms h e singles out a re n o t in fact a rt -d o cu menc ari es (g o
.
to any museum ro see the author itative discourses on artists and artworks
mor e pr op erly te�med art -d o cu mentaries). Rat h er, th ey a re the f lms t h at
i
h ave help ed r evitalize d o cu ment ary pract ice and exerci sed co nsider able
SOIIYCYJN(i THE SUBJECT o:iii

fa scination over audiences. Their power is derived in no small measure
fr,>m their m obiliza tio n and reinsc ription of a pcactitioner-self who shows
us the world anew.
I am kino-eyc, I a m a mech anical eye. I, a m achine, show you the world as
onl y l can see it. Now .ind forever, 1 free in yself from human im mobility, I
a m in constant motioo, ( draw n'car, then awa>' from objects, I cr awl under, 1
cli m b onto them. I move apace with the muzilc: of a galloping horse, I plung e
full speed into a c.rowd, 1 outstrip running soldie rs, I fall on my back, I as
cend with a n airpla11e 1 I plunge ::ind soar rogerher 'A•irh plunging and soaring
bodies.Now I, a camera, fling myself along �hei.r resultatll path, m aneuver
ing in the chaos of movement, recording movement, starting with move ments
co mp0sed of the most co m plex combinations.
Free d from the rule of sixteen-se vente en fra mes per second, free of the
limits of ti me and space, J p ut toge rher any give n points in the universe, no
mat ter where I've recorded the m.
My p ath lea ds to the creation of a fresh perception of the world. I decipher
' in a new way a w orld unknow,1 to you.33
So wrote Dzig a Venov in 1923. It is a eupho ric s tat ement o f the unlim
ited pi>ssibilitie s ope n to the d ocumentary filmmaker, who is forcefl1lly
identified with the apparatus ("Now l, a camera, fling mys elf ... "). Ye s,
Vertov glories in rhe infinite p erfectibility of the·camera e ye,.as every his
torian ha s no ted, but not as a o en d in itself. The kino-eye is revolutionary
because it can explode th e inhe rite d limits of huma n subj ectivity. The
new vis i on s of the self creat ed by film- a n d vide omaker s of the 1980s and
1990s that I explore in this book may no t, after all, be so n ew .
And y e t, a t the beg inning o f a new century, th e re tur n to subjectivi
ty, 10 tbe explor a tion of a seeing, fe eling, and even healing sel f expressed
cinematica lly, is n ewly charged. \Vas it only a decade ago that Bill Nichols
co_ uld write, in his gro undbreaking volume Representing Reality, "Subjec
tivity a nd identificatio n a re far less frequ ently explored in documen tary
than in fi ction.Issues of objectivity, ethics, and ide ology ha ve become the
ha llmark of docume ntary debat e as i ssu es of subj ectivity, identific atio n,
and ge nder have of narrative fictio n."3• The time has c enainly a rriv e d (as
Nichols him s elf de monstrated in hi s next book, Blurred B011ndaries) for a
reassessment, for the op en ack nowledg ment that the subject i11 do cu m en,
tary h a s, ro a surpris ing degree, bec9me the subje ct of doc.umenrary: ·
11:ll'iv suavCTI N(; TH£ SIJBJ CCT
Di9itized by Origi nal from

'
I Social Subjectivity
..
.,
,, ' :. :

[ I ] Early Newsreel: The .Construction of
a Political
.. . Imaginary for the New Left
"Early N ewsree l," first publ is hed in Afterimage in Fe bruary 1987, wa s

delivered as a pape r at the c onference "Hollywood in Progr ess: The
Years ofT'ran sition," in Ancona; Italy, i n Nove111ber 1984. In contrast
t o the conf e renc e's focus 011 th e deform ations ofHollywood productio,i
in th e 196os,.J examined a highly politicized documentary a lter n ative to
th e sometime s quirky but decid edly commercial practic es of tha t era of
American/ilm history. Newsreel, a· Ne w York-b ased radical docu,nen
tary coll ectiv. e.in sync with th e New Le ft, spawning cha/Jle rs arou nd the
country, was a lat e-196os m anifestati911 th at I had b ee n avidly research
ing in relation to other countertult ural forms · including the underground
press, street theate,r, comix, undergrou nd rad io, and gu�rrilla telev isi· on .
.
Drawit.1g 011 film theory's psychoan alytic insights, I argued that N ewsreel
films off ered th eir politically enga ged au die nces a sit e for pro;ection and
identification tha t wa s (at least structurally) an a logous to that o f their
r evile. d. Hollywood counterp arts . Espe ci ally pertinent to the centra l argu-
.
ment of this boo k,. "E arly Newsreel" testified to the extent t.o whi ch stan-
. .
d ard notions of auth·orial subiectivity were, for tha t moment in the late
1960s and ea rly 1970s, d een,ed politic ally retrograde. T,venty years l ater,
the pendulum would b egin t o swing in the other direction as identity,
rathe·r, than move,nent, politics Cante to the fore.
In hi s introduction to T he Archae ology of Knowledge (r97i), Michel

Foucault explores with customary eleg ance the e pi stemologi c al founda-
tions of what (i n France in 1969) be termed a "new history"; that is, a
fi eld of di scourse, a hi storical problematic, constituted not by the divina
ti on of continuity, the si ngle horizon li ne of ideas and traditions, out by
a semiosis of disconti nuity and it s p r incipal parts-threshold, ruptu re,
break, mutation, (ransfocmacion. Indeed, Foucault's own work devote s

itself to the ·detecti on and rigor ous el abor ation of just such i nterrupti ons
in the sur face of a globaliz ed hi stori cal narration. For if Fou cau lt's gra nd
projec t rema in ed the analysis of the re gulate d a nd legiti m�ted form s of
powe r, th e g eneral mechani sms thr ough which th ese for m s operate , a nd
thei r contin ua l e ffe cts, the locu s of ana lysi s wa s fixed pre cisely at thos e
p oints at whi ch powe r became "c apill ar y" or loca lize d. Th e object of su c h
m icr oa nalysi s was th e ove rthrow <if hi story as a distill ation of a si ngl e will
or govern in g animus in fa v or of a proces.s of discove ry-of a ser ies of sub

j ec t positi ons pr ogressively and m ate ri ally constit uted within a co ncre tely
differentiated pl ay of p sychi c a nd social forc es.'
To shift the terms of the arg ument tow ar d the terrai n of cla s si cal
Mar xi st criti cism, Foucault's ca ll for a ne w history entai ls a reord er ing of
emphasis from ove rall de term in atio n a nd the c on stru cti on of a tota lizing
model to the play of differ ence withi n the histo ri og rapbi c fi eld. The em
ph asi s on rupture and transformation can chus be cast as an act of affir

mation, a measur ed deconstruction of a false metaphysics. He writes:
Cominuous history is the indispensable correlative of the fo.unding function
of the sub ject:the gua rantee that everything that has eluded him rnay be re
store dto him; the certainty that time will disperse nothing without restoring
it in a reconstituted unity; the P.tomisc that one day th e subject-in the foi:m
of historic . al consciousness-will once again be able to appropriate, to bring
back under his sway ,. all those thi ngs chat arc kept at a distance by differ·
encc, and fi nd in them what might be called his abode,2
The inter rogation of dy adic or rigidly dete nninist systems of thought,

whose str uc tu ri ng an d conce ptu alizi ng of term s deny th ei r intcr pcrie1ra
tion and thus their mutually c on stitutive ch aracter , is by no mean s the
excl usiv e prov.ince of the poststr ucturalist or deconstruc ri-ve critic·. One
particul arly fruitf u l di rectio n o f s uch s tudy, ge n erated within a Ma rxist
frame wor k, ba s dev elop ed' the Cramsci an notio n of the he gemonic, that
rec iproc ally confi rn1i ng yet a lway s contested re alm of ideas a nd values that
reinforcps the relations of 4om ioati<)n and subordination within society.

Cramsci's formula ti on and its elaboratio n by cr itics suc h a s Ra ymond
\Villia ms ,;,d St uart Hall, i n theor izin g a pr oce ss, a se ries of a rti c ula
tions within-ideol ogy th rough which class rule bec omes internalized while
remai ni ng all the whil e susceptible to c ontest ation, has e ndowed th e tra
ditio na l Marxist bi nari sm of rul e r/ruled with- a suppleness and fluidity

a dequa t e to the cont ra di c tions of s ocial life. Willi a ms, for his_par t, ha s
urged a n adj ecciva l usage-the "hegemonic " - as a n active inscription of

the transform ational charac ter of power rel ation s experie nce d in cult ural
te rms. Writi ng in Marxism and Literature (1977), \Villiams seems ro ec ho
• tAIHY NEW Sllt:tL
Digiti zed b y Original from

Foucaul t's abju;ati on o f static o r seaml .e ss modes of analysis in favor of
a criti cal meth o d th at "i nste ad of re duc ing work s to fi n ish e d produces;
a nd ac ti viti es to fi xed posit io ns, is capabl e o f discerning, in good faith,
the Ci n iie b ut signifi10ant o pe o.ness of m a ny act ual in iti at ives a n d con.tribu
tions."'3 lf, asWilliams maintaios, hegemony can never be singul ar but is
instead "a realized complex of experiences , rel atiotlships, and acriviriCS,
with spe cific a nd cha n gi ng pressures and li mits,"4 informe d cultural analy
si s must seek to compre hen d the dy nam ic , e v er-shifti ng co n ditions o f sig
nifi cation without enthroning proce.ss itself as a mystifying conti nllity.
. It is withi n thi s frame work of debate over the appro pr iate met hod . s
for' writi ng the hi s to ry o f c,ilture th at I sit uat e th e fpll o wi n g exam ination
of a parti cular variant of politic al fil m ma�ing that Spoke a new l an gua ge
of contes t ation for th e Am etican Ne w Left, as character ized by the f ilm
pro du ction and distrib u tion organization k nown as Newsreel. In dee d,
the outpouring of radi cal docu1n enrar y film maki ng durin g the latter half.
of the 1960 s was only one ma nifes ta tion of an upsu rge of cultural activ-.
is m in th e United States after nearly th ree decades of re t reat . This or any
ex ami nation of coll e ctive effor ts to reshape ,;o ciety th rough cultur al inte r
.. v ention duri ng the 1960s must tak e ioro account the superheate d currents
of thought a nd commitme nt tha t ani ma te d the decade . S uch an i nquiry is
pa rti c_ ularly ti mely give n th e resurgen c e o f popular and scholariy i� ter�st
..
'
i n a decade grown cu(iously remote despite its storied vol atility.
. How man y of us e ducator s in U.S. universi ti es h ave encountered,
ro our b oundl ess dismay, a se a of em pty faces when the le cture _ topi c or
classroom. discussion has turnCd to the Vie tnamWar or tbe mass dclTlon·
stra tions required to s tern the tide of ins tit utionalized racism, event� of
· o,ir r�cent national past? Despite the er�sion of po pular mem ory a�d the '
evacuation of meaning att ached to sixties ac tivism·; t�c. decade re mains a
watersh ed of cons ci ousness f or the pos t World - \Var II U nited Sraies, as ev i
den ced by th e re ce nt publica ti on of an admirabl e coll e ction o f essays and
remi ni scences e ntitl e d T�e SixtiesWithoi,t Apology. 5T · he hermeneuti c
teusi(m that titl e i nvok es-nam �ly, what were the six ti es, and why sh ould
we apologize for th em-i s one that should an imat e chis discussion .
Th e re ferences to th e privil e gi ng of discursive di sconti n uity an d of
the the orizing of rh c _d ynami c of c o ntes tati on withi n th e hegemon ic in
contempora ry critici sm serve as the preface fo r my discussion . l nstead of
i n vestigati ng the fe rtile fi elds of cultu ral and textual ove rdeter mination we
call Hollywo od,! h ave chosen to te s t th e outermost edges of the h ege
m o ni c th rough an analysi s o( a c o nst ellation of oppositi on al pr actice s
· ci rculati ng around the name News reel.6 Th e word "-Newsr eel," like th e
logo/image th at houses ir, i s assaulti ve. Sho rn of all qualifi ers , it asserts
EA &LT NEW$lftL
• HARVARD UNIVERSITY HARVARD UNIVERSITY.

an inaugurati ng refusa l of history or re fe rentiality as its .,riOr, co n stitu
tive fie ld. The alter na tio n of logo a nd black leader, in conjunctiori with
the audible s tac cat o of ma chine gun fire on the soun d track, a nnou n ce s
a milira ncy of filmic intenti on; the sttippe d-down t rac e of a utborship
Ncw sreel-stakes a claim for "truth" as a generic in gredie nt. It is my
i ntention he re to chart the terms of Newsree l's opp o sitiona l trajectory
dur i ng the fi rs t two years of it s existence, from l ate 1967 through 1969,
by a n in ter roga tion of its conditions of exist ence, a brief an aly sis of two
e xe mpl ary texts, a nd a positioning of its shifti ng functions within the
cult ure of resis ta nce it helpe d to forge. For despite the t re men dous flux of
membership within the group s in ques tion, the geogr aphic separ ati ons a nd
the ideol ogical splits tha t the singular f or m,7 Newsreel, m asks an d elides,
l claim that Ne wsr eel, ta ken a s a n ensemble of cultural pr actic es an d
e ffec ts, func tioned as a consist en t sour ce of projective imagination a n d
psychic legitima tio n for an i solated movement. lo a s en se cha t I will dem
onstrate, Newsreel occupied a crucial position in the largely unco nscious
construction o f a political imagina ry for the New Left. 8
The development of the productive forces beyond their capi

talist organization suggests the possibility of freedom within
the realm of necessity. The quantitative reduction of necessary
labor could turn into quality (Jreedom/. ... But the construction
olsuch a society presupposes a type ·of man with a different
sensitivity os well as consciousness: men who would speak
a different language, .have different gestures, follow different
�pulses. ... The imagination of such men and women would
fashion their reason and tend to malce the process of produc·
tion aprocess of creation.
:: Herbert MOTCllse, An Essayon Libe1atioa
Many times the films of Newsreel. the p)Ovement'sonly orga

nized film producers ... give us a sense of action taking place.
involving us rc:rther than forcing us to involve ourselves; these.
films make viable situations,out of last-ditch. too-late effort s .
:: John Hunt. in Leviathan. September 1969
By 1968, Her ber t Ma rcuse's dilig en t h opes for the emerge nce of_ an "aes·
the tic e thos" - a new rea lity pr inciple that would invalidate the his toric •
oppositions bet ween imagination and reason, higher and lowe r faculties,
p oetic a nd scien tifi c th ought-had bee n dr a matica lly re newe d. Alth ough
An Essay on Liberation appea red in p rint in 1969, the book's preface
assures us that this dis tillation of Marcuse's r u mi nation s on free dom
p re da tes the p r ot ea n eve nts of May 1968. Theorizing fro m withi n the
• EARLY NCW$8££L

precin cts of l ate . c apita lism·, Ma rcu se h ad .come t o distingui sh b e tw een two
fundamenta lly opposed · co ndi t ions o f th e working class as th e his tor ica l
agen t of soci al ch_a nge : the objec tive element of Ma rxist ortho doxy where
by l abor remain e d the p(>tential rev olu tiona ry class_ , an d its negation7 the
subje cri vc el e ment ,i ndic ativ e of l ab or's imbr ic ation within a sys t em of high
pr.o ductivc yield and the concomita nt satisfaction of the work er's instinc
.t�al ,;e e ds.'Given 1he. c ons er vati.v e dyna mic of production a nd exch,i'n·g e,
dependen t on the exploitation of a mar g inalize d u nderclass a nd the sate l
lite stat es o f th e 'rbird World ,' Mar cu se postulated th at the sources o f-rhat
Great Re fusal, which alonec ould dimi nish the self-su s tai n ing momentum
·
.
o f the one - dime nsiona l s oc iet y, w ere the subcul tura . l elements burrowi ng
fro m within. Now the v an gu ard of oppositional ac ti vit y was no l onger
th e industri al working cl ass but r ath er th e mili ta n t minor iti es-the urban
black, th e whi te middie-cl ass stude nt ac tiv ist, th e hippie, th e radic al fer,;i
n ist. For Marc u se, the exig en ci es of th� contem po ra r y c onjun c ture had
nec ess i tated an inversi?n·of the tradicional Marxist par adigm: mate�.ial
co nditi on s pro duce co nsci(>u sness. Ii, this trans i tio n al pha_se of.lat e c api
tali sn1, Mar cuse cou ld claim: "Under th ese circums t ances, ra dica l chang e
in consci ous ness is th e be ginn ing, the first step in ch anging so ci al exis
te nce: e m er gence of the .new Subj ec t."9 .
· Wh e ther or not the se c ounter cu'l tural Or o pposi tional groups were in
..,
any way "conscious ele mt�ts" in �he.revoluti onary scenario envisioned by .
Ma ccuse, the construction of tbe . "new Subj ect" was everywh ere appar I,
e n t .10 A parti aL clu�iiolo gy, o f sixti�s; oppositional cul ture offers ·a se nse of
ihe snowba lling of cu ltural res istanc e by middec ade·�hr ough organization
al tac tics (s.i t-i ns, dem onstra tion s, peace vigils) and emer g�nt expressive
forms (the be-in, the.h appening, g uerr ill a th eater, the u nd ergroun d pres s,
fre e -form ,ra dio}. I t was through the a gency of th e latter groupi ng - th e .
forms of the "n ew culture" in effl orescence fro m 1966 to 1972- th at an
embry oni c subj e ctho od.b e gan to f o rm. Suc h a fictiona l u � . ity w as the·
fou nt o f identit y'f or a cons ti tu ency whose cultu ral dis posses sion. was, for.
t he mo st p art, s elf-,vill e d. (It h as be c o me a so c io lo gic al com mon pl ace tha t
th e le aders hip of th e New lef t was c omposed pri mar ily of t he children-of
privil ege: Among the m ajor c a mpu ses that e xperience d occupa tions, only
S. an Francis co St ate d eparted from the mo de l o f the elite·�du c:idon al ·ins ti
tuti.on fallin g out of st ep wi th t he ov erseer s .of tli e futtire , e .g. .,.Co lum bia,
.
Berke ley, Harva rd,.Corndl.) Thi s resisr an ce cul ture s ounde d a c all to arms;
like : Newsre el, these avatars of the n ew c onscio usn ess embrac ed n eg ation.
No te , for e.xample, the frequ ency of conv entionally repell ent appellations
as the s t anc e of militant self-e xclu sion by th e un d erground n ewspa pers:
the Old M ole, the l}erkeley Barb, th e Carb1t11cle Review, Rat;_ th e New
£ARLT NtwSaEEL '

Digitiz ed by. Or ig inal from

York anarchi st action group Up against the Wall, Motherfuckers; the
radical feminist Women's International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell
(WITCH).
Here we can distinguish that sense of joyful self-discovery present
IL�BIERAT�D
DOCUMENlrS
SUBTERRANEAN NEWS PAGE 8
may3·16.1968
n.y.c. 16¢ outside 25¢
HEIL COLUMBIA
Cover of May 1968 issue of the underground newspaper Rat.
I r:.t.aLY •1w1u:1:1.

in e ve r y re volution a r y mome nt's seizu re of language and the s elec tive ap- ·
pr opri ation of pree xisting forms. Th e essent i a l mod e of n asc en t rev olu - .
· tio ilar y disc ourse remains bri cola ge, a hetero geneous bl end of'Ur-sprache
and lingui s tic elements
. ·fccruite d ·threllgh .inversion or whi msy. For ex- ·
ample , one of \VITCH's e a rliest pu blic pr onouncemen ts, appear in g in
Rat ( 1 528 - N ovem be r r968), t ook the form of th e co nju rati on of a sa c re d
rnatfiarchy: "in the Holi es t Names of Hecat e, Isis, Astarte , Hester Prin n ·
an d B onni e Parke r, we shall return."11 A ·1969 wa ll ca l en da r create d by
ihe S tudents for a Democratic Socie ty (SOS), advertis e d i n th e pa ges of

Rat, c vinces .119tbi ng l ess than a re inscriptio n of th e hi storical c anon; an- ·
, notate.d dates of par ticul ar interest inclu ded J anuary 1 ("Victory of C uban
Re vol u1ion-r959"), Fe bruar y 4 ("Bla ck st udent sit-i n movem ent b egan,
Gr. eens boro; N orr-h . C3 rolirni-1960"), April 2.9 ("C olum bi a Un iversity
s hutdown -1968"), and Oct ob er 12 ("Indi an s dis cove r Colum b us - ·
. 1492"). In the w ords o f the SOS ad: "The rest are a surp�is e .•12 A s ad
verti se d in th e Village Voice in th e first h alf of 1968, the pr ogram of
Newsree l films to b e scre en ed each Satu rday n ight at ten o'clo ck at th e

Film-Makers ' Cinemathcque·included gue rrilla n ewsree ls an d actua litie s,
the lat ter a te rm cer t ain to e,•oke the Lumie re brothers and th e ir -fou rlding <''
effo rts in th e pred aw n of cinema. Aga in , one d ete c t s t h e impulse to war d.
a t ransval ua tion f gure d t h rough th e rein scri pt io n of history and t he c ul-

i
. tural P.racti ces em be dd w ithi n it
ed .
In he r 1965 e ssay "One C ultu re and th e N ew S ensibility," S usan
Sontag desc ribes ihe fu nction of a ll mo dernist art a s "sho ck thera py for
'·,..
.,
b oth conf oun ding ai,d uncl osin g our senses," a c orr ective to wha t s he
caUs the �massive s ensory anaes thesia" of the postin dust r( al a ge. 13 By t he
late 1960s, sign ifica rlt spli ts wi thin the new sens ibility were ev ide nt, with
. the· more poli tic ized -facti ons enga gin g in c on frontat ional art ac ti vit ies.
Som� p oli ticaf ar t-wa r ri ors dev oted th e i r ta le nts t o heigh te ning the im
plicit c ontradic ti on s of c ommerci al a rt beyond the limits of cont ainm e nt.
An a nonym ous art c ollective known only as the.. Eye makers p.ro duc ed a
form of politic a l sup ergraff iti . based on th e princ iples of photomontage . By
juxtap osin g sho�king or inv asive ima ge ry of rava ged Vi etn�mese w ome n
a nd child ren or tea r-gas-be a ring tro ops with adverti si ng image s famili ar
fro m the visual rep ert oi re o f consumer culture, the Ey ema kers forc ed th e ·
.g l<lssy promotiona l appeals to s elf-destruct b eneath the weight of a visc er·
ally e xperi ence d di sj un ct i on . Thjs w as gue r rill a ar t to sui t t h e Ma rc usean
inju nc tion "Every perso n a ri arti st!" I n a d o,it-yourself explanati on ap

pearing in a Ma rc h 1968 'Rat, the Ey emakers encouraged m ass replication
of t he r o wn art act: "For a c ou ple of ce nts investe d in some old maga
i
zines , yo u h a ve available to y ou a ll tb.e resourc e s which. cost Madi son
t:ARLT N£W$attL •
Oigitz� by Or ig inal from
i
Avenue million s of doll ar s and years o( research to p roduce . " Worki ng in
cl ear v iol at ion of co py r ight a nd trade ma rk l aws, the Eyema ke rs' po sters
were ava ila ble .only by mail or, for a t ime, at the New Yo rker Booksh o p i n
Manh attan. Neve r d aunte d, the Eycmakers express ed in th e i r manifesto
th e revolutio nary zea l and s treet slynes s of t he .late-196os cultural guerri l
la: "The y'd.have to sto p p roducing ad s , they'd have to stop p rinti n g maga
zines ; there'd have to b e n o sci ssor s left in the l an d to stop colla ges .""
The mili t ant a rtmak er of th e late sixtie s share d the c onfro ntational
rhe to r ic of the p olitical leadership, c ho osing to ov erth row the structurc
in-d ominance or se lf-destru c t i n the process. In t he words of Rat e ditor
J eff Shero, u se d a s a v oic e-over comment ary i n Ne ws reel's film Summer
'68, "If we d o our job right, we're go in g to either be put out of bu sine s s by
the c o p s or go un der fi nanc ially. That's what it shou ld be all abou t. That's
guerril1a journalism."
Summing Up theYear 1968
February: f'ust screening of newsreelsproduced by the

Newsreel group (organized late in December 1967)-Jhe
most important new development in the.Ainericc111 cinema.
:: Joncxs Melcas;Decembcr26. 1968
Acts of c ul tural in terventi on such a s tho se of the Eycmak ers we re ac

ti ve and i ntended as p ar tic ipator y. For its par t, Rat. pri nte d a sp ec ia l
"Chic ago" edition (Au gust 1968) in te.nd ed as a manual for th e well
infor med street. fighter; a year l ate r, its p revi ew of the Woodstock f e stival
in cluded directions on ho w to tran sform o ne�s·own copy of Rat into a rain
hat v ia a few simple folds. I would arg ue, liowe ver , that i nsofa r a s�ep re
sentatio.na l rather than .. live" . o r face.-to·fac.e m�des of interaction were
c onceru ed, the n ew sub jecti vity was most dr ama tic ally shap ed and gal
van ized withiu the v is ua l regime mo st .co nducive to the. complex plays of
projection , introjectio n, an d id entificatio n-tha t i s , the ci nema . Judging
by the pre v alenc e an d e nthus iasm of film revi ews app earing in the maj o r
or gans of the underground p res s in these y ea r s , th e moveme n t p o pula ti on
neve r lost irs Hollywo od habit, whil e remaini ng tr ue to the art cin ema .
o� its b our ge oi s im ellec tu al ro ots . The sa me new spaper th at feature d a
column c all ed "Bl o ws agains t th e Empi re ," c h ronic li ng the lat est mi nor
vi ctori es in th e hear tlan ds of Am er ica, was p erfec tly capabl e of ru nning a

ser io us revi ew of The Detective (r968), a Fran k Si natra cop s-and-ro b ber s
ve hic le . It wa s no simpl e matter to ree du cate the radic al intellectual, to
IO CAllLT NCW $RCCL

we an h er or him from visual ple asure to agitation and p ropagand a. Thus
th e eadie s t me ntions of Newsr eel i n th e· und er gro und pre ss are clear ly
marked a s "hard ne ws" rather tha n as coverag e of the cu ltural· s ce ne.
_
Ind ee d, th e origin al state ment of pu r pose publish ed by Newsreel
spe aks of th e need for a r adi cal n ews ser vi ce as an alternative to tele
vi sion news. Th e founding mandate call ed for low-profile re por"tage and
analysis c ollec tively as sembled from the fi eldwo rk of comm itted young
fil mmakers. A certain nalvett preVails in earl y NewsrecPs " produc tion .
for use,. ethos> a s e videnced by lhe pronou ncements promising the ,?istci
.. i·n a we ek of thei r com ple tion. In fact, three type s of
b. ution of .fil ms wiib
news fil ms were to be mad e : shor t" newsre els for wee kly r elease; lon ger,.· ,
·
more an alytic documentaries; and informati on al or tact ical films.1 ; Yet
. .
th er e was fro m th e f i rs t a n unformula ted a mbivalen ce with re ga rd toque s-
tions of medi ati on ot principles of filmic construc tion. Clear ly the re was
a perceived nc.cd for: imrnediate coverage of events frpm a left perspective�
but the call for a� alternative co "the limited and biased coverage" of the
tnass me dia offere d 00 prog ra mmatic· p rinciples- th at could contrib ute to
a reconce pt ualiza ti on of stand ard film and televi s io11 p ractices. The ve r y
e ffect s that broadcast t el evision h ad traditiona lly cel ebra ted _as its clai m
to journalistic su periority over the p rint ,:ncdia-imn1ediacy, .emo ti ona· I ·'
impa ct, and acccssibility-were· to be recycled, in unreconscructed form,
co serve radical . aims..
· Bill Nichols, a preemin em author ity 0!1 early Ne wsre el by vi r tue
of bo th a m aster' s the sis and a dissert a tion on th e subj ec t, has posited a ;:
barome tric, rather than va nguard, re lations hip betw�en the fil m colle c ti ve
and che movement it served.16 The New Left ifl its organizalional incarna
tion s tended coward a n u neasy va cill ation between anarchic plurali sm and
u ltralef t elitism; in neithe r clima te were norma lizi ng working p rinc ipl es
lik el y co emer ge. O es pite i t s rh e. tor ic, Newsreel remained, at least un til
the e arly to m id- r 97os a nd the e merge n,c of two stable produ _ ction bas es
i n Ne w York and San Fra ncisco, subje c t to th e p erson al a nd political pr e
occ upations of its ever-changing membership. I ndeed, a film s hot ;nd ed
ited by Newsree l p ersonne l in 1968 and 1969 re ceived the organizational
impri ma tur onl y upon completion, s_ubjec t to cons ens us appr oval by tbe
collec tive _. A film, nom.i nally approved ye t at odds with prevaili ng political
sentime nts, could languish in di s tributi ona l limbo with few prints struc k.
This was the ca se with Norm Fruchter a nd John Dougl as's Summer '6_8
(1969 ), which was j udged "to o cerebra l" by the Newsreel majori t y in the
su m mer- of 1969.17
The political current of the ta re r96o s dictate d a concer ted se l f
eff acement of authorsbjp, which we sec in th e collec ti vized a nonymity
£ARLT M£W $ftCC I. 11

of s ister orgaoizations such·a s the. Eyem akers, the San Franci sc o Mime
T roupe, or Ne ws reel. I nd ee d, it is only io re ceot years that eady N ews re el
me mbe rs have a cknowledged primary respo nsibility for films th at we re in
te nd ed as "autho rlcss texts," the Ne w Lcft's mythic equivalents of tbe em
a nations of th e Uvi-Straus sian pe11see sauvage. But s ttong r ift s a pp ea red
within the New Yor k m e mb ers hip, in pa r tic ular over the u neven dist r ibu
tion of craft skills· a nd exper ience with pre viously est ablishe d inde p en d ent
fil mmak ers such as R ob er t Kra mer, Ma rvin Fi shman, N orm Fr uchter,
Ro b er r Machover, J oh n Do ugl a s, David Ston e, a nd Pete r Gessner- a ll
w ell-educat ed white ma les finding them se lves p rog ress ive ly at odds with
·a younger, more worki n g-cla ss-infle cte d faction, often feminis t or Thi rd
World in comp osition. By 1970; the fi rst-g ene ration filmmaker s had left
Ne w Yor k Newsreel and th e de bate s concer ning co rrect politic al li nes to
be a dopte d in the wake of accelerati ng factionalism within the Ne w Left
character ized by the diss olution of SOS, th e fo r ma ti on of the Wea ther
Un der g ro und, a nd the heighte ne d milit ancy of femi n ist s within move·
ment organizations. By this time, the interper sonal dy namic within the
N ewsreel c ollective s in Ne w Yor k and San Francisc o paralle le d the cr isis
stat e t o be found el se whe re within oppo siti onal cultu ral g roup s; Rat, al·
ways a Newsreel fellow trave ler, had, byJ anu ar y 1970, been pu rged of it s
original leade rs hip by militant feminists.IS
A subs tantive c ontr adiction i s dis cernible, then, be tw een early
Newsr eel's seated coocern for the conditions of (eception, the immediacy
and political utility of p roduct, an d the re lative disre gard acc orded the
c onscious th eor izing of its filnuuaki n g practice s, the e ngende ring of a
,•iabl e a esthetic cons is te n t with t he politica l aim s of the g roup. The early
Newsreel self-conception wa s, inste ad, embedd ed withi n a thoroughgoing
"romantici sm of the b arric ad es " evidtnt ar ound the wor ld du ring 1968
and 1969. Hece was an exube ram 1nilitaoc y that envisioned cameras as
machine gun s and Newsree ler s as Mar vel Comic s heroes, slamming cel
luloid bullets into the belly of the beast. In a lege ndary tu rn of ph rase ap
pea ring in a 1969 Film Quarterly inte r view, Ne wsre el's Rob ert KraQJer
s poke of the nee d for film s that "e xplo d e like g r en ade s in p eople's faces
or op en minds up like a good can o pc ner."19
The Ne ws r ee l appr oa ch co nstituted a conscious inv ersion of the

Hollyw ood para digm i n which millions of dollars arc investe d in produc•
ti on va lues with no regar d given to e s tablishing a conrext fo r in for med
sp e�tatorsbip or s tcucturcd r esp onse. The entcitainrn ent film, para gon
of the dispos able culture, was thu s the antithesi s of Newsreel's socialist
utopian vis ion: "Films ma de by tl�e Ne wsree l are not to be seen on ce an d
,. fA RLY MCWSllt(L

to
forgotten. Once a pri nt goes out, it becom es a tool be used by others in
their own work, to serve as a basis for their own de finition and analysis
of th e society."20 Bu t for a ll the sob er ta lk qf th e f il ms as tool s for ana ly
sis, Newsteel and its mythic autoconsrructi on provid ed the occasion f or ·
f ora y s into rev olutionar y ima gination. From Rat's x969 coverage of an
ev en ing o f Newsr�el's � ork at th e State University of New York at Bu ffalo,
we read: "At th.e end of the second film, with no discussion, five hund red
memb e rs of the audience arose and made thei r way to th e Universit y ROTC
building. They proceeded to s mash wii1d ows , te ar up furnitu re and_ d e
str oy machi ne s until the office was · a tota l wreck; and th e n th e y burned
th e re maini n g pap er and fl am mabl e p arrs o f the structure t0 charcoal." 21
Newsree l, b y this account, was less a tool for ,irialysi s th an an e ngine o f

·.
,�ar, fue le d by spontane ous combustion. ·
Judgiog from tlie available evidenc e, r,,le�vsreel was, fro m t he mo
m ent of _ i ts i nc e pti on, a site of symbolic c ondensation, a ki nd-of tab ul a
ra sa for proj ecti ons of diverse ch arac ter . One ea r ly and ardent suppor ter
. .
o f th e N e ws re el pr ojec t wa s Jonas Mekas, wh o wa s i nstru ment a l i n pro-
viding a str.ucrured screening o utl et and testio.g grolind for ne w work via
the S aturday late -n igh t slot at the Fil m-Ma�e rs' Cinem athcqu e. Ne ws reel
was, i n early 1968, su ffi ci entJy embr yonic in form a nd poli tical agenda to
support N1ekas's own utopian a.spitations for afl avai1t-gar.d e newsceel ex
pressed in h is "M ovie Journal;, column in the Village Voice (29 F�bruar y
1968). Mek as's pron ounce ments are worth qu oting at l e ngth as proof of ..
News re e l's bold on.a b road spectrum of th e lat e 1960s' crea ti ve im agina-.
tion and of the specifiable overlaps within norma lly adjacent c o mmunities
of thought and activiry-that of tbe overtly poli ticize d fab rica tors of cul
tur e and of th e artis tic av a nt-g ard e. . .
It is too early to predict whe re th e Newsreel will go. One thing is dear, th e
newsreel has been for a lo ng time 01\e of the m o st neglected forms of cinem a.
Whi ch means that o ne area· of life had bee n neg lected by the fil mmakers. T
hope that by th e time the Newsreel reache s it's rwentlCth issue, it will begin
to discov er its own cOntc::mporary style, technjque, form, ic will b egin to e s
c ape the establ ished conceptions of the newsre el-whid1 means, it will begi n·
to esca pe the establ ished cont.cot. I am waiting. for th e avam-garde newsreel.
T see no difference betw ee n avant-garde film a n d avanr-g arde newsreel,
l:>cC ause a real newsreel, a newsreel which could help m an to get out of
where he is, 'must be an avant-gard e newsreel, m ust be in the avant-gard e
of hu manity, m ust contain a nd be guided by th e highest owd most advanced
dreams of rnan.22
I nd eed, the years 1968 and 1969, particularly wi thin the hyperacti ve
confine s of New York Ci t y, were a moment of cultural fusion, a ti me for
£ARL'I' NtWSaEEL 13

...,.--l -·-....�--
_�,.--..,.,_-,-·�,...,_., ·- "'
···
�-.....-,*""i
,�c-."""'�--
.�...·-----1'11,......
1...-c«'lfl•"'*""'..,....lhalr-.
,_,,._. ............ .,,. ....

� .. __ __.,,.,_,o-:\ill,
<lfll"I•..., .....,..___.,� If
�
_.,,.-�IMIV\1_, .....-.....,...w,,-
,....-
°""'ItM I IOl .... --�-' ,......
,""";.,�
.
11t�££L • _,. ,,. ,,._,.,, ____,._

..,....__Pft�Ol11>.....""""' _1111,,h""'"''*'
4'...............""*1,_11-.
,.., v-,•
___.._""" oo.1�--·......,,.,c_ """"""•"*""

'wfll'S'IU�- 10....., lfl-V•,� - 111111111110,
....,..__,.. 111-11_... ,._ ..... _ ...,_..,.,.
,._ -- .. IOt11lo1 ..,_, N-'1'� Jl-..,in. 0.l tlt,
r
ca-c.to ..,._....,,u,,.....,11llt,S..1,11 ...,,.__
.__,.,.,....
_. .,.....
••<18 ...,
......
"'"''"""f"'-....
'"·-,---me...--...---......",..,.._
�1
___"""',.._,,_,_""...,."
---
�-..----..vin- _..,.. .._,......
h,Ol'ltO wi...o, ..pMs,111. ..,..,,..-�
l
__,___..,,.......,"'�'....,.._,.,,...,.. �o1..
,,: 110,�
� <I'\"""........... .,,,....,_,�=· •• ---.....
- -..."-I "" pe!>f)lfl · ..."" - •__,_
...""' ....,,.
- newsreel
Ncwsrcclcrs as New Left superheroes.
reaffirming ties across a range of broadly adversarial idioms of expression.

In addition ro the Film-Makers' Cinematheque screenings, Newsreel films
played at the New Yorker Theater, the New Cinema Playhouse, and rhe
Bleecker Street Cinema during the first half of 1968. The Newsreel logo
" t:Aa1.T WCWIIICKI.

was visibl e at v enuesf a r and wid e, and th e fil ms were f requeotly pa ired
with liv e music f or movement f und-rais ers suc h as a benefi t f or th e New
York Hi gh Sch ool S tudent Uni on at th e Bi tter End Cafe in Fe bruar y 1969,
al s o featuring the Fugs. News reel attend ed \Voodstock, wi t h �onti nuous
screenings at.' thc campgrounds adjoi ni ng the festival sire . w;,,;1fl9wer
(1968), Ad olfas M ekas's fil m about a d ra ft.dodger, sh ared billi n g wi th
Newsreel s .no. 2 an d no . 4 at th e F orty-second Stre et �layhouse in Fe b
ruar y 1968. The temporar y f usicm of o pposi tional forms postul ate d here is
graphically figured in a n ad that appe ared in the Village Voice (21· Ma rch
1968) .ann ouncing a midnight fes tival of fil ms at die Ne w Yorker Theater
to b enefi t _th'e c ommu ni t y-sponsored radi o sta ii on \VBAI-FM. The pub
li city ref erred to the e vent as· a festival o f avam-gardc and anti war films,
the co o rdin ating conju ncti on " and" b ridgi,ig a divisi on all- to o fr equently
· ·
'· maintained in les.s-explosive ri.:i-1es.
•. ,
.· Su ch pa tt erns of distr ib ut i_on' and)ixhibit io n �elped reinforce·a sense
of shared cul tural id entity, while int ensifying poli tical con flicts aroun d ihe
world s.er ved to p ol arize pu blic·opin ion. Th e cul tu.re of.protest wa s at its
con. f rontational ze ni th; t h ere c ould be no m iddle groun d. Louis Althusscr;
. .
i n t hc oriziog th e notion of interpella tion, h as provid e d _us wi th a .val uabl e
·''
t ool for a nalysis; m,,d es of discourse, h e t ells us, o perati ng within a f ra. m
i ng i deol ogical ens embl e, m obiliz e a h ailing or b cck on . i'ng power, a mecha
-�•.'
nism of psychic id en tification. The explos ion of po st er art an d relate d
forms of m ass i mage produc tion via the und erground press o f th e period •, .
st rai ne d towa rd a · cultu re wid e eff ect of s uture , by d iscursive s trat egi es .,
·
such as the use of the fi rst person plural, th e recover y of certain ava tars o f
revol utiona ry st ruggle by an a ct of joy.fol historic a.1 revi si onism, or by a n
emph ati c re iterat ion o f sh ared g'<sttire or b o dily li nk�ge-rhe emb race of : ..
a rms, the fis t . rai se d in s olidad t y .
Columbia Revolt, News ree l n o. 14 (1968), wa. s the first aut hentic
succ e ss for t h e film coll e c tiv e; in it s fi r st _mo nt h of rele as e, a t lea·;, fift y
.
p.rints were str,,ck . o f t hi s chroni cle of t he s eri es of s tu d ent strikes and
b uilding occ upations at Columbi . a Univ ersity in the spri ng of 1968.23 lik e
.
s o many ot her Ne wsre el succ esses since 1968, Columbia Revolt wa s the .
r ght fil m at t h e r ight moment. Aft er repea ted vi ewi ngs, t he fil m still ere -
i
. ates the impr essi on o f a .rapidly assembled, r ough-hewn objec t perfectly
suited to its pur p ose, as tho ugh a b and of s ettlers had thrown up a rud e
b attl ement i n . a si ngl e nigh t . There is no sync sound in the film's fifty min
ute s; i ndeed, th e pa no ply of voice - over s b ecome s b oth the axi om of nar
ra tic>n and th e orchestrator of t0nal val ues. Th e stren gth of the film li es i n
it s s ense of an u rgency for thrigh tly conve yed and i n its hetero geneit y . This
is a he tero ge neity of voic e; of human vi sage, with the f aces of angry young
tAlll.T NCWSJH :tL IS

--------
In Columbia Revolt (1968), Newsreel films mobiliud a powerful mechanism of

psychic idcnti6catioo.
men and women, black and white, the formerly anonymous ones, locked
in combat with 1he powerful men who ruled Columbia and dictated public
opinion, 1he Arthur Hay Sulzbergers and the William S. Paleys; and of
visual materials-still photographs mingled with variously Iii film foorage
often bearing traces of physical duress.
But Columbia Revolt is also a film of celebration capable of evoking
11
Digitize-cl' by Original from

'
_the spi r it o f a utopi an com m unality. Every activity of life i s r aise d to r iiu
al s tatu s i nsi de the o cc upi ed b uildiogs: sh a rin g th e f oo d that has broken
th rough th e line of sie ge , tran sfor ming Low Libra r y ioto a pleasure zone
th rough music a nd dance. But the quimes sencc of thi s transvalua tion is ..
the ca.n dfelit wedding of two _youn g strikers, A ndrea and Rich ard; who tell
us .i n voice -o ve r that they had "wante d t(> be marrie d at home w·ith our
family." The ceremony c ulmi nates with a b enediction that bi nds togeth er
all who, in Marcusean te rms, share the will to freedom withi n th e real m
of neces sity: ''I n ow p ronoun ce that A n dre a a nd Richar d are child ren
of tb e New Age ." Ar s uch rnome nts, Columbia Revolt b ec kons towa r d
a n imagi n ary full nes s>; a cultu ral plenit ude offered as re.w ard for· . f utu re
s tr uggl e an d ·as the visible le giti matio n of present· action:
Columbia Revolt performed a d ual f unction-as a self-gene rated
docume nt of s t ruggl e ana as a sourcc· of in spirational.rene wal. Without
que s ti on, it succ eeded i n reiofnr ci n g ties of psychic identification and
group sOlidarity for it's movement audience; its po\ver to persuade or re- . ·
ed uc ate an au di e nce b eyo . nd the bou nds of its pres cribed community re
mai n ed·les s evident. Norm Fruchter and John D ougl as's .'iummer '68, shot
during the a n xious months of pla nn ing and pre paration that cul minated
-i n the acti on s at the Chi cago D emocratic Conven tion (A ugus t 1968) and ''
rel ea se d th e following summe r, i s a f ilm of radically dive(gent intent and
:,•·
form al st r ucture. Unlike Co/r,mbia Revolt, Sum6ier '68 never -foun d its
audi ence. A n unfavorabl e response fr om News reel memb ers limite d th e ,..
.f ilm's avail ability, as did the fil mmaker s' u nwilli ng ness. or inability to ·, .
;,)
· promot e the film on their own.24
At a time .wh en the collective was accelecating community oufre.ach ·
.tow ard the previously u nor gan ized and uncon vi nced - high s chool Stu· · ....
den ts, the worki n g cl ass, Third World p eople s S -11m,ner '68, a demand�
.
ing, dens ely org aniz ed se l f -examinatio n of the .mo vement within the realm
of id e as, was a p olitical tool ill suited to the moment. D uring its fifty-pl us
minutes, the film explores a seties of crises endemic to the movement
by the suminer of t968-those of p olitic al tactic s arid alli an ces , as w ell .
.
as th ose o f organ ization al .s tructure and l ea dership ro.les. But th e key
to St'1n,ne·r '68 is its unrem·itting will to self-scrutiny, its need ·to .probe
b eneath th e fa�ade of the New Left, co11 structed through a n uneasy inter
pl ay of mass media distorti ons and movement sdf-promotion, to b egin
to dec onst r uct the i magi nary ensembf e of i ma_ge s _a nd i deas th at had be•
conie ihe mOvement, arguably to ics langible detriment, and ro. adVance
in it s s tead, th ro ugh an act of con scious ness, a sub stantive effort toward
self:k no wlcdge .
If th e fil m can be deemed a p rimary text within a New Left discourse
£All:I T
. lf fW SllCCI. 17

t itled "the .politics of identity," no ac cu sati on of solipsism or va in s el f
indulge nce is intende d. Rathe r, Summer '68 evidences a sophistication
of dis cursive strategy t ha t operates on a princ iple of separation. Word is
o ften dise ngaged from im age. While a Newsreel-typica l ·blen ding of pa r
ticipant voices and their mul�iple perspectives is used to narrate events,
bla ck-lea der ed s egments pu nc tu a te the image track to u nde rscore the
p rimacy of analy sis, that is, to n arrate ide as. More over, the deploym ent
of nar rating voice s i s a complex one, -with at leas t three distin ct levels and
u sage s of voice •over occurring. In the first in sta nce, there are the voices
of char ac ter-p articipants withi n the di egetic fram e, the dra ft res is tance .
organizers a nd u n de rground-press editors whos e activities illust ra te the
breadt h and ser iousn ess of move me nt goa ls. Sometimes these voic e-over s
e xposit or e labo rate on the profilmic; at ot her points they offer self-cr itiqu e
or comme nt on the visual �rack. When draft resistance organ izer Vernon
Grizz.ard is invited to go to North Vietn.rm wich other antiwar activi sts
to fac ilitate the r elea se of c aptu red Americ an pilots, the de cisi(m is mad e
to exploit media att emi on to enhance the prestige of rhe movement and to
offer public proof of its eff ectiveness. Inst ead the role of the mov ement is
effective ly ann ulled by me dia cove rage. Amid t he fi rst flus h of vic tory at a
. b ustling JFK Airp ort upon the pil ots' return, press c onferenc e organizers
ch oose to exc lude Newsreel from the pr oceedings. The hop ed-fo r b olster
ing of movement legitimacy is called into question. Grizz.ard's voice-over
offers a c·r irique of a performa n ce we witness in the cinema veritC!-style
footage of a. m edi a encounter shor tly aft er his return : "I was afraid to
cross the b oun da r ies of legitimacy. There's no way to be b oth leg tim ate
i
and ou trage d toda y in Americ a in front of news media . To get up a nd talk
,ab ou t m urder a nd the death of children a nd yo ung men-you ca n't say
that." As in this ins tance, voice.-over commentaries of diegetic partici
pan ts repeatedly reexamine actioris and s trategies, questioning their lim
its and utility. One e ffec t of suc h a .s ec ondarizing of the p rofilmic is the
dampening of an easy ide ntification.
The s econd categor y of vocal na rration is comp ose d of the voices
o f other unseen ac tivis ts who co mment on the choices and actions o f th e
visibl e pr otagoni st s. A contra punta l e ffect is a chieve d as two seP,a rate
v oices int err upt the sync-sound cont inuity of Grizzard's,pre ss co nference
with in termittent c.riti ca l salvos as the image track remains continuous.
·The firs t voice says: "You c ame on,-1 thought, very, very cau tiou s, sort of
like, 'I'm a red, white, a nd blue all-American boy; I'm not very politica l.
I'm jus t an organizer in a d ra ft re sistance gr ou p wbicb ba s a disag r ee m ent.
with American policy a t this point.'" A second voice interveoes mome n ts
lat er, dis ru pting th e predictable rhythm of the medi a ev ent : "Did it e ve r
18 EAJl.1' N£WSRttl.
01g1t1zeo by Original from

oc cur ro you tha t you ou ght a say, 'Look, moth er fuckers, thi s i s whac I saw
in North Vie tn am, and you' re gonna have to kill e ver yb ody th ere before
the y quit?'" These sound elements illustrate i n condensed form the climate
o f c ontesta ti o n a nd excha nge th at e nvel o p ed e,•er y tactica l deci s ion or
public gest ure..
Fina lly there i s a lev el of wha t could b e t ermed " ma ster narrati on,"
a chi eved through th e use of a si ngl e, flatly in toned voice-the fi lmmak er' s
.
own. Th e film does not evince a "Voice of God" authority, an unquesti oned
omn i scien ce f or. this l evel of narration ' in th e manner of standar d docu-
.
men t ary exp oses ( ot e , for example, th e use of the voic e o f the echi cal
n
g ua r ant or Edw- ar d R. Murrow, Che t H untley, Charles Ku ra lt-in che
ne t wor k televi si on doc umen taries o f rhc 1960s liberal traditi on such as
Harvest o{Shame·[i960), Sit-.ln [196r], and Hunger in Ame-rica (19681).
Rather, this narrational clement �chieves its position of maste.ry by virrue
of the greater weighc of k n owl e dge and analysis it bri n gs ro bear on the
i ss ue s raised. Th e cl assical Newsreel scyl e dictate-s abr upc, untitl ed begin
ni ngs, often in medias .r es. In S,i.mmer '68, the essen tia l terms of the fil m's
proble matic are add ressed from th e outsec through the inaugura tion o f
a hermeneutic element that traverses the text. It is the master or meta
discu[sive v oice that presses the interrogation in terms that will evol ve
i n c onjuncti on with th e eve nt s imaged: h ow to defin e the " w e" o f the '"
movement, ho�v to crisure [he legitimacy of acti ons taken in the name of
"th e peo ple ," how t o use the lesso ns of d efeat a nd c ompromi se co make ,,
mean ingf ul ch ange i n a c ompl ex society.
All o f this analysis suggest s a pr imacy of th e sound track in Summer
'68. It is th ere for e i mpor t an t co add chat th e sp ecial a ttenti on accor ded
a cous tic eleme nts i n n o way imp edes the devel op ment of an i mage track
rbat, in term s- o f ics diversity of sources and ir,;mediacy of i mpact, is the
equa l of any of its b etter- kn own N ewsreel cousins. But iris the l ayering
of c ommentary and th e re lati onship of sound el emen ts t o the struct uri ng
p r incipl es of.th e text that make Summer '68 a richly texture d work too
l ong ignored. Norm F ruchter, wh o recor ded s ound and codirccted·, b ad
been a wr(cer of some note bef ore h.is turn to cinema, b oth as a novel-
ist an d as a memb er of th e edit o rial boards of arbiters of contem porary
M ar xi s t thought such ;,s New Left Review and Studies on the l.eft. Al
th ough one hesit ates t(> isolate individual cont ributi ons within collective
e nd eav ors, th e so phisti ca ti on of Fru chter' s th ought and politi ca l insights
p er meate the rext.The fi nal moments of the fil m offer a d ramati c illus
tratio n of th e p otenc y of eff ec c achieved thr ough ch e i n ter p enet ration of
word and imag e: Rob ert Kramer add resses a crow d of d emonstrat ors
on th e scree rs of Chi ca go as th e e nd. of four day s of politi cal engagement
CAJl l,Y IIEWSRttl 19

draws near. The sudden appe a rance of troop ca rriers on Michiga n Avenu e
signals the apogee of confronta tional drama. As the came ra tu rns from
Kramer to the parade of occupational forces, a kind o f visual epiph any
or radica l defamiliar iz.ation occurs. The film becomes, for l'he moment, a
direc tly transmitted witnessing of history. Refusing the appeal of the un
rnedia ted .ri1oment, the film returns fo r the last time to the ceaseless inter·
rogation of historical acts and the meaning they be ar for the promulgators
of soci a l change.
Once the troops were c alled out, we rhought we'd won. But won what?
All wed mam1ge<l was a disruption. But we'd fought fol:' day s and so many
people ha d joi ned �s that we felt much more than o urselves. for once, we
thought we were the people. (Sound of co mmunal singing, "This Land ls
Yo ur Land."] ... When we left Chicago to go back to our own communi
ties, our sense of triumph quickly became 3 memory. What we :went back to
was the rough, day-to-day work of bu ilding a rcyolutionary movement. An d
w hat Chic�go fit1ally ca me to, foe us, was che feeling of whac ic might be like
after ma kjng that revolution, when �nyone could say: "'We are the people!"
20 &AJILT xews11tt1.

[ 2 ] The "Real" in Fiction: Brecht; Medium
Cool, and the Refusal of Incorporation
'
•
"The 'R eal' in Fi cti on," like the Newsreel chapter p recedi ng it, evolved
out of 11,y res earch and tea ching on Sixties ccuntercu ltur e in th e early
1980s, most notably for a class call ed "The Films of the ·196os" cotaught
at th e Un ive�sity of Califor nia-Santa Barbara with so cioiogy pr ofes -
sor Dick Flacks. A ve rsip n <Jf this cha/1.�r was presented at theSoci ety
for Cine ma Studies c onfe.rence in 1985, a�d the essay was revised and
expa;nded for a confer ence, ••Documenting Fictions: Documentary
Dim en.si on s of th e Fiction Film," held in Luxe mbourg in 1993. I had
long been fascinated with 1\1ediu m Co-01, a critically ac clai;,, e d but com
. m·ercially disastrous Hollywood film directed by Haskell Wexler in 1969,
which see,n ed to m.e to Stage a rather unique collision of history and
fiction. _'th e work of Bertolt Brecht was crucial to my unders tanding of
M edium Cool, for it wa s in par t owin g to Brecht's infl uence that tradi
-
ti�n al n otions of d rama and,s ,ibiectivity had b een s o eclipsed in,196os
political culture. In \'1/exler ' s film, set in the st reet s of Chicago during
the turbul ent days of the 1968 Democratic National Convention , the
fictional charac ters turn _out to he far l ess impor ta nt. than the his tory that
s11rrounds them. Subiec tivity, co ns idered politically counter p roductive in
the 1960s, would make a dramat.ic 'comeb ack two decades later.
. .
· .The time has arrived for a mor.e decisive theorizi ng of the ta ngl ed rel ations
b e twee n f iction · and nonfict ion. The confcr ence,"Documentin g fictions:
Docu men tary Dimen sion s of the Fiction Fil m" is but one in stance of
a salutary tr.end in recent critical thou ght aimed at reinve stigating the
f iction/nonfiction borde rli ne, a development no dou b t accel erat ed by the
_
growth of hybrid media forms that, while trafficki ng in the "rea l," occa
siooally even mimi n g the tropes of a documentary s tyl e, cannot b e said to
adhe re i n a ny meaningful way to the standards of a docwnen tary praxis
21

{ as t o et hics , rh etori c, or p edago gy) d evelope d over the past s eventy years.
Here I am pri marily t hi n king of the p roliferati on of Am erican nonficti on
t elev ision form s. In a moment of e s calating production c osts, indep en·
dents a nd major networks a lik e have b egun to subscrib e to the b eli ef tnat
" truth" is n ot only strang er but als o m ore profitable than ficiion. The r e
s ult: rea lity-ba s ed programming, c apita lizing on th e camcorder revol uti on
(America's Funniest Home Videos, T \Vit ness Video) or c el ehratin g law
e nf orcemen t (Cops, America's Most Wanted); tabloid TV's lurid rep ort·
ag e ; the talk show wa rs; and the n ews m agazine with 60 Minutes-CBS's
bigges t m oneyma ker ever-l ea di ng the pack.
C onsiderabl e the oreti cal ground ha s a lrea dy b e en cl e a red <>n th e
ficti on/no n fi cti on fronti er. Bill Nich ols devotes t he middle thi rd of his
groundbreaki n g st u dy Representing Reality t o a sortin g out of iss ue s
m eant to clarify th e pl ac e of documentar y thro ugh reco urs e to a ra nge of
discursive filters - s emiotics, narratology, and poststr ucturali sm a mong
them. Crucial di s tinctions, s uch a s that drawn betwe en the respective
ori en tations of ficti on an d n onfi cti on, a re pr ogre ssiv ely r efine d. fiction he
a lig ns wit h noryindcxical significati on and th us with the "lik en ess," while
nonfict ion produces '"representations" that retain the ''stickiness" of the
indexical sign. Fiction is oriented t ow ard a world, n onfiction toward the
world; yet in ack nowledgme nt of t be thoro ughly medi at ed char �cter o f
th e d ocum entary, Ni chols red efi nes nonficti on som e two pag es lacer as a
view of the w orld {"It is not just a ny world b u t n eit her is it th e only vi ew
pos sible of this on e historical w orld"). 1
In my own writing, I have d es cr ib e d ficti on an d n onfiction as repr e
s entat ion al d oma ins that are enmesh ed in ea ch oth er. Whil e some fi ct i on,
and much advertising image ry, does ind ee d expl oit do cumentar y's "lure
o( au thent icity" thro_ugb a cunni ng a ppr opri a ti on of pa rticul ar tact ics or
stylisti c t raits {the use of "witnesses"; the l ow-tech lo ok, shaky c am era; ·
grai ny, p ut- of-focus image$), n on fic tion itself displa y s a numb er of •fic
tive el e m eots"- instances. of sty�e, structur e , and cxpositio oal st ra tegy
that draw on pr eexist ent (fic t i on al) constructs or schemat a to es tablish
m e an in gs a nd effects for audi ences . Among t hese a re the constr ucti on of
ch aract er as i dea l \yp e; the us e of poetic lan gu a ge , n arration , or music al
acc ompanimen·t to he ght en e moti ona l impact or c reat e suspense; t he d e
i
pl oyment of emb edded narra tivc:s or dr amatic arcs; a nd the exagg erati on
of cam era angles, ca mera dista nce , or edi ting rhythms. 2 Th es e elements
of do cu menta ry practic e ev ok e and expre ss ra t her than p osit s ob er a rgu
m ents, b ut they a re n o le ss tbe pr ovi nce of n o n ficti on on t ha t acc ou nt.
Ind eed, I have a rgu ed th at d ocu me ntary shares th e stat us of a ll disc ursiv e
forms wit h regard to its tropic or fig urative ch aract er, so that the afore -
THt: -aeA1,� IN FI CT IO.M

mentione d el eme nts of nonfiction are necessarily, rather t han co inciden
tally,. fictive. «fo r, it i s not that the documen t.ar y consists of the str uctures
of fil mi c f c tio n (and iS', thus, p arasitic of i ts cinem aric 'other') as it is th at
i
'fictive' clement s insist in documentary as in all filn1·lorrns."J Thi s. c la im ·
is c onsistent with my b eli ef tha t doc· ,anentar y, cons t r ued by-Ni ch ols as a
"di scou rse of so b riety," is equ ally a discours e of jouissance-of pl easure,
d� s ire, and of a ppeals to the Ima gin a ry -even of deli riu m.•
· S o briety and delitium should no t, howe ver, be unde rs,o od as ;,m-:
tu ally excJu si ve terms. To be sure ; an imp uls e cowa rd th e re vel ation
of oppres sive so cial con ditions an d the empowerment of au diences t o
overth row rhose ·conditi o_ns is disting u i sha ble since Vcr tov, .Jveus, and
G r ie rson . Ni c hols is right to poi nt to th e seriousness of su ch a m and ate.
Ye.c, as I have claimed in my work on documentary po et.ics, the documen
. tary 1he ori s t canno, a fford to privilege non fi cr ion' s undeni a ble debt to th e
sig nifie d a , the expe nse of the signifier's pl ay 5. Sober intent has more than
oni:e p rod uc ed deli r ious.resu lt s .
In this chapter, I will purs u e a ra ther diff ere nt li ne of thou ght, one
tha t, nonethel e ss tak es up the matter of fic ti on/n on/icti on rela1ions quite
expli citly. I '"ill be examining ficti on films i n which a significant segment
of the historic al world is c ontai ned withi n the di egesis , intact and reco g
niz abl e, an d i n which a te nsi on is c rea t ed between the ce nt r ipe t al fo rce of
ficti on an d the cen t rifugal power of th e " re.al."'
. . Th e mos t inte res1ing case,
. a nd th e one to which I sh all devote myself principarly, is Hask ell Wexler's
Medium Cool (1969), a film th at inter weaves the public events of the s um-
. mer of 1968 (the Chicag() D emocra tic. Nationa l Conven tion a nd the vio
l ent cl ash es b etween poli ce and demons trato rs it provoked) with the pri
vate dram as of several fi ctiona l characters. It is n o exa ggerati on to claim
th at in thi s film, Wexler -ack n owledged auteu. r of th e piece by vi rtue of
his wr iting, di rection, and ca mera work-. has de signed a collisio n of his
tory with ficti on , a collision w�ose o utcome i s the viLt ual death of cinem a.
Te xtu al ana lysis, ne cessar y to a n und ers tandi ng of th e s pec ifi c r he
toric al, compositional, and s ou nd design element s throu gh whi ch the
encounter between fiction and h.istor y.is realized, will nont thcJcss serve
a l arge r pur p o s e. I will b e su ggesting tha t the hi story/fiction cont retemps
can a lso be th eorized thr ough referenc e to prope dy psychoana lytic t er ms,
tho se of introjection and inco rporation as th eorize d by Nicol as Abraha m
an d Mar ia Torok.
In a ser ie s of texts, Abraham a nd Torok outline d what Jacques
Derrid a has termed a he,'t,ietics r�frher than a. hermeneutics , a science
of cr yptol o gi ca l inter pr eta tion, in which th e paradoxi cal c har acter of
incor pora ti on as a f unc ti on of psy chi c s pace is explored. For Ab raham
TH£ - acAL- UI' FICTlOlf

a nd Tor ok, the c rypt i s a topos bur ie d within the Self, a plac e bo. t h insid e
and outside, " scal ed, and thu s imernal to it.self, a scc.ret i n terior wirh.io
the public square, bu t, by the same token, out sid e it, external to th e i nte
r ior."7 Basing their an alysis on the famous case o f the Wolf Man, Abr.aham
and Tor ok s ubmitted rhe conce pt of intt oj ecti on (the t ra n spositi on of
obj e cts and the i r in herent qualitie s fro m the "outside " to the "in side" of
the Self)8 t o rigo r ou s re elaboration , a rgu ing for the ne cessity of an op
posi ng prin cipal -i ncor po ration -to de scribe the de sire for a lost obj ect
(frequen tly a l oved one, no w deceas ed), which can be i n trapsychically
m ain tained ye t simu ltaneou sly exclu ded from a ssi,nilation (under sto od as
a kin d of grad ua l di ssolu tion o f th e othe r). Sim ultan e ou sly conse rving and
s uppressing, i nc o rporati on ca,ne to be theor ize d by the analysts as "a kind
of the ft to reappr opriate th e p leasure obje ct," with the crypt-the place of
incorporation -f unction ing as "cbe vault of a desire."'9
It is my i nte ntion to use this dizzy'tng top ol ogy of inside a nd outside
as a way to theor iz e a specific i n st an ce of the re la ti ons be tween hist ory and
fiction within ci nematic re pre sen tation, with Medium Coolas a case study.
I am thus a rg u ing for the tra ns p osition of a t er m within psycho an alytic di s
c ourse to the fie ld o f textual and ideological film criticism as a way of pr o
viding a frame wo rk for ana lysis that is c onceptually p recise and m obilizes
c onsiderable expla n atory powe r. Bu t before re tur ning to the fig ure of i n
c or porati on near the en d o f rhe pap er, it is necess ary to situa te the key film
text, Medi1<m Coo l, within the c ont ext of its po litico-aesthetic a spiration s.
History and Its Textual Incorporation
The epic theatre is cruelly interested in the attitudes which

people adopt towo.rd one another. wherever theyare. socio
bistorjcallysignilicant ...In short. the spectator is given the
chance to criticize bu.man behavior from a socia l p0int of view.
and the scene isplayed as apiece of history:
:: Bertolt Brecht, "On the Use of Music inan Epic Theater ..
, The new media are not bridges between man and nature: they
are nature. Gutenberg made all historySIMULTAN'£0US.
:: Mamhall McLuhan. Ho< andCool
The docu�entary is a recording of modern hi.story. Histozy is,

after all, a recreation of the past by those who ha ve the record
ing tools.
Haskell Wexler. interview by Renee Epstein. Sightand Sound
(winter 1975-1976)
THt �acAL0 IN fl CTION

We xle r' s d. eci si on t� mak e a fil m i n Chicago dutiog the summer of 1968
th at c o uld make us e of the conf rontati onal events of the D emocratic
National Co nventi on as a backd rop for-fiction w as far more th an a crea- ·
tive gambl e th at paid.off; the implic ations of th at. choic e deserve consid
er ation. Filmmakers have, siilc e the LurniCr es, recOgnizc.d th e cintma' s
p ower co preserve and rec ord th e aff airs of th e world. Less often, h ow ever,
h av e they aftempted co i nco rpo rate historic al ac ti on i nto the die ge tlc do
mai n. He re· w e are talki ng not ab ou t lo c ati on sh ooti ng or a h an.dheld cam
er a rovi n g � . ty streets b ut of the i ncl usi on of signif cant so ci al action-
i i. . .
occurri ng i nd ep·endemly of the fi cti on a- n d of the histo rical mom en t um
_th at real �ve nts p osses s. T� e vaga ri es of th e historical "real" inevitably
threat en to destabilize die mise- en-scene wh ose control m�st remai n-the
.direc tor' chie f conce rn. Dou btl ess rh e economic overlord s of any f il m
s
produc tion sh ri nk f rom the sheer w eight of "di sconti nuity" th at a histori
cal ev ent of any m ag nit ude b ears ·. A brie{ exami naci on of i nst a nc es of thi s
strategy of inco rp oration i n two o ch er fil ms will suffice as evidence of the
qui te remarkabl e p osi tion accorded hi storical action in Medium Cool.
Tow ard th e end of Breathless (1959), a resti".e Michel Poic card.t ails
a police inve s[igator who in tu rn is followi n g Poicc ard's loyer, Pac�ici a
Franchin i; alon g a P ari si an boule vard. I n th e midst of thi s farcical scene,
Goda;d cho oses to i� troduce a wholly contrasti ng inotif, that of histo r y.
From an ove rhead placement, as the camera foll ows the cat -and-mouse
proc e.s sio nal along ·th e boul evard, God ard pans to a simult aneous and
.
ge o graphically parallel ev ent. Th rou gh t he st re e ts ano ther more p ublic
proce ssi onal is maki ng its w ay :it thi s p oint in th e fic ti on . A gli mpse of a
l arge bl ack li mo.usine flyi n g t,�i n fl ags- one, th e S tar s and S trip es; th.e
oth er, th e French tricolor -i. s all that Godard choo ses to i nclude of t heo
preside m Eisenhower's stare vi si t and his greeting on the streets of Paris,
th e lib erator returni ng ro ad miri ng thron gs. M uch of th e iro ny of the
sequenc e is due to th e disc rep anc y betwe en th e amoun t of screen time .
allo tte d t(> the d ouble c.ord on· of mo torcycle p oli ce l eadi ng th e entourage
and the i magi ng of th e li mousi ne i ts elf. Th e editi·ng of t he scene deni es us
a vie,v of th e c elebratep figure s thcmsel ve.s, contrasti n g i nstead the att en
ri on _given to p omp an d prepa ration as comp ared wi th th e meage r content
of the i nstantaneous "event." The sou nd t rack-recotd e d " wild" here as
elsewhere i n the film-is mom ent arily boost ed to.inclu de a ch aoti c bl end
of crowd noi ses, p olice chatt er; and. th e so umf of the m otorcad e. Several
placard-waving demonstrator s are-momentarily visibl e.
Wi thi n the c ontext of the film, herald ed from the fir st as a ma rve l (>f
ellipsis and energetic economy, this mom entary insertion of the '' r;al" is
dens e w ith meaning. The Ei senlrow er/d e Gaulle summit confe rence-a
r·ut � fl£AL8 IN rlCTI ON 25

"hi storic event"-becomes the diplom ati c correlative for the Poi ccar d/
Franchini rcl ationship;in which each lover's desire is invested in. the
cultura l i cono graphy of the o t her, that of Bogi e or of Au gu ste Renoi r .
Mic hel's later re mar k i n th e 1nids t of a mo rous pleasures ("We're helpi ng
Franco -Amer ican re lations"} is thus anc hore d i n a mater ial r eality. 10 Like
the use of the moving c ame ra that repea tedly prece des the couple th rough
bustli ng c ity stree ts, of ten pro voki ng the glance s of c urious pa sse r sby,
this cur sor y aside to hi story is also t he bravu ra t ouc h of a fear less youn g
cineast revising th e can ons. The meaning of thi s brief hist orical foo t note ,
while not alt ogeth er narr a ti viz e d, is l argely conrnioed within fictional
bomid s, the pot entia l for a radical di spe rsa l of non diegetic ac tion and
connotation c(>�ir011ed.
In the sprin g (>f 1970, Cal cutta was gr ipped by a prolon ged season
of conf ronta tion between Left a nd Right force s punctu a\ed by a ser ie s of
ma ssive d emoostrations. Against this background, Satyaji t Ra y, the highly
rega rded Bengali ·filmma k er whose inatte ntio n to poli ti cal i ssues h ad long
gall ed his countr ymen, began sh ooti ng Pratidwandi (The Adver sar y). The
fil m centered on the fortunes of the youn g, recently graduated Siddhar tha,
wh ose i mmedi ate f u,ure , c louded by a tight job mark et an d family re
sponsibilitie s in the wake of his father's de ath, <lffered ao illu s tration of
the moral dil emmas fa ci ng the soc ially c onscious y ou1h of Calcutta. T<lnu,
Siddhar tha's younger brother, represente d the respon se of the sev erely
ali enated; havi ng lost faith with the es tablished order, he ha s-ta ken to t he
streets in league wiih a miliiant guerrilla factio n. Meanwhile, Siddhar tha's
path has crossed with that of a shy an d beau,if ul young woman of the
sori fa m ili ar fr om s o many Saryajit Ray fil ms. In a dramati c sc ene shot
a!Op a tall buildi n g in C alcutta, 1he woman tell s Siddba r t ha of the family.
troubl es tha t threaten her ha ppin ess. In the ba ckground, yet never specifi
cally addresse d i n di alo gue, can b e seen ,he largest ma ss demori stra tioo
e ver stage d io Cal c ut ta . He r e on e can di st inguish a para digm o f con ven
ti onal rnelodrama whose epic dimensions aCe u ndersta ted in a manner
consiste nt with 1h e Ray styl e. Rather than comrast the scal e of public and
pr ivate rea l ms in the manj,er of, fo r exam ple, a David O. S elznick (e.g.,
the lur id-c ra nin g ac,i on th at loses_ Sca rle t t O'Hara i n a sea of w ou nded
men at the A tl anta t rain depo t or the monu mental pans i n Since ¥011 Went
Away in which Jenn ifer Jones' s par ting from Ro bert Walker is re stated by
t h ose of dozens m ore youn g lovers }," Ray choos es t o a llow the spec tator 's
gl ance the free dom to i nspect wha t a ppea rs to be a human tapestr y mov
i ng at a di stance from the fi c tio na l action . One i s left to determi ne the
signifi cance of pr.ivate su fferin g rela ti ve to the t umul t o f massiv e social
c on fli c t. Ray ne ither dwar fs his charact ers i n a sea of humanity n or b e-
•• THE •atAL. I,. FICTION

littles t he pa in of t he sensitiv e you ng woman 's plight , Rat her, t he visual
strategy is th e pro to type of Bazi nia n demo cra cy wi th the eye and mi nd l eft
to weigh the v al ences of bo t h lev el s of drnrna-s otial-hi sror ical and i nte r
p ecsona l. Ra_y's· came ra place ment a to p the tall b uilding guarantees t he
mixtu re o f delica cy an d vi sual po tenc y that has so ofte n prompted cr itical
com pa ri son s with Jean Re noir . The dem ons tra tion is rendered vi sibl e ye t
inaudible.The Ray sensibility couples a si ncere h umanism wit h a retice nce
for the rough-and-tumbl e of upstaged and unreh earsed ce ality.12
I wouldlike to moke features, go out andsee the people, andI

would Jjke tofind some weddingbetween features gndcinema.
verite. Ihave very strong opinions about us a1ld theworld, and
Idon't know bow in bell t oput them all in one basket.
-·
:: HaslceU Woxlos interview in film 9�e rly {spring 1968)
Medir,m Cool c hoos es hi stor y's u nf oldi ng as t h e ver y cor e of its d ramatic
c onc erns . For te n ye ars prior to his _d epa rtu re f or Holly wo od i n 1956,
Hask ell Wexl e r had been eng aged i n ma ki ng document ar y fil ms, man y
o f them in support o f var ious Left or ga nizatic :ms i n che Chi ca go area . 1.3
Wexler had. also l.ent a h a.n. d i n postprod. uc tion .work on tha t most cel c - ·�·
bra ced of blackli st era pcojecc s, Salt of the Earth (r 954). Bue it was the
do cumenrnr y ch at ha d most occupie d chi s yo un g fil mma ker, whose.fir st
Holly wood assignme nts as ci n ematogr aph er , as wit h Stakeout on Dope
Street (1958), ben efi t ed fr om Wexl er's n e wsreel eye and hi s abilit y to ten
der back a lley lo cati ons i n convincing detail. Says Wexler : "All I k new
was rea lit y, the docume ntary. So my ig nora nc e of t he o t her way sor i 0£
h elped.""
· By th e tim e the by now Aca dem y_ Awa rd-winnin g cinematogr apher
(for \Vho's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? [1966]) was given the opportun ity to
di re ct hi s fi rst featu re in 1968, \Vexl er had al re;idy t aken th� leap int o i n
de p end ent pro duc ti ofl with a sixty- minute d ocu m entary, The Bus (r963).
\Vith the most skeletal of cre ws, Wexle r had acc om panied a busl oad of
fre edom marchers on th eir odyssey fro(Jl Sa n F�anc isco to Washington i n
an effort co capc uce the sense of. commit me nt an d histor ic purpos e. sha red
by th e dem ons tra tors. The exper ience le ft tbe fil mma kec nearly $60,000
poore r and convi nced that indep endent production with out a pre a rrange d·
di stribution dea l was an u n fe asible c ou rse of action. When, i n r968·, Pa ra
m ou nt Pic tu res offered Wexl er a ch ance to di rect a lo w-budget, ca t her
sacch ari ne st or y o f a � oy and his phot ographe r friend, \Vexler h ad at last

begun c o. realize a d ream of ma n y yea r s' standing. In retoolin g a nd p er
sonalizi n g tbe pr oject, \Vexle r r elo cated t he fil m's s e tting (f ro m Ne w Yor k
27

co Chicago), chang ed the phocographic j ournali st of the ta le to a te levi si on
camerama n, and, roo st importa ntly, restruccure d the entire pie ce around
the upc oming D e mo cra ti c Nation al Convention. Needl ess to say, ch e
"scripted" his torica l e ve nts exc eeded the limics accorded the m; the crucia l
gesture, however, was Wexler's pre1nediratcd inscription of the historical
withirl' the fictional.
Given chese prelimina ry rema rks on the inc orpora tion of history i nc o
a fil mic texl and.Wexlcr's pa rticular ince Ce s· 1 in this proce ss, what can be
said, in more concrete terms, about the choice of conterttporary history
as subjec t man er in Medium Cool a nd ab out this sp e cific ins tance of in
corporation? Th e setting or phy sical enviro nmenc. w ithi n which diege ti c
action transpi re � is n or mally considered to b e one more or less co equal
mise - en-scenc cl ement among several (lighting, costume , a nd figura l
mo ve ment or exp re ssio n be ing th e others). The most accl a imed of "mi se
cn-scen e dire c to rs" are nota ble either for chc me ticul ou s de sign of their
decor (Vinc en te Min nelli) or fo r an u nc a nny a bility ro enm esh place and
a c ti on with little sense of c ontrivance (Nichola s Ray, Anthony M ann).
Herc, in Medium Cool, th e dyna mic s of the re la tionship b etween s etcin g
and other structu ra l eleme ncs are utter ly t ransfigu red to the exce�t tha t
the term "setting" is n o longe r su itable. In this film, "place" (the summ er
1968 Chi ca go se ning) genera tes dra ma tic action aod, in th e end, anni
hilates it.
T he pre emine nce of the spatiotempora l fr amework in Medium C ool
is evid enc ed by the u nev en onwlogical status of rhe film's co mponent
pa rts- . tha t is, the disjunction be ti, een a co ns tructed, essenti a lly repro-
duc ible f ictiona l space a nd a n u nframa ble , nonrep ro ducibl e "real" �pace .
(There could, of course, be no sec ond t ake s.du rin g r he bloody battl es out-
side the Conrad Hilton I lot el.) The his to ry of cinema is reple t e with talcs
of the fo rtuit ou s " act of Go d" tha t c r ea tes c cl es cial, one-tim e- only light-
ing e ffects unr ival ed in scale an d grandeu r by rhe Rena issan ce maste rs.'5
In Medium Co ol, h owev· er, the nonre produc ible "re al" space was a social
space cacher than a natural or element.al environment, a combat zone
w ithin which soc ia l force s collid e d with a fu r y a nd u npr edic tability t ha c
sh ocked the inter natio na l a ss emblage of jour na l ist s and photographers.
Wexler's si ngular attempt t(> h arne ss that z<> ne of aciivity within fictional
b ounds constitutes the basis for sub scanti al cr itical a tte ntio n ; his aware -
ness tha t the ae sthetic ve hicl e could not and, in fac t, shoul.d no t co nt ai n
and subsume tha t sqci al spac e mer its a g rear d ea l m<)re . The a na lysis of
the dec pc'St implication s of what might be te r me d thi s fictio n's diseng orge-
ment of history, the text's refusal ro sust ain its str are gy <>f incorpora ti<>n,
must await f ur ther examination <>f the specificiti es of the textual s ys tem.
28 THC - atAL" IN FICTION

Th e f o.re goin g has attempted t o establish the primacy of setting
w ithin the ens embl e of s tr ucturing elements that const tute Medium Cool
i
as filmi c t ext. It should no w be added that the drama of historical events
connected wich die convention and its repercussions-the hi storical .
profil m ic-bore an equ ally profo und relati onship to a precise conjuncture
of tim e and geography. To sta�e thi s fixity less empha tically wou ld b e to
mi sc onceive the na ture of hi storical phenomena, particul arly the smn
me r 1968 debacl e i n Ch icago. Wi th, o uc the atmosph ere of str ict autocracy
of the sort en gineered during the D aley years , without a massi ve p olice
apparatus-high-strung, combat ready, and unflinchingly l oyal to t he
Dal ey high command.,-w ithout th e dem ographics of high-density, low
qua lity h�using'for blacks and whi te rural emigres, and without th�_sti-
.fli ng w et hea t·of a Chi c ago August, th e intens ity and duration of pitch ed
battle would ha ve b een un lik ely, if not unthinkabl e .\Vhat occurred, in
fact, wa s a c onv ergence of civil rights and antiwar fo rces on t he .t urf of a
large and su pportiv e Left community on the one hand a nd a repre ssiye,
fund amentally paranoid mili tary encampment on the ot her. T he filin's
i ntent was to fix as ceprese ntation cb ar moment of polarized con frontati on
i n such a way as ro impli cate the spectator, to force her or hi m to o ccupy
a p osi ti on wi th in thi s poli ticizecj l andsc ap e . Th e next seep b eyond the .
,.
arousal of consciousness was intende d to b e soci al action.
This iti ne rary is coincide ntal wir.b Brecht's own , a s stated in hi s essay
"Theatre for Pleasure· or Theatre for lnstructi on": "The object of our in
quiries was not just to arouse moral objecti ons ... but to discover me ans
foi: th eir eliminati on."16 11 Medium Cool can b e sa id to s hare this agenda ,
it is cl ea r th ac tbe p ossibility for, i ts spontan e o us f ulfill ment-p ol i t ic al
actio n , th e elimin ati on of s oc ial ills-was e ff e ctively sab o ta ged b y the
Gulf and We s tern Corporatiori' .17 I n a·r975 intervi ew, Wexl er maintained
that "what actually d elayed the rel ease of the film in r969 was the fear
of the attor neys for Gu lf and Wes tern Corp ora tion that,. a fter seeing the
film, peopl e wo uld go into rhe streets a nd perpetrate illegal acts: And if
tha t did happ en, the offi c i als of-the C,,rp orati on c ould th en b e subject
co court a ctioo.nJs Thus the domin ant �ineffia's heav ily c apitalized·modc
.• of. prod uc ti on (in comparison w ith Brecht's, for e xampl e) b ears' w ith it a
co nservatism whose economic and p<>litical mo ti va tions are de eply fused;
the corporate re sp onse i n this case blunted much of th e film's immediate
p oliti ca l iinpact.
The focus of my intere st here, what r emains undil uted in Medir'1n
Cool, de spite the delay. of distribution and vari ous edit orial tamperi ngs
enforced b y Para mount, i s the gestur al and embl emat i c. The mo st strik:
ing feature of th e filin's relati on to history-its e ffort ro incorporat e t he
THC " '!CAL" I N flCTION ..

"rea l" within th e fictio nal dom ain-is not the on ly one. At le ase tw o
o ther for ma l strategics, significa nt for the ir div erg ence from the filmic
norm, deser ve menti o n: a rhetorica l strategy, the us e of direct a ddr es s by
c harac ters, .and a compositional one, the progressive transfOrmation of
the relati onship betwee n foreg round and bac kgro und, figu re and g rou nd.
Each contributes to the erosion of fiction's uncontested domination of the
di scursive system.
Dir ecr add re.ss in fictional cinematic discourse is ra re indeed, except
in instance s of comedy. .There the fictional character turns raconteur;
the B(> b Ho pe or Je rry S einfeld persona is s hed in fa vor of the come dic
prese nce -the comic himself-in a manner coosiStent with the stan d-
up tradi ti on of v audeville and music h all. Film theorists, most notably
Chr is tian Me tz in "The Imagin ary Signifier," have specula ted on the
gravity of the re turned gaze. If the p r escrvatio.n of a sp e cular unity can be
deeme d t he sine qu a non of th e fiction film, th e sustaine d di rect addr ess
•
•
o f a char ac ter from wit hin the di egesis threate ns this im agin ary plenitude.
Du ri ng a .s equence midway thr ough Medir<m Coo/, television ca m eraman/
p rotagon ist J ohn Kats ellas is con fro n ted by a n as semblag e o f black mili
tants whose hostility is ar ou sed by the pre sence of this me dia rep re senta
tive:19 "When y ou w alke d in, y ou brought !,a Salle Stree t with y ou, City
Hall and all the mass c ommunicat ions me dia . And you a re the exploi ters.
You are the ones who dist or t and r idicule an d ema scu la te u s. And tha t
ain't cool." The in; is a re sponse to Katscllas's unsolicited appearance in
a n alien environment (his ane mpt to follow up ·a human int erest st<;>ry has
brought the ne wsman to the all-bla ck S outhsid e of Chicag o ) a nd bi s c a
sua l disre gard for the fr ustrati ons of the me dia lockout they su ffer.
· The dia tribes o f the t wo m en are profoundly c on fr(mtati onal; th e
frontal c om posi tions are insist ent a nd multiform in rhe tor ic al effec t. The
subj e cts o f this direct address a re three in nu mb er: the fictional charac ter
Kats ellas, t he fil mm aker Wexler, a nd ourselves, th e film's audi ence.20 The
su dden c onfluence o f these thre e registers of spec ta tor ship threatens 10
dislo dge histoire a n d .its invisible ne twork of sutur e. The dis r uptive eff ec t
of 1hi s mode of address i s diminishe d somewhat by th e sense one ha s of. a
recu rren t play of identity be tween filmm aker and p rota go nist. In one c ase,
a gr oup o f mc)ck ri oters respon ds to the c ommand "Get the guys wfrh the
cam eras !" by fi rst rushing toward Ka tsellas, the n engulfi ng \Vexler him
self and the "true " reco rding de vice that be holds. Here t he t hrusting f ore
fing er o f the militant for ces a cec ognit io n upon all wh o shate ptivilegc, in
life as in fic tion; those wh o to lerate su ppre ssi o n and di senfra nc hisement
{in re pr esen tation as in conunerce or law) a re destine d to suffer its d eadly
backlash. By di srupting the binding p ower of histoire that h_olds ev ery
30 ll lC -11tAL" IW FICT ION

The direct addrcs.< of the bl ack militant in Haskell Wexler'• Medium Cool ( 1969).
gesture within a web of fictional conceit, by a llowing vcrbnl utterance 10

circumvenr rhe customary relay of character/idcnrification/i ntrojecrion,
Wexl er prod uces a discursive caesura intended to instruct by force of con
frontation_ A similar tactic has been employed in every patriotic appeal.
Th e unyielding gaze and forward pitch of Uncle Sam's wartime coun t e
nance ("Uncle Sam Wants You!") has rousted countless Americans out
of pe acetime apathy. This fig ure of rhetorical fusion, rhe intcrpdlat io n of
audience, filmmaker, and c ha racter alike, expresses an urgency of tone
reminiscent of Hollywood's most fervent wa rtime plcas.21
There is ar le ast one other key reference for thes e instances of di
rect address, that of the Brechrian nocion of "soci al gcst." I n "Diderot,
Brecht, Eisenstein," Rol and Barthes proposes a genealogy of th e rableau
i n Western art. Working from Diderot's concepr of dramatic unity, which
exa lts the tablea u structure and its success ion of cutout setti ngs b rimming
with signification, Barthe s defines Brecht's epic theater as a successor
to this tradition. Brecht's writings on epic theater stress the autonomy
of each scene and the importance o f a staging rhar challenges its audi
ence through a layering of discrete signifying elements (wo rds, music,
decor). Thi s Brecht contrasts with tbe dramatic theater's muddled flow
of sensations, which intoxicate the onlooker. In the course of his argu
ment, Barrhes suggest s thar di stanciation, the cornerstone of Brecht's
rheory of epic th eater, i s b ur a particul ar instance of a more genera l arti sric
strategy explored by Did erot, Lessing, and Greuze. The tableau of Brecht,
"
in r epre se nting itself for the active criticism of the spectator, discourages
the closu_re of a final mea ning ( so c ommo nl y the intent o f the tabl eau
form) in favor of an inter active social meanin g constructed in reflection .
Fur ther more, social attitudes arc meant to b e derived fro m the movement
a nd gestura l repert oire of the ac tors. A s Brecht specifies in "On the Use of
Music in an Epic Theatr e," "the actors' social gest b ec omes particularly
impor ta nt. . .. (N at urally this me ans soci a lly signific ant ges t, not illustra
tiv e or expr essive gest.) The ge stic pr inciple takes over, a s it were, from the
principle of imitaci on." 22
A s Bar thes has.d escr ibed this Brechtia n neologism, the soci a l gesc i s
"a gesture or set of g es tur es {but_ n ever a gestic ul ati on) in which a wh ole
soci al situa ti on can b e rea d."2Jlf tl1is fo rmu la tion is applied to these i n
sta nces of di rec t a·ddre ss in Medium Cool, thei r ge stic func tion is cl ea rly
demons trated. The unacc ustome d c entrality of the bla ck milita nt within
the filmic fr ame, the u nswerv ing e ye and a dvancing forefinger, are j oined
by an auxil iary arra y of mise-en -scene elem ent.-a < s t r in g o f lo ve b eads,
a frame d pho to gra _ ph of the Reverend Martin Lu th er King Jr., a dark ened
telev ision screen tow ard whi ch the blac k - shir ted man will s oon gest ure
with dis dain. Thi s use of the con frontationa l filme d interv iew, f ra m
ing sub jec t again s t a flartcned backdro p, is also recurren t in th e w ork of
Go da rd.But in Medium Cool t he por traiti st's sen sibility, di sc er nible in
Goda r d (on ly reca ll Jean Scb erg framed against the Renoir painting in
Breathless), is r epl ace d by a s ociolo gi ca l e nt a bla t ure whose p eripher al
details contribute to nistor ical narration.24
In chis context of cinem atic appli cation of B rechtia o theor y, it is use
ful to, recall Brec ht's descr iptions of hi s own filmi c usa ges in the theat er . In
"Theatre for Pleasure or Theatre fo r Ins truc tion; the Germ an dramati st
en thused ab out th e pot ent ial of projected film se gment s as contributions
to,Var d a pr oce ss of alienation considered "necessary to all unde rstand
ing." Lik e chor ic c h ant, pl aca r ds, or m ime d sequen ces , fil m wa s depl o ye d
as a b reaker of sp ell s, a me tho d o f i nt r od u cing the we ight o f the "re al
world" i nto rh e airl ess domain of dr am a. For Brecht, of .c ours e, th e illu
sionism intri nsic to th e cinem�tic image was not al issue; the. ontolo gy of
the fil mic "real" was of no consequ ence so l on g a s the shock value of the
m oving image rema i n ed int ac t. "Films s howe d a mont ag e of events from
· a ll ov er the world. Proj ections added statistic al mate r ial. And as the 'b ack
ground' c a,i,e to the fron t of th e stage so pe ople' s ac tivity was subjec ted to
criticism."2S
It i s this tran spositi on of foreground and b ackground that bea rs upon
, th e pres ent ana lysi s. Wh at Brecht call s for here, albeit in a l argely m eta- .
phorica l sens e, is a radi cal s hifting of fi gu re and groun d s o tha t character
THC -RF.AL - IM' FI CTI ON

and dramatic empl otmcnt lose the ir primacy of place in the re focus ing
on the bro ad er social horizon. Th e destiny of the romantic cou p)e or the
trou bl es of th e b el eag uered protagoni st are th us d e-e mphasize d as a vas t
panorama of histori cal con cerns ertvelops fi c tional ones. Severa l fil m ic ,
examples of this p-aradigm ha ve b een menti oned, a ll of whi ch de pend on
,h�·rnove ment or etcenrric positi on ing of th e camera s o that for.egroundc d
cha ract er s a re bri efly dccenrered or optically n�utralizcd. This realig,jmcnt
of fore.ground/ba ckg round relation s is, in these c�ses , a tempora(y one . T n
Medir,m.Cool, however, the hi era rchi cal arra ngement i>f hi storical mili eu
a;,d fictiona liz e d, for egrou n ded acrio n is progressively unde rmi ne d a n.d at
last inve r te d. ·
In Medium Cool, the romantic interest·of pro tagonist Joh n Katsellas
is a woman rece ntly a rrive d in Chi cago _fr om ,h·e b ac kwoo d s of We st
Virginia; she i s th e mother of a waif, Ha rold H9r ton , whom ;he c� mera
man ha s be fri ended. It is wor th noting tha, thi s. female character , des pite
her s tatus (one-half of the romanti c co�ple}, is never na med. It is only v ia
the .film's clos ing cre dits that the �ame "Eilee n"·b ec omes a ttache d to her.·
Sinc e Pa ra moi, nt chos e to recur th e film before i1s commerciat ·r ele ase , it
is l)OSs ible·tbat thi s lacu na is s imply a produc t of that evi scera,ion. None
theles s there is in. Medium Cool a genera lize d sens e of ch ara ct er as a lure ,-..
to spec tator itn erest rather thari as its fi na l de stination. Th e l ack of psycho
l ogic al develop�cnt of rh e Eileen i-To rto11 cha r a cter di scourages the poten
tial for misplaced psychi c inve stmen t . It is she who, on the pretext of fi nd -.
ing he; ruoa,vay so n, lead s·us from th e provinces of th e priv ate and th e
ficti ona l into the sava ge u nd er wor ld of city Stre ets and bloo dy confronta
ti on. Tlier e Eil een e ncoumers the battleme nts of a f urious conflict sh e has
little suspectc.d and an array of co mbatants wh·ose diversity and numb er
leav e h er wi. de - eyed. Eil e en is now reduce d fro m ch ar acte r to a s ite of
nom inal motivation f or the imag ery, a figure dispatched to the e dge s an d ,
into the . depths of the fra m e. T rac es remain of Horton as pi ca resq ue pro- .
tagonist, a wi�tful Can dide whose ca nar y y ell ow form, though f re quently
obscure d from our si ght, ass,ues us th at the fic tion endures. Yet th ere re
ma ins no na rrati onal "I" through whom the lan ds caped is ref rac ted, o n ly
,
an "e ye," which is Wexl er s ?wn.
The dimin uti on of e mphasis on the Ei.leen Horton ch,i'r ac ter . within
the visua l fie ld is a progress ive one . Fr om her fore groun'ding ea rly in the
s equence as sh e be gins her searc h i n the unearthly glow of the ele vate d
train, Eil een is reduc ed to a s tatus identical with ou r own-that of histo
r y's spe ctator. Yippies, You ng Socialists, bloo die d prote sters, an d smooth
faced National G ua rd sm en a re all s ys tematically dra wn into the fore
groun d of a mise- en-s cene that Wexle r has t�m porarily b orrowe d fro m
fH E �atAL• IN FICTION 33

Newsmen and fictional characre.rs as history�$ spcaarors in rhe streets of Chicago,
August t968.
bru1e reality. By the end of the sequ ence, I

lorton has become only slightly
more disiinguishablc than a paich of yellow affixed to a passing jeep.
Two formal conditions provide a sense of suture across this dispersal of
a sceni c space in which narrative development has effectively been frozen.
Indeed, this grand spectacle of loosely ordercd sccncs can be said to sup
plant fi ctional syatagrna outright. (These sequences were, for good reason,
..
Digitize<! by Original from
non sync passa ges utilizing sound as cou nterpoint to image, help to un
der mi ne co nventional so und-i mag e re lations. It ca n fu r rher b e claim e d
that these acoustic eleme n ts, functi on i ng as relatively a uton omous axes
of meaning, c onrribute to a radica l social critiqu e free d fr om utt er de pe n
de nc e on the word.
A gre at de,:il of the effectiveness of Medium Coot's att ack on the bru
tal efiec ts of a re pr essive state a pp aratus de pends on its a bility to c o()tex
tu alize violence within Amer ican cu lture a nd 5<:nsibility. The m ost gr aphic
illustra tion of this eff or t occurs early i n the film whe n Kats ellas and a
wo man friend atte 11d th e roller de rby. In long shot, the ca me ra fra mes a
strea m of burly, helm et e d wom e n rolle r-skating . ar ou nd a c ircular track
while attempting to elbow, body-sla m, a n·d gen erally i ncapacita te one

another. This lu rid spe ct acle, whi ch g enera tes much excitem ent among
the "li ve" audi ence {"li ve" �ccause Wexler's tel ephoto lens focuses la rge ly
o n th e "r ea l" audi ence ra the r than on the ac tors) i s wedded not to a sync
sound tra ck but to a re nde ring of Wild Man Fisher's "Merr y-Co-Round."
c•mon let s' merry•go1 m erry-go, mcrry·g:o-round.

Ev eryone isgoing mcrry·gO•round.
Merry-go, merry•go> merry·go-round.
Th e song's lu rc hing r hyth,n and ludicrous nu rsery rhy me ly r ics trans

form high-spee d he ad bashing into comic ch ore ogr aphy. The unexp ected
sound/i ma ge mix se r ves to de fa milia r ize the stag e d eve n t, e nfo rcing�
tangible di st ance between sp ect at or a nd pr ofil mic sp ect a·de. This is a

s o und strate gy tha t a ccords with Brecht's dicta regarding th e separ ati o n
of forma l elem ents a nd the a li e natio n of the audi ence from a n unmedia te d,
pre dige sted e xp er ience that c ontravene s ra ti on al th ought. The dist anc e
be(1Veen v ie we r and filme d e v ent is u nde rs cored afte r che face wh en sync
so und a br uptly resumes; a discord of thudding bodie s, au dible gr unts, and
a c r<)wd cha1_ 1ti ng f or more now a lar ms us by its closely mike d presence.
Our r ev e la tion of thi s ritua l p er formance-pa rt carni va l, pa rt public
sa cr ifice -is la rgely a chi eved through a syncop ation a n d vari e gati on of
sound/image relati ons. The cr itiq ue of another p ublic perfor man ce, the
en sui ng "p olice riot" bto adcast a rou nd the world, is rehearsed here.JO
The \Vild Ma n Fisher song wa s a nondi e ge ti c so und insert, but in a
scene coward the e nd of the film, W exle r juxtap<)SCS so urce sou n d from
on e location with lhe visua l track fro1n another proximate space to
gre at effect. Loc ation one is tbe intcr i(>r of th e conventio n hall in which
Katsellas witn es ses the clamor ous dem on strati on of su ppo rt f or Illin ois 's
fa vor ite so n, may or Richar d J. Daley, co the tu ne of "H appy Day s Are
3& THE "fttAI. - I N flCTION

sh ot sil em and ha.ndheld and have a decidedly newsre el quality; they oc
cupy somet hi ng less than 1wenty mi nutes of screen time.) The fi rst spur to
continuity, then-volition or viewer interest-is a . condition of reception
a nd, a s such, is subj ec t 10 t he v aga ries of t ime and pl ac e . For a k nowl edge
abl e a udi en ce with a pr eestablishcd awareness of th e events depicted and
an appre c i atio n for th e archival val ue of the f ootage i t s elf, t hese s equences
ar e th� filip's m ost extraordi nar y achi e vement. To the uniniti ated, the sec
ond formal co nditi on - the s ound track-must suffice as a brace to c<1nti
nuity. Comp ose d by Chjcago bl ues and rock musician Mike Bloomfield,
t he fil m's score is domi na red by t he spa r e melody li ne of an elec tric guita r
wh<>se bassy trem ol o establishes an i cy, desperate tone. Th e hard edge of
music offers in term ittent accompa ni ment to Eile en's odyssey th rough
tr <>ublcd · s tree ts. The simplicity of the score, th e depe ndence on the single
instrument ari.d reiteration of a now·:familiar music.al motif, stabilize a
restive image track suddenly more docwue ,itar y a nd preser vari on al than
fi ctiona� and narrativizing.
I t is iron ic tha t rhe fil m of a man with twenty years' experience be
hi nd the ca mera sh ould depend so heavily on i ts so und track. Wi thout
question, Medittm Cool is a s much a fil m for t he ears as for the eyes. It
was the sixti�s m edia gur u M�rshall McL u han wlio cfiaracterized t�le
vision as "the most r. ecent and spectacular electri c extension of our central ·
nervous system."26 Yet TV was te rmed "cool" in sofar a s it was c apa bl e
of t ransmitti ng an i ma ge low in re solution·and inten sity, a m er e " mosa ic
<:>f ligbt and da rk spo ts."27 I ts channels-of i n f6rma ti on remai ned grossly
underdeveloped; t he TV was more ro b e hea rd t han s een. Like the tele
r
•,
vision medium it critiques, Medium Cool uses tbe s oun · d track ro much
a dvantage, de velopi n g a sound st rategy sui ted to . its political-.aesthetic ,.• .
aspira ti on,28 I nde ed, it is the s ound track that guarante es the tex t's anni
hil ation oJ fi. ction and its suppl antatio n by history.:
Once a ga in it is Br echt wh o has provided th e g uidep osts for an alysis.
l n his sem inal essay "The Modern Thea tre ls the Epi c Thea tre," Brech t
emphasized t he oeed for the " r adical separati on" of formal el emei1r s so
.
r
that neithe music n or te xt nor sett ing would be degraded in the s er:vic e
of a-hyp notic th eatr i cal exper ien ce. This "pr ocess of fusion e xte.nds �o t h e'
.
. spectator , wh o g_ers th rown into the. mel tirtg pot, t<:K> and b ecomes a passive ·
(s uff ering) parr of the total work of art."2 9 This "proc es$ of fusio nt as
manifested i n th e cine ma's tr eauue,i t of �u cli tory eleme ncs, means th at the .
s ound track is customa rily a s uppor t of the i magery through synchronous
dialogue or "evocative" music used as mood eohanCement. In Medium '
Cool, ih e use of nondi e geric sound, that is, nonso urc c music and pho-
nic sound whos e origi ns li e outside of th e fiction, as well as prorrac ted
3S

the si re n songs of all rep re se ntational forms ?) and the fina l credits roll, the
once radio-dra b voice p ers ists, now cracking with emotion and dis belief.
The p ol icemen arc grabbing and beating everyone in sight... People arc
bei ng du bbed, and I mea n in tcchnicolor and 3·D ... Right in front of che
nation, right in front of the entire narion, this is happening.
Thi s na rr ation i s sustaine d even a fter t he cre dits a re replac ed by black

leader; the end of the ce lluloid st r ips c u ts off the voice at th.e ver,y moment
of a ne ,vly forged awaren ess.
I've ju st got o ut of being smashe d against the wall by the skin of my .teeth ...
people are bein.gsm"shcd up against the wall and arc being hit by the police
with clubs, and those are re.al n ightsticks, and people are really being hjc.
It i s the weight of this final testimony, is s uing from an unsee n sp ace, that
ma r ks as de finitive the film's choice of the raw, re l ative ly unpr oc esse d
mater ial of his to ry over the ma nufactu re d imager y of Hollywood fiction.
It is a p ero ration of mixed function. In fo r ma l terms , it offers a fin al g ua r·
)
antce of the sovereignty of the sound track, f ree d'from mere illu s t ra tion
or teiteration. As an epiphany of consciousness regatding the wanton bru· '
tality of a repressive st.ace apparatus, this anonymous narration is proof ,.,,
of th e active subs titu tion of the fi ctional regime by pr im ary, historical
s our ce mat er ial. Fo r in s tead of focu sing on the final th roes of a dawning
social awa ren ess in rhe Ka t se lla s or Mor ton characters, Medium Cool
c hooses to jettison the fabric a tion of cha racte r and diegesis altogether.
By th e fil m's e nd, the s pecta to r has been prodded towar d a re cogni,tion of
socia l force.s in conflict, much in keeping with the Brechtia n p re sc ription.
Mo re over, the increasingly hor ta to ry cha ract er of the work s er ves to align
it with th e didactici�m of the nonfiction t radition. It is the dis embodied
plea o f rh e ext ra diegetic voice tha t provide.s the s pur to thi s re velation, not
the agenci es of cha racter o r emplotm enr. In sum, the succes s of Medium
Co o/ as innovative political art is an effect of it s su cc es s a s an act of
deconst ruction-of filmic fictio n a nd of its elf as fictional film.
The Denial of Incorporation: Annihilating Fiction
Thus fa r the analy sis o f one film and its attempts to integrat e a n unea sy
mixture of aesthe ti c , com mercial, and political concer ns has provided the
fo cus of c ritic al inqui r y. Thi s analy sis bas atte mpted to sugg es t cer tain
points of tangency with oth er politi ca lly motivated aesthetic thinking of
this century, p r incip a lly that of Benoit Brecht, and to examine the var iety
.. THC ¥ 8tAt.• IM f'ICTI ON

Her e Again." The song lin ks thi s local e wi th .ih e si te of ano ther l ess ccl e
b raiory d em on stratio,i . t- he me le e at Lincoln Park. Seve ral mea ning ef
fects att end thi s sound/ i inage counter point. Th e spectato r is, in the first
place, led to assume a simultaneity of events-che two dcmonsttations,
b oth of th em " real" and uns taged-which joi ns them in a hist.or ical dia
l o gue. Mor eo ver, the sen se of the hollowness of the refra in i s d ramatically
heightened by, th e radical contradiction between the lyrics a nd the scenes
of battl e rhar are th ei r vi sual counrerp art . qnc is led to r ecall th e genes is
of a tun e that has b ecome a fi x tur e of Ame ric an poli tic al campaign s -th e
da r k days of t .he depre ss ion when Fra nklin D. Roosev elt' s promi ses of
renewal requi red melodi c support . Th rough We xler ' s strategic ,counter-·
pointing of sound and image, a song built on a wish turns into a taunt,
l
·;.
the more caustic for its n1oral insensitivity.
Bu t it is the acou stic strate gy of the f ilm's conclusion that assures us
',, of th e signifi c an ce of \Vexl er's valo rization of histor y ov er dicgesis, t h e an
.' nihil ation of th e fictio nal domain previously clai med. K ats cll as and Eileen
Horton are shown d rivi ng down a deserte d highway, pre sum ably in search
of Hor t<>n's' err a nt son. Th e sound track is a continuous b ar rage of o n -
. t h e -scene r�porrage by a n astonishe d ne wsman, which issues, one gather s,
f rom th e ca r radi o . (With the exceptio n of se ve ral b rief inter vals., th ere ·
h as.been no sync sound u sed du r ing the twent y mi nutes of screen time
devoted to Eil een' s stree t odysse y.) From th e camera' s positi on, mounted
on th e ca r's h ood, the face of first one then the ot ber of the fil m'.s centr al
r,'
ch arac'ters is obfittraied by a wa. sh of re flec ted light on .th e wirid shield.
This prefigu r ing of di ssoluti on is so on joined by a .fur ther di sr uption of
na rr ative deco ru m-a brief aur �I fla�h-forward in which Horton' s death
and KatsellaS's critiCal injury are announced in the form of a radi o news
bull�ti n. Th e·a uditory fla sh-for ward forestalls su sp�n se; a stylized .;,on·
rage sequence, reinforced by grating sound fragments , represents t he cr ash
' tha t foll o ws wi th a n equal di sregard for tragi c overtones. The cam er a
i
.\ zooms �ut in an jnexorable retreat' from the bu rning wreckage. Yet the
sta tely recessi onal sho uld not b e con s tr i,ed as a sign of mourning f or th e
fallen protagonis ts. The ca{llera sh rinks from t hei r li ttle stor y .
. These two fic t ional subjects hav e been ab sorbed, bit by bit, into a
bl eak l and sca pe of American t ragedy wh os e auth entici t y m o cks ficti on
alized sorrciws. And all the whi l. e th e live newscaster continues, numbly
de scribing th e carnage out side the convention center in g re at d et;iil. T he ·
reve rse zoo m cea ses . A pan·i o the ,right rev eals \Vcxl er hims elf, posed b e
hind a camera , now panning left to m eet the fi rst cam era' s gaze h ead- on.
On e cam er a zooms.into th e black, re ctangul ar matt e b ox of th e oth er.
Ev en as thi s a ct of ritl1al self-immolati on i s comple ted (a warni n g aga inst
THt �lt£AL" IN FICTION 37

of fantasy, then, is a conservative . one insofar as it generates no new ca
thexis or a lteration to disturb the psychic equilibrium as does ,he in1tojec
tion of external s timuli.-The intrusion of the "real" demands some form of
accommodation or topographical reordering tha, is a n expenditure in the
p sychic economy. To quote Abraham and Torok: "Thus our formul ation
goes back to the view that fantasy is in essence narcissistic: rather . than
make an auack on the individual, it a ttempts to tran sform the world" (4).
Jncorpor a tion is a particular kind of fa ntasy in which a loss of some
magnitude (e.g., the de ath of a loved (me) is refused introjection or ac:
cepta nce within the psychic system {"to a dmit the true mea ning of tha,
loss ... would ma ke one different" (5)). Thus the fantasy of incorporation
is both a refusal of introjection and ,he denial of a lacuna. Moreove r, this
in ability to mourn or accept loss is figured as a failure of la nguage, the
in ability of the subject 10 form words to fill the void. For a fantasy of in
corporarion to occur, the loss nmst be "of such nature as to prohibit com
munication,, (7).
Abraham and Torok's description of ,he conditions th a, suppori a
fantasy of incorporation suggests an intriguing parallel with the circum
�tance.s under which the incorporation of history within a fictional text
ta kes place. Just as fantasy was deemed an act of preserva tion intended to
withstand the b<)mbardmcnt of the �'real" and the conComitant alterations
to the J>sychic economy, so too can the fantasy of fiction be termed a c o n
dition of conservatism in which the historical "real" is refused introjecrion
within narrative economy. For the introduction of historical forces a nd
drama s would necessitate a fundamental restructuration of the fabular '
schema; incorporation is thus a means by which the historical "real,, can
be swallowed whole without the reordering of generative structffres. It
should be noted, moreover, that incorporation io its proper sense is ro be
distinguished from Barthes's "inoculation effect," in which.the threa t of
a contesting value or ideological position is defused by introducing it into
the field of representation in meager and manageable proportions. In this
way, the integrity of the contesting value is repla ced by a decontextualized
and insubstantial surrogate.
True incorporalion maintains the ioregrity of tbe hlsrorical event or
social phenomenon-renders ii intact-while simult aneously circumscrib
ing its access to signification. Of course, sucb access would unsea t the
internal logic, the n_arcissism, of the fiction. Just as psychic incorporation
constitutes or m a kes repre senrnble while containing ,he loss of the loved
object, the incorporation of history by fiction produces a representation
th at at the sa me time effectively safeguards the diegesis from the contagion
o f th e "rea l." As Derrid a h as a rgued in his own discussion of Abraham
.. T H£ "flt.AL" IN f'ICTI OH

of formal tactics in Medi,1111 Cool whereby dire ctly histo�ical material
has been introduced and substantive social critique undertaken. By way
of conclusion, a more speculative .direction �-,f inquiry deserves further
elaboration.
ai;,, \:,f thi s study that Wexler's film
. From the outset, it ·has been thc. c. l
pursues a strategy of incorporation, a "swallowing" of whole chunk s o f
history and an.attempted integration of this unstagcd re.alicy within tbe
"f ictional context. ·Brief analyses of comparable attempts elsewhere-by
Godard, Ray, and Selznick-indicate that it is the convulsive or t(aumatic
historical moment that unde rgoes. incorporati(m (the Civil War, . \Vodd
War II, a pivot.al summit conference, a mass demonstration). Like the
Chicago riots of ·August 1968, these are events that exert a do minatio n
of sorts ovCr an epoch or historical conjuncture, events that crystallize ·
certain elemental contradictions .projected on a grand scale, events about
which it becomes difficult to "remain silent. The filmmakers surve yed, with
the exception of Wexler, have used the historical as controlled counte r
point, situating their own inventions of fictionalized conflict within or
against the larger social field used as dramatic foil. But Wexler's inclina
tions toward cinema vcritC and his preoccupation with film as political
tO()I altered the balance of diegetic and histo rical conc er ns so that the
recuperation practiced elsewhere is res isted. The effe ct of this autonomy
, , accorded the historical "real" is a surrender of certain fundamental nar
rative aims, particularly that of closure. ln the film's final mirJutes, char·
acters are dispensed with i n a laconic, stylized flourish that deni es the .
tics o(identificati(m and psyc�ic investment while a continuou s flow of
-�. -·
·,u.
�-.
live news coverag� signal s the preferment of "re al" s oci al conflict v·ia the
sound track.
.
If we take a� our pri (!lary obje cr the act of incorpor ation-of the
historical by the. fictiona1-i t become s possible to coHe late this condi
:
. . practice
tion of aesthetic . .
with a phenomenon of psychic production. In
a rema,kable essay entitled "lntrojection-fncorporation: Mourning or
Melan.i:holia; Nicolas Abrabam and Maria Toro k describe;., great detail
rh� charaaer and function of incoq>oration within the metapsychological
frame wo rk developed by Freud in his efforts to theorize a n adequate
·: model of the 111ind. ln contrasting incorporation with· introjection, Abra
ham and Torok are interested in the relationship of e ach of these phe
nome na to the maintenance o r alte ration of the topographical status
quo. Farlta sy is defined as any representation, belief, or body state that
work s toward maintaining this topography, while "reality" (in the meta•·
psychological sen·sc) is constituted by "everything that acts on the ps ychic
system so as t(> bring ahout a topographical alreration."11 The function.
THC "REAL" IN FICTION 39

and Toro k's crypt onomy-t heir stu dy of incorp oration or ps ychi c eoc r ypt
men t: "Th e c rypt hide s a s it bolds ... .. (It) i s a pl ace c o mp reh end e d withi n
ano the r but rigoro usly se parate fr o m it, isolated from ge neral space by
PartiriOns, an en.closure, an enclave."32 f,Jistory, wh en encrypted �vitbin
the fictional di�esis, is ·allowed to "re-presen t.. lived e xperi ence , but i( i. s
scale d off, made saf e .
This st rategy of re pr csentation/pr ohiJ;ition can b e seen as a mean s

w hereby t he pow er of di r e ct a dd re ss a nd .p ubli c app eal (so l on g the s t ap le
of n on ficti on) is sub stanti ally.wi thheld from hist ory unless c<>st11 m�d i n
fictional garb .or place d discretely to the rtar .Thi s i s preci sel y th e mod e of
fihnic pra c tice th at \Vexler rejects wit_h mu ch fervor by rhe end of Medir< m
Cool.The fil m·i s a kind of b attleground i ·n which conrinui t y and psycholo - ·
gi s m wag e wa r wi t h th e boisterou s , unfr amabl e s treets of Chica go. The
corporate ton gues of Pa ra m ou nt w ere dumbstruck by the· fi n ish ed p roje c t,
ove r which they h ad ma i ntaine d minim a l supe r vi sion . "They ca me OU[ .

looki ng lil<e _s�mebo dy hi t thc m.on ·tlie head," sa ys .Wexler. "Th ey literally
didn't kn ow what to thi nk. T hey knew they were in the p re sence of a kind
of film they ha dn 't seen bef . ore. I t threate ned them. Th . e y didn 't know h ow
to deal with the f lru, be cause m ost Hollywood fih ns · d on't have an ythi rig
i .
, practical to do with tht rea l wo rld-cer tai nly n ot the imm ediate world."33
On the b as is of the se obscrv atioi1s, i t i s t empting to colla pse th e
c on servatism of th e fic ti onal t<;x t (its ref usal of t op ographic al /structural ,
alte ra tion ) with tlie pro per ly politi cal co n serv atism of th e cultural insti tu
tion.Whi l e I do not e ndor se suc h a conflation, I do wish t o a r gue for the
. ' .
poli tical and text ual co genc y of the refusal of incorpora tion in Medium
Coo/ and its resultant confou nding both of th e t extua l a nd of the in st i
tutio nal statu s qu o. Tha t c ogency wa s al so pe rceived a s a threa t in some
qu a rter s. To d efy t he grou nd rules of ci ne_matic storytelling, _to'u nl eash the

rep r esentational pote n cy of "real" e ven ts undil uted by fictional c ons tr ai nt,
is to court the reprisal . o f a cultural instituti on whose ·f inal'lc iai investment
is ro o te d in maintenance an d p r e ser vat ion-of for m (or formu la), of ac
c e pte i values, an d of marke t posi t ion . \'((exl er 's in abili ty to direc t a f;a
rure for fifteen years foll owing the re lease of Med;.,,,, Cool is a r eminder
of the u nspok en unanimity th rou gh which the Holly wood to pog raphy i s
maimai n ed.
Th e analy sis'th a t the se remarks conclude has taken as it s objec t a
singl e fil m and a set of rel ations c oroll ar y to it. The e xami nation of re la
tions inte rnal to th e t ex t (as of s ou nd and im age ) has b een supp lemented
by an exte nded i nqui r y into the rel at(o ns between textuality it se lf-t he
pro cess or str uc tura tion of th e work-a nd the soci al-his t ori�al "real "
t h a t p er m e at es an d fina lly dis ma n t le s that te x t-in -pro cess. This st udy
THC -aEAL· IN rlCTION <I

HARVARD UNIVERSITY HARVARD UNIVERSITY·
is inte nde d a s a contribution to the critical thinking about political art
a nd the di scourse of history, both consid ered a s acts of representation.
The chie f cl aim here has been that the collis ion of these two r e gimes ; the
realm of socially conscious dramatic fiction and th e relatively unm ediated
bu t die getically contained real m of hi storical repre se ntation {introjection
versus incorporati on), become s, at l as t, the principal subjec t matter of the
film. In the e od, both introj ection and incorporati on prove inadeq uate.
Hi story-in-representation leaks through, then prevails.
Little wonder th at M edium Cool e xplore s a path seldom taken in the
American ciriema. It is a text about textuality, a genre inconceivable to
the cor p<>r�te sen sibility. Only recall the final image of the film, which,
like Go dard's "l'IN ... ou CINEMA". [the e nd ... of cinema], tbe conclud
ing title of Weeken d, can be tak en as a ges ture of infanticide-con suming
both itse lf and its f uture progeny. Wexle r images himself as image maker;
one camera engulf s its mate . History, which ha s be en free d from its in
corporation withi n the be lly of fiction, cannot escap e the larger snare of
representation. The image, refusing to succumb to its appropriation, swal
lows itself.
..
.. TH£ -11tAL. IN rlCTION
Digiti zed by Origi nal from

[ 3 ] Warring Images:·Stereotype
and American Representations
-
. of the Japanese, 1941-1991
"Warring Im age s: St ereotype and American Repres e nt ations of th e

Japanes e, 1941-1991" was a c a talog es say for Media Wars: Then and
Now, a p11blic a tionlor a special Pearl Harbor fiftieth anniv ers ary sid ebar
event at the 1'991 Ya1r1agata f:nt. en1. ational Docunientary Film Festival.
Tn:th e c ontext of thi s book, "War ring Images" is not abl e for its atte ntion
to th e ways in which st e reotypical disco11rs e, in th e ser vic e of the state,
funct�ons {is a·n aggression t1gainst the subject, robbing racialized ''6the.rs"
of their uniqueness and individuality to further wartime ai,n.s. This is
nowhe re more evid e nt than in th e propaganda effor ts that acc'omp anied
th e i 11t er11m ent of 120,000 Ja p an es e A mericans during World \Var JI.
The cht1pt er moves thro11gh an account of 1940s Ame rican prop agand a
en route to a consideration of the revisionist works 6/JaiJa.nesc American.
a rtists o f th e n ext g e neration ,uhos e films re cove r �11d celebrat e th e em
battl ed id e ntities of th eir par ents' ge neration. In ret1ffirm ing th e historical
subjectivity of th eir foreb e ars, films such as Re a Tajiri's History and
M emory (1991) a nd l at e r R1<th Ose ki Lo101sbury's Halving th e Bones
{r995) and Emik o Omori's Rabbit in the Moon (1999) showed th at auto
biogr a phic al filmmaki>sg cor,/d b ecome a n a ct o f pol itical resistance .
Stereotypes can assume o life oftheir own. rooted nOt in re

alitybut in the myth-making made necessazyby our need to
colltrol our world.
:: SanderL .Gilman,Dmerence andPathology
I was drinking about a filth and a ball of whiskey everyday.

Sometimes homemade, sometimes what Icould buy. It was the
only woyIcouldkill .I had friends who were Japanese and I
kept thinking eve,ytime IpuJied a trigger on a man orpushed
a flamethrower down into a hole: What is this perso.n's family

gonna say when he doesn't come back? He's got a wile, he's
got children, somebody.
. They would show us movies. Japanese women djdn't cry.
They would accept the ashes stoically. Iknew difJerent. They
wenthome andcried.
John Garcia. from Studs Terkel's The Good War:An Orcn History
·
of \furld W<;rr II
Wha t follows is a n a ttempt to thi nk through se veral diffi cult and s ome
what dis pa rate ques ti on s, all o f whic h b ear upon the hist(> ry of Am eri can
r epresent a tions of the Ja pa nese a half c entu r y a go. In d oi ng so, I will
focus on the n o tion of "otherness"-def i ne d as a categorical, hi erarchi
cal, and, in this instance, racially motiv�te d separation betw ee n self �nd
out sider-a nd the ways in whic h it ca n be exploited or countervailed in a
cont emp<;>ra_ry me dia environme nt. Towar d that end, a num ber of Wo rld
\Var IJ Amer ican t rac ts- of pro pagan da an d wa r a im s p romotion-will
be examin ed, inclu ding p oste rs, Hollywood films, a nd document ari es p ro
duce d by rhe War Dep artmen t. Alongside this material, I pr<>pose to con
sider the more recent work o f in dependent Asia n Amer ican a rtists who, in
rew r iting the ir own histori es, h ave begun to re co v er a l o st his to ry for all
Japanese Americans, domestic victims of America's wartime racism.
Finally, I will discuss one mor e i ns tan ce of independent do cum ent ary
p ro duc tion f rom rhe Unite d State s, a c ollab oratively authore d ser ies of
video tap es entitled the "Gulf Cr isis TV Proj ec t." Bro adc as tin g the work
at the he ight o f an ti-Arab hyste ria during the rec ent Gulf War amidst the
monoli thic cbeedeading of CNN and other mainstream "news" e ntities,
the Gulf Cr is is TV Projec t_ artic ul ate d a position critical o f the wa r and
irs unsp o ke n ideologic al foun dations. A sequenc e in one of the prog ram�
(Manufacturing the Enerny) is parti cu larly re levant to thi s discussi on for
the p ara ll els it draws betw een recent exp ressi ons o f racially based hostility
toward Ara b Americans a nd the climate of feeling that resu lte d in the in
t ernm ent of Japane se Am eri cans a half centu ry earlier.
On the bas is o f these thr ee histor ical sire s of m edi a. p r oduction-
J
A mer ican Wo rld War II pro pag anda, Asian A mer ican indep en dent wor k
sin ce 1970, an d the Gu lf Cris is TV Proj ec t of t991 -I will c on clu de by
a rguing for the socia l n ecessity of altern ative me di a ente rpri s es capable
of counter in g the str eam lin ed and st at e-ma naged im ag es tha t trad e on
st ereo typ e, mold prevaili ng p u bli c imag es to thei r own en ds, a n d m ove
millions to vio lence ag ain.s t a p erceiv ed other. There was no suc h ve nue
for p u bli c co mes tati on in the 1940 s; we have, th.tough the sc ree ning s of
this fe stiv al, ample e vidence of the dire re sult .
..
Digitized by Original from .
1 return, then, to a seties of questions-and th us co a range of texts
a nd th eir ana lysis-that I shall use to fram e tb.e discuss ion. Alth ough
fraught with political and ide ological compl exity, these_ que sti o ns emerge
as c ruci al to nei glnen ed histori cal understanding be t weenJapan and the
· · United States, to the future hea lth of all Cr(>s�-cult ural repre sentations and
to the pote ntial role of d ocumentary film and video i n the establishme nt
and a ss essment of public policy goa ls , including those of wa r and peace.
Among the que sti o ns ro be expl o red are the following:
• Wha t is th e cha r acter and function of st ereo1yping, particul arly

in the ideologica l pressure cooker of· wartime?
• What is th e,"teality effect" of documemary f ilm and video, and
·. ' '
what rol e can these medi a form s play i n th� construction Or diss<>.-
lutiori of ste reotypical discourse?
• On what histori cal gro unds ca n we·account for the ,irulenc e of
th e anti-Japa nese rh etoric of Wotld War JI.America, and. i n what
spci:if ic ways was it manifest?
• H�w can the seizure of property a�d in�arcer.i tion of 12.0,000,
Japanese Americans during those years be understood in teru1s
of stereotypic;al discourse, and how have recent Asian American .'
artists sought to rec oup rhei r losses through a reinscripti o n of

personal memory and public history?
• Is it possibl e to employ doc umentary techri'iqut'S withi n a mass
media conrext to resist the effects of govcrnment·sponsored, ra
cially based s tere otyping during war time? Wha t is th e politic a l
importance of alternative media m.aklng · in che current media
cnvir�mroent? ..
Roce·and Stereotype
'
Know Your Enemy-Japan followed Capra'srule of.th umb (Let
the enemy speak for himself) iii an exceptionally evocative
manner. ... Beneath itsdazzling.surface imagery ... the mes
sage was simple, conveyed in o stark metaphor ani;J a �trildng
visual image.The audienCe wa� told that the laf?Gneser e
sembled ..photographic prints offthesame negative.·· Visually.
this was reinforcedby repeated scenes of a steel bar bei ng
hammered in a forge.
:: . JohnW . Dower. WO'T without Mercy:Race an� Jbwer
in thePacific War
..
Once a lap, always. a lap . . . you cannot regenerate alap,
qonvert him CfDd,make him the some as a white mCln any more
. ' than you can rev..erse the laws of nature.
:: John Ronldn. U.S. congressman, Mississippi
Here·s a verypersonal question: Have you killed alap s ol

dier today?
:: Openingnarration from WmDepartment tilm.. Misc. 1121
It is her e wicbin cbe donH1 in o f wartime stereotypes that we e ncQunter

th e mo st di sturbing and dehuma nizing insta nces of cro ss-cu ltural rep
rese nt ation, t he image s and rhe toric tbat mu st b e c onfr onte d if we are
to determine their cau se and a v oid the i r recurren c e . Rathe r than devote
myse lf to- s imply rep roducing the v irul ently rac i st c onstructions endemi c
to Am eri ca's waging of war in rhe Pacific Uohn W . Dowe r's War with-
out Mercy offers an exhaus tive ac count of the sav agery of the c onfli ct as
fo ught and repr esented by both s ides), it seem s to me crucia l t o dig fu rther
in ord er to th eor ize an unde rlying dynamic of the stere otype that c an ac
co unt fo r a ll obsess ively vilifyi ng c ha ract erizatio ns of others. Japane se and
Ame rican wartime exces ses can thus b e place d in a bro a der c onceptual
frame work tha t e ng ender s unde rsta nding in additio n to strong e_m otional
re sponse.
Despite this conce r n for root cau s��,, the conctete features of the war·
tim e en counter betwee n Jap an and the United States des er ve c are ful study.
Do w er is a t pai ns to hi storicize the ra ce ha te s a nd war hate s that typified
the Pac ific con fli ct and thus offer expl anation for the actions on both
s ides . He argue s persuasive ly that the number of c asualti e s sust ained by
the principa l combat ant nati o ns (aod by 9thcr A sian peoples such as rhe
Chi ne se, Filipinos, and Indone sians), a s well as the shee r intensity of ha
tred expresse d towar d the en emy-civ ili an and soldier alike -are incom
pr e hensible witho ut a grounding in bo.t h J�p a nese and A1�1e ri ca n soda I
his tory. On the Americ a n side-to which I s hall confin e myself-Dow er
narrate.s �he historical matrix chac pre pares the v.'.ay for wartirrie excesses:
the legacy of nin e teenth-ce ntury evolutionism a nd its presumptions of
r acial sup erio rity; a ce ntury of "Ye llow Peril" rhe toric iii re sp o nse to
Chine se and Jap a nese immigr a tion; Orie ntal e xclusio n l aws a ild e nforc ed
segr eg a tio ,i,by the mid-192os; limit a ti ons on land own ership by alien
Japanese; and; at the l evel of popular c ultu re, a n intr ansig ent strain o f
nativ ism resulti ng in a seri es of books a nd film s warning of J ap an ese ag
gres sion at home and abroad.' Thes e are just a few o f the signifi cant forc es
or ev ents tha t were hi s toric a lly de te rmining (creati ng a c lim ate of so ci_ a l
.. WAR81NC IMAGt$

pressure s an d limit.s within which subseque n r racist m anifest ati ons ar ose).
Any search for the bas is of stereotyping mu st, however, move beyond such
a bistoricizirig account.
· We might b egin this searc h for the fund amental source and rec ur rent
.
·psycho so cial functions of ster eotyping wi th the crawl th at intr od uces th·e · .
Gui( Cri sis TV Project's-Manu{actr,ring the Ene,.,j,. There the prod ucers
offer a s erie s of de fi nition s of th e ste r eotyp e, pieces of a di agno sis that
might ser ve to cxpl�in th e action s a nd b ehavior s th at ace the subjec-t of
what follows.
A St ereotype is a projecti ve de
. vice used to make it easy to . beh ave toward
'. people in social!y f�.nction al Ways.· . . .
You call a p· eoplc �barbarians" ... or you call a group �criOlinals" if you
wanr to suspend just laws o( decen · cy and beh ave towards chem in all other-
wi se ci:imin�I way. .'
This is a fur1c;tion foi coping wirh threats, fo r ic justifi es both dismissing
and brutalizing th ese groups.
· · 1Wo imp-Ortant point.s deser ve som e dis·cussion : fi r st, the notion of

"projectiVe de vice"; seconcf, ·the assumption o[ a "sbci al function"' for
the stereotype. Proj ection is a psychological ier m for the attrib ution of
internal sta tes to a ri e x terna

. liz ed
object; traits attach ed to the stere otyp . ed ,,. .
och er a rc s a id to origi n ate within th e p s_ y c he of th( self. Th e othe r is thu s
a'kirid of screen or mi r ror for one>s intern alized id e aliz ations, bot h g9od
and·ba d:This featur e of t he aef nition lie s f irm ly within the realm of
i '-: ·
psy c hoana lysis and will be disc u sse d f urther hereafte r.
Th e sec ond point-the soci al ut ility of the stereotype -s u ggests that
ster eory-ping can serv e d est ruc tive social e nds when "mana ged" by a po·
li tic al par ty, nation -stat e, or sub cultuie. T he h atred mobiliz ed th ro ugh
recourse to ste reotype · c an fuel violent or discriminatory a cts by one group
. aga in st_ a nothe_r on the ba si s of th e latter's (putativ ely) shared character·
i stics or physi cal traits. Whil e this d efinition leaves unst ated the questi on
of intention (is this so ci a l functio n ci rcumst antia l or th e prod uct of a con ·
s pinrcy?), it docs at lea st begin to c ompr(h end the criti ca' I features of- stere o·
typic al di s course within a.fram ework of cause and effe ct. It is wort hwhile
to exami n e t he phenomen on of stere ocyping in even fine r detail.
\Y/e mighr-return to Dow er's book to purs ue our s earch for a dee p er
u n·d erstandi ng of the sterc<ltyp e in t he context of the Pacifi c War. There
·
t he aut hor e xpresses some pinzlemem about th e sp eed and forceful nes s of
"the eas y t ransi tion from antagonistic to c ongen ial images on a ll sid es,"
t he way in which "the de mo nic-West ern ers c ou d sudd enly bec o me
l
tran s formed into thei r tutelary gu ise" during t he postwar ·o�upation.2
WAJIRI Jl'G !MACES

Conversely, in the ir own s tudie s on the subject of ra cia l st ereotyping,
s ch olars such as San der L. Gil man a nd Homi K. Bhabha have e mpha si,.cd
the u nder lying struc tu res of m ind a nd thought th at can a ccount for the
deep-seate dn ess an d vola t ility of_stereotypic al discourse (what Gil man
ca lls its "protean " chara cter ).It see,ns to me entire ly n ece ssa ry to un der
s tan d s tereotypi ng as a ilynam ic roo te d in.p sychic. al as we ll a s his torica l
processes if we are to succ ec.d in educating ourselves coward its control.3
Gilman be lieves tha t "ste r eotyping is a u niversa l m eans of c opi ng
wi th anxie ties eng endered by our inability to contro l the world."• He pro
poses tha t we require cettain "immutable structures" (bat ca n assure us
of ou r powe r to gra sp the play of differ ence that s uuound s us a t the le ve l
of thought, obje ct , or p er son.Hom i Bhabha offe rs a sinular assess ment,
a rguing tbat " the ste reo typ e is not a si mplifi cation b ecaus e it is a false r ep
resentation of a given reality. It is a simplificatiol\ because it is an ar rested,
fixa te d form of re presentation tha t ...(denies] the play o f differ ence."S l n
a response to our inabil ity to control an ever-changing eovironmcnt, we
limit the th reat that other n ess p o ses thr ough the crea tion of fix ed i ma ge s.
Bha bha goe-s on to claim tha t such an arrest of differenc e facilitates a sense
o f clear-cut opposi ti on be tween th e self, mo re or les s fluid in its ident ifica
ti ons an d id ea li zat io ns, an d t he ster eotype d ot her, fix e d, im mut able, an d
a va ila ble fo r.a ppr o priation .
The r adical split bet wee n self a nd o ther he lps to uphold a rac ial f a n
tasy discern ible in b oth Jap anese a nd A me rican c on t exts : " the fa ntasy
tha t dramat izes the imp os sible de sir e for a pure , undiffe rent iate d origin."'
The r acia l othe r as ste re otyp e emerg es a s b oth the g rou nds for a nxi e ty
an d the so urce of its re li e f. A s an imag e, a rreste d an d contr oll ed, i t se rve s
as an inverted mirror of ide ntity. In racial terms, the ocher is the suppon
of a defin ing hier archy; moog re lize d or fallen from grac e, the other de
fin es the purity of one's own lineag e.
Gil man trace s th e origins of s te re otypi ng io childhoo d deve k,p men t,
a rguing tba t the se lf is i tse lf s pli t into good a nd b ad c omponents. The b ad
se lf co mes to be identifi ed wi th the men ta l repre sentati on of the bad obje ct.
(that which, in the in fa ntile ,vorld, caus es .pa in or a nxiety); the ba d tha t.
we perceive within us thus becomes projecced or cast out onto �xternal
obje cts.Stereotype s arc thu s "a crude set of ment;il repres enta tions of the
wor ld"; the Mani chaean do ma ins tha t ha ve dominated globa l histo·ry dur
ing this ce ntu ry E - ast an d \Ve s t, Axis Pow ers and Allies, Commun ists
an d t he Free Wor ld-cor respon d to thi s most pr im itive (bu t p owe rful an d
deeply roo te d) dichotomization.7 We are said to be equally capa ble of pro
jecting idea li1.c d sel f -im ages ( the go o d se lf) onto an other with a d ramatic
vacilla tio n be tween the t wo rema in ing p syc h ologically vi able.8 Gilman's
.. WAl'IRIKC IMACCS

di scus si on of the volatility of shifting s tere o t ypical valences off ers s ub
sta ntial expla na tio n fo r th e vari ability of Japanese/A meri c an stereo types
that app ea rs to puzzl e Dower . ··
.. .
But the line between "good" and "bad .. re sponds to stresse s occurring
.
withirl the ps);che. Thu� .paradigm shifts in our mental representations of the
world can and do occur. We can move fro1rt fearing to glorify�ng th e Other.
We ca n move from l oving to hating. The mosc negati ve stereotype always has
an overtl y pOsicive counttrwcight. As any image is shifted, all.stereotypes
..
shift. Thus· stereotypes are.. inherently protCa n·rather than rigid.'
'
If we ac cept this ac cou_n t of the ps ychic basi s of s tereo typi n g, we

should not b e su rprise d to di scover its ul;iquity ot even its viru lence. Bot h
thcA n glo-Saxon a nd Japanese tra dition· s were notable fo r d eeply root ed_
·
raci al prid e . b olstere d i n th e for mer in sian ce by ce ntu ri es o f colo nial oc:c,i-
.
p ation a rou nd the wor ld an d i n the la1te r by a c ulturally shar ed convi c tion
as to the racia l purity of th e Yamato race. an d its 2,600-year history as an
.
unc onquere d people . A s s trongly held as thes e ideas of racial �uprem a c y
m ight ha ve been ·i n both·c ase s, the cult u(e's poten ti al for proje cti,m o n to
it's e vil othe r wielde d an equal f9r ce. The Japanes e were di mi n utive, child-
li�e in temperament, simian in appearance (scientific proof of chCir dc
bastd evolutionary station), a�d· nevet co be trusted; the Americans were
-�
overgrow n a n d devili sh, iU-s melling a nd _ li c entious . .
But the Japanese/American coqfrontation was not a 4nique case;
.,
i nd ee d, Dowe r writes of the )Vay in whic h the. J apanese wer e "saddle d
with racial ste reotypes t hat European s an d · A me ricans had appli ed to
.,
no n whiies for c entu ri es: during the co n ques t of the New \Vorld, the .sl ave
.
trade, the In dian wars in the Un i te d S r;,ies , the agitat ion agains t Chinese
im migra nts .i n.Am . eri ca, the colonizati on of A s ia and Af rica, the U.S.
con ques t of th e Philippi nes at the-turn of th e centur y." 10 O n� ne ed only
c onsult Edward S�id's · classic tex t Orienta/ism for an . extende d dis cus sion
o f th e ways i n which European s have con str uc tec! a no n-Western o ther
whose chief characteristics �emain intact across centuries and majpr geo
graphic b oun daries.
It i s c r ucial th at we consid er _ the ways'in which a war time c lim ate
ca n fuel the i nten sity of ra cial hatred through a hardening of boundarie s
along the di chotomous split between "us" an d "them." A pressure or ideo
l ogi cally p ro duc ed and sustained u rgenc y is cre ated culture wi de that re
inforc es . con sensual b_ ehavior through posi t ive rewards (the approbati on of
top-down propaganda ca mpaigns, peer g roup s uppor t , an d traditions of
filial pi et _y or tea m pl ay) as . well as negative on es (the dea th of commun ity
ineinb er s , fearf ulnes s, a n d a const antly rene wed loa thing toward those ..
WAflfllMC IMAC!:S ..
Digitized by . Original from
whose a ctions app ear to ch alleng e acc epted v alues). What's mor e, the
inte ns ity aro u se d through thi s identific ation of the e ne my as th e e mbodi
ment o f evil and the s ource o f all c on Oict spir als upward as it c onfr onts
its mirro r self in the a tt itude s an d behavi or s of its other .The underlying
dynamic of proj ection and stereotyp e that fuels the en emy' s ha tr ed is iden
tica l to on e's own. Ce rta inly, all the governi ng societal conditions outlined
c an be applie d equ a lly to Jap a n and to the Unite d St ates du ring rhe Pacific
war.Dowe r n otes th at many of the ste reotypical tra its claim ed by one
combata nt na tion fo r the o the r '( e.g., bes ti ality o r b arbari sm) �ver e mu tll
ally a ttribu ted.
If, as Gilman sr.ates, ''stereotypes arise when self-integration is

threat ene d," it becom es p(>Ss ible to see wart ime ste re otyping a s th e mani
fe station of a s hare d and he avily reinf orc e d pe rc eption of a thr ea t to
na tion a l inte grity. A cruc ia l dis tinction-,hat be t we en the p athological
a nd no npathologic al p ersona lity - i s equ ally pertin ent to our dis cu ssion;
the former (person or state) r em ains "con sis tently a ggressiv e toward th e
r eal people a n d obj ects t.0 which the ste re otypic al re present ations corr e
sp ond ...(while) the l atter is abl e to r epress the aggre ssi on and deal with
people as in div idua l s." " A st ate of war evinces a kind of c ultura l patholo �
gy, a gene ra l in ability (or unwilli ngne ss) to tr e at peopl. e of an o the r dc. s ig·-
nation as individuals.
. The blindnes s c au s ed by this s tereotyping dynamic ca n b e exte nded
t<> othe rs who m ay s har e one 's own stat e citiz enship, a fact disc overed
by t h e two -third s of the inter ne d Japanes e Ame ric an s who were born i n
the Unit e d S tates .I n the wor ds of Gener al John L. DcWin, hea d of the
\Ves t Coa st De fense Command: "A Jap's a Jap .... h makes no differ -
ence whether be is a� Ameri�an citiz.cn or not.... r don't want any of
them.... There is n o way to d etermine their loya lty." 12 What is at stake is
the co nt rol o f one;s world,this tim e u nde rs tood a t the lev el n ot o f infantile
pe rsona lity form a tion but of gl obal politics. That which is identifi ed as
the source of t hreat- n amely, the en emy - beco mes the well spring of a ll
t ha t is evil, the obj ect of cultu ra lly s ha _re d proj ection. It i s into thi s s e tting
of deep_ly ro ot e d em o tion tha t we mu st n o w pl ace the do cumentary film,
without dou bt the most effect iv e·t ool for m ass prorection e ve r de vis ed.
Documentary Film: Tool for Mass Projection
Thephotographic image is the object itself. the object freed

from the condjtions oftime andspace that govern it. Nomat
ter howfuzzy, distorted. or discolored, no matterhow'lacking
YIA IU IN G INAGtS
Digitized by Original troin

in documentaryvalue the image maybe. it shares . by virtue
of the ve,yprocess of its becoming. the being of the model of .
which i t is the ·reproduction: it is the.model.
:: AndreBazin,··The Ontologyof thePhotographic Image"
' .
The photograph . . . .becomes meaningful in ce.ttain transac·
tions and has reql effects. but ... cannot refer or be referred
.
t o a pr<>-photographic reality os t o a truth . . . .we have to see
that everyphotograph
. is lbe result of specific Oilcl,
.
in eve,y
sense, significant distortions which rehder its relation to any
prfor reality dtieply problematic and raise the question of the
determining /e,rel of._the materi� appar:;,tus and of the social
practices within which photographytakes place.
:: John TC;l99, TheBurden of Representation
':". .
In h is autobi og raphy, Th-e Nam.e ahove the Title, Fran k Cap ra describ es
hi s reaction to a first vi ewi ng of Len i Riefenstabl's Triumph ofthe Wil l .
In h i s w ords, "Sa tan couldn't h ave devi se d a more blood- chill ing supcr
spe ctacle....I sat al one an d _pondered.J-Jo,�· could I mount a coun te r
.
_atta ck agai nst Tri11mJ1h ofthe \Viii ... ?"13 It sh ould come as no surprise
that three te rms coal esce in this prelude to Capris discussi on of his own
strategi es /or wa rtim e do cume· nrary fil.;,·production -th e d emoni c, spec ...
tacle,.a nd wa r . It was he, noted American p opulist a nd o�e of Hollywood's
premi er sto ryt e llers, who was tapped by General Ge orge C. M arsh all ro
expl ai n to Ame ric an soldiers; c i tizens, and alli es "Why We Fight" i n a se
rie s of se ven fearure-l ength doc·u menta ry film s. In' hi s effo r t t o make "ih e

b e st dam ned docu mentary films eve r made" (his p°romis e-to Marsh all),
Capra se ems to hav e in tuit ed John Tagg' s pronouncemem "Ever y ph oto
graph is th e resu lt of spe cific and, in every sense, signif i cant distor tions,"
We might ext rap olate on Tagg's dictum to say th at eve. ry docu
men tary film or vid eotape is th e res�lt of a·ie�gthy series of s el ections
(instances of the maker's interventions thal ar e constitutive)-from th e
.choice of lens, film stock, caOJ.era posiriOn, and di s tance to ch oices su r
counding sound recording and mixing tec.hnici�es, editing srr.ircgie.s, aod.
musical and narrational a�cor.npanime�t.14 No documentary image is in
n ocent; it is 1nistaken for it s ref erent (that which exi s ted b e fo re th e l ens at
some other time and pl ace) at our coll e c tive p er il. Cap ra k new ab out th e
malleabil ity of th e imag e a nd ev en mo re about editi n g, the power of as
so ciation. He g�ve pr oof of h is acu men in 'l'he Battle of China as h e joined
ne wsreel_image s· of Japa nes e p)an es f ring_ on a n A mer ican gu nb oat to a
i
nar rated d. escription.of the attack of "th e b o od-craze d Japs." T hese i m - .
.
l
ages of an ai r attack-i ndisti n gu ishable from so many others -i nstan tly
WARIIINC INAGtS SI

ev oke, on a cco unt of the narra tion that bla nkets them, both bes tiality an d
madne ss (two of the ,ir ch�typa l· attrib�t es of A mer'ica's war time othe r).
Ti me and a gai n, Ca pra mobiliz e s words and imag e s to r ein force
pre va ilin g stereo types, both g oo d a nd b a d. Tbe Chine s e a llie s, "sponta
neously driven by an �pie impulse," emb ark on "a Hometic journey ...
thirty-million people movi ng we stward ... w estward to fre edo m" in an
e ffo rt to eva de Ja panes e coas ta l encr o ach1ne nt, ev o king the we st ward
expan sionis m of Amer ica itse lf. When the Chinese blow up rh e dikes that
hold b ack the Ye ll ow River, the Jap ane s e invade rs a re shown bea ting a
watery re treat, thus ca lli ng·ro \Ve .stern min ds a b.iblical refere nr an d an
act of divin e re tri�ution-· the d rowni ng of the Egyptian pha ra oh and his
men a s they pursued Mo s es an d the children of Israel acro s s th e Re d Sea .
Images of Chinese l a b or processes are chara c teristica lly collective aod p a
tiently painstaki ng (pulling a ba rge upstr eam by hand, childre n breaking
d own ro cks with tiny h amme rs), while the a rc hiva l images chosen to rep
re s ent the Ja p an� se show them to be vicious a n d aggressive (sho uting th eir
cel e brant "banzai," be atin g or ba yoneti ng the he lpl e ss). Even the Disney
ani mati on t hat pr ovides graphic rep re sentation of t r(>-Op mo ve ments b ears
a stere ot ypic a l cha rg e; Chi ne s e activity is deno te d by w hite arrow s, the
Jap ane se by black. Through.thes e va rious ac ts of appropriation, the Asia n
allies te mporarily become w hite .
Th e case of the Disney graphic s in t he Cap ra films offers apt illust ra
tion of the poten tial for ide ologic a l in flection f or e ven the mo st benig n
filtn ic elements. Wha t c. o uld be more emp ir ically docu men ta tivc than a
chart of tro op mo vement? And .ye t opportunities fo r color ing and conn o
ta tio n a bou nd. J n a mann er t(! which the his tory of the African A meric� n
expe rience b ears tragic wit nes s, blac kness in Western culcuxe ha s be e n
fr eighte d with no tion s o f evil a ndmora.1 tur.pi tudc. On the b asis of a near
sublimin a l c olor c ontras t, Ca pra is a ble to ca st the Chinese a n d Japane s e
as ins ta nt h ero and villain. Such n1ome ms of gra phic illustration c an b e
c olo r ed in a number of o the r ways as well, for, e xam ple, thr o ugh the us e
of musica l accompahimem, festive or forebodi ng according t o the d esire d
·
emotion al impact. What app ear s to be a straightforwa rd prese ntation of
fac tual mater ia l ca n, i n fact, be strl.> ngly if subtly 'i'n fl ecied by auth oriai
choic es c alcul ate d to s.way audiences.
At a ti me of consen sua l acti on, when the e nemy. is c lea dy demarcat e d
a nd the li nes d ra w n, films tha� ra lly statistics toward ap a rgu ment or re
c on textua lize d ocume ntary foot age retrie ve d fro m ma ny s ource s (in clud
ing the e nCJ!lYl can m obilize � pe rsua sive forc e of stagg er ing pr oportion.
If we, a s in dividua ls or na tions, be lieoe that the· newsreel i ma ge is a lways
neutr al, that the document c aitnot lie, Or even if we receive no encour age•
52 WA'II-RllfC l·MA GCS

ment within our culture to quesrion the status of e very image as truth, we
b ecome subject co a p er suasive for ce c apabl e of overtu rni ng some of our
m os.t b asic ethical pri ncip es.
· ··
l
I h ave w ritten els ewhere ab out the s ev ecal function s that d efine the
do cum entary rilm- th e p reservatio nal, t he.per suasive, th e ·expressive,
an d th e a nalytical.15 A t certai n mo ment s and in the h and s of par ticu-
lar prac titione rs, one or t he ocher of th ese func tio ns' may b e de cisi vely.
foreg ro unde d. For th e hi s tori c al and id eol o gical_ re as ons discussed e ar
lier, wani me docum enta ry films p roduce d by c ombatant na tions were
h ea vily weighte d i n the dire ction of persuasion. Th e sp eci f ic ch aracter of
th at pe rsuasiveness-i ts goals and m e thods-. vari ed. The Japane s� a nd
Ameri c an documents fe atured i n these festival scre enings off er ample evi
d ence of tha t variabili ty. C er tai n Briti sh war films exemplify an approach
to p ersu asion u nlik e t hos e of ei the r th e Japane se or A mericans.
The bulk of B ritish wartime do cu mentar y films feature p ersu asiv e tac
ti cs quite at (>dd s wi th thei r Am erican ally's i nteres t in d efin ing the en em y,
.,
·f oc usi ng instead on produci ng wanime paeans to English stoicism and
r esili enc e . Films such as Listen to Britain (1942)- and Fires Were Started
(1943)- tw o re mark able works by Humphrey .J e_ nnings -ccleb rate th e
commonCulture and cohesiveness of Britain at war. In J.,isten to Britairi, '·
com posi t iona l ch oice s (on e m emor able imag e-s oldier s, silhouett ed
agai n st th e ev ening sky, guarding th e Bri tish coastli ne ), pictuce e d iti ng,
· an d th e cceati on of soun d bridges all h elp t o orch estrate a visiol) of a na
tio n, un mark ed by cl ass o r gender divisions, fighci ng as one. Th ere arc
alm ost no di rec t re fe rences to the German menace, al t hou gh it is tl-i c un
imaged Luftw aff e-:for _th e moment h eld at bay by th e RAF-th at prompts
rep eated gla n«,s sky.ward. Instead the fil m cel eb rates Br tain's proud pas t
i
an d its sheer i nd o mi t ability, echoed i n th e citle of anoth er of J ennings' s
waccim e docume ntaries, London Can Take It (x940). Big Ben, the BBC
blanke ting th e glob e wi th it s wac c overage, the dome of Sai nt Paul's-these
a re th e audi ovi sual icons around which Jenni ngs rall ies rnass suppon.
:
No matter the concrete manifestation of rh e natiOnal imperative to
wa rd warti me p ersllasion, however, cinema�and the do cumentary fil m
form mo st of all-r emains a tool of gr e at p otency .Thi s was know n to the
natio ns a t w ar ia \Vorld \Var IT; i t wa s also k n own so me y ear s ,b efoce to
V. I. Le ni n, whose maxim "The cinema is for us cbe most important of all
che art s" is a stacement about the power of the mo cion pi ct ure to solidify
nat i ona l id enti t y and.move g reat numb ers of peopl e tow ard s tace go al s,
All of the filmmaking prac tices allude d to here-th e Sovi et efforts of the
t wenti e s, th e G ecmao, Briti sh, Japane se, a nd Ameri cao pro paganda fil ms
of the thi rti es and fortie s -are i ncon cei vable outsid e of state authority and
WAIIJIIJfC !MAC£ $ ..
guidan ce. These s ocial vi sions proj ected tc) millions by cinem atic means
are , in ev er y c ase, cu t to th e cl oth of gov ernment policy . They explain,
they c e le bra te, they p redict, they inculpate. And they do so in a manner
tha t maximiz e s their p ersu as iv e force while lea ving little space for counte r
instances or dissent.
The war time d ocumen tary film c an thus be s een as an idea l dom a in
of stereotypic al disc ou rse. Thes e a rc the films that, i n the ir appropri ation
of appar. ently e vid enti ary imag es ( ar .chiva l foota ge, newsree ls, shots of the
recogn izable a nd the eve ryday), c an ra lly mas s support and i nspire joint
· action.S ounds a nd images p roj ecte d in the da rk can tap pop�lar memory
through biblica l re fe re oces or a musica l phrase ; the most tr easure d v a lue s
of America n cu lt ure, in stan tly ev oke d by shot s of child ren a t play or the
Was hingto n Monume nt, c an be made to s ee m the direct t arge ts of e nemy
attac k. Re sponses-e licited on the spot, freque ntly by rec ou rse to "real"
i,nagc s -can be sh aped a nd int ensifie d by the c anny filmma ke r, the n har
ness e d to wa r time a ims. War time conse nsu s on ly fue ls the fi re tha t b urns
.
a ga inst the deba s ed othe r. It is worthwhile to explor e some rep re senta
tions o f the Ja p anese produ ce d in war time Amer ica in g rea ter de rail.
'"This ls the Enemy"
(n the aut u mn o f J942, t he Museu m of Mode rn Art in Ne w York exhib

ited two hund red w ar poster s from a mong. the thousands s ubmitted to a
campa ig n driv e spea rheaded hy Artists for Victory, a coa lition of tw enty
six ans organizations de dicated to patriotic s ervice. The images wer e
rneant to illustrate one of several·war slogans, among them "Dclivt:r Us
fro m Evil," "Buy More Wa r Bond s," "Loos e Talk Sinks Ships," "Victory
Starts He re," and-the most s a lien t of all for our p urpos es - "This Is the
Enemy." Of tbe handfu l of po s ters fea ture d in Life magazi ne's co verag e of
the exhibition (De ce mber �J, J942), there is a nota ble difference betw een
the charac ter of the reprcscnra tio,rs of the E uropean a s a ga in st the Asia n
enemy. Fou r o f the six "This Is the Enemy" ima g es de pic t Nazi violence
a nd sacri lege : a d agg e r ed ba nd smashi ng tbxough the stain ed gla ss of a
c hurch wind o w or de se cra ti�g an Amer ic an {fag. In the mo st hor rific of
the m, the super imposed fac e of Hitler overs ees a rav aged landsc ap e. In the
bac kg ro und, flames lick o ver a chuxch spire; the fore gr ound is litter ed with
cor pses. Chie f a mong the dead is a wom an, pie rced thro ugh the heart, her
body res ting a ga inst a plaqu e that rea ds "G od Ble ss Our Hom e," H er life
less han d is held by a hyst erica )ly c ryi ng child who sit s up to his wai st in a
pool of blood. The evils a ssoci ated with the Nazi ene my are for c efully in-
.. WARRI NG JMAGC$

vok ed: c r uelty, antago nism to cheri shed val ues of church and famil y , mass
ho micide .
Th e two examples o f.J ap a nese. "This Is the Ene my" JX?Sters pro vid e,
h owe ve r, a c on si d erabl e c o ntrast to the Ger ma n; t_h e y are b o th mor e ex
plici t in their d e picti on of enemy a t r!)Ci tics and cl early racia lly driv e,1.
Whil e the E u r op e an n emesi s may be fig ure d a.s a d efiler o f th e sac re d,
the Japanese are "ochered,. with far grea(er vehemeoce.16 Jn one p<)stec, a
Ja p an ese soldie r, swarchy and simian o f p ost ure, s tands half erec t; with a
n ak e d woman slun g ov er his sho u lder; the alabas ter o( her expose d ski n
contra sts hyperb olic ally with that of her c a pt or. I n yet pno ther instanc e,
� d agger -wi e ldi�gJap anese soldier; his yello w face drawn wide i,ia snarl,
reach es for a h orro r-struck whit e woman fl eeiog from the lower left e d
. ge
of th e frame . The grot es q uetie o f the image results fr om two excessive cle
ments : the, tee . ch and na ils ( now fangs an d ci a_ws ) 9f the Asian m an a re hy
perbolizcd in the direction of th e b estia l, an d� low-key, low-angle ighc-
.
ing e ff ect transfo rms th e p ainted image int<> nightmare. Whil e . the threat
·l .
. of t he ot her ·is in· all case s f igure d as the. bru ta lizati o n o f the .wom an , the
mos t fun da mental ass ault withi n the p atriarch al ord er because it annihi
lates the m e dium o f exchange and re pr od uc ti.on , th. e sa�a gery and b.esti ali-
t y of.!he Asi an are c ruci a lly foregr o und e d. S uch image s. a r e calcu lateil t o ...•
i ns pi re vengea nce fo r t he pr imor dial ro bber y o f the wo ma n and for th e
violation o f th e i n viol able-whi te woma ,tho od,arichor of-We stern morali ,
ty and a esthetics.
Th e April 29, 1944,.co ver o f Liberty m·a gazin e is eq ua lly explicit in .."'
its proje c ti on of animali t y upon the Japanese . Three uniforme d soldiers of
th e e mpire -on e b ed eck ed i n m edals, all b uckto oth e d a nd b esp_e cc acl ed·
are shown perche d on a fall e n tree Cr un k as bo mbs rain down fro m b ehin d
.
a nd abov e . The g e st ure d p oses of rhis fig ure gro up-han ds place d over
ears, eyes, and mou�h respectivel y-enac� rhe "hear no �.vii, see no evil;
.
s p eak no evil" adag e (with·".J a pa nese-ne s s" f uncti o ning as the visible
sho r th an d for evil). But the cover illustrat es fa r mor e than a h ack ne yeil
..
moral injunction, for once again chese enemy �oldiers a.re imaged as ape
like, the i r d ark, fur-cove red hands a nd fe et inh umanly outsi zed and grasp
ing. Such d eh,un anizi ng re present atio n s as ch ese can, i n th e end, be said to
have a c umi,(ative e ffec t . The a tomic resoluti o n to the wat co uld be face d
wi tho ut re mo rse by a soci ety assure d of th e en emy's subhumanit y.
In warcime Hollyw ood films su ch as 'the Purple /-leart (l944) and

G1tadalcanal Diary (l943), visua l as we l) as cult ural co des were mobi
lized in t he service of st ereotype. In th e latter fil m, the cnemi' was d e
picted in camoufl age , cap able of merging with the jungl e flora, m uch as
th e Vi etn a m ese we re in Platoon (1986). This i s clearly no t a Rous s eauian
WAJIRINC INAC£$ ss

INll•IJ-!OmlPIS
•-1e11sea.
If llaa Pallo• ...,.
LOWCUUILms-
1111 or DD ITIIIAI
The cover of Liberty magazine (29 April ,944) shows the virulence of wartime
scereoryping.
reference (the Asian other as idyllically close 10 naturc)-the enemy is

"of nature" to be sure, but in a manner suggestive of the simian reference
of the Li/,erly cover. He is simply meanr co occupy a lower rung on the
evolutionary ladder. When, in Guadalcanal Diary, a patrol discovers an
enemy eocampmem only recently abandoned, one American soldier can
not conceal his distaste for the alien look and smell of the other's cuisine .
.. WUIIIU fO l•AOCI

His fa ce a m ask of disgust, the GI sniffs gi ngerly at ,vhat look ro b e the
remnants of a rice cak e a 1�d some raw fish, foods now much in d emand
by Western sophistic ates.
In.The l'i,rp/e Heart, Japanese li nguistic characters are d escr ibed as
"chi ck en·sc ratcb"; the enemy's most el emental .p owers of s ymb olization
· are deval ued at the same mQment that the figur��f a nimality recur s. L o;,,'.
a n.g l e pl ac ement of camer a and light sourc e reinforces the sense of threat
a nd grot e squcrie att ach ed to the J apanes e ch aract ers throughout The
P11rple Heart, a film ba sed on th e trial and s ente nc ing of eight pil ots (l e d
by C: ol onel James Do olittl e) who ha d bee n shot dow n o ver China foll ow
ing a 'Toky o bombi ng raid in 194:z.. By the ti me of the making of the fjlm,
it wa s wide ly k no wn th at three of th e American flyers had been exe cute d
_(Octobe r 1943). Dower's discussi on of the case in \Var without Mercy_is
instructive .. The denunciations spurre d b y the incident ':Yere nearly id en·
tical on b oth side s; th e acts of the enemy (bombi ng ci vilians on the one
h an d, executing capt ure d co mbatants on th e other) were "bar b arous,"
�'uncivilized," "inhuman,". and "d epra\•e(l."17 In Le wis Milestone' s film .
vers ion, the Japa nes e soldi ers and jurist s are l ee ri ng, b uck toothed a ggres
sors wh o posse ss n o cod e of justic e. In a detail of casti ng b oth fini ng and
iron ic, none of. the.ene my rol es were pl ayed by Japane se actors, who, even ·1.:·.
had th ey agre ed to play the parts, collld not h ave d one s o . It was the y wh o . . '..
w er e the priso ners-in_ camp_s not so ver y far away from rlic b ack lots of
Tweni erh C entu ry Fox. It _i s unlike ly that American audi ences k new the
di ffer enc e in any case .
Ind eed, th e inability to di stingui sh a mong A sians-b et raying a ki nd
.�
.
of smug i ndiffe rence re c ently pa rodi ed in Valeri e Soe's t ape All Orientals
Look the Same- came to b e a probl em when deali ng w ith. th e Chi nese
alli es during Wo rld Wa r II, a prob .le m t o whi ch l h ave allud ed ea rli er in
my discus sion of C�pra's The Battle o("C�ina. l n ye t ano ther instance of·
p opul ar culture's d ispatch to w ar ser vice, cartoon is t. Milton Can iff con
trib ut ed his fa miliar ill us t ra tive s tyl e to the U.S. Attny's Pocket Guide to
.
_China, a pa mphlet f or A merican fo rces figh ting in the Pacifi c. Using the
fi gllre of his fi ct ional ch ara cter Steve C anyon as the soldier's guid e , Caniff
pr ovid ed tlie pi c tures that could tell the story .
The task was a:ch all enging one: b o w to spli t on e st ereo type into
t wo . hid ce d; C aniff a nd co mpany w ere ch arged with ed ucat ing tbe
Ameri can fighti . n g man to. a de gree sufficient to di sii nguish b e t ween two
raci al groups while remaini ng enti r ely w ithi n th e domain of stereotypica l
sp eech. A nd al ways th e co11notativ c _me anings of the t ext h ad to expre ss
praise for th e ally while disparagi ng the enemy. For exampl e , the Chi nese
arc said to b e "dull b ronze" in c ol or , w hile the Japane se ate "more on the
WAUtllfC IM AG,1: $

l emon -yellow sid e"; a p rec iou s m etal is opposed to a bitter fru ir.18 The
p amphle t c ontinu es : "Loo k at their profiles a nd teeth ... C usu ally has
eve nly s et ch o ppers -] has buck teeth ... tbe Chinese smile s easily-th e
Ja p u sua lly exp ects w be s hot." The phys ical ch ara cter istic s of the two
a.re typic ally c ontrasted through some r eferen ce 10 the relative similarity
· of th e Chi nese phy sical type to the Euro-America n: "C's eyes are set like
any Euro pe a n's o r Amer ic an's -but ha ve a m a rked sq uint.... J ha s eye s
slan te d towar d his n ose." The Chinese "an d othe.r Asiatic s " ha ve "fairly
'
norma l fe e t," while the Japa nese s oldier s will usu ally hav e a "wide s pa c e
be twe en t he first an d s ec ond roes" fr om wear ing hi s woo de n sandal s
or "geta."
The message is c lear : the Chi nese a re mo re like us, only we never no
tice d it before. Their eyes and feet a re really like ours; they are a cheerf ul
and attrac tiv e peopl e with a rea dy,' ev en-toothed smile. The Jap an ese are
dis tinctiv ely o chere d by compa ri son. There i s a kind of grote sque confu
s io n i n rhe v er y pla cemen t of the ir facial fea tu r es; thei r eyes sla m down to
where the ir noses shou ld b e. They have b ad teerh a nd miss hape n feet a nd
a re para no id-if para n oia is the appro priat e ter m f or wh at is everywhere
re in forced as just reward for being a lesse r s pecie s.
Such rac ia lly ba s e d disparagement a s this would, by neces sity, apply·
e q ua lly to Jap anese pe ople wh o happe ned a ls o to be citizens of th e United
States. Stereotyping tactic s such as these that plac ed the huma n integrity
of an entire race in jeopa rdy w ould h ave a s the ir hist orica l c orrel ative a n
unap olog etic a ssault on tbe r,ights of ma ny thousands of Am e ric an c itizen s
a nd alien resid ents. It is to the intern.ment camp experience of rbe 12.0,000
J apane se Amer ic ans of the fi rsr a nd sec o nd ge ner ations-the Jssei a nd
Ni se i-that we now tu rn, with pa rticu lar r egard for the active ,e inve s tiga
tion of tha t history by ar tists of the Sansei ge n�rati o ri.
. .
The Return to Manzc:mar
I'RAMtD
"It was a bum tap. We were FRAMED."
FRAME
FRAM£ ofreference
ReFRAM£D
Bruce and Nonncm Yonemoto, fromFRAMED. a video in$1:(lllation
Idon't know where this came from. but Ijust hodthis frag
ment. thispicture that's always been i n inymind.Mymother.
WARRING IJIIAGI:$

she's standingat afaucet and it's really hotoutside.And she's
filling this canteen cmd the water's really cold and it feels
really g ood . And Outside the sun'sjust so hot. H's just beat
ing down. And there's tliisdust that getsin everywhere and
they're always sweeping th e floors.
:: Rea T?iiri..l:listoryandMemory . .
' .
According to· the ASian AmericOn Media Re/eren.ce Guide, secorid edi•
ti on (1990), a sour ce book .
. of more ihan one th ousand fil,ris and video -
,tap e s made. by _ A sian Ame r ican a rti st s , no fewer than fifieen medi a
.
works hav e been made sinc e th e eady 1970 s th at focus on 1h e topi c _of the
Japan ese Am cFi can relocation · ca mp exp erience du ri11g World Wa r 11•.•9
Th e Yonemoto b rot hers' FRAMED, a vide o installation twice exhibite d
i 11 1989, is-owi n g to th e site-s pe cific n ature of all i ns t all aii on pieces
unlisted and unava il able for rental. Thes e sixteen works sh are a com.moo
interest in the iadical reexaminatio n of a his torical OCC· urrenc.e crucial
'
to the u nd ersta nding of A me ric an ste reotypi n g of the Jap aAcse d uri ng
\Vorld War II. For it is o nly throu gh consideration of the internment
exp erie n ce-the uprooting and ·impri sonmen t of a ll Jap anese A meri cans
li ving on the Wes t Coas1 with inestimabl e damage done to t he health, e co
nomic f or tun e s, arid sel f -e steem of two generations of A mer icans-that
we can assess the domest ic as well as glob al eff ects of war time raci sm i n
the Unit ed,States.20
On e element of th e i n carce rati on procedur e is particularly significant '.
to this dis cussion. \Vh en the Japanese resid ents reported to the camp s, .•
federal offi c ial s confi scated c ame ras as "d an gerou s contraband," an ac
ti on that eff ecti vely robbed the i nternees .of th eir' most power ful tool for
the documentation a nd poteotjal redefi nition of their li ves. It was clear
that those ;,.ho com mi t ted th.e Japa nes e Amer icans to these desen camps
would represent th�m and the ir history in ways that would serve'the
'
sta te's best interes ts rather than any expeciencial {' truth."
Accordi n g to t he gov er nment -p roduce d film ]aJ,a nesc Relocatio n,
the interne�, in an· ac; t of patrio tic good fairh, arc said to bave "cooj>er
ated whol eheartedly" i n their imp ri son ment. In a s cene t hat echoes the
pioneer ( and -all-Ani erican) spi r it allud e d to.in Capra's desc ription of the
Chi11ese peopl e' s great westwa rd migr ation in The Battle ofChina, t hese
thousands of dispO'ssess cd ,Ameri cans a re sh ow n b ei11g shipped off by
!ruc k an d train _to l an d s "full of opportunity. " There , anonymou sly b un
kere� inthe desol ate loc ales of te n s tat_es, the y are to be given the oppor
tu nity to m ake the desert fl ower .Mi l ton Eisen hower, brother of' th e great
gene ra l, is th e spokesm an fo r the enactment of Exec uti ve Ord er 9066,
WAIUINC INA C£$ ••

whose job it is to whitewash wholesa le imp riso nmen t on th e basis of ra cial
or igi n . The ar rogan ce an d self-se rving logic of hi s expla na tion is rarely
los t on con temp ora ry au di enc es. The film c onclude s with the following
narranon:
We arc setting ·a standa rd for the rest of the world i n i:he tre.atmcnt of people
who ma,, [italics mine) have loyalties to an enemy nation. We are protecting
ourselves without violating.the principles o fChristian decency (no mentio n
made of Buddhist de.ccncy). And we won't change this fundamemal dece ncy
no ro.itter what our enemies do. But of course We hope. most earnestly that
our example will in fluence the Axis p<>wers i11 their treatment of Americans
who fall into their hands.
It has freq uently b een repeated that n o act of subve r si on o r es pionage

was ever pr ove d ag ain st a Japa n e se Amer ic an du ring the wa r yea rs. This i s
signific ant g ive n the equa tion that'.Eisen hower's stateme nt makes betw een
Americans of Japa nese descen t an d t he wartime enemy. For of co ur se the
harm was en tirely one- s ided. G en eratio n s of Am ericans wer e, tb.rough the
iote rn ment exp eri enc e, inculcaced with a sense o f guilt a n d s ha me that
prove d inde lible for ma ny . But if the maj or ity of the l sse i an d Nise i foun d
p ersona l expia ti on a difficult task given their c ultu rally re inforced sense of
loya lty to a uthority -governmental or fam ilial-me mbers of the ne xt g en
eration have remained obsessed..with the ac ti ve rei n scriptio n of Japa n ese
American his to r y. The m edia wo r ks that they ha ve pro d uc e d-f r om oral
hi s tories with in ternee s to medita ti ons on memory-mov e.far beyond
ap ologi a. Through the agg res sive rei nves tigati on of the past e ffecte d i n
these piece s, histo ry it self b ec omes the o bj ect of investigation.
It use d t o be a comm on pl ace that b.isto ry wa s the story of g reat pub
lic dee ds a nd, by exte nsion, of great (whit e ) men- as told by otfi er gre at
{white ) men. Recen t tren ds in the fie ld li av e r ec ogni1,ed that the distinc
ti on b etween p ublic a nd priva te histor ie s is su spect on inte llect ua l as w ell
as ide o logical g rou nds. Wome n, non -We ste rn peo pl e s, an d a ll tho s e who,·
by vir t ue of the ir race, gen der, o r sexual orien tat ion, l;ave been officially
dispossessed of a histo ry have be gun t o fight back. They have don e s o
by means of the writte� wo;d a s well as by the c ons tr uctions of so und
an d i mage. The s eiz ur e of came ra s at the r elocation camps ca n now b e
redefine d as a faile d attemp t on the pa rt o f gov ern men t author ities to ro b
the in terne d of any fut ure a cce ss to their ow n past. If.the visible evidence
i s lacking, the int repid me dia histori ographe r c an rewrit e history through
recourse to intervi ew, prese nt-tense footage of past campsites, or the sh eer
for�e of creative imagioatioo.
One of the tr uly trailblazi ng efforts of this sor t is Rober t Nakamur a's
60 WAftftlKG JMACES

Manza11ar (197r), a sh ort Super-8 fil m sh o t by a former i 111ernee wh o,
as a UCLA fil m scho ol student s ome years later, made a solit ary ( and
aesth etic ally tr iumpb a ot) r et urn to hi s p as t. It i s a vi sc erally felt medita-·..
tion on Na k amur a's o wn experience t hat noneth eless p ays homage to
two generations of kinsm en. Usi ng a mix of traditional Japanese voca l
a nd -i nstrume ntal el ements as audio accompaniment t o the handh eld im
a ges, Nakamura focu ses on th e rav a ged l a ndsc ap e and the fe w r em ai n in g
markers of what to ok pl ac e there. Littl e is left t o t es tify other tha n the
discards-broken di shes, pieces of a wall-but wh at remai ns visible is
r ender ed aU the more p oignant. A n inse ct cra wl s sl owl y ac ross an i nscrip
tio n of a nam e c arv ed i n s tone ("Tom Fuji sa ki l0/7/43"). Th at deeply
e tch�d i em inder beeo;.,es a hier oglyph be aring witness to a past-an d to
a· person-that ca n never be erased so long a s memory and imagin ation
•
. survive,. The film'� emotio na l climax oq:urs in a flufry of m�sic and h an d-.
h eld image s as the filmmaker ch ar ges (in .a bli nd rage?) across the desert ·
landsc ape . It i s as though N akamura' s l urchi n g c amera i s exorcising a p as t
officially bul'Led and.mastering it in an act of mCmorial reconscfuction .
One feel s th e u nleashing of three decad es of anger an d frusuarion th r9ugh
the camera's eye.
In t he 1980 s , two o ther Asi an A meric,t,1 inde pendent filmmak�rs,
Lon i Din g a nd Steven Ok azaki, pro duced sig nific ant works on aspects ..
'.
of the w artime Japanese Am erican exp eri en ce. Ding s Nisei Soldier:
Standard Bearer for 011 Exiled People (1984) is a sensitive treatment of
th e yo un g men who ch ose to le ave tbe camps to ente r military servi ce and
i n so doing be came the m� s t decorated u n it in Americ an history. \Vhile
any film about tpe s tori ed 442nd Lnfan try Re gi men t mus t· tell t he t al es of
struggle an d su rvival end emic to m en at war, Nisei Soldier i s equally in
tent on aski ng a new - and for these h er o/ n ternees-the question of "\Vhy
i
We Fight" . Th e ironies are bitter and layere d. With the unit' s c asualties
runni ng a t 300 perce nt over t.wemy mont hs, there wer e many gold st ars
(den o ting a fall en son ) hanging on c oncentra tion camp doors. Was th e
brav ery of these men a sign of superpa tr ioti sm at o dds wiih their treat
ment? They were, aft er all, segre gated and perh ap s to o frequently assigned
th e ,no st d angerous missi ons . Or wa s th eir soldieri ng the s ol e l e gitimate
outlet for th e f ury they fel t but could n ever ch annel to i t s prop er s our ce?
Ding provid es no answers but i nstead off ers a gentle tribute; sh e·is the
chronicl er of m en wh o sp oke their hi s tory only on the battl efield.
Ding' s l ater fil m, The Color ofHonor (r987), retur ns to th e sub
mer ge d hi stor y of th e Jap anese Ame�ic an GI, i n thi s· ca se focusi ng on
'
the duties they perform ed for the U.S. Military lntellig�nce. The ironies
were co mpounde d for th ese men who fought the invisible w ar of Speci al
WARRING IMAOCS ..
Services-cracking co de s, t ran sl ating and int err oga ting the ca pture d
Ja ·pa nese s oldiers-whil e c ontinu ing t o e xp eri ence the racial preju dic e
responsible for the ir pe ople 's mass i ncarcera tion at borne. But mo re than
that, Honor return s to the men themse lves. One man's recounting of his
return sta te side provid es a particularly instructive insight into the powe r
of thes e films to rekindl e la t ent passions. Ru dy Tanaka, now pa rtia lly dis
able d, te ll s of the confrontati on wi th his fo rmer high scho ol princip al, the
man respon sible f or expelling Tana ka a nd his b rother on racial grounds in
the day s a f ter Pea rl Harbo r. Finding hi m b e fo re th e a s s embled stude nts,
Tana ka demands a n apolo gy on the spot, or he will "wip e t he sta ge with
him, I don't care which." The principal apologizes.
Ding has sai d t ha t this m<,ment, of all the film's one hu ndred min
u te s, nev er fail s to inspire the most h eate d d eb ate s d uring p os tscrce ning
discussion s. Some in th e J ap an ese American a udie nce decry Tana ka 's
th rea t as a mer e re flec tion of v i ole nce absorbe d while others a ppla u d it as
a ges ture of se lf-d et ermina tion of a s or t all too lac king in th e ge neration ·
as a ,v holc. Ding, a Chin es e 1\merican aware of th e mo ral compromis e of ·
.
· e �g o<>d Chinese " ro le decre ed by w art im e policy, r emains devote d t o a
th
kind of his toric a l excav at i on of the Jap a nese Amer ican exp er ie nce th.r ough
the ma king of her fil ms. Th ey bring a pe opl e and their st or i es .to the att en·
tion of milli ons whil e co ntin uing to in spire controv ersy a nd re ne w e d self
awareness within the Jap an ese Anieric an com.munity.
St e ven Oka zaki's Unfinished Br,si,zess: The Japanese American
Internment Cases (,984) is a product of the 1nilitancy of th e 1980s, th e
time duri ng which the ba ttl e for re pa rat ion s for int ern ees r each ed its peak.
Okaza ki, wh o consciously uses the term "concencr ation camp," rakes as
his f ocus three men wbo res is te d Exe cutiv e Or der 9066 a nd c halleng ed.
goveroune nt policy . These were t he men wh o ch ose th e public deg radation
a nd imp riso nme nt accor de d th em a s conscie ntious obj ectors b ut contin
u ed to s truggl e for th eir dignity. Thar struggle became, by the 1980s, a
le g a l ba ttle f ou ght in cour trooms acr oss the land. Okaz a ki ce l e brates ·the
res o lve of for ty yea rs th a t k�pt the c h alle nge t o the con s titu tion a li ty of
int er nment a liv e and th e inn er �t rength of those who, in r e sisting th e most
popu l_a r war of the ce ntury, cho se prison strip e s inst ead of kha ki.
Days of Waiting (1989) is ,1nother film a bout con sci ou s ch oic es. In
it, Oka za ki m ines ye t a nother s ourc e of hist orical i rony through the life
story of a white woman who chose t o sha re the war tim e inc arc eration of
her Japan es e American husba nd· a nd there in ti)e c amps disc overe d f or th e
fi rs t ti me a sens e o f social identity. As told by the filmma ker, Es t ell e Ishigo
.
was a kind o f arti st ic waif of fin de siecle San Franci sco wh o f ou n d her
ro ma ntic ma tch in Ar thur Jshigo. Aft er m ore tha n a de cad e of marri ag e,
., \\' Alli.INC IMAC CS

l shigo was fired from h e r art school te achi ng job on the basis of her inter
racial ma rriage . Sh e .was soon sha ring th e indigniti es and sma ll triu1nphs
of th e more than twelve thousa nd i nter nee s c onfi n ed to a single square
mil e of land near Heart Mountain, \Xlyo m ing.
Th e strength of th e filin lies in th·e way in which the figure of .Estelle
Jshigo subv erts the e xpec te d categ9rizations of inside r and out sider that
.
so ani,;>ate d the p eriod, l s higo's experi ence proves that race can be a
matter of_ch oice as well as birth, tha t r ac e ca11 b e functionally deter·
rni ned through consciou s a lli an ces and identifications. If the Caucasian
A me rican can.b egin t6 see th e drama of internment from lshigo's hybrid
positio,t, ne w sources of empathy may be tapped. And ste reotype can
thus b e dep<)sed.
It i s thi s ov er turn i ng of th e dy· namic of the s te reotype that bi nds
toge ther these work s a1\d e srablishes t heir per tinenc e to this discussion.
If we look and listen, the raci ally grounded gen ei'alizations th at _di ctated
public polic y beco me untenabl e, for tb.ese films give th e li e to the top-down,
· government- sanc tioned pronouncemenrs· that ;,,ere tb.e unchallenged
imag es of an era. Japanese Americ an s are acc ord ed _the com pl e xity an
variabili ty unavailabl e to th em during the r9.4os through th e appropri a
tion of the means of r.eproducrion by a group of Asian A' merican i nde pen_
d.enr artists. And thi s means of reproduction amounts .to a franchise
history and its active
I have sav e d to the end of my discussion the most re ce n t and per
haps most ambitious of these works. In a mann er remin isc ent of Robert "'
Na ka .
mura' s Manza,iar, R ea Taji ri' s History and Memory n1ixes historical
. .
re in sc ript ion wi th au t.obiography, but wi th a far more compl ex weave
of image source s and ternporalitie s. Tajiri's addres s to memory i s also a
kind of gift; th e . t ap e attempts to supply i mages of h er mother' s life in the
Poston, Arizo na, relocation camp. A nd yet, though the mo th er's recoll ec
.
tion of th e camps is une ven, it i s the artist herself who most r�quires the
act of vi sua! reconstruction. She narrates her desire very near the. tape' s
opening:
1 don't know where thi s came from, Out ( just �a.d this fragmcn.t, th is picture
that's always b een in my mind. tviy moth er, she's standing at a faucet and
it's really llot outsid e. And she's filling tbis canteen and the watei:' s· really
cold and it feels really good. And 04cside the Su.n' s just so bot,,it's just beat
ing down. And there's this dust. that gets in everywhere and they 're al ways
sweeping the fl oors.
Like the child of a Holoc aust survivor, Taji ri is ob se s sed with th e

pa in suff ered by fa mily members b efore her birth, manifest in her c ase
YIAltlllNG IM AGES 63

by "the search ror an ever-absent image." This is a panicularly tellin g
image for its overlay or water, lifo-giving a nd beneficent, and the recurrin g
historical morir or resentment at the successes or the Japanese American
small farmer. Indeed, these farmers "brought water to the land and made
things g row" -according to stereotype but in arflrmation of life.
And now, in 1 991, Tajiri searches for a memory that is personal, fa.
milial, and cuhural all at once.
I remember having rhis feeling growing up that I w;a.s haunted by something,
rha1 I was living within a family full ol ghosrs. Ther< was this place rha1
they knew about. I had neve r been there, ye, I had a memory for it. I could
remember a rime of great sadness before I was born.
The tone or the tape is confessional in its plumbi ng of the depths of ob
session, testimonial in its expression of the emotional linkage or mother
and daughter. Tajiri claims in a crawl that accompanies spoken narration
(there arc frequently multiple cha nnels of in formation that compete for
our attention) that she was able to intuit rhc exact locarion of her mother's
barracks when visiting the Poston ca mpsite.
In a strategy of disjunctive layerin g of image sources, anecdotes, and
historical ma rkers that recurs throughout, the theme of obsession with
identity is played out in a comic vein through the story of Tajiri's puta
tive sister. She collects pictures of movie stars or cute boys she follows
in the park. Most or them arc white. The anist's prcoccupa rions, on the
other hand, arc historically r ooted: "There arc things that have happened
in the world while there were cameras watching, things we have images
for." She sets out to transform memory into history and thus depose from
Tajiri rctricviC$ an image of particular intensity from he,r mother's

past. Reprinted wi1h permission from Rea Tajiri.
.. WAUIIIIO INAOCI

h egem onic po wer the fals e histori es of image mak ers from Hollywood or
\Vashington . Exampl es of both types of the latter abo un d·, from wartime
pr opagand a tracts such as Japanese R.elocation or Dece mber 7 to the
glossier but s till poten t fictio ns -A Bad Day at Bad Rock (r954), From
He re to Ete rnity (1954), or Come See the Paradise (1990)_.
We kno w th rough Ni e tzsche of "cr eative fo rgetful ness," the rem ova l
. from con s ciousne ss of that which denies, rather .th an affirms, life. A nd
yet, like a time travel er in a Ch ri s Ma rker fil m;Taji ri wi shes 16 retr ieve
an image o{par ticular inten sity f rom b.er mo ther's �� s t: her hands fill
in g a canteen with cold wacer·i n the middle of the desect. Of course that
ret r ieval i. s , mor e than anything, a gift the ar tis t giv es to h erself and her
ge neration ..Th e ta pe culminat es in a victo ry th at is sha red,by_all th e A sian

A merican indep ende nt artists rh rough whom the stere otyp es . ra - refi ed,
abst ract, a11d dehumanized have b een supplanted oy the sound s and im
-
ages of experience;memory, countcfhistofy. Tajiri concl ud es: '.' But now (
found I could c onnect th e pictu.re to th e st. ory.I could·fo .
rgiv e my mo ther
he r loss of mtmory.a nd could m ake'this image fo r her:"

The tape's r esolution signals mo re than p ersonal acltievemerit. It
. .
sounds bi.it the most �ecenf note in a rkb chorus.of contempor�ry voices :,
en gaged in a politic al act c ombini n g creative ima gination and the will to
. docum ent. History has b een rew r itten.
..
Media Activism aS Couz:itersterootype
.
Between American TVand theA merican print media, the war
. bas been presented as iJ it wos a finely engineeredpiece of
cut or a bigb.tech:teo party. Ame rican troops were un ifor mly
professional,· courteous and kind, even toward captured
Iraqi weaklings. And an�ne \Vbo was wounded or died just .
vanished.
.. Carol Squier-;. "Screening the War. Film.makers andCritics
on theImages Th� Made History"
The point is to encourage people to t�e control of their

·· own lives, their own images, to begin representing their own
struggles without a high degr!)e of technical expertise. to
become speaking subjects. makersof mooning, activepar
ticipants instead ofpassive consume1'$.
:: Sheny Mlllner."JUIThat Gliltero .. :·
Up until the m oment that th e bomb s began to f a ll o n Lraq and the Gulf ·
Wat b egan i n ear ne s t ( mid-January 199r), American mass media coverage
...
WA aalNC INA(.;t$ ..
Digitized by Original frpm
of th e de bate s surr ounding propose d milii ary imervemi on in the Middle
Ea st presente d the im age of a na ti on div ided. Within hour s of th e fir st air
atta cks, a ve il of self- censorship b egan to descend up oo th e lan d, s o th at
few w ho tun ed into CNN's nons top war cover age might have gues sed tha t
organized acts of resistance to the. war continued unabate d and in some
c as es int ensif i e d. As Ca rol Sq uiers ob se rved, the ·Amer ic a n news m edia
were transforme d into ch eer lead ers a nd p ropa gandists: "Wh at happ ene d
was a war; wha t we saw wa s military promotion. Few- in the United States
·seem to notice ·a diStinccion."21.
Tli ere w ere those who did no tic e. And s ome of them, bandi ng
t<>g ether t o for m th e G ulf Cri sis TV Proj ect, a ct e d on the ir .p oliti cal
ana ly s is, p roduc ing a s er ies of thi rty-minut e progra ms tha t focus ed on a
range of issues r ela ted to the wa(. Tn the expose style of anoth er, ea rli er
cultu ral man ifestation -t he gu er r illa te levision move me nt of th e ea rly
r97 o s t- hese prog rams pro vide d e xten siv e doc umentatio n of antiwar
acti vities as well as politica l ana ly sis of the m oti ves and me thods of gov·
ernmcnt planners. Tw o deca des ea rlier, c olle ctives such as th e -Ant Fa r m,
Gl oba l Village, Videofr eex, an d Top Valu e Televi sio n had beg un to show
Amer ican s electr on ic versi ons of the mse lves neve r b efore seen on th e CBS
Even ing Ne ws. TVTV's Fo1tr More Years (r972) provided unique coverage
of the 1972 Repu bli can Nati ona l Co nvention, sp en ding m or e ti me with
the anti war pr otes te rs in the str ee ts and the news gatherer s on the floor
o f th e conve nti o n cent er -them selve s me di a cele briti es such as \Valt e r
Cronkite, Dan Rather, and Mike Wa llace -tha n with the par ty c hieftain s
or th eir ch os en ca n didates (Nix on/Ag ne w).
The Gulf Cris is TV Project's im me diate predec essor s were Paper
Tiger TV and the Deep Di s h TV Ne twork, bo,h p roducts of ,he 1980 s.
Originally f ormed in New York in 1981 as a cable TV-based platfor m
· fo r me di a cr i1ici sm, Paper Tig er bas creat ed more- than th ree hund red
hall-hou r prog rams devot ed to · cou nt er ing the prevailing myth ologi es of
· Am er ican pop ul ar culture in a cheaply pr odu.ce d, no-holds -barred for·
mat. From attacks oo iabloid j ourn alism and TV soa p op eras (Joan Does
Dynasty) to dia tribes aga inst Am erica n TV ne ws (Brian Winston Reads
the TV News), Pa per Tige r has pr ovided scholars, arti sts, a nd political
a cti vists w ith the opportunity t(> share te lev ision sp ace with Ted Turner or
Arsenio Ha ll. The Deep Dish TV Ne two rk simply exp ande d on the P ape r
Tiger ins igh, by renting s atellite time and beaming th eir prog ra ms to bun·
dreds of down li nks acr oss Amer i ca.
\Vith ,he Gulf C risis T V Pro jec t, me dia activ ist s to ok o n a co ncre te
cha llenge: to produc e a politica l c o; mter discour se on the same 1igbt sch ed·
u le a s th e "big b oys." I t took thif!y years fo r Jap anese Amer ic an artists
•• WABRIM' (. !MACE&
Digitized.by Original from

HARVAR0 UNIVERSITY HARVARD UNIVERSITY
to re -create th ei r his tories; those dying beneath a h ail of niissil es c ould
no t afford the wait. M ore th an thre e h undred pu blic-access cabl e stati ons
ac ross the c ou nr ry cook th e f eed froin t he Pr oject; thir t y PBS s ta tions
bro adcast tbe ser ies, often with mult ipl e repeats . It i s es tima ted co have
. b road casting (itself a,n
rea che d 40 pe rc.ent of th e total audi e. nce for public ..
admittedly small s lice of th e TV pi e). C a nada's Vis ion TV, Channe l Four
i n the U nited Kin gd om_, SBC Aust ralian TV, an d nati onal tel e vision iit
D ub'aiall broadcast the Gulf Crisis p rograms . It i s necessar y ro say that .
despire th ese bro adcas ts, the wa r was still fought, and thousan ds still died.
But every pr ogram that cas t s d ou bt on th e wi sd om of this and e ve ry war,
ever y e xpose of ign or ance or complacen cy, aff ects the fragile ba lance of
s upp or t for th e de pl oyin ent' of billion-dollar mi ssil e s a nd the enda nge r
ment of lluman lives.
. . I won't ha ve much•to sa y ab out the pr ograms th e mselves, alth ough
'
-th e e pi s ode entitled Manufacturing tl,e Enemy m ade clear that the racism
i n cvi4 en ce agai nst Anib·A me ricans i n ihe r99os had its regre t tabl e an te
ced ent s in 'the Japanese A met'ican i nternment ca mps fifty years before. It
i s my conte nti on th at the m os t important thi n g ab out th e Gulf C ris is TV
Project is che_ fact of its exi s tence . I n rh e m edia-cha rge d gl. oba l cnyi ron
ment we now s hare, alte rnative voi ces and vision$ ar:e o ur best insurance
for su rvival. An d _ the pri ce of tha t insura n ce is the creation and supp ort ·-
of m edia'g'r oups de vo ted to the cri ti que and thoroughgoi ng inqu i ry of
public p olicy. Thi s means that no na ti onal televi si on c ulture can afford
to exist s ol ely for profit or state -guid ed ed ucati on . If we acc ept Lou is
Al thusser' s n oti on that any cu lt ural or ed ucati ona l ins tit ution fun ctions
withi n late capi talism as a kind of "id e ological st ate appa ratus,". we migh t
the n say that a mi nim u m of telev ision cha nnel time an d space must be
sys tem atically d e voted w programmin g that functi ons with a degree of
auton omy-outsid e of, if not entirely beyon d, the s way of state contr ol.
S uch an i nitiative .c an neve r of c ou rse be mandated �fom ab ove; it requites
the collaborative effor ts of independent maker s . But these a rtis ts an d c ul
tura l _worke rs c anno t h ope co succeed i n th e tedious, frequently unreward
i n g task of nerworki ng·and downs c ale. pro duction with out a degree of
public s uppo rt.
And therein lies rh e internal contradict ion . Alternative visions an d
soci al critiques ca n mai nta in their i n teg ri t y on ly if the y arc allo wed c o
exis t a pa r:t, but no capital-intensiv e . operation suCh as tel ev ision prod uc
tion can survive without access to the to ols or the airwaves. The initiative
chat will allow al ternative me dia to flouri sh in marker-d r iven economi es
fro m the United States to Eu rop e, Asia , and Afric a mu s t begi n with pu\>
lic awareness. The es tablishment and safeguardi ng of a c ulture of dissent
WAllalNC INACI:$ .,
in any nation is rh e s ures t hedg e aga i nst th e viol ation of human dignity
or the wh olesa le co nd emnation of a peopl e on the basi s of r ac e or class
o r ge nder. Fifty years hav e been required to beg.i n the h eali ng of h atre ds
that raged ac r<>SS th e Pacific, binding American· and Japa nese alike in a
c orrosi ve dyn amic of racial stereotyp e. Atonem ent for all the d eaths aod
all the lib er ti es l osr b egins by guarding agai n st any futu re reena ctmen ts.
Alternative cultural ve hicl es might have allow ed the thousands of Jap anese
A meric ans in terne d to s pe ak rather than be spoken for; certainly, more
cros s-cultural t raffic in the days b efo re th e war would have nar row ed th e
gulf tha t separate d th e I sse i a nd Ni se i f rom their neighbors.
Wha t I am calling for is nothing l ess tha n the syst ematic imple menta·
tion of cou nt erstcreo typing, the un fixing of image s, th e embrac e of, rather
th an rec oiling fro m, difference . Alth<>ugh we in dee d stere otyp e as a mea n s
10 confi rm o ur control of th e world, we need not d o s o i n a p athological
ma n ner , un abl e to differentiate i n any meaningful way among th e men
and w<>men who share <>u r pl ane t. \Ve need not sp en d a nother fifty y ears
recoveri ng from the next onslaught of "warri ng i mages."
•• WldlHllfC IMAOf. $

,.
[ 4. ] Lost, i,ost, Lost: Mekos os Essayist
.!
"Lost,·Lost, Lost: · Mekas as Essayist," o riginally writt en fo r Da vid E..

}tlme s's e dit ed collectio11 To Free the Cinema: Jonas Mckas and the New
York Undergrou,,d in 1992, offers an exte nde d a11alysis ofth e e ssay film
as a rnod e of aut o biographical practic.c that c ombine s self-exqminatii,n
wjth a d ee ply engag ed 011iward gaze, coupling, in f o 11nding essayist
Michel d e M?'ntaigne's wo·rds, "the tneas,!re of sight" with •·· t he measure
of things." Taking Jo nas Me kas's m onume ntal Lost, Lost, Lost (1949-75)
as case·study, the chapte r situates this wnonica l avant-ga rde film (and,
by ext ension, th e e ssayistic film s ofG odard, Marker, and oth e rs) in rela
1
tion to the documentary tradJticJ11 s histo. rictll concer.n (or the expressive
p o tential o(the medi11m (e.g., tke work of Ve rt o v, Vigo, 811ii11.el, and
the elirly lve ns).. Th e chapt er bridges the gap b etwee11 fil mm�king that
focus ed o n the subjectivity of social a ct ors joined in struggl e, d ominant
i>rthe 1960s and 1970s, and ihe first.-p e rs o n, for ms that deve/of,ed in the
i98os and 1990s .. This ch a pter bridges.a noth er gap as well-the ga p be
.. twee n notions o fs o cial si,bjectivity tha t a ni,nate the first /Jart o fthe book
and th e int.e rest in iheo. r.izing the subiect pursued in Part. II .
Andsothe opinion I give is to declare the measure of my sir].ht,

.not the measure of.tlµngs.
· =� Montaigne,Essays.
. Of IZOurse. whatIlaced was the old problem of all artists: to·

mergeRealityand Sell. to come up with the third thing.
:: JonasMe�s. "Tho Ol.aryfilm..
Io the conclu sion of a remarkably perceptive review of Jona s Mekas's

Lo st, L ost, Lost appearing soon after the film's 1976 release, Alan
Williams s uggests a relationship between the autobiographica l project
..
of this, the fi rst vo lume of Diaries, Notes_, and Sketches, an d "the spi r ic
of Mo nt aigne a n.d se lf-e xamination.�' In s<l doin g, Willi ams situate s
.
the w or k within a n essayistic t ra diti on whos e roots, thou gh trac eable co
Montaigne's th.ree -volu me Essays of the late six teenth ce ntury, might b e
sai d to include certain writin g s of Nietzsche, Ador n o, a n d, most r ecencly,
Roland Barthe s. Indee d, the essay form, n otable for its te n dency c oward
c omplic aci oo (digressi on, ·fr agme mation, rep etition, an d disper sion) rathe r
than c.omposition, has, in its four-hundred·year history, co n tin ued to re
sis t the e ffo rts of lit erar y taxon omists, con.foundin g the la ws of g enre a nd
clas sifi catio n, cha llenging the ve r y notion of t ext an d of t extual econ omy .
In its heterog eneity an d i ne xha ustibiliry ("with a n 'amoe ba-like ' versa
tility ofte n hel d toge ther by little more than the author's voic c "),2 the
e ssayi stic work · bears with it a l ogic tha t denies the v eriti es of rheto rical
com position and of sy stem, indee d of mas te ry itself.1 Knowle dg e produce d
throu gh the essay i s p rovisional rather tha n sys tematic; s e lf and obj ect
orga nize each other, but only in a temp or ar y way "N - othing can be built
on thi s c on fi gurati Qn , no rules or methods dcd�ced from ic."4
T he Montaigncan ess ay der iv es in pa r t from di spara te precursor
forms -the con fe ssion al or autobi og raphy as we ll a s the c hro nicl e
ins ofar as irs co d ece r mi n ing a xes, its ·conc e rn for self and oche r {"the
measure of sighr" as wdl a s the "measure of things"),S·en act wha t Gerard
Dc faux has c all ed the "twofold pr oj ect" of Essays. Dc.s cr iptive and te ·
fle xiv c mo da liti es a re cou ple d; the re presentation of the hi stor ical re al is
c onscious ly filt ere d th rough the flux, of subj ec tivity. Neither the ou twa r d·
ga ze n or the cou nrer ref le x of self-interr oga ti on alone can account f or the
e ss ay . Attention -i s drawn to the l eve l of the signifi er ·("le t attention be p a id
no t to the matter, bu t to tbe shap e I giv e it"); 6 a se lf is p r oduce d throu gh
a plura lity of voices, "me diated thr ou gh wr iting, foreve r ins cr ibed in the
very tissue of the texr."7
This plurality of v oice s provide s a clue to a fundam ental if implicit
presmnption of the essa yistic mode, namely, thar of in deter minacy. Ne i
ther l ocus of mean ing n-e ithe r subj ect nor hist(>rical o bj ect-a n chors
discou rse s o much as 'it probletnatize s or int�rrogates ic.This f?undation
of epis temol ogic al un ce rtainty has been widely th eor ize d, ini tially by
Monta ig n e him se lf, a s in bis essay "On Re p ent ance": "The world is but
a per:ennia1 movement. All things in lt 3.re in c o�_stant motion.... I can·
not kee p my subj ect still.... I do not p ort ray being, I por tray p assing....
If my mind cou ld gain a f ir m footing, I would n<)t ma ke es say s, I would
make decisi on s, but it is alwa ys in appre ntic es hip a n d on trial."8 That
mo re comemp or ary essayist Rola nd Barthcs cla imed that the fra gmentary
or di sc onti nuou s writing of his latte r wo rks e nacte d a countcride ol ogy of
70 &.O ST• .t.OST. ._0$1
D1g1t1zed by Original from

HARVARD. UNIVERSITY HARVARD UNIVERSITY
..
form i nasmu ch as "the fragme nt break s u p wh at I would call th e smo oth
finish, ch·e composition, discourse constcucteO co give a final meaning to
wh a t one sa ys, which is th e ge neral rul e of all p ast rhetoric....th e frag
me nt i s a spoilsport, di scon ti n uous, establi s hi ng a k ind of pulverizati on of
sentenc es, images , thoughts,n one of whicb ' ta kes' d efi ii itivcly."9
Des pite the epi ste mic di stance se p a rating Montaigne and Ba rthes, .
th eir.resp ective writing pr a ctic es ·e nforce a share d re fusal·. If neithe r b e ing
as-essence nor if n al d et e rminations (n eith e( first· nor l ast· c auscsJ ari se iri- .
i
th e essays -of Mo nta igne or Barthes, thi s reticenc e can be attributed iri
part 10 t_h e protocol s of (essa yistic) writing th e)' shar e. Essayis tic practices
aclii eve a degre e of c onuuon a lity not through theniatic consistency {as i s
the case with genre) b ut through f ormal a�d id eo ogical r esembl anc es.
l
. F or th e youn g G eorg Lukac s, the ess ay w�s an "intellectual po em."
wh ose firs t e x emplar was not a lite rary tr ace · but th e life of Socrates.
Unlik e trage\Jy, whose end inf orms the whole of the dra ma, th e lif e of
Socr ates and the essay for m alike r ender the end.an arbitrary an d iron i�
.moment. "The essay," declared-Lukacs, "is a judgmenc,-but the ess ential,
th e valu e-determin in g thing ab out it is n _ <>t th e verdict ... but the pro
cess o f judgi ng." Socrates a s essayistic phenotyp e· comes to stan d for a
10
method that i s active , f ragm ema ry, and self-abso rbing -ever in pursuit
of a q uestion ." e x tended so far in d epth th at it b econ1es th e questi on of '
all questions."11 ln Reda Bensrnaia's phrase, the essay is i n u6pen-e nded,
imer .rnipablc writing machi ne," for just as th e cea l resist s the strictur es
of repr esentation (how to fr ame or carve our a hi storic,,! p ers ona ge or •.
eve nt with out th e l oss of authe nticity), so too a re the f xity of the s ource
i
and the subj ect of enunci ation ca lled into questi on. Th e intermin abi lity
of the es say foll ows from th e proc ess ori entation of i ts a ctivity, the me .,
di ation of th e real thr ough a cascade of language, memory, and im agio·a
tion. M ontaig ne's "b o ok of the self," the essay as autobiography, r ef uses
any notion of si n1ple or self-evident oci gins in a man ner consi sterit with
the Ba rthesi an prono uncement"[ am e lsewh ere than where I am when
l write." 12
In cl assic_ al poe tics , the coherenc e and the" synthctic powe r of a work
a re th e a esthe tic m anif es tations of a ra th e r differen t e pi stemol ogical
assu,uption, that of th e u nit)' and stability of the subj eci. Momaigne \.
refu sal of be ing -as -stasi s is one precur sor of th e more _r adic al contempo
rary th eore tical posltio,t th at wish es to sugge st oth er,vise: "In the fi eld
. of the subject," writes Barthes, "there is no referent." 13 As formul at�d
in rhc lat e r works of that writer, th e essay fo rm is the textual man ifes
tati on of in determinacr par excell ence ; h eterogeneou s and resistant to
pr ec ise bom1d a ries, it is m etaphorizable as a Japa nese stew, a bro ke n
LOST, tosr. L0$1 "

HARVARD UNIVERSITY. HARVARD UNIVERSITY
television screen, a l ayered pastry.Consequently, the essay eschews grand
design; �ensmaia characterizes its formal procedure as "tactics without
straregy."1 �
Littl e wonder th at films such as Lost, Lost, Lost and the rema inder
of Mek a s' s Diari es, Notes, and Sketches, R aul Ruiz's Of Great Events
and Ordinary PeoJ)le (1979), Chri s Ma rker's Sans soleil (1982.), Trinh T .
Minh-ha 's Naked Spaces: Living Is Round (l985), or the pa ir of te le
vision series produced by Jea n -Luc G·odard and Ann-M arie Mieville , Six
fois <kux (1976) and Francerfo ur/Detour!De ux!Enfants (r978}-a ll of
which could be terme d ess ayistic-have a lternately intrigue d an d puzzled
audien ces and critics alike with their failure to c onform to gene ri c expec
ta tion or classical strucriiration.15 In all cas es, the works would appear ro
s traddl e certa in of the a ntin omics that h ave define d the boundaries of film
sch olarship: fiction/n onfictio n, documentary/avant-garde, eveo cinema/
vid eo. Fr equently, the critic a l a ppraisal of the t axo n omica lly unst able film
or video work returns t o the n ame of th e auth or: the televisi on efforts of
the seventies are an extension or revisioo of earlier Godard obsessions;
Naked Spaces grapples with issue s of Third \Vorld feminism and the li mits
of language as Trinh has done-in previous film a nd literary efforts; Sans
soleil is the surnmum of Marke.r's career.as itinerant gatherer of images
an d S<)u n ds . And Lost, Lost, Lost is the work of th e chie f polemicist a nd
c el ebrant of the New American Cinema. The di ary films of Mek as ca n
th us be s aid to spring from {the) underground; the autobiogra phica l ren
d er ings of an artist can on ly b e ar t .
Ye t it is my purpose to sp e ak of Meka s as essayist, to cl ai m for
Lost, Lost, Lost and the other volumes of Diar ies, Notes, and Sketches
a discursive p ositio n sh ared by the afo re ment-ione d as well as by other e s
sayistic works, a position mobile i n its resistance to generic encirclement,
one th at traces a traj ec tory within an d a cro ss the historic al fields of the
documentary as well as of the av a nt-garde. Far from bei ng a mere quibble
o ver s cholarly classification, the discussion of Me kas's work within a
d ocument ary context yie lds sev eral dividends: on the one h and, the rela
tivel y moribu�d crilical diScour:se surrounding nonfiction is enlivened, its
aesthetic ho rizons broadened; on the o ther, Lost, Lost, Lost is more e asily
delivered of its st atus _ �s a key work of cont emporary film histori o graphy,
a work tha t tea ches us about hist ory and a bout the limits within which
th e fil mic inscripti on of history is possible. Finally, the pla c ement of Lost
widi.in a documentary context is essential for the present enterprise in an
other way._ There c a n be little doubt th at Meka s's diary-fil m proj ec t offers
one of the most exhaustive ins ta nces of serf-examination in the hi story of
the c inema . And yet, as h as been established,' the es sayistic is n ota ble for
72 1.0$1, t.0 $1. l.0$1

HARVARD UNIVERSITY .HARVARD UNIVERSITY
its e nme shin g of t wo registers of i nter ro g ation- of subj ec ti vity a nd of the
world. I t i s my con tenti on that Lost, Lost, /.;ost shares with Mont aigne' s
Essays an un yi eldi·ng a ttentiveness both to th e measure of sigh t and to th e
measure o f thi ngs. My gr ea t_e st conc ern in what foll ows will therefore b e
for the shap e a nd t actical dynamics of a doc umenti ng gaze ;tod a desire
to retrace the v isibl e an d th e histo ri cal-tha t impel s th e fil m.. ..
Th e pl ac emen t of L ost witbjo the do cumentary tra di ti on remains
consistent with th e gene sis of 1\.:l ekas's proj e c t . Accordi ng to th e f il m
ma ker, the docum entary inte nt of the earliest _diary, e ffor ts constitutes
Lost's prehistory: "Th e ver y fir st script th at we (Jqnas and his b roth er
Adolfas] wrote whe n ;.,e a rrive d in late 1949, a�d whi�h was call ed Lost,
Lost, Lost, Lost, ,�as foi a. docum e ntary on .th e lif e .of displ ..
aced pe r-
sons he re."16 Signif cantly, the ki nship betwee n th e fo u nd ing i n tention

i
'.
·a nd the project s evemu al o ut come �as rem ai ned generally unremark ed.
I ndee d, vi rtu ally eve ry criti c who h as wrjnen about L ost,_ Lost, Lost has
focu sed o n th e emergence of an authorial voic e th at develo ps over the .
thirteen-year p eri od covered by t he t hree-h our film (r 949-1963), a voice .
i nstanti ated by a ser ie s of v isibl e styli s tic shifts.17 Pe rha ps in evitably, thi s
pa tter n i s re ndered_ t el e ologi c al, a n as cension to ward a f ull-·blo wn ge st ur al
.
s t yl e fa m iliar from th e work of Brakha.ge and o th ers. The ste adfastly ob- ..
s er va ti ona l cam era of the f rst two reels d evot ed to the acti v it ies o f the · ·,
i
Lithuaniarl exile communit)• becomes the si gn of th e arti st as y·ec unaware
of hiS'tru e vocation. ':.\Vh en you were first srani.ng to shoot hece," asks
.
Mac Donald, "d id yo u feel th at you were primarily a record er of displaced
p er sons an d their st r uggl e , or were-you already thinki ng ab out b ecoming . .....
a (ilmm.aker ofdnother sort?"J8
•.
The Documentary Detour
In faGt, thi s assumed.pilgri mage toward ar tistic pro gress deserves fu rther
.
examination, as doe.s the essayistic character of the fil m's textual mapping,
but not b efor; a br ief con sideration of the nonfic tio n reab,; to which Lost,
Lost, Lost is-h ere b eing consigned. Wh at is necessar y i n thi s instance is a
ki nd of c ritica l disen�gemem fro.:0 th e received_ limits of th e nonfiction
film.i n ord er to c omprehend its hito s r ical a s \)'ell as it s discursive para m e
ters. Mekas himself talks about hi s ear ly literar y effo r ts und ert ake n in
Lithua ni a i n the m jd-194os, h is pursui t of a ki nd of adocu m entar y po etr y"
th at empl o yed po e ti c means- of pace a nd pr os ody-to achi eve lar gely
d escripti ve _ end s. This hybridizati on of liierar y mod e s in itself e choes

the esse nti al di alo gisrn of the essayistic enterprise. But, we are told in an
&.osr. 1o sr. tOSr

interview with S cott MacDona ld, this me rg er o f the p oe tic a nd the non
fictiona l did not su rvive the move i n to cine ma a f ew years lat er:
When I lx:gan filming� chat interest [documentary p0etry ] did not le.ave me,
but it was push·ed aside as l got caught up in the documentary film tradi
tions. l was reading Grie rson and Rotha and looking at the British :rnd
American documentary films of the '3o's and 1o's. l foel now that their
influence detoured me from my own indination. Later, I.had to shake rhis
influence in order co retu.rn ro the approach with which I began. 19
The notion of a ret ur n to ori gins is in trinsic to Me ka_s's film_ic oeuvre.
But the r e turn is always itse lf a reworking, a mov em ent of re cup eratio n
· wal, i n this case to a doc u mencary poetics frQm which Mekas
and rene
never entire ly re t rea ted. It is w o rth noting, for example, that the traditio n
a l doc umentary a pp ro ac h t o which Mckas unfav ora bly r ef ers , disc e rnible
in the fervenl recording of expatriate activities in Lost's early reels, is cit
c u mscr ibe d a nd abso rbe d by the com plex weave of ,be fil m's sound/image
orchestration. We can only imagioe the Criersonian intCnt of the raw
foo tage, now dia logize d by audito ry e lem ents (na rra ti on a nd music ) a n d
the fil m' s rhythmic self-p resenta tion; for the specta tor o f Lost, Lost, Lost,
Me kas ' s de p arture i s alrea dy comaine d within his r eturn.·
The re fe rence t o Gr ie rs on a nd Rocha in the October interv ie w is
s gnificant in asm uch a s the y w ere the chie f polemicists for a vision of the
i
do cumentary film as a 1001 for propag a nda a nd social e duca tion during ·
the emba ttle d deca de s of de press ion and wa r. For Gr ierson, so n of a
Calv inist scho ol master, the scre en was a pulpit, the fil m a ha mme r to b e .
.
4sed in shapi ng the des tiny o f nations. When M ek as's attach ment to the
Lithuanian exil e community gave way to broader as well as more p ersonal
conce r ns a nd the e ng age ment with for m al qu es ti o ns, when the fixati on
on na tional identity subside d, it was hi st oric a lly as well a s ae sth etic ally
apt tha t the Grierso nian mo de l sh ou Id cease to h old sway . But a wh olesa le
disavow al of the do cu menta ry tr a dition th reatens to obs cure the tangency
between Me k as•s ·literar y an d fihni c p ractices of ma ny deca des' st a nding,
em bro iled as the y h a ve be en in the m a teriality of e veryday life, a ni:I c ert ain
currents o f ,vor k.in no nfiction. The dia ry -film. pr ojec t deserves its pl ace
in that filmic domain.
The documentar y film b a s, since it s be ginning, display ed four funda
mental, o ften overl�pping te n dencies or aesthetic functions; at .some mo
ments and in the work of.c e rtain c ineas ts, one or a no the r of these c ha ra c
t er is tics has frequently been o,,er - or unde r f av ored. The y a re s ta te d here
in the active voice appropriate to their discursive agency.
1. To record, reveal, or /Jreserv�. This is pe rha ps the m ost elemen t al
,. tOST. tOST. 40$1

of docum entary functions , familia r si nce ,he Lumie res,.traceabl e to th e
photographic ant eced ent. In o ne of several of Mekas's eff orts to p aise th e
fil01i c fi rma ment (thi s one c i rca 196t), the "R ealis r.Ci ncma"-a cate gor y
·chat bridges ,he fi cti on/n onfiction divide-is name d as <>ne of th ree gener
_a l approaches to cine ma, the o ne that· most pr izes th e re velatory pot ential
· i>f tb e me dium:
,
The third approach (the others being "Pure Cinema" and "Impure Cinema"]
cOuld be called Realist Cincm·a, and coul4 l.x: summed up as the tr:1di;ion of
Lumierc. The film-ma�er here is in�erestcd primarily in recordi ng lifo as it is.
His personality, i nstead of creating a new realiry, goe:,rnainly into revealing
rhe most es�cntfal qualities of �he already exist ing reality.., as it is s�en at th e
moment.of happen in g . Flal�erty attemp�cd it in Nanook� Dzig:;1 VcnoV ["Th e
Camera-l;ye") devoted his life to ic.20 ...
.
This emphasis on the re plic ation of the histork a l· real li nks anthro
pol o gy a nd home movi e, since both seek what Bar th es in bis Camera
.·
Lucida h a s ter med "that rather terrible thing whi ch is there in every ph o-
tog raph: the return of th e dead." 21 The prcservation al instinc t r- esi-sting
th e crosi<in of me mor y, the ine sitability of pass age-is th e mo t or iorcc
behind this, the firS< of documentary's aesthetic functio11s .
. Meka s remains the visual chri)nicler thr oughout Lost. The stark bl ack \.
and white of c ertain images ear ly on evok e s the best of thirties documen
t,iry photography in its _c ombina tion of p reci se compositi on a l valu e s and
c ompelli ng s ubject matte r: th e acrival of displac ed persons at _th e Twe nty
third St re e t Pier, th e sp a r e ra mshackl e of a ·\Villiamsburg fr ont s toop°o r
the r o und faces of the exiled young fr�med in t enement wind ows. Bui·th e
s pe cte r o f Mclies hovers· ne arby. Eve n in the midst of the mos t faithf u lly at-.
mos phcric renderings of plae e o., per son, one recalls the images with which
the f ilm c�mmenc e s: th e bro thers mugging playfully before the camera and
Ad olfas's magic trick s. Conjur y and acll,alitti ar e made to coexist.
Docu menta r y has m ost often been mc,llivat�d by the wi sh to expl oit
the c amera's pow ers o f re ve lati on, a n impuls e r arely coupled with an
ac kn owl edgment o f the medi a ti on a l proc ess es thr o ugh which tli e re al i s
trans formed. 22 At time s, as wi th Flah erty, the de si re to ret a in the trace o f
an already abs e nt phen omenon has le d the nonf c tion artist to supplement
i
b eh a vior Ot ev em-i n-bistor y with its imagined c ounterpart, Th e wish
to preserve images.of the traditional wal r us hunt of the Inuit led Rob ert <
Flaherty to s uggest the anachronistic substitution o f harpoons for rifles in
his Nanook of the North. l� Lost, M e kas's v oice- over n a ((a tion sp eaks
his de si re for a re covery of th e past, This obs e ssive wimessing of ev ents is
freq uently acc ompanied by the s poken refra in "l was there," even while
r.osr, 1.osr. 1. o·s T 7S
Di9itized by Original from

tbe efficacy of such a re turn i s repea t e dly conres te d by the film's conflictu
a l voic es.2J The spe c ta tor is c o n stantly re minded of the dista nce tha t sep a-_
rates the profilmic event and rhe voiced narration wrii-ten years afterward.
Me ka s's voc al inflection s themselves enforce the s epa ration, the words
d eliv ere d with a h esitancy, a wea ry delight in the ir s onor ous p ossibiliti es.
Thus a discomforting retrospection on an irretrievable past is mixed with
a pl easu ra bl e if provision a l contr ol o ve r its filmic repr o ductio n.
Moreove r, the se ns e of indet ermina cy tha t has b ee n suggested as a
cr uci a l ingre die nt of the essay ist,c come s w the fore in the choice of soun d
e lements, p articu la rly for s ev e ral of the ea rly sequ ence s. R ather than re
inforci ng the pathos of loss and displ acement e voked in the sc enes that
doc ument the activiti es of the Lithuanian e xpa tria te commu nity, Me kas
fre quently ch ooses to play ag a inst or at oblique angle s to th e anticipa te d ·
emotional re sponse . E arly sc enes of Jo n as wa lking the str eets of Ne w
York, alone and di s po ssesse d, gathe r gre at force from the plaintive Kol
Nidrc chant tha t accom panies them. The refer ence to the holiest of Hebr ew
prayers and iis ca ll to ato,i eme nt on Yorn Kippur Ev e sound s ,he right li
tu rgica l not e e ven whil e c rossing cultu ra l bou nd aries ( and a pa rtic ul arly
charged c ultu ral b ounda ry it i s, given the trouble d his1 ory of ,he Jewish
Lithua ni an pop ul ati on in 1his c entury): The re sonance s -and freq uent
dissonances-betwe · e n soun d an d ima ge consistently cha lle nge th e re tri ev al
of untr oubl ed or av ailable hist oric al mea ning fro_m d oc ument ary i ma ge s.
"And l was there, and I was the cameca eye, I was the witness, and
I r ec or ded it all, and I don't know, am I singing or am I crying?" These
wo rds acc omp any images fro m the ea rly fifti es-,- of pla ca rd-beariqg
Lithuanians, tra diti ooally clad, marching a long Fifth Avenue, pro testing
the Sovie t o ccu pa tion of their l and, or of the in:ipassione d orati on of exiled
leaders speaki ng to packed h alls. The priva te and idiosyncratic cha racter
o f the im ages e nforces Meka s as the first rea d er of the t ext; hi s own uncer
ta inty a bout th e impac t or a ffect enge nder e d by l1i s _proj ect dema nds that
we too suspend our own ce(tain Judg ments: .O� inore than one occasion,
Lost render s its elf as u nde cidabl e-at the level of emo,ional respons e as
well as of hi storical-i n ter pretiv e ac tivity._
Mekas'.s di ary im ag es docume nt a v ariety o_ f _ hi storical mom ents; in
fac t, Lost provides a ccess to a series of hist ories that can be trac ed acr os s
the fil m. In th e first insta nce, there is the discour se on the displace d per ·
son and the Lithua nia n c ommunity that shares hi s or he r e xile in Bro ok
lyn. Bu t if the pictu res of life-of work, r ecr ea tion, family (ituals-stra in
towa rd faithful e voc a,i on, th e fil mma ker's spoke n re£ra in dis sua de s us
fr om our appa rent compre he n si on: "Everything is nor ma l, e verything i s
norma l," Me k as ass ur es us o ver the im ages of ev eryday life. "The only
,. J.0$f, L OST, LO.ST

thing is , you'll never kn ow what they thi n k. You 'll never k now what a
displaced person thi nk s in chc eveni ng and in Ne w York.ftOccurri ng in
the opening min utes of the film, this is the first lesson co be drawn fro m
Diaries, appucable to all forays into hist0riography thro ugh film. Histori
cal meanings a re n ever simply legible or immanen t . Unde rsta ndi n g a ri ses
from the thoughtful incerrogati on of documen ts (the rea l in representation )
and the contr adictions that a rc produced through their overl ay. Mek as h ere
remi nds us of the irreparable breach betwee n experie nce and its external
ized representation , a n otion impli ed by the fi lm's ve ry rirle. We are all
of us lo st in the ch as m between our desire tel rec a pture the p aSI and the
impossibility of a pristine re tur n-no one more so than Mekas himself.
Th e Lithua n ian emigre experience, equivocal though our u nderstand
ing of it may be, thus e merges as the fi rs t str and of Lost's historiographic
braid. It is, howev er, possible to trace a s e cond p reservationa l rr ajectory
through rhe film's elabor ation of a kind ,,f postwa r urban gcohis cor y .
Mek a s' s odyss ey from Williamsburg to Ma n h atian cris scrosses virtu
ally e very sector of Ne w York O - rchard S1re e1, East Thirteenth Stre et,
Av enu e B, Tim es Squ are, Cicy Hall, Madison Av enue, fifcb Avenue, Park
Avenue South, Wa shi n gton Square, and che ob ses sive r eturn to Central
Park. There and el sewhere, M ek a s fi nds himself inexorably drawn to the
energy and t enacity of the pickcce rs and th e poets who agita te for thei r
person a l visions . The leaflet women of Forty-second St rccc (a ppeari n g
Lost as postwar urban gcohistory: Mekas finds himself inexorably drawn to the
energy and tenacity of rhc picketers and the poets.
1-0lr, 1.011, &.Olf

ne ar the en d of the fourth re el) wh o face public indifference on the cold
est day of rhe y ear i ns pire Mekas's lyric testimonial, evi nced at the level of
word and image. "I was with y ou. I bad to b e. You were, you were ... the
bl ood of my ciry, the heartbea t. I wanted to feel its pulse, to fe el its excite
ment. Yes, this was my city."
The cropped a nd canted comp osition of the leafleting trio celebrates
at a historical-and stylized-r emov e ; it al so recalls the Three Graces on
the Sro ny Bro ok beach near the clc,sc of reel 2., the trio of emigres pre
served in a moment of u n self-con sciou s revelry. The leaflctc ers likewis e
anticipate the final insta nc e of this figure at fi lm's en d-Barbara and
Debby wa di n g fully clothed, awash in the same sea a s the origi n al cele
brant trio, two decades later. Ea ch of the film's three secti ons thus co n
tai n s nea r its close a strikingly composed female fi gure group. Far from
performing a merely decorative fun cti on, th ese imaged women arc drawn
from milieus particular to ea ch stage of Mekas's life chro n iclc-fro111 the
Lithua n ia n nationalist peri od to the years of social activism to the con
solid at ion of artistic identity.These dreamily eroticizcd avatars-part
comrade, part goddess-arc apt figures for a sensibility that obsessively
c ouples the hist orical with the nesf'hetic. Endowed with" kind of gra n
deur, even monumentality (evoked through their framing and musical
accompanimcnr), they bestow bened iction on memory.
It is worth co n sideri n g further the figural tableaux that conclude
The Three Graces on the Stony Brook beac.::h: Lirhuanian Cmigres preserved in a
moment of revelry.
&.OST, I.OST. a.oar

each of Lost's three sect ions. Thick with classical a nd r omantic a llusions,
Lheir repeti t ion is a marker of ch e autobiographical in the sense esta blished
by Jacques D errida . In hi s analysis of Ni etzsche's Ecce Homo, Derrida
approaches the qu estion of sig nature-and hence che anribution of the
aurobiograph c al-for li terary and phil osophical texts, particul arly th ose
i
rhat problcmatiz e s clf-pr esenrnri on . He posi t s a dyn amic borderline bc
r wecn the "work" and the "life ," ch e sysrem a nd t he subject of the system,
a "divisible borderli ne [rhatl traver ses twn 'bodies; the corpu s and t h e
body, in accordance with laws tha t we are only begi n ning to catch sight
. 24 This bord erline-m obile, divisible-is a sire of contes tation, the
of "
place where the proper n ame or signature is staged. Thus the recurrence
of the in vested iconographic figure in Lost, Lost, Lost c an be said to speak
the artist's subjectivit y even as it repro duces the concreteness of histo rical
detail. As Mekas himself has rem arked, "Therefore, if one knows how to
'read' them (the details of the actual), eve n if one d oesn' t sec me speaki ng
or walking, on e can t ell every t hi n g about me.•H
In his own writing, Mekas has tended t o reduce the dynamism of the
work/life borderli n e through his claim for the primacy of the subjective
i n Diaries. "As far as the city goes, of course, y ou could say s omething
also about the ci t y, fr o m my Diarfos-but on ly indir ec t ly."1' Indeed, N ew
York is more than a passiv e wrapping for Mcka s's pe rsonal ody ssey. The
four tee n-year period enc ompas sed by the film coi ncides wirh a crucia l
The play o( revision and erasure...He remembered another day ... I have sccn
mcsc waters before.-
LOST . lOSt. LOSr ,.

p er i od of thaw for Americ a's cultura l crossroads; New York, fast becom
ing t he lodestone o( a rt m ovc me nrs an d acce lerating socia l protest, is
shown to expe r ien ce a ma turati on in tune with the filmmake .r�s o .wn.
But t he surest fo cus of Mekas's witn es sing throug ho ut much o f Lost,
Lost, Lost is the co nstellat ion of creativ e pr essure s t hat pro du ces the New
Ame ri can Cinem a. The gro wth and de vclopm e1it of that movement is t he
subjec t of a t hir d history ch ar te d from t he mom ent of this title c ard's ap
p earan� e i n the t hird reel: "Film Culture is rolling on Lafay ette Street ."
From the Eas t Thirteent h Street ap ar tm ent tha t doubles as Film Culture's
hea dquar ters to the Ne w Yorker Theater an d its ga thering of cincphiles to
th e Par k Avenue So uth offic es of the Fil m-M akers ' Co - op, thes e are the
u r ban s paces t hat frame the ac tions of t he New Cin em a's p rotagon ists.
\Vha t they do there is muc h the subject o f t he fil m. Bu t the altere d aims .
an d me tho ds of Me kas 's c rea tive drive te stify to t he hi storic al deve lopment
of the oew ae sthe tic with equa l cogency; a heighten ed sp ontane ity <>f c a m
era mov emen t, flickering shot duration, an d a ser ie s of high-c ompression
v ignettes, the Ra bbit Sb.it Haik us, are the chi ef ma rkers of th.is s hift.
Lost thus docwnent s a s ucces sion of events significant in the forma
tion o f a c u ltura l momen t th at holds an equa lly cr ucia l plac e in t he "di s
covery>, of the artist's ,•ocation. E.xcmplary insfances include the collective
efforts around t he public at ion of Film Culture from 19.55 onward, t he
sh oot ing of Me ka s's fi rst feature, Guns of the Trees (196.;t), and the as
sault on the se lf-ano inte d a rbirers of doc um entar y p ur ism ar the Fla hert y
Sem inar. T he f oo ta ge fr om r be s et <>f G,u,s ofthe Trees was, in fact, shot
by Char les L evi ne; the e xpl ora tion of t he arti st's su bjec tiv ity, increasingly
foregrou n de d in the la tter p ort ions of Lost, i s here suborne d to tbe de
man ds for a phy si ca l \vitn es slng, to cinem a�s preservatigna l function.ult'S
my na ture no w to record," says Mel<as at the clo se of re�I . 4, "to try to
keep every thing I am p ass ing through ... to keep a t leas t bits of it.... I' ve
lost too much... : So now J. have thes e bits t ha t I've pa sse d t hrough."
Mekas's pr�servational insti nct s s£rvc to salvage the pa st for others
as we ll. ln tl)is·re ga rd, Mekas may; in bis late r years; 'ba ,•e come full c ircl e,
from an at tention to the nee ds of t he exten de d family of displace d per
sons to those of the nucl
. . ear family. His sense i,f the histor ica l or popul.ar
me mory f unction of t he dia ry film s i� exP.resse d ·wit h a pprop riat e te nder-
ness i n his f l m notes to Paradise Not·Yei Lost, alkla Oona's Third·Year
i
(1979): "Ir is a le tter to Oona [M eka s's da ught er], to serv e her, some day,
as a distant rem 'nder of ho w t he wo rld arou n d her looked dur ing tbe thir d
i
ye a r of her life -a per iod of which Jbere will be only tin y f ragments lefi in
her mem ory a-nd to provide her wit h a ro mant ic's guide to the esse nti al
80 r .osr, 1.osr. 1,osr

val ues of life-in a wor ld of artifi ci ality, commerci alis m, and bodii)' an d
spiritual poison."27
As. we shall see , there is no c o ntra diction b et ween the elemental
docu menta ry i mp ul se, th e will to p r_ cserva ti on, and the e xplorati on of sub
je ctivi ty; inde ed, it is th eir ob sessive·con vergence that marks the essayis ric
work. It i s, how eve r, the . irt ec oncilablc difference b etween ret ention i n r e p
re s entation and experi ent ial !oss tliat-le n ds·: urgency to th e di ary p roject ,
dri vi ng th e fi l 111maker toward an unob tain able , ever-deferre d resolution.
.- 2. To /Jersuade or promot e . Thi s is the dominant tro p e fo r m any
. of the films of th e Griers on group d uring thc, E . mpire Mar keting Boar d
p eri od (Night Mail 11936), Housing Pr oblems [r935)), and for a m ajor i - ·
.t y of sta te -supp<lrte d works ra ngi n g from Dz . iga Vertov' s Three Songs
for Len in (1934) to Santiago Alvarez's Now! (t965) or Nasta la victoria
siempre (1967).28 Whil e M ekas rem ai ned for decades the most vi sibl e
pol emi ci st for the " new" or p ersonal cinem a through Film Culture an d
the "Movi e Journa l" col umn i n the Village Voice, his f i lmm aking · p rac,
ri c e exhibits little of the rh etorical inten t of a Ver tov or• an Alvarez. In hi s
"Call f or a Ne w Generation of Fiuu-Makers ," app e ari ng in Film Culture
in 1959, Mek as i ss, ued a surre alist-inspi red man ifesto for an Americ an
ava m-garde: "O·u r hope (or a free ·Ame ric· an cine ma i s enti rely io the
.
h ands of th e ne w ge neration of film-makers. A n d t here i s no othe t way
of b r e.1ki n g th e fr ozen ci n emati'i: ground than th rough a complete d e
rnnge ment of th e official ci nem a tic s en ses."29 Thi s di reeiive is _v isibly exe
cut ed i n the l ast third of th e fil m th ro ugh the g est ural s tyle .that received
Mek as's critical endorsement. B ut the fihu exc e eds t he p rogrammat ic; its
plurality outstrip s polemi c s. A s i s the case with cs sayistic d iscourse ge 1\er
ally, Lost i s at odd s wi th the kind of epi ste mological or affec tive certainty
nece ssar y for overt p ersuasion. R ecall herewith the e moti onal am bivalence
("A m I si'ngin g or am i c r ying?") an d the u,ihi n gi n g of inter pretive st abil i

ty ("Yo u'll ne ve r kn ow wh at they think�);b oth condi tions ill suited to .,
ihe goal ori entation of p ropaganda. Th e gap of history and fe elin g t�at
separ.ates the i m age s of 1949 from the voice that reassesse s their me ani ng
a q�ar te r of a cen;ury 13.ter prOduce s re so nant or ironic effect s rather than ·
.
di scursi ve stream li ni ng. If there i s a p romot ional impetus to be foun d i n
Lost, i t i s for a life defined through a p erpetual act of s e lf-creati on rath er

tha n f or a.p artic ul ar p oliti c al or a es th etic p osition.
3. To. express. This is the rhetorical/aesthetic function that has co n

si ste ntly b een underval ue d wi thin the nonfiction domain; it is ne vertheless ·
am ply re p resente d i n th e hi stor y of tbe d o cu m e ntar y ent erp,ise. While
th e Lumie r c s' actualites m ay h ave se t the stage for nonfic ti onal fil m's
t.O Sl, I.OST, t.0$1 8l

emphas i s o n the sign ifie d, a histor ica lly c onditioned taste for dy nami c if
n ot pictor ia list pho tog raphic compositi on account s for the dia gonal ver ve
o f the t ra in station at La Ci o tat. tvlo st s ource s ag ree that Rob ert Fla her ty
wa s the d ocumenta ry fil m's f irs t p oet as we ll as itinerant ethn ogr aj,ber.
Flaherry's expre ssivity wa s ve r bal as w ell as i ma gis ti c in origi n; in ad·
dition to t he in -depth co mp osition s of t rackless snowsca p es in Nanook
of tl,e Nortb, on e mus t cons id er· as we ll t h e flair f or p oe tic la ngua ge
("the b rass ball of su n a moc kery in the sky"). The cyc le of "city sym·
ph ony" fi lms of the twe nti es (Man with a Movie Camera [192.9), Berli-n:
Syn,phony ofa Great City lx92.6), Apropos de Nice (1930)) dec la r ed
their a ll egianc e i n va ryin g degrees to the powers of exprcissivity in t he ser·
vice of hi stor ica l represen tati on. The ar tfulness of the work as a func tion
o f it s pure ly ph otog ra phic p rop er ties was now a llie d wi th the possi bilities
o f editi n g to crea te expl os iv e eff ect s-cere bral as w ell as viscera l. The
early fil ms of the d ocu men ta ry p olem ic ist Jori s Ivens (The Bridge [1928),
Rain [r929)) ev id ence the attra cti on felt for the cinema's aesthetic p oten
ti al, e ven for a rtist s motivated by strong politic al beliefs.
Tn his earliest attemp t to ca tegoriz e fil m type s, Mek as ha d sug
g ested that the "d oc umen t fil m" enco mpa ssed both the "i nterest film"
(newsr eels , inst ruc ti o nals , fil m s on a r t) a nd the "d ocu me ntary fil m
rea li st, impre ss i onis t or poetica l, the pri mary p ur p ose of which is n on
i nstructi onal (thou gh t eachi ng)."30 Pa rker Tyler, a frequ e ot contribur or t o
Film Culture, suggeste d bi s own r ath er c umb ersome c ategory of p oe tic
fil m, "the n atura listi c p oe t ry documeot," a groupi ng that in clude d Tl,e
. River (1937) a nd The Blood ofthe Beast.s (r949 ). 31 Difficulties a rise in
su ch e fforts to disting ui s h a mong film forms as ideal type s, a proble m re -
duced throug h atf en tiou t o disc u rsiv e functi on rather than to the erecti on
of dis cre te ca tegorie s.
It is important to note in r,be c ontext of taxonomic confusion that
certa in w orks of the avan t-ga r de can on (Bra khagc's "Pirtsburgh Tr ilogy"
or Pe ter Kubelka ' s Unsere Afrikareise) shar e with ma in st rea m non fiction
a co mmitment to the representation·of the historic.a.) real. However,,the
fo cus of these pieces typica lly r emains the impre ss ion of the world on the
anis t's sens or iu m an d his o� her interp ret a tion of th at dat um (Bra kbage' s
tremu l ous han dheld ca mera a s he Witne sse s op e n-hea r t su rge ry in Deus
Ex) or the radical reworkin g of the documenta ry material to creat e sound
ima ge r ela tionship s unavailable in nan, r e (Ku b elka's " sync e ven t"). C riti· '
ca l differences of emphasis suc h as these not withstan ding, the rea lm of
filmic nonfic t,oi n must be see n as a continuum within which the Mckas
diary films coosrit utc a significant con t ribution. That a work u nde rtaki ng
some manner of historical documentation render s that representation in
•• 1osT. r.o sr. L6sr

an i nnovati ve ma nne r (in sile nce or soft focus, for exampl e) should in no
way disq ualify i t a s no n fic tion, sinc e the ques tion of expressivi ty is, i n all
e vents, a questio.n of deg re e. All su ch rende ri n1c1s re quir e a seri es of autho-
. rial choic es, non e neutral, some of which may appear more " artf ul" or .
porely expre ssi ve than others . T here ca n l,e li t tl e doubt thai s uch dctermi-·
nation s (" ar tful doc umen t ary" or "doc umenta ry ar t") dep end on various
protocol s of reading that are hi storically co nditioned.
One expressive �chicle common to Mcka s's diar y fil ms deserves spe
ci al mention: the use of the filmmaker' s voic e .Rich in .p erform a,1ce val ues,
Mekas's v oice funCtions as an instr�1ment of great ly ric power-.-measurcd,
1nusical in frs va[ia tion� he:,itatioO; an4 r�pc titi on.Tb'e incan tatory tone
reinforces Lost's ba rdic quality, i naug urated by the e pic invo cation tha t_is
th e filmmaker's first utter ance : "O sing, Ulysses, sing yo ur travel s ."-.Thc . .
p oe tic use of lang uage is strategically counterwei ghted, h owever, by .the al�·.
ternation o f fi rst a nd third person in the narrati on, never. mor e effec t vely
.
i
tha n at th e film's c oncl usion: "He rememb ered anoth er d ay.'Ten years ago
.
he sat on this b each, ten years a go, with other friend s.The m emories, the
memories, the me mories.... Again I have mtmories. : .. I have a m emofy
of thi s plac e. I have bee n here b efore. I have reallybeen he re before. I have
seei, tl)ese wat ers before, yes, I' ve walked upon thi s b each, th ese p e bbles ." ·
Sp e ctators,,re .
br o.;ght to thei r own re coll ection s from a shared exp eri
enc e o f some three hours' vie wi ng; the yo ung Lithuan ian women on th e
beach .at Stony Brook, c aptured . in blissful dance,.who re cur as.the l e af -
l e t women halfw ay throu gh th e . filrn, are brilli antly recapi tul ated by the
paired fem al e fig ures at the film's end. We too hav e b een here before , As
with ch e p oetic f ig ure anaphora, so fre quently invok ed i n the t ripl ets of
,.··<
the R abbit Shit Haikus and el sewh ere (" th e memori es, the m emor ies, the
mem orie s"), re pe titi on prov es co b e not simple duplicati on, b uc a:pl ay of
revision and erasure. ' .
4. To analyze or int�rr1>gate. H t he que stion of expressivity h as
pl a g ued disc ussions of docum ent ary, the analytical fu nction has b e en
vir tually ig nored.32 The imper ati ve t oward analysis ( of the enunciate d
an d of th e_ enun cia ti ve act) off ers an i ntensifica tion of, a nd ch all enge to,
the r ecord/re v eal/preser ve mod aliry insofar as ic a cti vely qu es tions· non-·
fic tional disc ourse-its cl aims t o tr uth, its sca t us as sec ond-ord e r r eality,
On what b asis docs the spectator invest b elief i n the representati on ? What
are the c odes th at ensu re th at belief? What m ate ri al processes a re invol ved
in ch e p roducti on of thi s "spect acle of the r eal," a nd to what extent are
th ese pr oc es se s re nd e red visibl e or knowable to th e sp ecta tor ? W hil e m any
of these qu e sti o ns are famili ar from th e debate s on refl exivi ty and the
Brcchtian cinem a, applic abl e to ficti on and nonficti on alik e (.the fil ms of
,osr. I.OS T. LOST ••

Vertov, Goda rd, and Stra ub and Huillet-essayi s t s all-have mos t fre
qu ently in spire d· these discussi ons), the i r urge ncy i s parti cularly grea r for
d ocu me ntar y works, which c an be sai d to bear a direct, ontological tie
to the real.
A s note d in the di scussion of expre ssivity, n onficti on film is the result
of determinate mediations or authorial . interventions, som e of which may
be p e rceiv e d as "styl e." The analytical do cume nta r y is likely to a c knowl
edg e that mcdiational structures are formative rather than mere embel
li shments. In Man w;tl, a Movie Camera, the flow of ima ges is r e p eatedly
a r re s ted or refra me d a s the filmic fact is r evea le d to be a labor-inten sive
social process that engages camera .operators, editors, projectionists, musi
cians, and audience .merllbers. Motion pictures are represented as photo·
graphic im age s in motion, var iable as to thei r proj ec ted spee d, dur ation,
. or screen direction: g alloping horses are c apable of being ha lted m idsrride,
wate r c an run up str ea m, smiling children ca n be tran sformed into bits of
celluloid to be in spec ted at editor Svilova's workbenc h.
In the s ound era, the brea ch between ima ge and it s a udio counterpa r t
has rarely bee n a cknowledge d; synchr onized sound, n ar rati on, or music is
me.ant to reinforce or fuse with the image . rather rhan question its status.
Such i s not th e c ase i n Alain Resna is 's N1<it et brouil/ard (1955), with its
airy pizzicati accompanying the mo st oppressive imagery of Holocaust
a trocities. Chri s Marker' s Letter from Siberia (1958) i s an other depa r
ture from th e norm. The connorati¥e power of nonlinguistic auditory
elemen ts (mu sic, vocal infle ction) is c onfirme d by the rep er itio n of an
o therwise b a_n al sequenc e ; th e sequen cing of images and the n ar rati on
re ma in u nchan ged while the acco m panying musi c and tonal valu es of r he
nar rating voice cr ea te diff ering se ma ntic effects. Ever y viewer is forced lO
confro nt the ma llea bility of meaning and the i deologi cal imp act of autho
ri al or stylistic choices that typic ally go unn otice d. In Str aub acid Huillet's
Introduction to «An Accompaniment for a Cinematographic Scene/' a
mu s ical co m positi on, Schoen berg's opus 34, is "illusirated" by the recita
ti on of Sc hoe nberg's correspo nd�nc e as well as by his drawings, photo·
g raphs (of the c om poser and of the s lain Paris Cornmunards), archival .
· foo tage of Am er ic an bombing run s over Vi etnam, and a ne wspaper clip
ping about the relea se of a cc use d Nazi conc entr atio n camp archite cts. A
proc es s of int er rogatio n is thu s unde r ta ken through the layering and reso
nance of hete rogeneous ele ments. Schoenbe rg's m usic, the work of a se l f
profes sed apolitic al artist, beco mes the expressiv e v ehicl e for a n outr age
whose mor al and intellectual di me n sion s exceed the pa rochi al bounds of
p olitics pro per. Ye r the colle ctive coherenc e of the filmic ele ments remains
... J.0$1. LOST. J.OSr

to b e constr ucte d by a thi nking a udi ence . The analytical im pul se is not so
much ena ct ed by th e filmmakers as encouraged in the vi ewer .
The analy tical in1pulsc so rarel)• ac,tiv : ated in . mainstream nonfiction
is strong in Lost, Lost, Lost, pr imarily due to th e _ di s,tai,ce th at se pa rat es
th e im ages, spannin g m or e than a decade of the fil mmaker's life, an d the
auditory elements, ch. osen. yea.rs l a te r, that engagc · the m io di alo gue. The
r elati ons b etween sound and i ma ge m aimain a palpabl e "te nsio n through
out th e film's duration , aid ed by th e poignancy of sil en ce. It i s . l argely• · ·
through th e orc hestra ti on of aco ustic e ff ects (not l eas t among them
s ilentc) th·a t the fil m establis hes its ton ality. Des pit_ e the alt�r ity· oi ;_,ord
and image, . which occup)' qu�re dispara· te planes of si gr,ification, conven
tional nonsync na rr atio na·I te chniques frequently attempt to sustain rhe
impression· of ilius tration, th e vi sible enacti ng the s poke n. In Lost, how
ever, the b re ac h b e tw een the seen and the heard rema ins irreparable; in
de ed, th e s ound elem�nts themselves seem ra rely to·resolve into a "mixed"
ttack-words, music, and eff e cts remain discrete, v i x rually a.utonomous. .
From rhe cl att eri ng _of subway ttains to the pluckin g o. f stri nge d folk in-
srrume1us to the st�btle voicing of narr3.tion, e�ch el ement ret ains its sover
eign (that is, nonnatu r alize <I) s t atus.
Pa rticul a rly through hi s s poken c ommentar y, Me k as seized on the
nonfiction film's ability to reassess huruan action eve n w hile re vi siti ng iL
Williams conclud ed his revi ew of th e film with a dis cussion of thi s aspect
of its structure : "Lost. i s a pa rticul a cly moving fil m b ec ause of th e distance
bet ween the Jon as M ek as wh o shot-wbo w rote -th e foo tage use d in the ·�·
work and th e Jonas M eka s wh o asse mb ed it in the 197o's. Jn thi s di st an ce

l
li es the materi al for p owerful inte racti ons b etween le vels of experience."33
'"Whei;, I Am FIiming, IA m AlsoRelloctlng"
The refl exi ve ch a rac te r of th e fil m, its will to an alysis of self and e vents,.
returns us c o the domai n o f th e cssa yi stic. Whil e all documentar y films
retain a n inter est in Some por tion of the world . out th ere-recording, a nd
le ss f requently i n te rroga ting, at ti mes witl) the intent to pers uade an d with
va rying d egre es of attention to fo rmal issues -the cssayis t's . gaz� i s drawn
i nward with e qual intensity. Th at inward gaze accounts f or the digr essive
and fra gmentar y ch ar act e r of the essayistic, as And ee Tournon's assess
ment of Montaigne's Essays suggests : "Thought c an abandon its theme at
any time to e xamine ics own workings, question its acqui red k nowledge or
expl o it it s incident al potcn ti alities."34
10$r. I.OST. LOS1 as

Lo ng before the appeara nce of his di ary film s, Meka s wrote admiring
ly of Alcxa. nd re Astruc's "camera s tylo.� Indee d , the work of Me kas, lik e
that of Goda rd, Ma rker, and other pro se writers turned filnunake rs, offe rs
imp or tant i nsight into the e s sayistic as a moda lity of filmic inscription. In
a l ec tu re on Reminiscences of a Journey to Lith11ania, Mekas addresse d
the re la ti onship b e twe e n the di ar i stic in film and its literary counte rp an;
hi s re flec tions in form our con sideration of fihnic auwbi ography an d o f th e
de fini ng condition s of historiog rapbic pursuit s more genera lly.
At first I thought that there was a basic difference between the written diary
which one writes in the evcnjng, and which is a refle.ctivc process, and the
filmed diary.in my f ilm diary, I thought, I was doing something different:
I was capturing life, bits of it, as it happens. But I realizCd very soon that it
wasn't that differe1n at all. When I am filming, I am also reflecting. I was
thi nking that I was only re.accing to the actual reality. I do not have much
control over reality at all, and everything is determined by my memory, my
past. So that this ..direct" filming becomes also a mode of reflection. Same
way, I came to realize, that \I/ricing a diary is not merely reflecting, looking
back. Your day, as it comes back co you during the moment of writing, is
measured, sorted out, accepted., refused, and reevaluated by \\/hat and how
one is at the moment when ooe writes it all down.It's all happening again,
and what onC: writes down is more true co what one is when one writes than
co the events and emotions of che day that are pasc and gone. Therefore, 1 no
longer sec such big differcncc.s between a written diary and the filmed diary,
as far as the process.es g o . 3S
Mekas's diari stic proje ct is wr iterly at e ve ry turn, both b ecause rh e

pro ces s of inscr iption is foreg r ou nde d throughout a n d b ecause, consistent
with Barth es's de scripti on o f the w riterly in SIZ, Lost as te xt approach es
t he sta tu s o f t he "tr iumph an t plu r al, un mpover ished by a ny constrai nt
i
of representation ....\Y/e gajn access to it by several emranees, no ne of
which can b e a uthor itative ly declar ed to b e t he ma i n one; tbe co de s_it
mobilizes extend as far as the eye can -reach."36 lt is writing of a certain
so rt tha t suffuse s the film; th e s ense of ske tch or p a limp ses t is retaine d
th roug h ou t, i n contrast with, for example, the florid, unwavering sig
nature of Straub's Bac h, whose pi ety eng ender s ar tistic as well a s m oral
certitude in Chronicle ofAnna Magdaleua Bach (1967). Th e int e rmit-
. tently i maged snatches of written di ary in Lost conju re for u s a proc ess of
se lf-inscr ipti on that is p ai nfully, m at eri ally e tch ed. "October 3rd, 1950,"
into nes M ekas, fr om the distance of decades. "l have b een trying to writ e
with a p encil. But my fi ngers do nor r eally gra sp the p encil prop erly, not
lik e the y u sed to grasp it a y ear, two yea rs ago. fr om worki ng in the fac
to ry my fin ge rs bec ame stiff. They don't bend, the y lost their subtlety of
movemen t . There are muscles in them I haven't seen b efor e. They look fat-
.. . !.OST. 1.0$T. LOS'T

i
Digit zed by Original frQm
r
ter. Anyway, I c an't hold th e pencil. So I go co the typewriter and I begi n

to type, with one fi nger." Apc>Cryphal or not, this accou nt of graphologi
cal vici ss itudes is corroborated at e very turn of the text. Typographic
emendations arc foregrou nded in Mekas's imagin g of the diary pages .
Significantly, it is the overstroke rather than the erasure rhat pre vails; the
trace of each failed gesrure remains legible beneath e ach correction. As
so many theorists of th e essay have noted, it is the process o f judgment,
far more than the verdict, tbat cou nts. Mekas is at pains to restore to hi s
filmed diaries the physicality and sheer effort of their provenance.
Th e diary insert s thus reinforce our sense of the text as a handcrafted
and provi sional one, always subject to reconsideration. Th e provisional
character of all filmed material in Lost is dramatically borne out by its oc
casional transfiguration in o ther volumes of Diaries, Notes, and Sketches.
In addition, tben , 10 the pote ntial reassessmen t of each image by a narrat
ing ag ency at great hi s torical remove , these same image s ca n be reinve sted
and rcframed-in a manner oonsistent with Freud's notion of nad,traglich
keit, or deferred action.J7
The triumphant plurality of which Barthes speaks results from the
film text's temporal fluidity, th e multiple s tyles and perspectives it mobi
lizes (mingling color with black-and-white film stock as wdl as footage
shot by others ) and its several historical foci. Lost mimes the richness
of lived experienc e through its modulation of a range of filmic elements.
lt i s the sheer extent and het erogen eity of Mekas's Diaries, Notes, and
to sleep,
The process ol sell-inscription-painfully, mareri nlly e1chcd.
LOIT. &.oar. LOST 87

,
Sketches that is mos t respons il)lc for producing t he s ense of Barthe s's i n
exhau s tible text.
'
·-
But the he terogen eity of Mekas's o euvr e i s di s tinguishabl e from
Godard's u n ce as ing refere ntiality, Straub's geologic st ratification, and
M arke r's Bor gcsi an laby rinths. While it is likely that, a mon g the s e film '<
practitioners, Mekas 's diary for mat mo st approxi mates Mon taigne's flight .
from fina l ju dgm ent s , the writing pra ctic es of the two e merge from very
differen t phil osophica l co n texts. Montaigne's re fusal of the pree xistin g
li mits of thought a n d literary protoc ol was v es t ed in a n intell ectual skep
ticis m tha t valor ized reflection a nd rbe cea sele s s r evi sionis m it dicta ted.
Meka s, on the other ha n d, respon d s to a t raditi on tha t e mbra ces spon ta }
l
n eity over t hought. The expa n siven ess of rhe diari es arises from the con ,.
victio n that a rt an d life ar e i ndiss oluble.
The sp-0nta11eity of che new American artist is not a conscious or an intellec
tual process: it is rather his way of life, hiswhole being; he comes to it rather
inruitively, directly.
Th e new anise neither chooses this sponta11eous route himself nor does
.he do so consciously: it is imposed upon him by hfa time, as the only possible
route.311
That p ronou ncement, ma de in J960, was slightly revi sed two ye ars later,
the emphas is having shift ed from the in voluntary (and apparenily un know
abl e) source of ar t ma ki ng to the art p rocess and its instituti onal re ce ption. .'
This reassessment, responsive to tbe politicized environment of the New
York art s cene of the early r96o s, shares so me thin g of the rhetoric if not
che macerial circumstances of the new Latin American cinema emergent at
t hat moment. Mekas , however, spoke bi s re fusa l from the ve ry ne rve center
of dominant culture, rather tha n fro m irs per iphe ry; he w rote a gai nst the
a rr establishment, not aga ins t the mas s-cultur e colonizers . "I don't wam
a ny pa rt of the Big Ar t game. The new cin em a, like the ne w man, is noth
in g defi n itive, nmhing fina l. It is a living thin g, It is imper fe_ ct; it e rrs. "l?
Diaries, Notes, and Sketches owes a gr eat deal to the raw power of
the improvisatory a r t Mekas championed at the tim e of thos e writi ngs.
Sev era l sequenc es in Lost offe r documentation of the people a nd activities
of the Livin g Thea ter. In r959 Mekas awarded the fir st Independent Film
Aw ard to John Cassa vetes's Shadows; Dre w Ass ociates' Primary, which
was said to reveal "new cinematic tc�hniqu·es of rec?rding 1ife oii film,"
was the recipient of the thir d a wa rd. The 1962 essay "Note s on the New
A me rican Cin e ma" sha r es rhe spirit of the Willem de Kooning epigram it
quotes in appa ren t admiration : "Pa inti ng-any ki nd of p ain ting, a ny styl e
of pai nting-to b e pai n ting at all, in fact-is a w ay of livin g today, a s tyl e
88 .LOST• .L OST. !.OST

of living, so to speak.••0 Indeed, Lost, Lost, Lo;, sh ares something of the
edgy i rnmedi acy of tbe art th at prevailed i n the mome nt of it s shoot i ng .
But Lost e xc eeds its roots· in imptovisacion, in the cap ture of an
u ncontroll ed re ality, i n a wishe d-for fu sio n of art a nd life. At las t, it is
through its ch aracter as essayi s tic work that the film yiel ds its surpl us .
Vast in its purvi6v, ell i ptical in its self·presentation, complex in its inter
' polation of historical substrata and textual voic es , the film struggles with
I·
" the old problem"-"to merge Reality and Self, to come up with the thi r d
thing."' But Lost resists the snares of resol�tion or completi on, even in �{1c
dialectic al beyond. Moreover, a belief in the -revivificat ion or recapture
,. · of experienc e in �he crucible of art is activel y disavowed, even I{, as in
Marker' s Sans soleil, lo ss i ts elf be comes titual celebration .
I n assessi n_g tlie film four de c ade s after its ince ption, the Lukacsian
prescripti on might wel/ apply. Lost, Lost, Lost will survive as a triumph
of judgment i ndependem ·of the world or psyche that it revea l s. And " the
value-de t er mi n i ng thi ng about i t i s not the verdic t ... but the pro cess of
judgi_ n g."' '.
·'
"
L0 $1". l.0 $1. £.OST ••

II The Subject in Theory
'
.. ''
,
,

Charged Vision: The Place ofDesiie
[ 5 ] in Documentary Film Theor.y
',
"Char g ed Visi on" echoe s a posi tion first expl ore d in m y introduc tion
to Tb.eorizing Documentary (1993), which argued tha t docume ntary.
studie s ha d remained large ly (a nd, in. my vi ew'. re g rettably) untouche d
by the insights,of ps ychoa na lytic theory despi t.e i ts tre me,ulo11s inf ft,.
e nce els ewhe re in p os t-197os fil m st11di es. Nonfiction fil m ha d c ome
. to be re gard ed as a real m of rationalist inq11iry, a fil mmakir,g practice

pu-rsuing educational Or activist goals; the �oc11menla:rfm1 .dience was
. understood to be 1111.der the i;1fl11etice of epi�tephilia or intellectual c 11riosi
ty ra tn er tha n incite d by 11ncon. scio11s dr ives, as ha d bee n argued for the
audience of the fiction film. Such a view seemed a.t odds with.my experi
e nc e of111any oft.h e ea rly ddc1<1nentary classi cs (e .g., Joris ive ns's Rain
. [1929/ or Jean Vigo·s Apropos de Nice.(1930/) and a lso theoretically

ins11J1portable. I arg11 e here.that documentary is far from an e;cclusively
"sober" di�course and that documentOry reception ciu·, .be responsive to
far less ra tional principles-erotic desire , hor ror, whimsy-than thos e
en com pa ss ed by rhetori c or episte mology. S11bse que11t to the writ i ng of
this chapte r i,i 1996, several psych oanalytically informed analyses of the
docu mentary pr ojec t have appeared, chi efa mong the m Elizabeth C owie's
"The Spe ctacle of Actua/;ty," in Collecting Visibl e Evidence (1999j, · ' whicl,
help historicize and reinforc e the claim s made here.
In his seminar. "The Line. and LigHt" publisb.ed·in The Fo11r F11ndame 11tal
Co nc epts of Ps ycho-·Analy sis; Jacques Lacan
. retells the c.l.assica l tale
. of
Zcuxis and· Parrhasios, two pa inters who engage in a competition co de.-
tetmine who.is . tkc more masterful.
Zeuxis has the 3dvantagc of having made gr.apes that attracted the b irds.
The Stress is placed not on .the fact that these grapes were in �nyway perfect
grapes, buc on the fac-t th.at even the eye of the bi.rds was taken in by them.
)
83

This is proved by the fact that his friend Parrhasios triumphs over him for
having painted on rhc wall a veil, a veil so lifelike that Zcu.xis, turning to�
wards him, ""id, Well, 011d 110w show us what you have painted behind it.
By this he showed thar what was at issue was ccrtainJy deceiving rhc eye
(trompe l'ocil). A triumph of the ��c over the eyc.1
Consider the inaugurating image of Pe1cr Hunon's New York Por

tra,t, Part Ill (1990), shown here. While only a frame enlargement nnd
therefore robbed of a filmic moment's acoustic, dynamic, durarional, and
narratological contexts, this still image is less impoverished than most.
This is because Hutton's work-shot almost exclusively on black-and
white Tri-X reversal stock-is always silent and organized according to
the logic of a mosaic structure consisting of more or less equally weighted
vignettes connected by fades to black. Each image remains on the screen
for aoywbere from ten 10 tbirty seconds, long enough to register percep
tually and, in some instances, for some viewers, to begin to resonate, to
evoke, to summon forth a response that may elude ready aniculation.
It is with this image that I propose to begin my discussion of the place
of desire in documentary film theory. What can be said of this in,age at
the level of description? It is veiled in mystery, shot at night from below,
looking up toward a window through which we sec littl e more than the
silhouette of a banner or flag. Ac 1hc level of con1cn1, in rhe language of
rradirional documentary discourse, 1herc is very liule here: no person
The lure of the image: the rnys1cr ious opening shot from Hunon's Nt!W York
Portrait, Part Ill (,990).
.. CSA aC£D 'flSION

u pon whom to build exp osition a la Fl ahe rty, no crisis a ro und whi ch to
orga nize a di egesis ii l a dir ect ci nem a,n o re troacriv e knowledge gaine d
by a rerurn to thi s wind ow l ace r in the fil m . Bue I would argue tha t thi s
i mage signifies a great deal, and in th e mann er of Parrhasi os , for it evi
d ence s in a r ather in:-educ-ibl e way the "lure" activa ted by th e dcxu1nen
tary image aro un d which this. discu ssion of des ire . in th e nonfic�i o n film ··
will circul ate . The i mage retu rn s us i o Laca n's all ego ry. H e rc, as in th e
tal e, the gaze triu mphs ove r th e eye ; o ur desire to pi erce the v_eil sus tains
our a ttenti on to th e i ma ge w ell b eyond ei the r p erceptual o r k nowledge•
b ased dem and s. There is n o crisi s of re ferentiality on di splay as i n Paul

St rand's Abstractio11-8owls (19r5) or White Fence (1916), photographic
works in which S trand produc es a kind of re tina l tensi on b etween the
.
two -dimensi onal i ma ge sur face (forcefully stated tlt rough.th e aggressi ve
.
fr ontality of th e whitc picket fence) and the three-di me nsionality implied
by chiaro scur o and d ee p-f o cus ph"otography. Neith er d oes Hutt on's i mage
offe r a v isu al fi e ld pa rti cular y ri ch in data, loaded w th di ege tic o r char·
l i
tcr
ac ol o gical clu e s.
"I n th e matte r of th e vi s ibl e; eve rything i s a trap," say s Lacan.2
There is never a question of Huuon allowing the viewer to Penetrate
rhis niiihnime shadow. What we see and, even m<>re pointedly, what we
l ong to sec as w e fix' our_gaze cann o t easily b e spoken. It is, precis ely;
the prese nce of an ab sen c e : Hutton's iniage function s as a:figu re of me
tonymy, which Freud argue d w as th e rhe to ri cal co rrel ative of desire. The
symptom was mera:phor, a vert�cal domain, a site of condensa tion; a knot
o f overd e te rrnin ati on. But desire was irrepr essibly h oriz ontal, fugiii ve ,
never in its·place. In Lacanian terms, desire can only arise i n th e subj�ct
on a ccou nt of a fundamental sep arati on be tw een the sel f an d its objec t:
'
"The subject cannot desire with out its elf di ss o lving, a nd without seeing,
b e�ause of this v e ry fact, the object esc aping it; in a series of infi nite dis
placcmcnts."3 Hutton's veiled i mage , i n its pl ay of tra nslucence and o paci
t y, st ands for all th e desi red; infinite ly di splace d obj ects that present them· .
. selves within th e field of vi si on. It is a me taph or of metonym y . F or _me, it

evok es a founda ti on al c omp onent o f ou r r e c e ption and und e rstandi ng of
nonfieti oo· i1nages, sugge sting- something of the mechani sm on accou nt of
whic� w e re turn, a�ain and ag�in, to images of th e world.

·As Hu tton's image demonstra tes, this lure . o f " th e vis ibl e re al" is re
ducibl e .ne i ther to th e pure ly p e rce ptu al on the one hand nor to the rea lm
of the signifi e d on th e oth e r . That is, it is not si mply tha t the hu ma n e ye is
drawn to two-di mens ional depicti ons of move m ent in thre e-di men si onal
space (th ou gh th a t m ay b e tr ue enough) or that we retur n t o th e docu
mentar y dnema o nly for th e subject s it trea ts ( thou gh the rich traditi on
CHAllOJ:D V IS ION 9S

'
of s ocia lly conscio us doc umeotary filmmaking might sugg es t othe r wis e ).
Let m e be clear tha t I don't wi s h to diminish e ithe r of the se g r ou nds for
· d ocumen ta ry's appcal; such as it is. It is, rathe r, my co n tention that the
noti on of de .si�e dev el op ed in psy ch oan alytic the ory is a cr ucial and gen er-
. ally negl ec ted c ompon ent of doc umenta r y sp ect atorship th at de se rv es our
care f ul considera ti on an d o ne whose negl ec t has hin dere d the deve lopm ent
of contempor ary docume ntary film theory.
In sp eakin g o f desire in docum entary, I ha ve in mind nor s imply the
(
fa miliar re fe rences co a n er otici:i ed ga ze of the sor t fo und in feminist film

th eory (e.g., Mulv ey's n otion df the gendered "pulv erizing gaze" of clas
sical nar rati ve cin ema)• but also noti on s of a look that Bill Nichols ha s
characte riz e d as episre phili c a n d Torn Gunning has root e d in "cu ri o si-
. tas."' -Ye t while focu sing o n n on fi ction i n its s p ecificity, l will nev erthe le ss
cha llen ge a position tha t I co11s id,e r to be un duly sep ara tis t an d dee ply
rati o nalist in its alig nment o f docum en tary who lly with co n sciousness
rathe r th a n i n traffic with un co nscious pr ocesses, challen gi ng too that
positi on's pre ferenc e for kn owledge e ffects over pleas urable or ec static
looking a n d f or its enth ronement of s obriety at the expense of the evo ca
ti ve and delir iou s. I will inst ead ar g ue fo r the docu me nta ry g az e as con
stitutive ly (!luhiform, em broiled wirh c onscious motives and unco n sCious
desi res, driven by cur iosity no more than by t erro r and fascination.
In p ur su ing.my i nve s tigation, I will-giv e pa'rticu lar att en tion t o the
sil ent cin ema, in which vi sua lity was accorde d primacy .This rhetoric al
ch oice is n ot m eant to s ugges t that the intro duction of sound alters tbe
.
term s of t he argument. Indee d, in ac c ord with the w ays, that the invo cato
ry driv e has been acc-Ou nt e d for by s ound the orie s of the cine ma a s s uppl e
m ent to a scopically derive d expla nato ry model for psychic engag emen t,
there is in uch to s ay abou t the lu re of the audible real. 6 That di rec tion f or
re sea rc h is simply b ey on d the b ou nds of the present o cc a sio n. There are,
however, practical re as<)ns to retut�1 t o the silent cinema for the pu r poses
o f ill ust rating des ire 's pl ace in docu me ntary sp ecta to rship. In the ear ly
wor ks of docume ma ry practition ers such as the Lumicres, Shub, V er tov,
Ive ns, a nd Vigo, th e eye holds sway; vis ualiry is di rectly addresse d and
chem a tized. A re turn t o this work affords us the p ossibility t o g round ou r
i nv estig ation into the r elati o ns bet ween de sire and documentary vision
with gre at es t sp ecifi city.
Ther e are orher c r iti cal an d pe dagogica l re as<ms to re tu rn to the
191.o s a s a focus for s tudy. It is a historical mome nt cut off fr om ou r
p rese nt understandin g. Docum enta ry histo ry ha s, to a la rge extent, b een
s ev ere d o f its ti es to the 191. os a vant-ga rde , so that cur rent exp er imen
ta l and per forma ti ve work in film and vide o a ppear s to b e anomal o us
•• CHAHCCO VISION

rath er th an c onsiste nt with docum e nta ry's ro ots.7 Instead it h as b een t he
r930s a nd r96os th at h av e tak en ce nter st age. The Gri ersonian mod el h as
function ed as the ba selin e of docume ntary persuasion, the sixties as the
.
mome nt of technical, for:mal, and ideol ogical re invention (cincm�. ,rerite, ··
di rect cinema, N ewsre el). Indeed, Nichols' s.model for the modes of docu•
m e nta ry e xposition really b e gin s with the 1930s { t he e xp o siwry mode)
. b ef ore movi ng t<> th e 19!5o s and 1970s (the obs ervational,-inte rac tive, and
r efl exiv e modes)° with only a nod to the 1920s ("poetic exposition"). Thi s
inattention to th e twell ties facilitate s the �e ner al disre ga rd .for the ecstatic
· a nd d eliriou s i n doc umenta ry fi_lm theory and criticism.. On wha t grounds '·
do I m ake such a state ment? First b ecause th e twenti es we r e the pi nnac le ' .
moment of mode rnism, during which the b arriers separat!ng the· ar ts we.re
. .
mo st perm eable and in wbich cine ma was widely embrace d by cutting·
edge a rtists (Duch a mp, Ray, L eg er, _Rich ter, Dali). T h ei r fasci nation for .
the medium wa s due in p art to its ta ng ency with th e Rea-I, for the camera's
ability to create, in Richter'$ Words, "a reservoir of buman Ob servation in
th e simpl e st pos sibl e way,"8 while re maining ca pabl . e of effecting a ra. dical
d erang em . tbe ap ex of th e sil ent
. ent of. tlie senses. Th e tw enties were al so
era, during whi ch th e codes of visual expression had becom e e xquisi tely
refin ed, so th a t " eve n abstract notions [could b e mad e J concr e tely visible ·,.
in th e ima ge."� The a rrival of sound in the 1930s, couple d with the onse t
of glob al ec onom.i c cri sis and fascist r e pressi on, redire ct ed the d ocumen·
tary emphasis to pe rsuasion a nd the spoken word. Ir is crucial, at a time
i n which documentary is again being r e vivified by a n engag ernent with '
av ant-garde practi ces a nd s ensibilitie s (evide nced through th e work of '
Ha hm Faro cki,Joh an va n d er Kcuken; M a rlon Riggs, Su Friedrich, Rea
· Tajiri, an d others), that we. rei nvest our un�erstanding of documentar y
with its histor:ic en counte r with the twenties av ant·garde.
These a re th e hist oric al con cerns that inspire this r eturn to ea rly
docume ntar. y. But what is at .
stake in this·ioquiry into desi re, visuality,,
a nd nonfi ction film at th e level of epis te mology? In Representing Reality,
Bil.I Nichols argu e s that the re alm of subje ctivi ty in docume nta ry is of a
· subs t antially diffe r ent order from that which is pro duced in filmi c fic
ti on. He sugge sts tha t it i s an outwa rdly ori en ted, social subjec tivity tha t
is primarily a t issue, as for exampl e with th e Griers oni an pr oject in which
"inform e d citizenship" was ·the ostensibl e goal. Other subjectivitie s ar e
also p o ssible-from curio sity and fascina tion io pit)' and ch arity, fro m
poetic appreciation to anger or ra ge, from scien tific scrutiny to in flamed
hys tcria -bu t all function a s modes of en gag ement with re presentations
_ l world that ca n readily be extended b eyond the moment of
of t.he hi sto rica .
viewing into social praxis itself.
CHAB.OCD Vl SIOM .,
HARVARD UNIVERSITY HA.RVARD UNIVERSITY
Becaus e affec tiv e respons e c an lea d to social action, Nichols choose s
to defin e docum entary subjectivity in relatio n to the pra xi s it may provoke
rather than in its own teems.It is on th es e grou11ds tha t Nic hols can write
that "documemary r ea li sm � ligns itself with an epi st ephilia ... a ple asure
in knowing." "In igniting our interest," he continues, "a documenrar)' haS
a less incendiary effe ct on our eroti c fantasi es and sense of sexual iden
tity but a stronger effect on our social imagination and sense of cultural
identity. Docume ntary calls foe the e_ laborat ion of an epistem ology and
a xiology more than <>fan erotics."10 But it is simply nor the case that the
unconscious component of docun1entary spectatorship can be subsume d
b eneath the banner of an e roticism s o ove rtly thematizcd. As we will s ee,
knowledge and desire are ineluctably entwine d.
Nichol s 's notion of epistcphilia situ ates do cumentary on the side of
conscious rather than unconscious processes, public activity more than
ps ychical r ealiry. Nonfiction is, according to thi s reading, about engage
m.en.t with representations of the real; what macters is what yo" do with
reception rather than how the film is receiv ed, how a putative response is
evoked. Moreover,for Nichol s, nonfiction is diff erentiat ed from fiction,
whi ch i s s tory based and tied to an i maginary world,by virtu e of its being
by definition propositional; th e nonfiction ve rsi<>n of s tory is "argument,"
which i s understo<>d to be the de fining c onditi on of all docum entary
di egesis.11 Of c ours e,this view (which I would characterize a s d eeply ra
tionalist) depend s in some _measur e on the fil 01 knowing what it want s to
say. I would propose that this i s far from the ca se.
In The Interpretation ofDreams, Fr eud challenged the pree minen ce
of consciou sn ess i n \Veste rn thought; carrying his radic al skepticis m to
"the very h eart of the Ca rtesian stronghold." Paul Rico eur has called
Freud one <>f th e thre e "ma s ter s of suspicio n " who emerge d during the
nine teenth century (the othe rs being Marx and Ni etz sc he ); their l egacy
is doubt as to whether or not "c oosciousne.ss is such as it . appears to
its elf."12 In his magi ster ia l work oo dr eams, Freud sought to re ve rse a
rationalisr hie rarchization alive since rhe Greeks: "The unconscious must
b e ass um e d to be the general basis of psyc hical life," wrote Freud. "The
unc onsc ious i s th e l a rger sphere, which include s within it th e small e r
sphere of th e consci ous. Everything conscious has ao unc on s cic)us pre
liminary stage.... th e unconscious is the tru e psychical reality."U f<>r
Fre ud,"waking thought" behav ed toward. perceptual material muc h in
the mann er of secondary revision in ihe dreamwo rk; percept s wer e made
orde rly in conform ity with "our expe ctations of an intelligibl e whol e."14
Consciousness,for Freud and later Lacan,was in fact erected on �struc
tures of misrccognition " through which the self could ass ume it s s tatu s of
98 CHA aCED V1$101f

.
unici t y and sel f - suffici ency.But as
Loui s Althuss er fam ou sli• ar gued in the
1960s in th e context of id eol o gic al anal ysis , o ne could n eve r take the self
o r its representati o ns at th eir wo rd. In Althu ss er's view, psych oanal ysis
ha d ro bbed pl1il os ophy of irs origin s-God , r easo_n, cons ci ou sness , hi s
mry, and culture- ere cti n g i n ·its stea d th e r igorous study of the discour se
of the un cons ci ou s.I n shor't, Freud's "rev olutionar y discovery" challen ged
the epistemol o gy of pre sence and of consci o ust1es s.'_S Sl avoj Zizek's asse s s
. . . enormous contribution to Marxist analysis retu.rns to
ment of Althu sser's
..
tbe same point: "Habermas and Foucault are th e two sides of rhe same
coi n - the rea l bre�k is re pres ented by Althuss er , by his in si stence o n the
faCr that 3 certain cleft, a c.ertain fissure, misrecognition;Characrerizes che
human coodition as such."16
1t i s im portant to note that cecrain st rands of ph°ilosop!iical discourse
h ave ech oed the psych oana ly tic p osition th at ide ntifieJ; desirF as the d e
.
stabilizer o fkno wledg c, unde;srood to b e a fully"rational domain subjec t
only to the l a;..,s of science. Fouc ault (a lth ough i n sufficie ntly p sychoan alyti
ca l f or Ziz ek) de voted his fi rst y ear of semina rs at th e College de Franc e
(1970-1971) to a series of a nalyses tha t co uld g radually form a "mor pholo -
. gy of the will to k_nowledge." Foucault was interes ted in° th e cont ra st be
twee n an A ristotelia n e xplan at_i on f or ih e ge nesi s_ o f th e_ des ire t o know
(assu_ me d to be u niver sal. and natural ) in which kno wl e dge, truth·, . and · ••
pl easure share a . h armonious coexist enc e a nd a Nietzsc hean mo d el th at
p o sits a primordial con flict amon g them. \V.i th attributi on·to Ni et,schc's
The Gay Science, Foucault notes that Knowled ge. is a n "�nvemion" behind
which lies S<.>m ething co mpl e tely diffe rent f ro m itself : the play of ins tinct s,
impulse_ s, desires; fea r, and the will to appropriate. Knowl edge is pr o duced
on the stag e wh ere th ese e leme nts struggle against each oth_er,1 7
Of course, Fouca ult's su spicion tc.>ward k nowl edg e de p ended in l ar ge
pan on his a1) alysis-of its institutionaliu,cl power .
Whc·n I See-you straining ro establish thc.scicntificity of Marxi sm i do not
really thi11k that ,you a.re demonst rating once and for all th at Marxism !sub�
_stitute h ere "the documentary projec;t"] has 3 l:'ation al struccure and th :;at ·.
therefore its propos itions ai-e the outcome of verifiable procedures; for me
you are.doing s omething altogether differtnt, }'Ou are inv':!sting Marxist
["nonfiction"] discourses and those who .uphold them wirh the effects of a
power which the West si11cc Medieval times has attributed to science arld
.
ha s reserved for those engaged ih scientifi c discoursc.18
I unde rsta nd why Nich ols might wish to alig n do cumentary fil m with
oth_e r· "dis co urse s o f sob riet y,''. no nfi cti o nal syst em s such as. sc ien ce ,
eco nomic s , p oli tics, fo reign p olicy, educ ati o n, religio n, and welfare ch at
" as sume they have instrume ntal pow er " and "c an ...alter rh e w orld
CHAa <;£D VISION ''

Digitized by Origi nal from·
irself ... can effect action and entaiJ consequeh�cs."19 h is a matter of the ·
critic's des ire-to mobilize through association a greater power of action
for documenta ry. But this wish cannot be confu se d with co n ceptua l lucidi
ty. I w ould ar gue that knowledge as c onsc iou s thought ca nnot so easily be
se pa ra te d fro m the instinctual domai n and that Nichols's attribution of
sob r iety for docume nta ry obfuscates mor e than it re veals, fo r documen
tar y is equally a discou rse of delirium. To wha t, pre cise ly, do I refe r when
I ·speak of delirium i n thi s way? .
In her es say "Psyc hoa nalysis and the Polis," Julia Kristeva ha s ar
gued tha t "the simple knowing subject" is little more than a theoretical
fiction.Why?
The knowing subject ·is also a desiring subject, and the paths of des ire en
snarl chc parhs of knowledge. ...We normally assume the opposite of deliri
um to be <!11. objective re ality, objectively perceptible and objectively know
able, a s if the speaking subjecr were only a simple knowing subject. Yet we
must admit th at, gi ven the clea\•age of the subject (co nscious/Unconscious)
and given that the sub ect is also a subject of desire, perceptual and knowing
j
appreh ensio n of the or ginal object is only a theoretical, albeit undoubtedly
i
indispensable, hypothesis.20
ff we . a ssimilate such a notion of delirium within doc umentary film theory,

it becomes necessary to supplement accounts of nonfiction's sober aspira ·
ti on s with resea rch into the deforma tions and displacements that desire
effe c ts up on the system of percepti on/knowl edge.
·ro review, then, the a ssumption of knowledge as unassailable,
pro tecred f rom the vicissitudes of rhe instinctua l domain, ha s been c hal·
.
lenge d. So· roo b as the a lignm ent of d ocume nr a ty with.the "s ob er dis
cou r se s," a cla im that suborns th e pla y of the cine matic signifier a nd its
delirious effec ts ro the co nscious engagement of maker and spectator'ro
social issu es. Tbese c halle nge s were inaugurated through atte ntio n to
a single image , oiie tha t. l h ave a rgued c an be seen as the v e ry e mble m
o f documenta ry desi re, one in which the gaze is entirely separated from
its object.
r will now return to some concrete instari.c.es drawn from the silent
era of document ary practice i n the hope of spelling out with g reate r con·
c reteness the m.ix o f the conscious and unc ons cious co mp o nents of docu
mentar y spec tatorship. The re is, a s I hav e suggeste d, the nee d to accou nt
fo r a continuum of mo tives underlying docum entar y rec epti on _ra nging .
from what I would call histori ographical cu riosity (motivated by ou r mani
fest a pp etite to know the look and fee l of a past prese r ved fo r our view)
t o a mor e· free ly ass o ciative fascinatio n with the imag e a lo ng the li nes of
Bar thes's n otio n of punctum, t_he exp losive pr ick of c ontact with one's
1 00 CKAft�eo VISION
Digitized by Origi nal from

owo im age re p ertoi re evok ed by th e doc umentary image.21 In offerin g this
formul ation, then, I am ar g uing that the documentary image functions in
relati on to b o th kn owl edg e and desire;cvidenc e a nd lure, wi th nei ther ter m
e xerting exclusive c on trol. R ather, I would echo th e Ni erzschean po sition
th at knowledge i s pr oduc ed on t�e sta ge whe re instinc ts; impulses, desi res,
fea rs, an d the will to a ppr opri ate str uggl e a gai nst on e ahot.her:
l'. et u� take for example Es th er Shub'. s Tl,e Fall ofthe Romanov
Dy11ast.y (1927), which off ers the C(>nt emporar y · view�r represent ati onal
access to the life and cusloms of czarist Rus.sia. Given the prevaili n g an
iipathies to th e old· re gime , assembling the historical fo_otage was no s mall
tas k, just a few y ears aft er th e r e voluti on. Shub w rites :
This and my follow iog two films filled three years with the joy of search
ing, finding, "opening" historic.al film-documents-but nor in the film
librari es or archives, for there wert no such things then . In th e da 1np cel
lars of Gosktno, in "Ki no Moskv a," in ,he �luscum of che Revolu tion l ay .
boxes of·negatives and ran.d�m prints, and no ooe knew how they had go.t
thcr:c.11
Through her mont a ge ch oices, S hub b rilliantly sets in c.onflict the aris
toc rncy at th eir le i su re-"- s ippi ng tea wi th do g or mercily dancing until t he
ladie s,pcrs pi red from th eir �xeri-i oos- a gai nst i mages of those wh o indeed
toiled, wh ose sw eat y br ows w�r e has tily mopp ed only at thei r own ri s k.
The fil m r es pon ds to and inflames ()U r hi&to ri ogr a phica l curios it y ab out .
· a w orld on the b r ink of c atacl ysmic chang e. But ev en here tan be found
th e o ccas ion of other regi sters of documenta ry rec eption, as ill ust r ated. .·.
by a sequence in Ch ris M a rk er's The Last Bolshevik (1994), a videotape
comp o sed i n th e ma nner of a ser ie s of l etters sent . t o th e l ate Al e xand er
Medvedkin.
·For Ma rk er, Mcdvedki n' s bitt ers we e t life story is al s o that of the
S oviet Un ion. Born in 1900: the filmmaker's y ea,; span those of di e So
vi et st ate.; Marker's rend�tion of the doubl.e n a rrative introduces sOme
unexpec ted parallels. Amid st hi s re veri es surr oundi n g M edvedkin's early
years, Marker note s th ar Alcxa_ nd er lva novitch was only thirt een wh en tlw
R o m a novs cel eb_rated th�.th ree hu nd re dth . a nnivecsar y of thei r reign. He ·
returns to so me of th e n ewsreel fo ot age so ma st erf ully d eplo yed by S hub
ne a rly seventy y ear s pre vi ous l y . In The Fall ofthe Romanov Dynasty,
:
we are shown th e rit uali stic displ a ys d esi gn ed · t o aw e th e m u ltitudes :
the pr oc essi on s of f oreign dign itarie s jo ined by the czari st general_ s and
aristocr ac y pa rading thr ough the s treets. It is just h ere tha t M ar ker of
fers us his ow n reading of thi s pn)c�ssi ona l sc ene. Hi s narration supplies
us with a reading of a si ngle gesture f rom Shub's film along the li nes of
CffAflCCD Vl$10N IOI

t heBarth e sian punctum, in which a detail, "[occurting) in the fi eld of
the p ho tographe d t hing like a s uppl em ent t hat is a t once in evitabl e and
delightful," sp a rks a powe tful' response in the viewer.23 As we watch this
stately pro menade, step-printed for our obsessional view, the voice-over
ironically intones:
Every documentary on the period shows t his parade of dignita ries. But who
has looke d at it? That gestu rc.,of the big chap tapping his own head. What
does ir me.an? Tha t the crowd is crazy? No. He's telling them to take off their
caps. You don't keep your hat on-before: 11obility . I imagine wha, advice a
Russian Machiavelli would have given these pompous men. Rule, exp loit,
kill now and thei11 l'.iut never humiliate.
I n Ma rker's hands, th is newsre el bec ome s the o cc,isio n for.a sp ecu

la ti on tha t combines, whim sy and his toric al re se a rch. The r e are simil ar
passag es i n Letter from Siberia (1957) and Sans soleil (198,). The crucial
poi n t here i s tha t the journey to discursive sobriety at the level of d ocu
men tary re ce pt ion is set temporarily adrif t by fan tasy . Marker's·text sug
gests t he ways in wbic h docM>entary images, while denoti ng history (via
the newsreel) and pro mulga ting per suasion (as Shub does), c an and do in
cite a metonymic m ovemen t that is the play of desir e cap able of explodi ng
historica l discours e.
I would at t he s,a me time argu e io t he oppos ite direction: ecsta tic
vi ewin. g ca n be s hot t hrough with. sob . r i e ty. Ta ke,Jor
. e xa mple,Jo ris lv ens's
Rain (1929 ), one of the fi nest exa mples of the cine-po em, a docum entary
whose propositional cha ra�tcr is far less at issue than its power to evoke
s ens ory e xp erience or crea te mood, The film i s d e eply atm osphe ric�
Ams terdam in t he rain-y e t the depicted spac e is i n part a n imaginar y
one, concocted ove� a £out-month period from t�n or more rainstorrns. 24
The iniage s, en hanced by th e mus ical accomp anime,nt, are darkly dre a my.
Yet des pite all appeals 10 wha t we might call an Imaginary engagement,
Rain a lso resp onds to spectator ia l demands of anot her so rt. Be yo nd evo ·
ca tion, Ivens allows the view er 10 apprehe nd one crucia l featu re of t�e
phy sica l world (n ame ly, ra in) in a ma nne r ava ila ble only through the. cine ;
m �tic appa ratus. We ca n - repea te dly an d from multiple p oints of view
wa tc h wa ter flo w; drip, st reak, puddl e , p oo l, and c ascade . We l earn some•
thi�g of t he opr ics that pro duc e wa tery reflections 'we se e di splay ed the
p ri nciple of su rface tensi on as warer y ie lds to gravity, we note t he power ()f
water t o refract light r ay s , i n arre s ting patt erns. Whil e we le arn somethi ng
of the lo ok an d fee l o f Ams te rdam in the late 1920s, we are equa lly pr ivy
to rhe unc hanging phy s ic al laws t hat dete rmine t he behavior o/ water. In
sho rt, Rain co uld play to rhe scientific curio sity of t he student of physics
.
102 C HARCCO VISIOM'

or m ete o rology as we ll as to the c inephile . Thu s we could say thac, lodged
withi n on e of che g reat aesth e ti c experi enc es of ea rly documentary fil m,
ther e is, at lea st p o te ntia lly, a scientific vi e wing le sson of a mor e sober
va ri ety. Again, documentary specta torship is shown to be th e sice of mul
tiple, even C01!flictual, desires that traver se the'. pr esumed barriCrs between
col1scious and unconscious processes.
l t is a pp ro priate that chis a na lysis ha s drawn the bulk of its ex ampl e s
from films.of th e 19�os, produc.ed at the peak of the av ant-gard e's exhili•
·ration for cineinacic p()ssibilitics. Rationalist aims were far removed from
th e e xperim enc ations of L e ger, Buiiuel, Vig o , or Vertov. If I h ave atcempc
ed to trace the inter pl ay of e piste pbilic motiv es and un spok en desires th a t
f ue l docum entary rece ption , no pe riod so amply illus trates this amalg am
as the t�enti es. It was Vcr·cov, in 1912., who · could write of a "desi re f or
kinship with the machine," a d esire that fou nd'. its suppon in the endl ess
perfec tibili ty of th e kino-e y e :25 \Vith thi s ut opi an phras e a nd th rough the
dy na mi sm of his imager y, Ve rrov for e ver link ed chc rationalist and sci en
tific potentialities of che m edium w ith the imp o ssible a nd th e famasmatic.
As we attempt to form ul ate the principl e s und erlyi ng th e rece ption of th e
docume ntary fil m, we would do well to re call chc histor ica l lessons be fore .
"
us, to ra ke imo a ccount th e manner in which cinetnatiC vision has, fiOin
the b eginn in g, b een ch arged wi t h a dee p y e 1 f ugiti ve desi re.
..
'
CHABGCD V ISl<;H t 103
Digitized by Original fr?m

[ 6 ] The Subject in History: The New
Autobiography in Film and Video
First published i11 After image i11 the summ er of r989, "The Subject in
Hi sto ry" exami11es the tur n to autobiog raphical film- a11d videom aking
in the 1980s in re la tion to post-r96os the ore tic a l i11terventio11s tha t
challenged cer tain fundam.ental bulwarks of Wes t ern thought-the ad e
·qu a cy of history, the c entrality of the subject, the coherence of ma ste r
narrative s. In ptlrt, the es say i s a pa ea n to the film- and v ideomakers who
pursue si111ilar 1nallers in thefr fIYtistic practice, constructing historical
s e lves that are nonetheles s sit es ofinstability rather tha n col,e re nce. As
in cha pt er 4, there is a r etu rn to the model of the (Mont aig11 ean) essay
a nd its fil m ic ava t a r, Jon a s M ek as's Lost, Lost, Lo st, but the scop e of the
argume nt is bro ade r . The emphasis her e is on the historic al a nd theoreti
cal und erpinnings ·or the ·'new hi st oricis m" i11 1980s autobiographicai
.film- and videomaki ng .
Andso the opfoion Igive. .. is to declare the measure of

my sight. not the measure ofthings.
:: Monto:igne, Essays
I am elsewhere than where Iam when Iwrite.

:: Rol<1nd Bmthes. RolandBarthes
The work undertake;, h ere takes as its object "the essayistic in film and
vid eo." I borrow the notion of the es say from the lit erary ttadition with
caution and am careful to stipulate one traj ectory from within a cich and
diverse genealogy-that which was initi ated by Michel de Montaigne in
the lat e sixteenth century and repr ised in rece nt yea r s in the final wo rks
of the late Roland Ba rthes. Before I examin e the specif ic cha racter of the
essayistic for the visual media, however, some clarification of the deter-
..
,
mining conditions of that ve rsio n ol the ess ay activ ate d here i s requ ired.
In The Barthes f:.ffect: The Essay as Reflective Text, Re da Bensmai a
claims that the e ssay, as practiced by Bartbes aiid hi s several prec ursors
from Montaign e to lh eodor Adorno, constitutes an. "imp ossible genre ... .
combining .. . at the . same time theory, critical combat, and pl easure ."' .. ·
£pit<)mized by Roland Barthes par Roland Barthes but alread y in emb ryo
in Montaigne's Essays ( c. 1580-1588), t he es sayisii c c an b e s aid to ap
proach th e h orizons ol the w rit erly as propos ed in Ba rthes;s:S/Z- the text
as a "trium ph ant plural," r�versible ; without begi nnings , a galax y of sig'
. nifi ers ro which we gain access by several cntrances, . �' flone o( whi ch can
be authoritatively dec lared to b e the main one "2 .. ·
I n singling <mt this version of the e ssay fro m all_ t he oihcrs . {the
_ empiricist, humorous, oc confessional modes of . Lpcke, . B�con, Lamb,._ ·
Au gustin e , or Ro usseau), I privil ege a writi n g prac tice that co upl e s a
docume ntary impuls e-· a n ou twa rd gaze_ upon th e world- with an equally
forceful refl ex o f self-interrogation. This doubl e or reciprocal fo cus effects
an uncea.sing, even obsessive, exploration of subjectivity that situates jrself
within a matrix that is irre ducibly mate rial and of necessity historical-, C,u· ,
cial to an understanding of su�h a writing practice is t·hus its ConsrructiOn ·
of� s ubj ec tivit y at odds with th e dichotomous subject/objec t model of
De�cartes . ,:
Much of contempo rary theory since Jacques Lacan h as'presu mcd ' .
the mutually definin g (ev en " circ ulatory") charac te r of ihe subject and its
. other ("we dep end on the fi eld of the Other, which was there long b efore · .,
we ca me into the world, a nd whose ci rculating structures determine us·as

subjec ts"). 3 The Mom a igri ean or Barthesian essay enacts·that interp en e
tration: "in a sense, self and ohject o rga· oize each other, bur only in a tem
pora ry way."4 If the subject and the hiitorica l f ield are mutually config u r
i n g in essa yi s ti c dis course (th e measur e of sight/the measure of. things ), s o
too are a uthor and ivo rk, the writing and written se lves. "We go hand i n
hand a nd at the sam. e pac e, my book and I," writes Monta igne . "In oth et
cases one may c ommend or blame the wo rk apar t from the wo rk mao; no t
. so h ere ; he wh o touch es the one, touch es. the other.·"• S The ess. .ayistic thus .
share s some thi ng of th e character of autobiography; which, in th e sense
sugg ested by Jacques Derrida, mobilizes m eaning al on g a dy�ami c b or der'.
line b et ween th e "work". and th e "iife," the system and th e s ubject of the
sys tem.6
. ,.
As di scourse, the essay embroil s the subj ect in history; eounci ation
and its referential object are equ a lly at i ssu e. The ess ayi sti c stages s ubjec
tivity thr o ugh a play of successive se l f -metaphorizati on in a mann�r con
sistent wich th at ''radical heteronorny... gaping wi thin man" th. at Lacan
TNt SUIIIECT llf Hl $T0ft'I' lOS

cla ims as Fr eud's monumenta l disc overy_? The es say (like its kindred
autobiographic al forms. ) is tha t prac tice of wri. ting re spo nsive to . Bar thes's
pronouncement on me taphOr-"yOu cannot get to the he.art of a refrain;
yt)u can o nly subs titute a nothe r-one for it."8 And for Montaigne's Book of
the Self as.f or Roland Barthes /Jar Roland Bart/Jes, subjectivity remains
the master metaphor .
Of equ al sigi1ificance is the ess ay's disa f(iliati on with certai nty.
The ess ayis tic bea rs with it a l ogi c tha t question s t he ve rities of rhetori-
ca l co mpos itio n and of sy st em, indeed, of maste ry itself; the status of the
subject a s trans ce ndental or originary is likewise challenge d. M.ont.aign e's
self-a ppr ais al i n "Of Re p entan·ce" ("I do not por tray being; I portray
passing")9 is e choed four cen tu ri es .larer in Barthes's qua n dary ov er a
discourse tha t, despite its indiffer ence to "truth," remains rhe torica lly as
sertive. His remedy-"absurd . .. everyone would s urely a gre e, to add to
e ach sen te nce s om e little phrase of unce rra inty."10 The formulation of the
Lacanian subject as a drift, fading, ev er -eclipsed, pos its that indeter minacy
a s an effect of language, of the "incessan t sliding of the signified u nder
th e sig.nifier.�11 The essayistic makes practice of thar theorization. As an
nou nc ed by the author of Roland Barthes, the writing subj ect's u nwilling
ness to be p geonhole d, e v en by a dis c our se of his own ma ki ng, results
i
in hi s a doption of a n "intern al d octrine" pe rtinent to the essay form in
g ene ral-" tbat of atopia (of a drifting habit ation). " 12
I hav e chosen to think of the co ntemporary work in film and video
that shares s om ething of the essayi s tic agenda a s a ki nd of lifeline b etween
the rec eive d ca tego cies of the documem ary and av an t-garde, e ach of which
bas been discurs iv ely a nd ins titution ally cl oistered to.its dis{ldvantage. The
work I will di scuss takes up the co ns iderati on of what might be called the
"ne w autobiogr a phy," with the undcrstan diog that the taxon omic limits of
terms such as diary, autobiography, a nd essay demand to be s up erscde d. 13.
Rath er than fo cu sing on the di stinctiveness or sp ecifi city of each, though
such a sorting out is essentia l, l s hall s p eak.of the autobiographical, which
in its adjectival form evokes the acJivity of sel f -inscription shared by all.
Alt)'i ou gh 1 will c on sider thie e autobiographical inst an ces-Jonas Mekas's
Lost, Lost, Lost_(197.5), Ilene Segalove 's My Puberty (1987), and Lynn
Hershman's First Person Plural (1988)-i t is th e fir s t of th ese works ihat
will occupy the bulk of my atte ntion, with t he lat ter two func tioning pri
.
marily r o suggest avenues fQr future elaboration.
On e of the most debilitating myth s of contemporary North American
life is the allege d c ontrari ness of the r ealms of art and science . We of the
huma ni tie s ar e m eant t o have little in common with those who devot e
them s elve s to the "har d scie nces "; in dee d, it is frequently supp ose d that
106 THC SU tl tCT IN HISTORY

the language$ that.nanic and govern o�r resp ective pursuits are u.otrans
Jatable . A particul arly pern ici ou s eff ect of thi s assumed cl e avage involves
the questi on of fi nancial suppon, b oth publi c a nd pri v ate . S cience gtants
assume .the ne cessity of the effo r ts the y°foster, no matter h ow· arc a ne they
. . .
may appear.to the laypers on; supp ort ,s b estowed u p on the bcarers · of a
speci al k,i o wlcdge who lab or ori our behalf. Si nce World Wa r II, froll\
whi ch the U nite d Stat es emer ged w ith t echnological h eg emo ny, the as
sumption has pci-sisted that the nation's foriuncs are tied to surpassing tb e
scicn tific achiev ements o f firs t the Sovie .ts, then the Japa nes e. The rhe tor ic
0
th a t · acc o mpanie d the ·s pac·e r ace shar es with the scra;,,bl e for the next .
generation o f semiconductors an e ssentiall y imper ativ� mode-do or di e .
. Cu lture, o n the oih er hand, ha s i n thi s. country b een pu"rsue d at great
er l eisure; act or philosophical inquiry is always "in excess" of necessity. < •
Th e very discipt'i11es whose aims e ncompass the co;'.,,prehe nsion �nd th eof''
rizati on of all forms o f hu man actio n (philo so phy, history i- ncl uding ·
rhe history . olsci enc e- and an thro pol ogy) fi nd th ems el ves s truggling. to
attract tli e i nstit�rional su pport that al one ca n gua.ramee the ir future. It
i s my as sumption thar th ere i s a very real linkage be tween the fortunes
of such pursuits and ou r _ nationa l destiny. We have alw ays nee ded t ech '
nol o gy, from· wheel to rocket ship, but we have r equi red wi th even greate r
ne c e ssiry the underst anding of th e me anings and effect s o f o � r handi work.
Out su rviva l h as al wa ys d e pende d with equal f orce on a more co mpre
h en si ve und erstanding rhat ca rr situate local kn owledg es withi n the l arg-
est framework. . Fo r wbat i s mere su rvi.val with out bene fir of dignity or
inte lligence?
If th e huma�i sts a re undervalued by an instru ment alist persp ective
· that fa vors th e hardwa r e ove r the l e ss ta ngible fruits of tho ught, what
. ;
more · can b e said for the ar ti s t? What plac e in so ciety is afforded th e

one who em pl o ys met apho r or abstracti o n to con templat e the mean ings
and eff ects of our c oll e cti ve inventions? And h ere I dare to di stingui sh
. betwee n the fine a�tist a nd the one wh o roils in the v ineyards of mass cul
ture. D wight MacD o nald once disparagingly ch arac terized mas s art as
the wo rk of .tech n ici an s in. the employ of busin essmen. No t tha t I mean to
sli ght tho s e who mak e th ei r li v in gs o n the fra gil e border o f art and en ter
tainn1ent. I li ve i n one o f the ca pitals o f the culture i ndustry, an d I do no r
under e stimate its virtu es. Neverth el ess·, my concern is with the relativel y
(Jisenfran chised who work i � near isolation, attempti.ug to preserve or r e·
fa shi on our culture, to i nterpret our lives and emoti ons for us, to ask qu es
ti _ons and s uggest an swe rs i n terms whose par ti al opacity is part of the
me ssage . Thi s i s no t "pnlductio n for use ," rhe rea l m o f practic ality or im
me diate payo ff: But it i s in thi s d o ma in of arti s tic practic e -at the margi
_ ns
THE S08JECT Ill' Hl STORT 1 07

HARVARD UNIVERSITY. HARVARD UNIVERSITY
and iot er s tic es - thar one c a n begin to ta ke rhe mea sure of a cu lture, co
discover its la t encies and p hobi a s as we ll as dismantle its p reconception s.
This is the work tha t d eserv es our a tte ntion. An d we may v ery w ell
wish to borrow a n idea or tw o fro m our sc ie ntific co lleag ue s as we c onsid
er the art iss u · es ?t han d. There [s gre at respect in rhe scientific community
f or "b asic rese arc h." Only c o nsider the homage paid to the ca teg ory of
d efe nse appropriations: a ll hail the re p ose of labora tory c onditions-the
place of d etac he d musing s a nd speculation-that gives birth to n ew str a
teg i c d efense sy stems. Acc ordin g to this mo del, the sc ientis t must b e a f
fo r de d the opp or tu n ity to "stumble upo n" the n ext brea kth ro ugh that
could not hav e been a nticip a ted within the p revailing p a radigm s. It is my
belie f that the ind epe ndent ar ti s t is like wise f reque ntly a bsorbe d in "basic
re search." Sp ecu la tive work o f this sor t can thus b e cont rast ed with the
�actic a l applica tion o f the e ntert ain me nt pr of essional who tests the elas
ticiry of p reexisten t forms, produ cing, for e xa mple, the la test v a ri ant of a
genre vergi ng on exha ustion.
La te ly I have b egun to thin k a lot about a dir ec tion of film an d vlde o
pra ctice tha t s ee ms to b e e xplor ing questions that ha ve oc cupied the at
tention of so - ca lle d h umanis ts for a t least t wo dec ades. Since the impor ta
_
ti on of struct ura li st (then posts t ructuralist) thought fr om the Conti nent
s ometime in the 196 o s - t he work of Claude Lev i-Straus s in an th ropolo
gy, Michel Fouca ult in history, an d Lacan, Banhes, a nd Derrida in phi'
loso phy a nd litera ry the ory - certa in funda m enta l questions reg a rdi ng
the ground ru les of repre se ntation ha ve been activated. ·Ho w ca n one ade,
q11ately re present history or ethnologica l subgroup,_ t h rough writt en w ord
or sound/image p lay, without recourse to emplotment., trope, or nanativc.
c onve ntion? If Fo ucault writ es in favor of histo rica l disc ours e as em bra c
ing djsconrinuity-rhe arrenrion to t upturc, threshold, and transform<JtiOn
rathe r tha n to linea ge a nd c o ntinuity-d,1mes tic schola rs such as H ayden
White, Cliffor d Gee rtz, an d Ja mes Cliffor d hav e a dd ed the ir voi ce s to th e
question ing of tbe a dequ aC)' of repres en tation for the d escription of phe
no me na as we ll as for the i nter pret ations th at follow.
· One effect of this mo de of thought has be en the er osi<m of the pr e·
sume d mastery t hat s cien tific discourse bas c la i med to o ffer s inc e the
eighte enth century. Su ch doubts w ere pe rh ap s inaugurat ed by Freud's ·
wor k on the unc onscious, w hic h sugg est ed tha t analy s_is of an y sor t w as
intermina ble. All interpret a tion, in fact a ll repre se ntation, was claimed to
dep en d upon a play of me t aphor and m eton ymy, of con densa tion and dis
pl acement, p rodu cing mea ning through an en dle ss p lay of simila rity an d
diffe rence. Ba rcbes 's pronouncement rhat denotation is merely one privi
leged m ome nt o f connotati on simply restates that p sy choan alytical find·
108 THC SU81C-CT IM HISTOIIY

ing..Anthr op ol o gist Geer tz's wri ting evid ences th e impac t th at thi s e pi ste
mol ogica l po si t ion has mad e on t he soci al s ci e nces in bis acknowl edgment
of the limi t s of hi s own discourse . "I ha ve nev er go tten anywhere near to
. the b<,ttom of anything I h ave ever written ·about ," says G eertz. "Cul tura l
an alysis is intr i� sically incomple te. And, worse th a n that, t h e .more deeply
it goes the less con:iplete jr is."1 4
If posts tr�ctu rali st phil osophy has contribut ed to t he und ermining
of absolute certainty, i,s structuralist precursor moved in the direction of
sys tematic kn owledge, toward the d ete rmi nation of th e ru les go�erning a
dis cou r s e, th e discover y of the paradigms ge nerate d within a proble maric.
The in teres t in th e. "authorless text" begun wi th Lcvi-Strauss's studies of
my t h and kins hip struc ture h elped to unseat ge nerations of schol arship.
th at sough t to und ers ta od an through a critica l focus o n the ar tist. T h e
intention ali st fallacy began tO'nullify· the auteurist bias in fi lm stud(es tha t
had re ached its peak .;,ith rhe Cahiers·du
. . . Cinema writers -· turne d-cineasts
such as Fran�ois Truffaut , Jean-Luc Godard, and Eric R ohmer. Much
th eoretic ally inclined cu lru ral cri ticism be gan to abjure t h e personal in
f a�or of the systematic a nd its attent ion to discursiv e function and effe ct.
L acani an ps ychoanalytic cr itici sm, far from hypostasizing a deter mining
or coh erent self, s har ed the semio tic age nda and t hus te nded to foriilul ate ·,
t he subj e c t not as <! c oh erent- site of k no,vl edg e or creativit y to be under '..
sto od and interpre ted but is an "effect" of the l arger pl ay of signification
of whicb it was a p,,r t.
But the receot out po uring of'work by indep ende nt fil m a nd video art
is t s who e vid en ce an attach ment both to the docume ntary impulse and to
the compl ex re presentation of th eir ow n s ub j ectivi t y le ads me to be lie ve
that we are witnes sing an e fflore. scence of "basic research" t h at g rappl es !.
with-and signific an tly enriche s-ques tions that th eo ri sts h av e been .

posing f or years. We co uld say th at this re cen t work, which·straddl es the
receive d b oun daries of d o cumentar y and rhe avant-garde, regards his tory
and subjectivity as mutua lly d efining c ate gori es. Th at th e world b eyond
tl\e self is ne cessarily_ fil tered through th e perceptual apparat us c omes as
no re vela tion; i t is, howe ver, th e process of wh at Freud calls se cond ar y re - .
· vision that rcm..iins.at issue here
. .
Histo ric al di scour se h as, af ter all, co me to be re gard e d a s the re p-
rese ntation of pe opl e , forces , and even t s from a par ticul ar p�r spec tive.
F�mi_n ists·, for exam ple, h ave reminded us th at the attentio n io standard
hi s tor y texts t o mili tary mil estones rath er th an to th e tra nsm iss io n of
so cie t<1I values merely replic ates th e patr iarch al bias (hi - s)tor y ov er hers.
If we can say that hi stor y b el on gs to tho se with th e power to r e -prese n t
it, lit tl e wonder that. film .an d video practitioners h av e c ome t.o s h are the
TH£ SUBJECT IN H1$TOaT 109

revisionist hi storian's suspicion for top-down institutional accounts. In
stead, a numbe r of contemporary artist s seem to ha e gravitated towa rd
1l
an appr oach in which a pas t, frequ ently public, e vent is figured through
recourse to th e subject, the c ategory of the sdf, through a varie ty of mo
dalities I s hall discu ss pres e ntly.
Of equal importance i s the rec ogniti on tha t the "return of the
subject': is not, in the s e works, the occasion for a nostalgia for an un
proble matic self-absorpt i on. lf wha t I am ca lling "the ne w a- utobiogr aphy"
has any clai m to theore tica l precision, it is due to this work's construction
of subje ctivity as a site of in stability-flux, drift, perpetual rev is ion
ra th er than coherence. Laca n ba s staked his version of the psyche on the
n o ti on tha t the constitution of th e subject dep e nds on a funda ment al
misrecognition in which th e c hild, age d six to eighteen months, see s in bis
mirrore d im age a self well in advan ce· of his true condition, the "motor in
capac ity and nursling dep e nde nc e" of the infant. Thi s identifi ca tion with
an "idea l I," in the words of Lac an, "situates the agency of the ego ... in
a fictio na l directi on."15 The po st structu ralist v ersion of subjectivity is thu s
at odds with the We stern tradition si nce D e scartes that posits the "I" of
th e cogito as the a nc hor and foundation of be ing, the locus of a ce rtainty
th at reflect s in min iature th e sove re ignty of god.
The works in qu estion thus undcrt:rke a double and mutua lly defin
ing in scription -of history and tbe self-that refuses the categorica l a nd
the totalizing. An approa ch su ch as thi s-embracing digre ssio n, reve rie,
the revelation of public hi story through the private a nd assoc iational - has
been argu ed to be an intrinsic feature of literary aut obiography. "Auto .,
biography complete � m) picture," write s Janet Va rner Gunn. "Instead,
it rej ects whole ness or harmony, ascrib ed by formalists to the w ell-m ad e
art ob ject, a s a fal se unity which serve s as i,o m ore than a defense a ga in st
the self's deep er knowle dge of its finitude." 16 The transgressive status
that some lit erary theori sts havo a scrib ed ro autobiography, "as a formal
mutation, a hy brid genre ... defina ble neith er as fiction n or nnnfiction
not ev en a mixtur e of th e tw o,"17 applies with equ al forc e to the film
and video v aria nts. The n e w autobiography, far fro m off er ing an unse l f
consciou s transcription of the artist's life, posir.�·a subject ,lever exclusive
so
of it s oth er -i n-hi s tory.In doing, it c hall eng es certain of our staunchest
aest he tic an d e piste m ologic al preconc eption s.
I have chosen to .spe ak about three ve ry different e xamples of,the n ew
autobiogr aphy: (me film, Meka s's Lost, Lost, Lost, a nd t,vo vide otapes,
Segalove's My Puberty and Hershma n's First Person P/i,ral. .The c hoic e
of such diverse pieces t es tifie s to the rang e of appro aches and tona litie s
a va ila ble with_ i n the genr e. Each combine s an expli cit and familia r le vel
110 Tltt SU91CCT llt HISTORT
D gitized by Original from

i
of prese nta ti on - of the self, the artist in embr yo, hi storic ally sit uated
with another, implicit discur:sive enterpi-is e, namel y, research into th e
pote nti als of self-p resema tion fo r mov i ng -i m age f o rms. It is th rough .
· work such a s this that we are brought ro reconsider Eliz abe th W. Br uss's
pro nouncement on filmic autobi o graphy. In.her "Eye fo r I: M aking and
_Unmaking Au .tobi o g ra phy in _Film,'' llruss makes the cl ai m th a t literacy·
a u tobi ogra phic a l.activity, once ce ntral a nd per vasive, h as l argely been
displaced by new medi a form s. "If film a!}d sideo do come to repl ace writ-·
ing as. our: chief rneans of recqrding, informing, and cntertaining,n writes
Bruss; " and ii ( a s I h o_j:,e co show) there is no re al cinem atic equivaknt f or
autobiogra phy, then th e autobio graphical act aS WC h ave k nown it f or the
pa st four.hu ndr ed years could ·indeed become mor e and more recondite,
and eve ntua lly_ e-Xtincc."18 My own po sition w ould be th at a utobi og raphy,
far f rom being a n e,1d angered speci es, shows new sig ns_ of life. It is rhe si re
· of a vit-a l cre ativ e i n itiativ e bei n_ g und er tak en by film- and vid e omakers ...
, around th e world rhat is transformi n g the ways we thi nk ab out and repre - ·
sent oucsel v es for ou rselves and foe others .
•
...
Mekas and the Diary Film

�' ..
To speak of M ekas's monume ntal diary. p roject entitled Diaries, Notes,,
and Sketches (1975) (of which th e three-and- one-half-hou r Lost, Lost, ','-
Lost i s but th e first volume) is to eng age with one of the cruci al v oic e s in i"
the dev el_ opment of U.S. in dep end ent ci nema. At the ti me of Lost's release
in the mid-r97os, Mek as h ad been filmi ng fragments of hi s life.with one
or an oth er spri n g-wo und Bolex fo r mo re t ha°i:', a qu arter ce ntury. Within
two weeks of his atriv al from Lithuani a i n 1949, Mekas and his b r other .
Ad olfas began the ob sessiv e documentation- of their lives and acti vities
with a n accele rating focus on the cultural activities tha t co uld support
th eir cre,itive aspirations (Jonas had be en rc.co gn ized i n Lithuani a as a
yo ung b ut accomplished poet in ihe ro ma ntic tra dition). We k now from . ·
M ekas's w ritings th a t tliis proce ss of di aris tic ima ge g athering was origi
nally i n tended as pcepa rati on for m ore conve ntiona l eff or ts. "I th ought
wh at I was accu.ally d oing was practici ng," b e wr ites. "I wa s prepari n g
myself, or tryi ng to ke ep in touch with my c amera, so t hat whe n the day
would c ome wh en I'll h ave time, then I would make a 'real' (ilm ."'9 But in
th e years th at followed, Mekas's life becam e a succession of c u ltural inter
v entions tha t resha ped · rh e U.S. ci nema . I n 1955 he founde d ch·e infl uential
jour n al Film Culture, whi c h combined for the fi r st time exami nati ons
of the Hollywood an d European ar t cinemas with a ttemi on to a nascent
.
TH£ SU8JtCT llt Hl$t0flT 111

HARVARD UNiVERSITY HARVARD UNIVERSITY
i nde pen dent movemen t for which Mekas was chief public a dvocate, mos t
not ably in the pages of bis "Movie Journa l" c ol umn in the Village .Voice.
By t he late fifti es, he had lau nched the Film-Makers' Cooper ative, a col·
,
lectively organized distribution s ervice a imed at maximizing artists con•
r rol at the expe nse of the institutional middleman, a s well as tw o ongoi ng
exhibiti on vehicles-Film -Makers' Ci nemathcque and the AnthologyFi lm

Archive. By the early sixties, Meka s ha d thus b ee n instrumental in creat
i ng an alterna tive media culture that cou ld su stain itself at the levels of
produ cti on, dis t ributio n, and e xhibiti on while furnishing it with a base
of critic al support. As organizer, pole1nicist, journa list,. and practicioner,
'
Mekas wa s the linchpi n of what he calle d the New Ame rica n Cine ma.
R ecall that my ca s e for the new a utobiography is premised on the
work as a n embr oiling of subject in hi storyFa . r from pos iti ng the auto
biogra phical a s solips istic, this p osition defines it as a practic e of in
'scripti on i n �hich che dom a i n of the subject a nd that of the e nveloping
world are mutually c ons titutiv e: s elf a nd other/s elf t hr o ugh other. A s an
exempl ary in sta nce, Lost, Lost, Lost, chronologically the firsc of many
volumes of Diaries, Notes, and Sketches, orchestrates pu blic a nd perso nal
doma ins while operatin g a t the borde rs of docume ntary and avant-garde
or privatis e prac tice s. Much in the ma nner of Mon taign e's du al f oc us (on
_
· the mea sure of sight an d of things), Meka s redefin ed the diariscic withi n
the cinematic c ontext, obligi ng his diary "t o regis ter the reality to which I
react and al so ... to re gi st er my state of feeling (and all the memorie s) as
I reacc.•20 Author ial styl e thus becomes the effect of an in evitably mediat
in g subjectivity in it s e ncount er with t he world. The full comple xity of
thi s e ncounter i s effect ed only th.r ough the inte r play of so und and image;
Meka s's intermittent narration reassesses the viewed material from a s
much 3s a quarter century's remove, installing through this temporal dis·
junction a pre vailing poign ancy.
The diary film, like the ho me movi e with which it is aligne d, pr e
sum e s an a ct o f docume n ta ti on , if only thr ough the p rcscryation of
t he frag ment� of e ve ryday life that en vel op tlie se lf. Of co urse, the ar t
i s\ may choose to image _he rs elf in the isolati on of a na ke d-st udio, as

Ly n n Hershman does . In chat ca se, the vi sual docume m appr oa che s the
ra r efied statu s of the writte n diary, u nburden ed with the weight of the
visible world. In contra st, Meka s's dia ry ima ges a rc subt ended by a se
ries of histories that ca� be. trac ed across the film. I n the first in stance,
ther e i s the dis cour se on the di s placed person and the Lithuania n com
muniry that s hares its exil e in Brookly n . The fil m, as Sc ott i'Vla cDonald
b as n ot ed, 21 i s orga niz ed as three se ts of couplets: t he first pair foc using
o n the Lithua n ian com munit y i n Brooklyn, the seco nd on the forma ti on
11 2 tHI: SUIIJCCT Uf HIST OI\Y

of a ne w lif e in Ma n hatt an and t he forgi n g of so cial a nd poli ti cal ties
out s i_ de the exile comm u n ity, the. l as t on the develo pment of a ci nematic
.
aes the tic of s p on ta neit y and p er so nalisrn. Me kas re main . s the vi sual ·
chronicle r throughout. The stark bl a ck an d white o f cer t ain-ima ges early
on e vokes thi r tie s documen tary photo g raphy in its combin a tion of pre
ci se comp osi tiona l valu es and compelli n g subje ct ma tt er : tbe arriva l of
displac ed p ers ons at the Twe nt y -third Street Picr;tbe s pare ramshackle ·
of a Willi ams burg f r on t s too p, or the rou nd fac e s o f the exil ed you n g ·
framed in tenement win dows. Subse quent portions of the fil m tr a ce a kind
' .. .
of cross-c u ltural Oedipal iti nerary in which the .iti ne rant. poet seeks the
moment of spiri tual reso) utio n deni ed him by his exi l e. lnde �d, the fil m's
openi n g invoc ati on ("O si n g, Ulys ses , sing your trave l s") est a bli shes the
· shape of wh at follows;_. le ngthy j ourn e y cul minati ng i_ n an arriva i rhat i s
..
equ ally a re tu r n . Mekas's pe rsonal traj ector y i s, ho we ver, c oinciden t with
se ver al others -that of-the 'late fiftie s peace movemen t, and more c en t rally
the emergent New Ame rica n Ci nema, wi thi n which the fi l mm a.·ke r a ppears
to find hi s place at las t, · ·
But throughout, Mek as 's narr ation testifies to a co�tinuing ob session
for the witness in g and docume nting o f e venrs -a n activity whose e ffic ac y
is non etheless repeatedly conte ste d by the film's con flictual voices : "An d
I was there, and I w as the ca me ra eye, I was the witness , a nd I re corded ,
it all, and I don't k now, am I singing or an, I c r yi n g." These. wor ds ac:
com pany i mage s from th e early fiftie s -of placard-bearing Lithuan i ans ,
traditi ona lly clad, marchi n g along Fifth' Avenu·c prote sti ng the S oviet oc - ::,
. cupation of rhe i r land, or the im pass ioned oration o f exil ed leaders s pea k .•
ing to packed hall s. I n a m anner c onsi sten t with the poststr uctur alist
conception of th e subj e ct, ne ithe r fixed nor cate go rical, the first-pers on
pronomi na l rep etitron of this refra in , ("An d I was-there, and I was the
came ra e ye, l was the·witn ess ....") prod uces a subjectivity i n flux, slidi n g
b ene ath the ve rbal signifier. Des pite all effort s.to remai n "tr u e" to pe r - .
sonal expe de n ce, rhe auto bi ographe r fac es the intrusion of the i ma gi nary
into discourse; the . self refuses to "sit still'' for any si�gular nomination:
"The i m · age -sy s.tem cre ep s in stea lthily," writes B art hes, "ge ntly sk ating
over a verb tense, a pronoun, a m.emory, i n shortt everything that can be
gather ed toge ther under the ve ry device of the Mir ror a nd its l ma ge :-Me,
1nyself, J." 22
If the pictures of life- of work, recreatio n, family ritual s- trai n to
wa rd faithful e vocati on, the filmmake r's s poken refrain dis suades u s of
our appa.rcnt comprehension: "Everything is normal, everything is n o r
·mal," Mckas ass ures u s. ove r the images of everyday life. "The only thi ng
i s, you'll nev e r kno w what th.ey thi n k. You'll n ever k now what a di spl aced
TH£ $V8 1tCT IN HISTOflT 113
Digitized by Or ig inal from

• HARVARD UNIVERSITY HARVARD UNIVERSITY
per son thinks in the e vening and in Ne w York." Occurdng in the open
ing minutes of the film, rhi s is the fir st lesso n ro be drawn from Diaries,
appli cable ro a ll forays in to hi storiography through fil_ m. Hist ori cal me an
in gs a re never simply le gible or immanent. Un ders tanding a dse s from the
th oughtful inte rr ogati on of do cuments (the real in repr esentati on) and the
c on t radictions they e nge nder. Mekas here re minds u s of the ir re pa rabl e
breach between experience and its extern alize d representation, a notion
implie d by the film' s very title. We a rc all of us l ost in rbe cha sm between
ou r des ire ro r ecapture the pa st an d the imp ossibility of a_ pris tine re tur n,
no one m ore than Mekas hi mse lf.
And rhere jn lies the key to the s ig n ifi can ce of Lost, Lost, Lost in the
context of rhe presen t discu ssi on. For if we ca n never kn ow what any on e
of the image d exiles is thinking de s pite o ur rapt attenti on to the preser
vational ima ge, what more ca n we kn ow of Meka s himself? More to the
p oint, what c an the Mekas of 1975 know of his r949 self? If, as this film
suggests, memory is, lik e history, alw ays revision� translation, the gap
betwee n expe rience {the m oment of filming) and sec ondary revision (the
moment of editing) p rod uces an ine radic ably split diar isric subject. The
te mporal and epistemol ogical syncopation of se lv es (the writing versus
written self) is, I wou ld argue, quite differen t for the moving form tha n
for th e w ritte n dia r y, which in stantiates a pe rpetu al pr esent tens e ("Right
now l am writing my diary").23
As exemplified by the Mekas pr oject, the_staging of subjectivity e f
fe cted by the film or vid.eo diary is consistent with Fre ud 's no tion of p sy
chica l remporality. As discuss ed in Jean Laplanche and Je an-Bertrand
Pontali s's The Language ofPsycho-Analysis, Fr eud's usage of the term
nachtrag/ic hkeit, or deferred action, is intended to convey the manner
by which experiences, impressions, or memory tr a ces ai:e altered after
the fact a; a functi on of n ew e xperie,;ccs a nd a re thus rendere d capabl e
of.reinvestment, producing new, even unexpected, effects of meaning.
A s Freu d w rote to his co nfidant Wilh elm Flie ss: "I ·am w or king on the
a ssumpti on that our p sychical mechanism. has come ab o·ut by" a proc ess
·o f stratificati on: the materi al pre se nt in the shape of memory-trac es is
from tinte to time �ubj cctcd to a rearrangement in ac corda nc e with fre sh
circumstances-is, as it were, t"Tanscribed!'24 The film and video works o f
self-inscripti on b eing cons idere d he r e, sires of deferr_al a nd reinvestme nt,
can thu s be said ro e11act. what i s typically theorized, putting cer t ain key
ass umpti ons t o the test in wha t co uld be called {in deference ro my open-
ing remarks) "lab oratory condition s." ·
I turn n ow t o two other instances of the ne w autobiogr aphy that
11• THC SUII JCCT IN HISTORY

treat th e issues explor ed earlier i n a n a ltogether different k ey. Both of the
ta pe s, S egal ove's My Pube rty a nd Hershrna n's First Person Plural, m ap
private histocy (th e self as microc.osm) onto a rriore comprehens ive or
macrocosm ic pla ne of social/cul t �ral r epre sentat ion , b ut with al to gether
differi ng e ffect s . Segalove' s treat ment i s gently p ar odic, situating its ret
rosp ect ion wi thi n a p opular cultural context -of ea rly s ixti es adolescent
A merica na. I n contra st, Hersh man's-electron ic diary p roject is_ deadly
serious, assun1ing th e status o(�talki ng cur·e." I t is a working thiough of
th e t raumas of childhood abuse in a manner that excee ds the p ers onal
in part through its intermittent graphic overlay of-archival footage (as of ·
concentration· camp survivors}, which functions as a gut-wrerJChin g his
toric.al corrobotation to the sc.ene of auto-an al ysis.
My Puberty
·'
· Segalove bas lo,ig b e en engaged in a pr oje ct of autobi ography, dating·back · · ;
:to The Mom Tapes (r974-r978), a comic mother/d aughte r di alogue begun-. '
in the early seventies, extended over a succe ssion of years. In th at piece, ,·
Segalove is the i nterlocutor intent on eliciring a mother' s confidences 90 • .
matters ranging fro m sh oppi ng tips to famili al remi niscence. Despite th e
iro nic di sta nce to the material esta blish ed frorn the outset, one senses
throughout the co m pli ci t y of t he you nge r ·S egal ove. I nde ed, th e tap e mi mes'·
th e a uto bi o g raphi c al through th e fig u�e of the mo ther, undertaking sel f
inquiry at a generational remove.
My P.uberly is diari stic p astiche. Each segment of the tape b egi n s
with th e im aging'of a litera ry fr agment'that .evok es the charac ter of the
··diary-quotidia n , uns truc t ured in its seriali ty, an d profoundly a nt i
Aristocelian. These lead·ins ("Susan came over to vi sit" or "In sevcryth
grad e, I took sewi n g-class") a uthorize our en try int o the representat ion al
space of first-perso n re call, a world of hyperbolic decor-,ill splashy color
and p edal pushers . But My Puberty is equally a perf ormanc e pi ece, a nd
th.erein Jies its contributi'o n to the di3ristic Senr�.
, Segalove chooses to cas r
bee pres ent -tense , thirty-seven-ye ar-O'ld self_ as rh_e pre tee n Ilene sharing
the frame with·the. p re adolescents of memory. The effect is at once comic
and unca nny, p articul arly i n the moment at which Scgalove freezes on a
t wo - sho t o f he r se. lf in drag wi t h a n honest-to -god charming twelve-year
old boy. This tablea11 uivant effects·a r evisionist t ransl ation of past i nto
presen t ten se so as t o s uggest the failur e of it s poss ibility. It is a sc ene that
evokes the hybrid re ality of dream. An d yet , lu rk ing.ben eath t he mock
TH £ SUIJ£CT IN HISTORT 11 $
Digitized bY Or.iginal from

se riou$ness of the piece, so methi ng of the comple x epist emolo gical condi
tions gov er ning fil m and video autobiography obtrudes .
Elizabeth W . Bruss 's pre sumption that it is "imp ossible to cha rac·
te ri ze and exhibit selfh o od thr ough film"_is base d in par t on Frank D.
M cConne ll's narr atok,gica l insight that "the world see n cin ematically"
is "the world seen wiih out a self."2> \Vhile thi s may hold true for the tes t
cases Bruss chooses-am ong them, Truffaut's The Foitr H1111dred Blows
·. (J959) and Fe der ico Fe llin i's 8½ (r963)-1he p roductive mode of inde
penden tly produced autobi ographic a l film and vidc(> works necessitates
ne ither the de legati on of subj ectivi ty to ac rors nor a utho rial c olla bor ation
with ·pr o ducer, edito r, or, for tha t matte r, crew. T he defining c harac ter of
a utobiog raphy in Bruss 's term-the s conflation of the sp ea king subje ct
a nd th e subje c t of t he sen tence-rema i ns intac t and quite literally so;
n owhere in the Mekas or Hershma n p iece s, and rar ely in Seg al ove 's tape,
can a v oice other than the arti st's be bear d. And in eac h ins ta nce but
to varying de gree, the sp ea king subj e ct e mer ges as the imaged object. [ n
1-ie rsh man 's e le ctronic dia ries, the ar tist's co rpo rea lity is a n inesc apa ble
fact; h er unflinching return of t he -c amera 's g az e is a sig n of the auto·
transfere.nce her testimony precipitates.
Scga love 's vide o m emoir s, as in Tl,e Mom Tapes or I Remember
Beverly Hills (r980), have frequently de pl oyed a subje ctive camera whose
a n t hrop omo r phizing pans and tracks e voke the sense of a pre sent-t e nse
expl ora ti on of a descr iptiv e narr ation rooted in the al rea dy expe rie nce d.
In J Remember Beverly Hills, Se ga lovc ' s ca mera recurns to her school
playgr ou nd to st alk the mem ory of a spe c ial f rie ndsh ip; in The Mom
Tapes, Segalove acts o ut he r b elare d defia nce ag a ins t materna l pro hibi
tions, rracing a p ath bene ath Wilshi re B oulevar d a long a subway passa ge
(mc e dee m ed off-lim its. The admixture of p ast and pre sent m odes through
a fir st-pe rson re im agiog of s ites invest ed with the for ce of na r ra ted expe ·
r ien cc ble nds express ive an d descriptive elem ents, a combination Bruss
cla ims to be essentia l to the autobiographical act. Jo My P1tberty, v oice d
desctipti on (i n Se galove's wo rk, tetrc)spc ction tends to defla te-rathe r tha n
. romanti cize exper ien ce) evokes the past as he r nos y ca mera testifies co the
mater ia lity of the p resent-tense re evalua tion. This hybrid t empora lity is
the inve rse of Me kas 's past ima ge/prese nt nar ration approach. But in e i
ther _ ca se, the di sj un ctive re la tion s berwee n sound and im age rend towa rd
a di spersal, rather tha n a coalesce nce, of the r ep resented self. Sega love's
work, comedic throughout, nev ertheless refuses an unpro ble ma tic for mu
l ari on of the reme mb ered life she ob sessive ly reexamine s; the me mo ries a re
he ld a t a rm's length, n ot by th e mela ncholia of Mekas's voca l overlay but
by a hu mor that deflates idealization.
11& TH£ SUIICCT IN HISTORY

First Person Plural
Th e title of H ershman's t ape pl ays on the n o ti on of th e ess e ntial plurali-

t y of what we c all. th e first per s o n si ngula r; the g raphic displ ay of i ts.
n(>mi nation as it app ears in the t ap e (t be "pl ural" of th e ti tle hound ed
?Y a_ doubling ghost image) state s th e case succinctly. Tbe refe rence i s
less t o th e grammatic ally correct "we" th an to the plutivoc ali ty of th e
I-i n-di s cours e. Hersh man, w e_ learn in_ this third volume of her electronic
di ary,_was a n ab used _child, wh ose bones and ps yche were b attered by her
p arent s. Ob s�r vant Je ws of the profes sional cl ass, her fore bears a re �1-
le ged by Hersh;,,- an to have perpetuate d in her the violence ,vhose kin dred
manife�t at ion sh e tak es to b e th e whol esale sl au ghter of Europ ean Jew r y
by Adolf Hi tler, hi mself a third-genera tion ab.use d child, Although First
Person l'/11ral.ii for too compl ex for thoroughgoing analysis -here, it is
worth roughirig Out th e contour s of the su bjectivity that Hersh_man del e
g ates to herself i n the work.. ·,'
Th e tap e st ake s its exjs tenc e on the ps ych oanalytic presum pti on of l
mem or y.retr ieva_l and ela b oration as c urative tr eatment for childho od
trauma. \Vhile occ asionally voicin g th e nega tion -of su ch a talking cure
in whispe re d tone s ("You're nor supposed to tal_k about i_t"), Hersh man '
pro ceed s to r elentles sly explore the depths of metn o.ry and fa� tasy . "I
lost my voice," she says, ".and it's taken me nearly· for'tY·five· r.ears t<> get
it back." Indee d, the tap e is iovested wi th a f orce attributable to the re- .·• .
pression of such a histor y and 10 th e hi stor y of such a "re pr ession. Whil e · ••
th e piece o(fers a more or less nonstop verbalization-the vid eomaker'.s .' '
self-narr ation i n l anguage-the image track (which seld om de.p atts fro m · ,,
.
H ershm an's tightly compo se d f ace ) is the site of an in sist ent dis continuit y '
th at und e rs cores mu l tipli ci tr. . The no ti on of suhj ec tivity as ser ial, het
.
eroge neous, even confli ctual, is e stablished throu gh the use of juinp cuts
within otherwise continu ous takes, the juxtaposition or enforced con·
tinui ty of sepacabl e presenta tional moments for continuous mo nolo gue
' s equences..The se nse of discontinuity· ;s enforce d by al te ra ti ons of angle,
hairstyl e, oc dress,·as w ell , as by the vacill ation b etween color aod bl ack
and whit e, even the app earance of negativ e ima gery. Sel f --ali e nati on is fur
th er·a chi ev ed th rough t h·e"framing or i nserting of the fi rst-p ecs on ima ge,
recessing He_rsh man agains t a field of bl ack.
But it i s the pr oj ecti on of the self onto a bro ader hi storic al backd rop
ihe superimpo sition of the ghast ly if familiar images of th e victim s of
o th er-pl a ces, o ther tim es - that may be the mos t stciking component of
. ,
First Pe rson Plural. Hersh man is at p�ins . to break through th e bacrier s
_
TH£ S08JtC T IN HI STORY 117
Di.gitized by Original from

th at isola t e th e self who suff ers from the wor ld tha t res tates her v ic
ti mi za ti o n da ily. Th at esc ape- and the re c ontext ualiz.ari on rha t it
demands -i s effe c te d th rou gh h er artifice. But th e world-hist or ica l
suffer i ng figured in the ta pe is n or at a ll tri via li ze d through such self
referen cing. For even while Hers hma n enac ts he r the ra py on v ideo, that
most privat iz ed of public medi a, she succee ds in frami ng an audiov isual
01e t aph<>r for rh a t doubl e g aze inaug ura ted by M ont aigne in the si x
te enth centur y. Indee d, it i s through her obse ssion with th e pro cesse s of
self-hea ling th at she re mi nds us of the effica cy, as we ll as th e st a gg eri ng
co01ple xity, ()f sel f -repre sentation in the moving-ima ge a rts of th e twen
ti et h c en tury. . .
Th e presump ion o f a
t nec es s a ry or i nev itabl e s plit b e twe en critic a l
and creative practic es seems less and less tenabl e. It seems increas ingly
cl ear tha t ar ti sts a nd c r itic s are re plying to th e sa me theore tic a l d e bat es
d es pite th e differences o f disc urs ive apparatu s. Perha ps rbis h as alwa ys

b een th e c a�e . Ce rtai nly much of wh at bas co me t o c()unt as th e most
signifi cant thou ght oflh e p as t centur y h as required the kind of for mal in
nov ati on usually attr ibut ed t o the a rti st h -ere I'm thi n king of rbe s ig nify
ing "pla y" of Ni etzsch e, Ad orno, Derr id a, or Bar th e s. I n p ar e, this i s so

b ec ause th e issue for tbe contempora ry artist or theori sr remai ns the s ame:
th e rus e of re p rese ntati on. For Nietzsche, a ll a rtic ulati on, more so self
ins cripti on, en gaged in a ki nd of ne cess ary cha rade : "App e arance i s for
me tha t which lives and is effe c ti ve and goes so far i n its self-mocke r y that
it mak es me feel th at thi s is appe a rance and will- o'-the-wisp and a da nc e
of s pirits and nothing more-th at amon g a ll th es e dreamers, l, too, w ho
'know; am d3ncing ' my dance." '>
2
The wor k addressed h ere t akes as it-s obj ect the int rinsi c pl ura lity of a
self tha t llves, d es ires, feels pa in and pl ea sur e -
and re -presenrs that expe
r ienc e in a dy na mic, histo rici zed f rame work. Thi s is th e work tha t st a ge s
a subj e ctivity th at exc ee ds the diff erence oi a stu ltifying bi nar ism -or, for
tha t matcer, of Fre ud's tr ip artite psychic top o graphy. With out ques tion,·.
thi s attenti o n to diffe rences h as unde rwr itten a n outpo uring of cultu rally
res ist an t work in the 1980s.
It h as b een th e pl ace of t he essayistic-1h e "ne w" or hi stor icizi n g

a utobiography in film an d vid eo -to ta k e up thi s ques tion of differenc e
a t its source, at the level of th e subj e ct. It i s Ba rthes who s e su mma ry
diagn osis takes most tre nch an tly, thi s despite his abhorrenc e fo r the de
fin itive sta tem en t ("the fear of not �e ing abl e r o ·re si st the last word").27
"Wh en we sp eak co day of a divided subj ect," writes Banhcs , "it is never
t o ack nowle dge his simpl e con tradicti ons, her double p ostul ai:i< ms, ere.;
118 THE SUII JCCT IN HISTORY

it is a diffraction which is in ten�ed, a dispersion of energy i o which th ere
remains neither a central core nor a structure of meaning: I am not con
tradictoty, I am dispers ed."211 It is in th e direction of this diffraction that
the essayistic is poised;-it is_work whos e vitality and politi cal effica cy will
. '. co illumine
,continue . the media hocizori for some time to come.
'
'
..
'·
.,
'
.
.
,. , .
• >
THC SUIIC(:1' IN Kl$TO RT 119

[ 7 ]
Filling Up the Hole in the Real:
Death and Mourning in Contemporary
Documentary Film and Video
Firs t presented at Visible Evidence JII (Harvard, 1995), "Filling Up the

Hole in the Real" propo se s that the film or video work can, through its
memorializa.tion of loss, fu nction as a work of rrfourning that i s also and
profoundly a,z instance of sel f - inscription. Wit/, such work, the self that
is con structe d tends to b e a conditional one, figured as i t is against a
gro,md of irreparable loss. In various writings of Freud and particularly
Lacan, death is figured as a negativity,, a discursiv.e void, which can be
partially and progres sively worked through, if not resolved, at the level
of langullge or imagery, a line of thought that has long been applied.to
the study of literature and painting. TnsJ,ired by a· number of remarkable
films and tape s of the 1980s and l99os that treat the death-of a ioved one
or. ev en the self (the k ey historical point of refer enc e, as in Blue/1994},
Tongues Untied /1989/, Silverl ake Life: The.View from Here/1993/, qr
Fast Tr ip, Long Drop [1993/, is no doubt the A IDS e />idemic), I look at
how a work of mourning can be enacted thro11gh constructions of sound
a11d imag e. It i s noteworthy that the ce ntral film examin ed in this cont ext
is Shoah, which, more than any other, illilstrate s the impossibility of any
thin g lik e a "success ful" act of mo11rn in g. For in tlie face of staggering, .
ef,ochal loss, art can only hope to signify the limits of its healing power s .
. .
Ifyou look ve.ry cruefully c;rt the shots of the actual explo·
sion when the SC.teen js white. in the middle of the screen is
a small . . . boiling black crea for, oh, maybe ten or ftfteen
fram es. That little boiling black areais �here the heat from
the first atomic bomb burneda hole through the film in the
camera. It was sobot, and it focused so intensely on the film
in the camera gate. the motion picture cameragate. thcrt it a c
tually burned a hole through the negc;rtive. And you can hold
�P the negcrtfre and actually look at this-this extraordinc.ry
,,.
physico.l imprint of the first atomic bomb on that . . . . piece 'of
motion picture film. . . . lJJ. many ways. it's th e ultimate Dlovie.
It's actuallya hole in the fiJm. It's not just an image on the
emulsion; it's· actually a hole in the film.
:: fop. Els e ,direct�r, on footage used in TheDayalter 1iWty
Now1 in the d ays foll owing the fiftieth annivers ary of Hiro shima and '
Na gasaki, it seems appropri ate to · bcgin this di scus sio n of the docum entary
· · repres emation of death with this referenc e to the filming of ihe first nucl ear
. detonation at Tr initysite,J.uly 16, 1945.1 In the moment of The D after
. ay
Trin.ity t9 which
. Else refer s, the absolute un represcnta.bility of death i s
phys ically, materi ally realized. T he terrifying powe( unleashed by the blast •. .
.. .
has caused ;he film st�ck itself to.C(>mbu st. .Th is m; ssiv� reiease of energy.
·' .,
is fi gurabl e only as a s hee r neg ativity, comniensura ble not to the bl ack
'
. a/ler. f.o und <)n eve ry . answer print of the documentary b ut to the vo id, a
le
hole in the emulsi on of the origi na l ca mera stock, a null set in th e doma in ..
of ind exicaliry
. an d of signific ation. . ·
I propos e that this eniption of the abyss in disco urse .be u_n dcr-
. stood in relation to rwo difficult, and indeed elusive, ter ms: death and
the Lacai1ian Rea l. In thi s chapter, we will arr ive at a formula ti on of the
fo rmer by way of th e latter. Then a range of instances from rece nt docu
menta ry films and videos will b e examined in which repres�ntati ons of
de ath f igure centrally. It .i s my sense that such an i nvestigation b ri n gs us
up hard a9a inst the limits of docum entary discours. e, 10 the very cond i
ti o ns of its (im)p ossibiliry, a nd, i n a move ment wh os e n eg ativity ec hoes ,·
that of our theme; to the potential of d<lcum en tary inscription as a work
of m ourning. One final p oint: this work on film a nd tape in which the loss
of the other elicits s igns of g r i ef a nd mem orializ ati on (and here it.i s wor th
recalling Lacan: "The one u nb earabl e dimension of po ssible human expe- .
rience is not the experience of'one's own deii . th, whicb oo one has,. but t.he
exper ienc e of the d eath of another"),2 th at work of mourning is als o and
profoundly an i n stance of self-inscription. It is i n this way th at such work
can be li n ke d to other vari ants of autobiographical disco ur se that I have
attempted to analyze, such as d omestic ethn og raphy, the video di a ry, the
ess ay film, the video letter, and the confessi onal.
It is not·simply out of morbidity that I t urn 10 documenta ry texts on
death (a lthough my stude nts at times may think s o). For a ra nge of rea
sons, among them the epidemic of AIDS-rel ated deaths that have vitia ted
the ranks of th e arts community and a general turn "to the autobio gra phi
c al in film and vid e o, a l arge number of impor tant films an d tap es have
b een made in th e past decad e that attempt to coof.ront the ma ker's d eath
FILLI NG UP Tfft HOLE

· IN TH£ RCAL 121

or th at. of a c lose frie nd or family member. I a m thinking of work s.uch
as Silverlake Life: The View .from Here (Joslin. and Fried man, 1992),
Tongues Untied (Riggs, 1989), Black ls . .. Black Ain't (Riggs a nd At
kin son, 1994), Tha11k You and Goo d Night (Oxe nberg, 1991), Shadow's
So11g (He rsh man, 1992), Everyday Echo Street: A Summer Diary (Mogul,
1993), Everything's for ¥011 (Ra ve n, 1989), The Last Bolshevik (Mar ke r,
1993), Blue (J ar man, 1994), and, at a slight re move, History and Memory
(Tajiri, 1991) an d Complaints of a Dutiful Dau.ghter (Hoffmann, 1994).
Of this subse t of film s and ta p es, Shoal, ·(Lanzm an n, 1985) is a t once
par a dig,,'., atic and ecce n tric giv e n its v astly l a rger sca le-t e xtual and
his_,orica l- and t he film maker's r emarka bly compl ex relationship t o his
topic· and subjec ts. Be fore turning 10 a discus si on of the se texL,, howev er,
ther e is a g reat deal m o re tha t must be said a b out what is a t stak e in e x
a mining thi s cr uci a l b ody of work.

I sha re som ethi ng of R oland Barthe s's convictio n that de ath is some
t hing like th e speci a l calling o f t h e c am era arts. I also concur with Ha ns
Richter in hi s a ssessmen t of the de sire for "factual su stenanc e" to which
early cinema r esponded in an age in which "reaso n [h_a d] given rise to a
se cul arization of the divine."J If, a s Richt er cla im s, "ou r age demands che
documented fac_r," what b etter pro<)f th an in th e ima ge of the dead Paris
Com mun ards sa id to be the fir sc m ass-ci rcula tion photogr aph? For it
congea le d at once t he proof of faile d resistance ag ainsc st ate a uthori ty and
of the power of the photograph as a reproducible wa rra nt of th at authori
cy. In th at i mage, the privat e horrors of person al loss wer e suborne d to a
mor e public pronounce ment; the photograp!, has come to be receive d l ess
as a work of m o ur n ing fo r th e v anquish ed than as·a sign epipha n ous f or
the state, its. discove ry"' of a new and p o werful inter p ellative tool.
In his .fina l work, Ba rr.h
. es indelibly joine d the preserva tional reflex of
t h e d ocu menta ry proj ect wi th n1or tality. "De a th muse b e s ome where in a
socie ty," he wro te; "if it is no long er ( or.less in tense ly) in rel igion, i t must
be e lse where; per ha ps in this image which pr(>duces Dea th while tryi ng
to pre se rve life."' \Vhcre Barthe s c onfin ed his an alys is to the photog raphic
sign, I ta ke h ea r t in my extra pol ation t o film and vide<), for inc rea singly,
the "somewh ere " from which the dead are both me mo ri aliz ed a n d an
nulled i s the moving ima ge form , di s ce rnible as a wo rk of mourning .
The re is cause, however, to echo Freud's founding question in ''Mourn
ing and Me)a ncb olia": "Now in what consists the wor k which mourn
ing p erforms·?"' It is necessa ry t o compreh end some thing of the psychi c
dy namic underlying eve ry work of mour ning if we a r e to understand ch e
special circumstances that surround the cinematic or videographic vari
ants.Al though Freud admits in his 1917 essay that "we do no t e ve n know
122 flLLI NC UP fHE HOLt: IN T H£: R EAL

by what economic· measures th e wOrk of mou rning is carried throu gh," he
n ote s tha t, with " normal" grief, the los s of the love d obje ct is gradu ally
surmounted, libidi nal ties are loosen ed, and the ego eme rg es triumphant.
. "outcome is cha ra cterized as a struggle between the reality
This positive
principle an d its oth er (perhaps the d eath drive , perhaps psy chosis), oc cur-.
ri n g only painfully a nd in stages; its course is n ot to b e interfere d with by
the ana lyst. This battle royal that is the work of mourni ng re ceives lavish
and painstaki' ng desc ription:
This �truggJc can be so i,lr ense that a turning away fro m r eality ensues, the
object being clung to throu gh the medium· of a hallucinatory wish-psychosi s.
The n ormal outco 1l1e is that deference for reality gains the day. Nevertheless
its behest cannot b.e at.onc.e �beyed. Thetas� is now c.arr ied thro ugh' bh by
bit, unde,r great expense of time and carhec-tic encr�y, while all the ti m e die.
existens:e of the lose object is continu ed in the mind. Each si 11gle one 9f the
me mories and hopes which bo und the libid o t9 the object is .br.oug�t up and,
hyper-cathecte.d, �md the detachment of che libid o f..rom it acco mplished.
Why thi s procesS of carrying out the behest of r� alicy bit by bit, �hich is
in the nature of a com promi se., should be S-0 Cxt.rao rdinarily painful i� not
at all easy tO e.xplain �n terms of mental econ omics. Ti: is worth noting th at
this pain seems natural to us. The-.fact is, however, that when the work of
m ourning is completed the ego beco m es free and un . iohibited �gain.6. · -' ,..
. ,,
More th an forty ye a rs later, Lacan remarks i n his illterpretation . of Hamlet.
that if the mechan ism und�rlyi ng tile work of m'our_n i�g re,;,a i ns poorly
und e rstood, it i s b ecau se "th e question hasn) bee!' prope rly poscd.�7 To
do so, h e says , requires the i ntrodu ction of c er .tain � ey terms, a mong them
his notion of the Real.
In th e consta nt ren egoti ati on of Lacan's iea chi ng s, the Rea l re . , .
ma ins the most n egl ec ted term in the tripartite schema coll)pos ed of the
Imaginary, the Symbolic, and the R e al. It is no wonder that this is so if
we may judg e by its slippe riness as itrecurs in various of th� seminars.
Micha el Wal sh ha s made this poi nt i n a re cent and persuasive essay a r ·
guing for the pertinence of the Laca n ian Re al for fih u studies,8 For his
part, Slavo j Zizek has writte n obsessively on th e va lu e of Lac an's lat e r
formul ati ons , those of the r960s and 1970s, which, i n the ir attention to
va ri ous, often puzzli ng, characteristics of the Real, complicate th e " clas
si cal" form'u lations of the Mirror Stage a,id the li n guistic analo gy ( i . e .,
th e u nconscious is structured like a l angua ge). Ind e ed, Zize k.has gone so
fa r as to suggest that the immedi ate coincid ence of opposite or e ven con
tradictory de termin ations is wh at defines th.c La cani an Rea l.9 (Accordi ng
10 Zizek, the R eal as de ve loped i n the 1960s and 1970s approaches more
an d mor e what was, in the · r95os, de e me d the Imagina ry:) For pre sent
Fil.LINC OP THE HOI.C IN TN& llt:AL 123
D igitized by Original from

p urposes, however, the Rea l can be a dequately localized i n relation to
discourse: Laca n var iously a n d ·ov er a pe riod of y ear s re fers to the Real
as "the im possible," "that which always r eturns to the same plac e,"10 as
"being without a ltcr ity," "un diffcre ntia ted,"11 "that with which all words
c ease a nd a ll ca teg or ie s fail,"12 as "marke d by sy m bolic n ihilatio n,"13 and
as "what re sists sy mboliz ation absolutely.... lthe l liter ally in effabl e.""
Combini ng severa l of these usage s, Zizek has deemed the Real "[the ]
rock . .. the traumatic point whicb is always m issed but non e the les s al
ways returns, although we try ... to neutralize it, to integrate it into the
symbolic order.... That is the Lacan.ian Real,». writcs Zizek, "a certain
li m it which is alway s m iss ed- we always come too ea rly or too late."15
It i s e lsew here for Zizek, and e ven m ote vividly, "the pulsing of the pre
sym bolic su bstance i n its abhorr ent vit ality."16 The Rea l is not to be mis
taken for "r eality," which is perfectly knowable {thi nk only of the n otio n
of the "rea lity principl e " thr ough which one constantly puts expe ri en ce to
tbe test), but should i ns tead be understood a s a z on e outside sym boliz a
tion from which tr aum a may e rupt as symptom.The tra,imatic sy m ptom's
app ea ra nc e is thus als o a re t urn; the _tc m poral ity of thes e e ffe cts of the
Re al is tha t of the futu re anterior, a mixtu re of pa st a nd fut ur e, that whic h
"will have been ." ·
What, tbeo, is death accordi ng to this schema,for I have said that
ou r under st an ding of de ath will requir e the Laca nian Real? Like the
Re al, death is defi ne d i n its negativ ity. It i s, accordi ng to Mikkel Borch
Jacobsen, "the a bsolute Master," "the (im possible, unlivabl e) a bsence of
a ll symbol s," the " un pr esen table nothing." But if dea th is "what neg ates
di scour se," it is also wha t "int.toducc .s negation" i nto di scourse. For
Lacan, like Kojeve b efor� him, "the nega tivity of discou rs e" is precisely
"its 'manife station,' i n the sense that it 'causes to be what is not."'17 As
Derrida has writt en, the sign mar ks a place of differ enc e; it is tbe place
whe re " the completely other i s ann ounced as such/'18 "Repre s entation
is death," says Derrida· succinctly i n "Freud and the Scen e of Wtiti ng."19
"Pronoun ce the word 'ca t,' Blanchot [w rites), and 'death speaks.'"20 Dea th,
like the Lac an ian Reil, can be under st ood as a founding ne gativity.
Bu t how m or e precis ely are thes e two t erms to be under stood in
relatio n to each other? Laca n ba s claime d that "dea th is nev er cxperi
_enc ed as su ch ... it is n eve r rea l."21 Freud says s ome thing like that in his
"Thoughts for ·the Times on Wa r and Death": "It is indeed impossible to
imag i n e ou r own dea th; a nd when ever we a ttempt to do so we can pe r
ce ive that w e are in fa ct still pr esent as spectato rs."22 Dea th a nd the Real,
while co nce ptually li n ke d, can never c()incide . De ath, the de ath of the
othe r, can produce effects i n the Real. ln his work on psychosis, La c an
12' Fill.INC UP THE HOL C IN !Ht R£Al

HARVARD. UNIVERSITY HARVARD UNIVERSITY
claimed that the·radi cal forecl os ure (verwerfr,ng) of trau matic materi al
resulted not i n its repression (and event ual ret urn} but in its ejection i nto
che R eal: "Eve r ythi ng which is refused in tlic symbolic by the Verwer{ung
reappear s i n t he Real."23 Dea th is formul a ted as a struc tur.ally homol ogous·
but inverse forma tion of fore closure. "Where is Jhe gap," asks Lacan, " the
hol e th at resulcs from this loss and ch at calls fonh mourning on t he par t
of t he subj ect ? It i s a hol e i n the rea l, by mean s of which t he subj ect cm.e r s
·in to a relation�hip.t hat is t he i nver se of wh at I.hav e set f or rh i n earli er
seminar s unde r the name of Verwerfung ( re pudi atio n, f orecl osu re]. Jus t
as what is rej ect ed fro m the symb ol ic regist er reappears i n the r eal, in
th e same way th e ho e i n t he real t hat results fr om t he l oss ,sets t-hc signi

l
fier in m otion ." 24 Death ope ns up a hole i n th e Rea l ch at will b e fill ed
. by a ,"s wa rm of.images" having per ha ps r itual or t her apeutic value . Lik e
psychosis; then, mournjog can be undcr:stood in relation to negativity,
to a void. Unlilie psychosi s, howe ver , mou r ni ng is com monly reso!vcd or
worked th rough. Tha t. recove r y, too littl e u nderstood by Freud, is, acc ord-·
ing to Lacan, a function of language� �'The work of mourning,» writes
.Lacan , "is accompli shed at the l evel of th e logos: I say logos ra ther t ha n .,
g roup or communi t y, altho ugh gr oup and community, b eing or ganized
cult u ra lly, a re its mainst ays. The wor k of mou rning i s first of all per·
form ed co s atisfy the disorde r th �t is produced by the inadequacy of sig .
nifyi n g el ements co cope wi th the h()le that h as b een c reated in ex s tence,
i
fo r it is t h e system of·significrs i n th ei r totalit y which i s impeached by t he
least insta!"!.Ce of mourniug."2.S .·'
We n ow h ave a conce ptual framework.wi t hin which to •()proach the
re pre sentation of death i n relati on c o the w or k of mou rn in g: th e loss of a
loved one pr oduces a gap i n t he Real, that formless beyo n.<! of symb oliza
tion, a hole th a t set s the signifier in mo tion, filling the void, relieving the
pain. We al so h av e a bette r under st an ding of t he gr ound s f or cl aimi ng ·

ch at the repres entat ion of de ath in some re cen t films and video t apes may
const itute b oth a public and an au tobiographical or.iotrapsychic activity.
But if we are to ma�e sense of Laq1 n's logocentrism, we m ust tra nslate it
into terms specific co fil m and video. A nd th ere it becom es npparcnfth at
"t h e totality of th e signifi er"·and th e pa rticul a r ways i n which it is " set in
mot ion" i n cinematic a nd videogtaphic wor ks must be investigated wit h
rig or and specificit y . For fa r f rom ei t her logos or a "r ush of i mages," che
wo rk of mour nin g i n film an d vide o cends to b e c()mp�sed of a c ombin a

tion of word s (via firs t-per so,) voice-over () r in terview-based t est imony)
a nd images ( relics of p ast ness, evocations ()f memory) whos e me an in g d e
pend·s upon their over all ar rangement via edi t ing.
Ev en in th e ca se of the few rec ent cexrs mention ed at the outset,
FlLlllfC. U� THt llOLC IN TH£ llEAt ...

there i s a tremendous varia bility a s to tactic and e ffect. Some key distinc
ti ons can be mad e: the exte nt to wbich rhe piece f ocuses on death, on e 's
o wn or an o ther's (Silverlake Life, Blue), or i ns tead reveals loss as the
v ei led s ourc e of textua l des ir e (Everyday Echo St ree t, Tongue s Untied);
th e c hoice o( direct, re lativ ely unm ediat ed re presenta tions of de a th or
dying (Tha nk You and G ood Night) versus the oblique or dist anced
view (Everything's for You, Blue); the tonality of the piece-elegiac
t
(Everythin g's for You, Shadow's Song} or laconic (' hank You.and Good
Night, Complai nts of a Dutiful Daughter). With this work, eve ry choice
is a danger ous on e a s regards audien ce resp on s e. D ee p and painful iden
tifications can arise; a gamut of emotions can be elicited, iocluding anger
directed at the filmmaker for her pre sumed insensitivity, exploitativcncss,
or narci ss ism. On e person's cathactic experienc e can be another�s exhibi
tio nis t display,
Havi ng sketched out some s ense of th e issue s at stake, I will briefly
examine a few key moments from a single film to concretize matters.
Reca ll my earlie r s tat e ment t!,a t Claude L anzmann's Shoah is unique.
While Lanzmann mainta·ins an inquisitorial dis tance from his subjects
throughout- and these subjects includ e Holo caust survivors, pe rpe tra
tor s, and fell ow trave lers-this ma s sive (inde ed, ob sessiv e) proj ect c an
be se en a s an e ffort r o s hore up a hole in the Real of unparalleled propor
tion. If the film is a work of mourni ng fro·m whic h th e subj ect may eme rge
more or less: intact, one feels it is doomed to failure for Lanzmann, as for
many . of hi s witne s ses. Ther e will n ever be words eno ugh ro fill the void
le ft by tbe s ix million. A more ·s alutary res ult may be achi ev ed for those
wh o "know" the loss only sec ondh a nd or even harbor doubrs about the
Holo cau sr's v ery exis tence. For rliose, r es is tance may be replac ed by pa r·
tia l identificarioo.; a se nse of loss may be a bso rbed �nd repaired. But this is
not a z.ero-sum game; the result, where it "takes," is also the replication
indee d, the comagi on- of hi s tori_cal m�mory figuxable as the residue of
the work of mourning. I will d es cribe one sc en e amo ng many.
LanZmann is incerviewiog Abraham Bornba, a survivor of the
· Tr eblinka death camp. Bomba now lives in Israel, where he works a s a
b ar ber. Thi s ch o ice of voca ti on ca n be r ead as ·cruelly ir o nic, as a sur vival
racti c, or as a c ompuls ion to rep eat, f or it was as a barber th at he had
pr oved usefu l to his ca ptors. Bomba was stationed inside the gas chamber
itself, wher e he wa s made to cut the hair of women soon to pe rish; it was
cutting rathe r than shavin g, and thus a fals e and pa cifying ho pe wa s in
s tilled in th e.vic tims. By the tim e of the filming in rhe early 1980s, Bo mba
bas suxvived, physic ally intact, for nearly fou r d ecades . Thr oughou t ni os t
of hi s on-came ra te s timony, hi s face rem ai ns a mask o f implacability .
... tJLLI NC UP THr. HOLC JN T HC 8 CAt.
Digitized by · Original from

Th ere is a bl an k ness of aff ect that one reco gnizes from p s ychol ogic al ac
cciunts of Holocaust survivors. Now, in a moment chat has elicited much
cri ticisn'I frOm audiences, Lanzrnann prompts Bonlba to speak about a
p artic u_ la r past ev ent, a singul arly i mpo ssibl e memor y. -He resis ts. That
re sistance i s , in psychoa n alytic t erms , a sign of stro ng cath ecti on, d ee p
trauma. "Go on, Abe, yqu must go ... You have to," Lanzmann prompts
his si,bjeci from off-camera. "It's to o hard," Bomba replies'. "Pl ease," says
. Lan.zma rm, his voice low but insisten t , "we have to d o it. You know it ...
Yo u h ave to do it. I k now it's- v ery hard. I k now and l ap olo gize." Bomba
continu es to resi s t, wiping hi s face wirh a h andk erc hief. "I won' t b e able
to d o ir. I col d you. 1oda y ii's gonna b e ver y ha rd." But in rhe e nd, the
su bje ct acquiesces.In wha t f ollows, Bom b a sp eak s not of- cuttin g rhe ha_ir
of hi s o wn fri en ds a nd family mem ber s (an event that re mai ns forecl qsed,
unsayabl e) but rath er. of witnessing a frien d an d fellow ba rb er a:s he con
fronte d his own wif e a n.d sister ab out to die.
,.
Th e k ernel ·of trauma, buried and of the Re al, er upts less as l angu age,
more a s s igns of bo dily distre ss g- ri ma ci ng, tears, th e cessation of ac ti vi t y.
Lanzrnann has chose n to int�rview 801.n ba as h e work s, th e repetition of
the ·gesture .hclping t<:i un leash m emor y. As for the ri1edia specifi city of this
sc en e, I would a rgue th at the camera , once cail ed by Jean Rouch a ·"psy
choanttlytic stim'ulant," functions as an incitant to conf ession.,,(«Yes, the. •
camera deforms," says Rouch, "but not fro m the moment that it b ecomes
a n aci: om pli ce. At tbat p oint it has the po ssibility of doing-some thi ng T
couldn't do if th e- camera was n't the re: it bcc,l mes-a ki nd of p sychoanalyti c
stimul a nfwhi ch lets p eo pl_e do-thin gs �h e y wouldn't otherwise do.")2 6
·Lllnzmann's inj�nction.is for sp eech, but spe ech for the camera, for an ap
paratus c apabl_e of preserving, amplifyi ng, an d ci rculating his testimony.
. Whcth�r or not We air�e with the tactic, we must recognize its forc e.
But whe rein ca n b e fou nd t he w ork of mourning here, and for whom ?
N(;t , i \\,ould arg ue,.for Abraham Bomb a. No "swa rm of image s," no
"setti ng ih mo tion of th e s ignifier," can rep air the damage suffered. As
.
with other H ol ocaust su rv ivors , " a p athol ogical sha de" is cas t on grief;
th·e r.eturn to.a "fr ee an d un in hi�ite d" e go p o sition i s doub tful. But
therapy for the sur vi vo rs, those like Bomba whose identific ations may b e
irremedia bly wi t h the dead, is n ot La nzmann's obje c t .· Nor c an a p ositi ve
resoli,ri on achieve d th rough the w ork of m ourn ing be th e chief or even
like ly result of the p roje ct for the filmmaker. Hi s o b sessive eleven-yea r
que st ji n�lu di ng five years of edi ting) w as t o trac k sh�al,, the E uropean
genoc ide of th e-.Jews (shoal, is the Heb rew word for annihilation ), i n the
most _minut e d euiil and to tran sform the prese nt-t ense testi mony of s cores
of liv ing witnesses i nto an object of mass culture . If the film fu nctio ns
FILLIM(. UP THC HOLC IN THE Rt.Ill 127

as a work of m ourni ng ( and I think it d oes ), it is prim arily for audi enc es
a t.some remove b oth from the events chronicled and from the representa
tional act.
And, as sugges ted e arlier, I wo uld a rgue f or Shoah a s a me dia- s pec ific
w ork of mourning. A s film, it sh ows as much a s it te lls. The w ord s of the
witn es ses re ve al only a portion of a c om plex and s ubterr anea n dra m a.
Nonve rba l signs abound-the cas ting down of the glance; the shift ing of
body w eight; the uncanni ness of one survivor's m asklike facial expre s
sion, part smile, part grimace. Freud's case histories and Lacan's seininar
anec dotes are rende red exclu si vely th ro ugh language a t the expens e of pe r,
fo rmance or spect ac le. In Shoah, we have the opportunity to see and hear
.form er SS offi cers imp ugn the mse lve s through the tiniest inflection of to ne
or u sage, to wa tch as traumati c m emory beats it s wa y to the sur face. The
c ame ra incit es, records, and pre se rv es thes e su s taine d e fforts to spe ak the
most unsp eak able o f losses.
For the most pa rt, the films and tapes to which I have allude d here
re sp ond t<i private or familial sorrows, though almost al way s in a m an
ner th at implicates o rhers : och er bl ack, ga y males (Tongues Untied), othe r
daughte rs of Alzheim er' s patients (Com/1/aints of a Dutiful Daughter),
ot he r c hildr e n of Holocaust s urviv ors (Everything's for You). Frequently,
howev er, I have seen thcse_pie ces fo.ster identification well bey ond tha t ini
tial audie nce. I ba v.e a rgued that 1he fil m or tap e ca n functi on a s a work ·of
mour ning both for the artist and for a community o f others who share the
experienc e of loss. In addition, the work may, thr o ugh the trigge r o f grief
and in spite of cult ural o r political differences, e nge nder s pectator identifi
cati on with the maker who focalizes loss from a radic ally ali en position.
l will c oncl u de with s om e br ief r em arks about Chris Ma rke r;s The·
Last Bolshevik, another work whose m onume ntality Olltstrips the no rm.
In a m anner fa m ilia r fro m Letter from Siberia a nd St1.1is soleil, The Last
Bolshev ik i s of the epistola ry mode. ·rhe six letters that make up the
tap e's stru cture a rc addressed postmorte m t o Alex and er Jvanovitch
Medve dkin, M ark er 's dear friend and a Sovie t filmm ake r who s traddles
the century, hi s for tunes and longevity -(1900-1989} al so paralleling t hose
of tho Sovi et nat ion. The event that precipita tes this tw o -hour wo rk is
Medvedkin's death. The rape be gins with, and retu rns to, the im age of an
eld erly Medvedkin scolding Marker, hi s un reliable interlocutor, fo r his
failure to w r ite. "You lazy bastard," Jvi edve dkin berates him on c amer a,·
"why d on't y ou eve r write. Jus t a little. Like this." Me dvedkin ges tu res
with an ou tstretched le ft hand, his thu m b a nd index fioger inches apart.
The fr am e free-,es. All that follows, two hours of tap e time and M arket's
com mentary on nearly a centur y of Russ ian cultural and p olitica l history
"'' f'ILL INC UP THE HOt.& IM THI: llt:Al

with Me dv e dkin as dramatic foil, c onstitute the reply. Bu t i t i s a reply that
arrives too lat e. Or p erh a ps n ot..
If these leuers arrive at their d esiina tion (in th e manner that Lacan
describ ed in his fame d se mi nar on"The Purloi ned L ener"), they do so
only as a work of mournin g . But far fr om traci ng pr ivat e g rief, Bolshevik
.
mour ns n ot only the p assing of a b en evolent and l ar gely overlooke d to
temic ance .stor (as well as others, pur ge d or f all en-Bab el, Meyerh old,
Ver rov) b ut also the b etrayal of the ideal s and principles tha t u nd erwrote
th.e Ru s sia n R evolu ti on and th e Left in th is ccnt ur'y . In consummat e es
sayi stic fashfon, i\1arker suc ceed s in weavi ng to ge ther disparate level s of
refe reptiality an d hi sto�ica l na rr�tion. As a work of mo ur ning, The Last
Bolshevik displ ays a horizon of u nrivaled breadth. But more than that,' i t
is the work of a con summate i ronisr wh o, as a lifel ong acti vist and cine-·
phile , view s the p�litical transf orm ations a nd cultural wars of the c ent ur y
without n osta·lgia,.��ggrieved but not humorless.
I n the end; one m ust r ec og nize th at all this filling up and p atching
over of holes in·the Re a l h as it s limits. And yet,.as re gards th e work of t
mou r ni ng, ci nema and video p ossess a re mark abl e potential for crea ting '
. by bereaveme n t, l oss, and the need
. m uniti es, joined
n�w the r ap e.utic co_m '
for hea li ng.In 11 Very Easy Death, Si· m one de Beauvoir wrote abo ut the I
death of. he, mother.' .for Beauv . oir, i n the solit ude of her sor row and h .er .,
w ri ting, there w as littl e hop e for comm u nity. "Th e misfortune is tha t
altliough everyone must come co. chis, each experiences th e adventure in
soli t ud e.\Ve never lef t M aman d uri n& th o se l ast (jays which she c onf used •
wi th c onvalesc ence a nd ye t we we re pr ofo undly separat ed fr om her."27
Th e making and public di spl ay of th e films and videota p es t o which I h av e J.•
referr ed, all th e b ath os,_.the contro versi es, and resistan c es they h ave oc- ,
. .,
c asi oned, mu st be unders to od i n r elati on to th e profo uitd separatio n of
which Beauvoir sp eaks.
In his ana lysis of Hamlet, Lac ao made not e of th e rit ual value of
mourni n g, th e f ulfill men t of obligati on t o wha t i s c all ed the m em ory
of th e d ead. Ritu al va lue, he wrot e,"i ntrod uces s ome 1:nedia ti on of the
.gap ope ned up b y mo urn in g."28 R ecall Barth es' s pl aint-"D eath must
b e somewhere i n a soci ety"- an d hi s belief that it re sided i'o the photo
graphic im ag e. P�rhap s th ere, in the ritua l v al ue we ascrib e to the docu
menta .ry as a work of mourning, w e will discover a limite d b ut re silient
sour ce of recon ciliati on for our priv ate l os ses a nd p ublic t ragedi es.
rJ LLIN(; UP TH£ ffOlt IN THC RtAL 129
Digitized by Original (rom

Documentary Disavowals
[ 8 ] and the Digital
"D oc umen tary Disavowa ls, " first present ed a t Visible Evi den ce V
(North we ste rn Un iversity, 1997), re p resents a dep arture from the ap
pro ac h o f the pre v ious thr ee c hapter s, w hi ch ex amine the construction
of subj ec ti v ity wi thin d ocum enta ry film from a largely psy c hoa nalytic
p ers pectiv e. This chapt er be gin s with an o v er v iew ofZygmunt Bau man's
critique of the ,,wdernis t proje ct as an a�ve -nture in "social engi neering,·:
po sing it in re lation to d oc umentary filmmaking, whic h, it is argued,
has f req«ently served as a powe rful ins trume nt of ra tiona lity. Due to its
r he to rica l p ote n cy asa tool f or na tio n building, public e duc ation, and
a dvoca c y, the doc umentary f orm has c onsi ste ntly bee n harne ssed to th e
manufac t«re of s ocial c o nsent. This cha pter looks a t the iss ue s rais ed by
a documen tar y tradition i n which epistemo logi ca l or rhet or ica l ends
the acquisition of knowl e_dge or the per su a sive delivery of ideas to an

audience- override e thical ones. In the e thical c ontext, g rea ter va lue ma y
be a ttac he d to the cir c «mstances surroun ding the creative pr ocess (the
status and condit;ions Qf the social i nteraction, encount. er, and exchang e)
than to ihe fina l produ c t, under stoo d in tl, e commer c ial arena t o be the.
"botto1,1 li ne." In the insumce of some ethic a lly char ged works, the 01, en
ness an d ,;mtual receptiv ity betwee n filmmaker and subject ,nay be sa id
to extend to the re la tio nship between the audience and the film. Ope n
e xchan ge ma y be gi n to replace the o ne -way deli very of ide as. This ethic a l
c hall eng e i n the fi e ld of docum e ntary practic e e cho es tho se in c on te m
porary ar t an d phil osof,hy tha t. question models of mastery or abso/rde

cer tain ty, pla c i ng grea te r e mpl, asis on ope n - endedne ss, e n,pathy, and
recepti vit y .
Documentary has, from irs inception, been tied up with moden1ism. If, as
Zygmu nt Bau man bas suggested, the modernist dte,im wa s for "a unified,
,,.
ma n ag ed and contro ll ed space" achjeved through "pr ojects· of gl oba l so�
cia I engineering, la nd] t he . search for univer sal sta nd ards of truth, justice ·
and b eauty," d ocu menta ry ha s served as a willing handm a iden .' A spirin g
'
· io the po s t•Enlightcn ment promise of full legibi -ity, d ocumentary has .
l
di splayed "the aud acio us self-conf ide n ce and hubri s . of mod einity,"2 par
.
ti cularly. appa rent during th e pi nn acl e mome nts - th e r91o s i n the Sovie t
Union, t hc t�J°os in Britain . In ,_;,hat follow s, !,,viii offer elab ora;ion of .
Bauman's critique of the mod e mjst projec t and s ugg est its applicability to
documenta ry film hi.stor y before cou nter.po sing to it a few c o nt empo rar y
do cumenta-i:y pra cti ce s t hat explore digital, frequently i nteractive ; te ch
n ol o gi es an d thei r e thical p o ten ti al.
But first it is i1nporta n t to clarif y and offe( some reservati ons rowa·rd
rhe polemi cal, often totalizi ng, cl aims of the a ntimod ern is t po sition:·Ba u-·
man�s view of ''the mode rn ist project" upo n Which my ow n t hesis depend s
is . rhetorically powerfttl b ut tend s to collap se a tremen dously compl ex se t
of t erms capable of m ultipl e decl ension - t he mudern , modern ity, ·mode rn ••
ism, th e mo� erni st, modern ization-terms th at have b een rea lized qu.ice
dillcr ently in varyi n g historical moments and co n texts. It i s imporra.nt
_to note th e varia bilit y of the notion of "modern ism" (to c onsid er b ut one,· '·
th read of the probl ematic) in the hand s of va rious cultural criti cs. On e ··
e ncoui11crs aest hetic a nd lit era ry as w-ell as philosophical modern i sms,
m oderni sm s · infl ected by di vers e national o(region al cu ltu res. In his r e
ma rkabl e essar.."The Moderni st E vent," Hayd en White hinges his discus, ·'
si o n of th e un raveling of c erta in ty in t he field �f histori o graphy on so me
thing like t h e iote'rminability of analysi s as de sc°rib ed by Freud a c e nniry · · '
ago. \Vhite sugg est s t hat an y cla im s to an· objecti ve account of an ev ent '
a r� und ermined by two circumstanc e s: "on e is that the numb er of de tails '
. identifi abl e i n a ny singul ar eve nt is pote nti ally in finite; and t he oth er i s
. that th e 'con text' of an y sin gul ar eve nt is i n fi n itely extensi ve . o r at l east i s
.
n ot obj ectively d etcr mi nab e ."3 Th i s ch� ract eriz�tio n of " t he di sman tli ng
l
of t he con cept of' tb e ev en t as a n o bject of a sp e cific ally scientifi c ki nd of
knowledge" as "modernist"' seerns entirely at odds with Bauman's view
tlia t regards t he m od ern ist ag enda as un flinchingly ration alist and even·
di sciplin ary . Whi te att empts to cl ar,fy the con fusi on in a f o otn ote:
l want to make clear that by the tetm "'modcrnism.-t I ani not referr ing to tJtat
program of domi nacing nature through reason, science, and tech nology sup
posedly inaugurated by the Eolightcnmcnr; I refer, rather, to th e literary and
artistic movements l :iunchcd in the late ninet�cnth and early twentieth cen
turies against this very prog.rnm of modernization and its social and cultural
effccts-che moveme nt represented b y writers suc.h as Pound, Eliot, Stein,
Joyce, Proust, Wool f, and so on.4
DOCUN ·&NTART DISAVOWALS 131
Oigiti�ed by Original from

"Mo dern is m" appea rs t o be a cu ltur al t er m so ov erdet erm in ed as t o con
tain within it se lf app arent o ppo sites ( e.g., a nti mod ern mo d e rnists). .
.',
But the con fus ion pr olife ra tes . I n his infa mous essay o n p ostm odcrn
i sm, Fredric Jameson singl es out more or l ess th e sa me roster of litera ry
mo dernists as Whit e , but giv e n Jame s on's brie f for a the o r iz ati on o f the
postm odern, it is no s urpri se that he p re fe rs to thi nk of them as pr emature

p o stm odern ists. "It may indee d be c onc ede d tha t a ll th e featur es of post
mod�rnisni 1 am about t o en umerate can be detected, fu ll-blown, in this
or that prec eding mo dern ism (i ncluding such astonishing g enea logical p re
.
cursor s as Gertru de Ste in, Ray mo nd Ro usse l, o.r Marc el Du cha ·m p, who
may be c onsid ere d ou tright p ost mo dern ists, av ant la lctt re )."5 I am, how
ev er, less c onc e r ne d with pin p ointing the mome nt of s<,me aes the tic s hift,
more concerned ''-:ith the formation of a putative "modernist project"

in re la tio n to an e pi ste mo logical p ositio n that e volv ed i n the- ninetee nth
c en tury, de pende nt o n the su pport of ra ti onalism, t echno logy, a nd the
scientific me th od. It i s this philoso phically derived no tion of mod e rn ity to
which I am cla iming tan gency for the forging of th e docum ent ary project
i n the fi rst dec ades o f the twe ntieth ce ntury.
It. i s imp or ta nt to no t e that po st mode r nis m as Bauma n has d es c rib e d
it in a ha lf dozen of his b oo ks i s understo o d not a s a m atter o f chron olo
gy, o f the re placeme nt of modernism with s ome thing n ew, but rather as
a n epi st emic rea lign ment born o f a n a ckno wle dg ment "that the long an d
e arnest e ffo rts o f mo de rnity bav e be e n mi sguide d, un de rtake n u n de r fal se
p re te nses ... [demons tra ting) bey ond reas onabl e doubt [mo d e( nity's)
impo ssibility, the van ity ·of its hope s a nd the wast ef u lness of its w orks."•
For Bauma n, the postmo de rn is an attitude toward k nowl edg e rath er
than a mere marker <>f c ont emporane ity. I n muc h the same vein, Stephen
Tou lm in has chara ct e rize d the est ablish me nt o f m o<ler n ism 's ra ti ona li st ·
roots-the t u rn to rhetoric a nd l og c, the fav or ing of the abstr ac t o ver the
i
particular-throu gh Descartes in the seventeenth century as a na rrowing
o f in te ll ect u al hor iz on s (an d h ere he has i n mind the Mo nt a ignean skepti
cism o f the centu ry be fo r e)'. Thus a s ig nifican t subse t o f pr e - and pos t

mo derns share a di st r us t o f the qu es t fo r c e (ta i nty.' From thi s perspe ctive,
postmo dern is m emerges les s as a ne w idea or fashit�nable trend than as a

mora l and intellect ua l re co v ery .
. I w ould therefore stres s the a lignment of the m o derni st critique with

ethic al concei-ns rather than with aestheti c ones and with the concomi
tant deba t.e s su rr ounding . p eriodiz ati on or artistic te chniq ue. The rath er
s in gula r noti on of pr o gres s th at pr ovide d the ide ologic at sc affolding for
th e construction of the mod e rn nation dese rves to be s t renuo usly c ha l

le nge d. S ocia l sy ste ms char ting th eir co urses toward m o de r nity tended
132 • O OCUM£NTAR't D ISAVOWALS

to assume the infallibility of rati onali t y an d a ll th at ic promised- t he
r ewards of . scie nce , th e ev ec-gteate r p owe r of tech nol ogy to mas te r na
rure, th e heigh te ned effici enc y o f the b urea ucrat ic o.tder and the so cia l
en gi nee r in g it made p oss ible. Bue s ome concemp ora ry c,itic s ha ve cla ime d
tha c the Holo ca ust, Hiroshi ma , and the Gul ag are just as surely (p erh a ps
ine vi tably) the pr. odu c ts o f that mo dernis t project as pen icillin or the fa x .·
ma chi ne .8 Bauman h as argued fo r th e Hol o caust a s "ale giti1naie resident
in th e house of m od er nit y; inde ed, o� e who would not be at home in any
Other hous e."9 He describes a system in wbi�h citiz en-work ers fin d them
selv es imn1ers ed i n a compl ex arJd fun ctionally differ.
entiate d b ureaucrac y,
. .
"di stantiate d from th e i mate outc omes o f he o peration o. w hi ch the y
ul t t t
contr ibuce ," s o tha c chei r p r imar y concer n beco mes go od per forma.oce o f_
the jo b at h. a nd: "moralit y boils do wn t o the co nuna nd,ncnt,t() be a goo d,
.
10
e ffici ent and diligent exp er t and worker." In sucli a sec ting, otherwis e
moral i.ndividuals ca n rn�nufacture uapa�m or launch cruis e missiles at
de p ersonalized targe cs.
In genera l, mode r ni t y h as b'\en ch ar ged with rema ining whc,lly in- ,
ca p abl e o f acknowl edging its limit ati o ns, its a por i as th at were assume d
to be "momenta ry laps e(s) o f reason soon to be re c rified."11 Ac cordi ng_to ·.
the l o gic of modern.ism, if-technol ogy c reat ed new pro bl ems ("fina l solu
tions ," atomic weapons, o zor�e depl et io n), ic also cont ai ned the p owcr· to
solve ch em. But tha t grand cer tai nt y, two h undr ed years i11 the maki ng,
fl ourishes . no longef . In his Postmodernism and Its Discontents, Bauman •
recit es th e symptoms: "the paucity of se nse, pOrousnc-.ss of bord ers, i11con
si st en cy of sequences, (t he! .,a prici ousne. ss o f lo gic and fra il t y o f author i
tie'.s."12 And though Bauma n, a sociOlogist by training, is most anuned to ''.

.'.
·
the mora l cha lle n ges e ncountere d in th e c unent m o ment, he (einforces hi s -•.
clai m s for ·the ''uncertaini:z.ation" of everyday l ife through (e cours e to an

analysis of . social re ali t y: in France in 1994, 70 pe rc en t of a ll new emplo y
ment was temp orar y or fixed term ; in th e Unit ed St ates , 90 perc ent o f
vacancies offCrcd in 1993 were part- time, with?ut. insurance or bene fits.13
M o reo ver, withi n the professi onal and manag�r ia l ranks, there are fewer
gua (ame e s; a greater unpt ed,c tability of ca reer paths is evident. For the
.A meric an worki ng p erson, a s fo r the Continent al philosopher, the gra rid
cer ti t ude, product o f che mo dern age , has i nd e ed beg u 11 to dis sip ate.14
For the pre sent p urp oses, it is imp orc ant that this critique of the mo d
ernist p rojec t b e his toricized. Tbe pr inciple of unive (Sal reason , touch srone
of p o st-Enlighc enment thought, wa s ma ss ively fa cilitat ed by the g row th

a nd r efinement o f th e nati on- state dur ing m o dernit y' s two -hu ndred-year
reign . It is he re ch at one e nco u nters the confl uence of an i ncipi en t do cu
me nt ar y pr oje ct, par tic ul arly alive in the S ovi et Un ion and Grea t Br ita in
DOCUMtJfTARY D1$A'l0WAL S 133
O i�itized by Original from

in the 1920s a nd 1930s, with t h e n ati on-building imp erativ e of that age.
T he most ambiti ous do cumentar y effo rts hav e often c o upl ed a zea l otry fo r
sci ence and nation. Dziga Vertov is p er ha ps exempla ry:
Our path leads through the p0etry of mach ines, from the bungling citizen
to the perfect electric man.
In revealing the machine's soul, in causing the worker to love hjs
workbench, the peasant his tractor, the engineer his c;nginc-
wc inrroduce creative joy into all mechanical labor,
we bring people into closer kinship w:ith machines,
we foster new people. (192.2.)1.S
Annette Mi chelson bas noted th e i rony of Ven ov's va loriz ation of the
forced indus tria lizati on and accelerating bu tea ucra tization of tbe Sovi e t
Union throu gh his pu bl ished manifestos and films s uc h ;is The Man with
a Movie Cam.era (1929), Enthusiasm (1930 ), and Three Songs for Lenin
(,934). For despite his dev otion to the "chronicling of th e pr oduct ion
of th e ne w regime," Verrov was hims elf soon to b e cr ushed ben eatb t he
weight of an in cr ea singl y .restrictiv e c ultural apparatus and would spend
th e last two deca des of his life f r ui tl es sly a w aiting a next o pportunity. 16
But no figure h as so d efined th e "project " of documentar y a s John
Gr ie rson, and_few h ave so re lentl essly purs ued the promoti on and ad
vancement of state ai1ns th rough their creative practices. During his years
heading th e film unit for t he Empire Ma rketing Board (r928-1934) and
t hen at the G en era l Po st Offic e (1934-1939), G ri e;son forged a British
documenta ry film mov em ent. Recru iting tale nte d you ng men fresh out of
Ca mbridge and a dding to th e ir nu mbe r exp eri enced professiona ls such a s
Rober t Fl aherty and Alb erro Cava lca nti, Gr ierson create d a siz able and
quit e prolific fil m-produc tion group ent husiasti c in its pursuit of a single
mandate : "to bring t he Empi re a live ."
We were instructed, in effect, to use cin ema, or alternatively to le-arr, muse
it, to bring aliv e th e industries, th e harvests, the res earch es, the productions,
the for:ward-l o�king activitie s o f all kinds; in short, to bring ch e day-to
d ay acti"·ities of the Br itish Commonwealth and Empire at work into the
· common ima g.ioat ioo.... If you ar e to bring a livc-t�is was the E.N1.B.
ph ra se-the mater ial of commerce and industr y, th,e new bewild ering world
of inventi on and sci ence and chc modern comp lex of human celationship; if
y ou are to make c.itizcnship in our vast new world imaginative and, rh ere
foce , possible, cinem a is, on the face of it, a p owerful weap on.17
Aes th eti c exper imen ta ti on was to rake a ba ckseat to t h e e xpre ssion of
fil mic sta temen ts t ha t we re "hont'St and lucid and dee ply felt and which
13' OOC UMt.tfTARY P1$AYOW'AL $

. '
fulfil th e b es t ends of citiz ens hip"; but tl:t e unab ashe d goal of the u nit wa s
"to comman d, and c umulatively command, the mi nd of a generati on ."18
Such a.1>ronounceme nt scarcely sounds innocent. lt is no wonder
that in th e midst of a book devotc.d ptimarily to th e i ntecto gation of th e
Griersonian re alist docu m�ntary projecc, Bria n Wi nston i ncl udes a ch ap
ter on the work of Len i Ri efens tahl.1� Winston is concerned to tr ace the· .'
e ffects of " offici al '.'· or state -s pons <)re d do cumenta r y films, which, h e
argues , always ten d to reinf or ce the exi sti ng social order (and are i n this
sen se n ece ssarily con set vat ive) while con s istendy " runn ing away from
social mea ni ng" (by whicl\ he m eans they refuse . a more radi ca l or s ys
temic critique of the soc·i al ill s they su rv ey). It could certai nly be argued
tha t the Griersoni ari s, wo rking mostly for Tory governments, helped to ·
. .
put a fri endly face on Briti sh impe ri ali sm in Song of Ceylon (1934) or sel l
a lukew acm reforl!1ism . in ce spons e t o pr es�ing sl um cle arance · quest ions
(J-lo11sing Problems, ,935). In this sense, Gri erson is to b e fault ed for
espo usi ng prog res sive vi ews whil e deiive r in g social imegrati on i sm and up
bea t nation-b uildi ni rh etoric for c ons er vative Britis h regimes be twee,i the '
wa rs.But my own conc ern i s for tr acki ng th e de vel opment of documen
tary film as a potent a nd highly persuasive v ehi cl e of social engi neering,
s ellf n g. rh etoric al a r guments as rturhs, visions . o f the world as objective
accounts of histor)'. From this perspecti ve, the probl em with Vcrto,• aod
·Gri erson (an d, by extensi on, th e docu me nta.ry fil m trad iti on th e y helped
ro launch) was their: aggress ive -indee d, pulv eri zing-self-assurance in
th e pursui t of Truth, S oviet-styl e or Tor y .
In Dzi ga Vertov's hands, documentary may indeed have ser ve d the · ,
rationali st a e sire for a tota l zing, eve r-per fe ctible vision of th e so cial
i
.
-:,,..
world. But at the clo se of thi s cen,;ir y, the ()pti mism of the modern s has '· "
gi v en way to a sens e of thei r proje ct' s fail ure . "R easo1t has gi ven ri se to a
secularization of the divine,"' wrote Hans Ri chter in th e l ate 1930s. "Our
ag e de mands the doc um en t ed fact ....Th e mo de rn re producth•e tech
nology of th e ci nematograph was uniquely r espo nsive ro the nee d for fac
tual su s tenanc e . T he (appa rent) incorru ptibility of o ptic.s·guaranteed ' ab

;olu te truth.'"20 Can we detect i n Rich tcr;s words, hi s phraseology-" the
(appa rent) i nc orruptibility of opti cs"-a tinge of do ubt? Ri chrer w rote
· these lines in Swi tzerl and shor tly before his exile to the Un i. ted States , fl ee
in g from a totalit ari anism that some have called the ver y apotheosis of the
mode rni s t project.
Rece nt sch ol arship ha s provid e d ne w insigh ts into documentary' s his
rorical rol e as an instrum ent of r ati onality; the critiques off ere d reveal tb e
unde rside of this century's sciemific quest.Li sa Cartw right has br illi antly
DOCUN£1fTA RY Dl$AV0WAL S 135

traced the found a ti ons of the doc umenta ry film as a scie ntific, dee ply dis
c ipli na ry tool used to pcnerr are and con trol (ofte n fema le) hodi es,21 whil e
Fatima h Tobin g Rony has show n tha t the authority of the ethnographic
fil m wa s, from its beginnings, pre dicated oi1 its va lue as "an u;1impe.ach
a blc sc ientific i n de x of race ."22 In their w riting s , Ca rt wr ight and Rony
re mind us tha t mode rnity, joyous in its constant reinvention of its elf, w a s
.
alwa ys a lso aggr es sive, ev er in n ee d of n ew fron tiers for c onquest. The
se arch was for universal standar ds c onsistent with the era 's "a mbitions of
homogcncity."'3 The a rticle of moderni st faith wa s cer!aillty-absolute
an d'unassa ila ble -m a n ife s t i n a dee p be lief i n the ne cessity of orde r
making, in progress, in science as a cun1bersome but self-correcting
1neclianism.
Reca ll tha t the ve r sion o f pos tmo der ni,y de ve lo ped he re re fers pri
m arily to an e pis te mological positi on, n ame ly, a c riti ca l attitude towa rd
a b solutis t n otions of tru th ,hrough r ationa lity. It is this un de rsta nding
of post moder nism as the en d of a c ent u ries-long re f usal, the term ina ti on
point of a n epi ste.,.;ologica l bli nd�ess tha t guide s this �onside rari on of
documen tary disavowa ls. While I don 't ig n or e the psyc hoana lytic con
n ma ti ons of the con cept of disavowa l, I w ill nor foc us on the s pe cifically
Freudia n conception of th e ter m vi a tbe notio n of Verleugnitng, the split
ting o f belie f i n defe nse of the eg o. 24 I wi sh instead to ac tiv ate the mo ra l
ch ar ge a ttache d to the fig u re o f di sav ow a l as a c omplex mode of refusal
to ac k no wle dge or to cla im respons ibility for_ the meaning s an d effects of
docu men tary prac tices devoted to certit ude-s ober , cer t ai n k nowle dge
i n all it s epis temologica l v iole n ce and in all it s illusion s.H
I will focus on r ecent wo rk i n video an d c o mpu te r i maging, electr on
ic, and digita l forms tha t ca ll i nto ques tion many of the Bazini an prece pt s
that unde rpi n d_ocumemary prac tice-i ndexicality, the ontologica l, even
spiritua l, bon d betwe en mode l a nd i ma ge, a dee p- se a ted faith i n rea li sm.26
Fo r while it may ha ve been faith i n God ra ther tha n s ci ence.that i m pelled
Ba zi.n's deeply i n flue ntia l wr iting s, the doc trines of film-as-relia ble-i ndex,
as relic-o f-a-r etrievable-pasi, tha t Ba zin so el oquently espouse d ha ve func
ti oned a s a rtc hori ng poi nt s for the docu me nta ry t ra dition's se l f -a ssurance.
To the mo dernist ad mixture of reaso n a n d history, Bazi n s imply a dde d ,1·n
atavistic measure of faith.
But befor e turning to the case of digita l im a gi ng, I wa nt to conside r,
if b rie fly, an othe r a ct of docu men ta ry d.is avowa l, that of one recent critic
who has inve ighed a ga inst t.he oreti cal w riting on docu m enta ry fil m de
rive d "from po s t mo dernist dog ma." In a recent essay, Noel Ca rr oll takes
as his g oa l the refutati on of w ha t he cails "ov erly facile ske pticis m a b out
the p ossibility of m a ki ng motion pictu res tha t are ge nui ne ly i n the. service
136 D OCUM CNTA IY DISAVOWALS

of knowl e dg e."27 C arroll argues f or th e effic acy of "estabfi shed pr otocol s
of inqui ry" f or document ary practitioner s th at ensure th at they, like thei r
·kin d re d spiri ts tb e phy sicists, bri n g " standards of objectiv ity to bear ."'*
C arroll ch aracter izes the ri sing t id e of skepti ci sm as "philoso phi cally
harml ess ," refusing, for exa mple, the validi t y of Hayd en White's th eoriza - .
t ion of histor i� a l writin g as trop ological, r e adi n g Wh .i te's p ositi o n· i nstea d
as ao a r gumen·t for narrative-as-distortion..
\Vhil e I was in iti ally puzzled at C arroll's blank et lab eling of rece nt
documentary theory. as "_p oslmodcrnist," I have come to understand it s ·
s� nse. Carroll i s an a pologist for the d ocum�nta ry proj ec t in all its mo d
e rnist ambi ti ons. Des pite th e fact th at my self, Bill Nich ols, an d Bri an
\Vi nstoo (pti ncipal objects of atta ck) h av e rare ly addressed postmodern
ism i n aqy di r ect way in · ou r w riti n gs o.n docmnentary fil m, Carroll .is
not so far off tlie. m ark. H e is corr ect to n ote that much curre!ll work
on do cu mem ary acknowl edges th e tradi t ion's hi storic al alignn_iem with
the· d r earns of universal reason, its pr edil ection f or,Truth in Hisror'. y.
Conti ngeocy,.hybri dit y, k nowledge as situate� and p articul ar, identity
as a sc ribed a nd p erf orme d (id eas n ow ver y much al ive i n d ocument ar y
studi es) s eem o ut of phase with the quest for sta ndards of objectivity, es
tablish ed p roto col s of inquiry, the. beli e f in d isin tereste d k n owledge - th e ..
ratio nali st p r incipl es to which Carr oll de sp erately cling s . If contemporary
cul tural theori st s tend to re gard these l atter ideas with irn;lifference, ev en ·
be m·u se me nt, Ca rro ll's t one .i s that of t he reproa chful phil osopher, scold,· -.
ing the untu tore d. But it i s imp or tant to note th at th e skepticism wi thi n · , ...•
documenta ry theor y to which Ca rroll so disparagi ngly refers (his essay' s ..,
ti tl e is "Nonficti on Film and P<5stmo dern ist S kep ticism" ). fa - r from b ei ng,
merely trendy an d misb e gotten - ca n cl a im a phil oso phi cal ped igree (e .g.;:,,
Heracli tus , S ocrates, Montaigne) at l east as a ncient a·nd di sti nguished as
hi s own.My int ere st in C arroll' s c ritique is a sp e cif i c one, t hou gh_, f or I
pro pose th at in its unwillingn ess to acknowl edge the limits and liabili ti es
of an ins tr u men tal rationalit y in and fo r the documenta r y. proje ct, it b e
viewed as an arch instance of c'd o cum entary disavowal." .
Although I a m ma ki·n g a cl a im h ere ab out digi tal and computer
b ase d m edia b earin g some sort of epistemic ·rel ation to th e p ostmodern
turn , I w ant to steer clear of any totalizing claim s. Ev en a bri ef consid era.
tion of t he b est known of these globalizing analyses of video will show ·
why. Fred ric .Jameson's "Vid . e o: Su rre ali sm without th e Un c onscious" h as

been °roundly excori ated by tho se of lc>nger acqu ain tanc e with: t he medimn.
Jam e son dee m s vide o " the r ichest all e g orical and hermen eutic vehicle" for
ch e cu rrent cul tural hegemoi,y and calls exp erimemal-vide o "rigorously
cot ermi·nous wi th p oscmoderni sm itself as a historical p erio d.... the art
OOCU MCJtTA IIY DISAVOWAi. $

. 137

form pa r exce lle nce of la te c apit alism."29 The gro unds for such a state
ment, in dee d, for the entire ty of the a rgum ent, are sha ky. Jam es on beg in s
poo rly by c onflating arti s ts' v ide o and co mme rcial televi sion as the me di
u m's "twi n n1anifesr a t ions." He g o e s on to sugge st, in a ma nner scandal
ems to those who have bee n wri t ing on the subject for twenty ye ars , that
t here is li ttle ex tant v ide o the ory bu t o ffers video 's alle ged "struc tu ial
e xclus i on o f mem o ry" as a foun da t iona l in sight. Crit ic s such as Ray mond
Bc ll our, Ma ureen Turi m, Marita Sturken, and Er ika Suderburg wou ld
reply that memory a nd its vi cis situde s pro vide the grou nd on whic h s ome
of video 's most profo un d media tions have been figur e d.JO Jam eson t he
ma t izes video as tied up with the m as te r trope o f "p syc hic fragme ntation"
(the best term for "what a ils u s to day"). Wholly shorn o f re fere ntial an
chora ge, v ide o is cl a imed to be constitut ionally incap able of po ssessing
doc umentar y value . M·orcover, at its co r e, v ideo is alle ged to short - circuit
tradi t ional inte rpretive appr o ac hes,
Now reference and reality dis.appe ar altogethe r, and even me aning - the
signifi ed -is problcmati ied. We arc left with thar pure and r�mdom play of
significrs chat we c.all postmoderoism, which no longer produces roonu1t1en
tal works of t he modernist type but ceaselessly reshuffles the fragments o f
preexistent texts, the bu ilding blocks of. older cultural and social production,
in some new and heightened bricolage ... such is the logic of po stmodern
ism in g�neral, which fo1ds some of its srro11gest and most original, authentic
fo rms in the new art of experimental vidco.J•
While t his c haracter iza t ion he lps ma ke co here nt Ja me son's own
project-to terricor ia lize pos tm odern theo ry-it obscures a g rea t de al
more. Ja me so n's tota lizing cla ims hav e little to ()ffer us as.we. interrogate
t he r adi cal ambi valence of cu rren t vide o practices' confr onta t ion with
hist orica l rep rese ntati on. Yes, many of the ontologi cal, epistemologic al,
a nd textual stan dards famili ar from the cinem a a -nd who lly c ri t ical f or
t he docum entary proj ec t-have bee n destabiliz ed by ·the el ectr on ic media.
But more salien t for u nderstanding v ideo in its epist emi c m omen t a re the
hinge ide as of a mbiva lence, o f vacillat ion, undecidability, s plit belie f . In the
·face of certainty, v ide o int roduces not a bs o lute unc ertainty ( i .e.,
fragm entati on w rit la rge r but rat her mut abili ty, s kepticis m, p erhaps eve
a b emuse d agnos tic ism
In a slightly differ en t re g is ter, Zygmunt Ba uman ha s nominate
v ideo as the po stm o dern medium of c hoice for its re la ti on to the proble m
ati c of ident ity . Al t houg h l que s ti on the v alue of any an d all glo
c harac te rizati on s o f me dia f or ms , Baum an's account has t he advantag
of referr ing less t o t he medium's int r insic fea t ures than to it s ma t
and functions ; hi s c once rn i s for videotape as a substrate of di scurs ivity
138 DOCUMtMTA llY DISAYOWAL S

sy nc with the c urren t mom enr. Whac's mo re, Bauman cqooses to set video .
ag ainst i ts photog ra phic f oreb ear a nd i n so doi ng h as some-thi ng to s ay
about th e co nve rgence of m od ernist con·ce rns with t hose of the documen
tary pr oject .
If the modern "pro bl em of identit y"' was how to cons tru ct an i�emiry a n d
· keep it s. oU d and stable, the postmodern ... problem Of iden tity" is primaril y
.. how to avoid fixation and keep the options opcq. In the case of id en tity, as ;
in other c.ises� th e catchword of modern ity was "'creation"; th e catchword of

p osrmode rnit y is "rec ycling." Or one may say that i{ the " medi a which wa:;;
che mes.sage" of moderr\ity was the ph otogr aphic paper {think of releritles.s ly
s-w.el li ng family albums, tracin g page b y yel lo wi n g page the $l ow accretio n
of i rreversible at1d non-eras.able identity-yi eldi ng eve nts). the ulti matel y
postmodern mediu m is che videot ape {emi nen tly erasable �n� reu sable, cal·
culaced 1\0t to hold any thing forever, admitting tod ay's events solel)' on con
dicioi1 of effaci ng yesterda y' s on es, oozing the mess age o f' u.rli\'ersal " until·
· furthcr-noticenes:s" of C\'tryihing de�med worthy o(recordini)- The m ai n
ide ntity-bound anxiet y of modern times was t.h e \.\lorry about durability; it is
the concern with co m miun eiu- avoidance toda· y . Mod ernit y built in s_teel and": ' , ...
concrete; postmodern ity-i n bio-de grad able pl:.iscic.31
..
In acco rd wi th mod e rnism, th e d o cuni entar y id ea has d ep en ded o n p re s
er vation, d u rabili ty, c ap tu re. I n p ost mod ernity, vi_d eot ap e , no tab le for its
•· •
ub iq uity, endl ess receptivity, and epheme rality, s eems far less s u ited t9
d ocwnentary's aggressive as sc.niveness.
Whil e I am intrig u ed by Bau m an's ca n ny pronounc em ents, I have.
..
littl e inte rest in pa(Sing ou t video's in herem properties, a modern is t gam·
bi t after all. I am mo re co nc ern ed to analyze the w ays that som e current
applic atio n s of digital and el ec tro n ic medi a have ser ved 10 u n dercut the .•
mastery model endemi c to the docum en t;iry projec t, a mod el I h ave ch ar· ::,
acte riz ed as de eply ra tion alist. There i s in this a kirid of historical i rony
giv en rhat· thcs c countermod ern is t applicatio n s h ave evolved withi n the
ve r y Cfl!Cible of sci ence. Furthe rmore, i n contrast to Jam eson, who offers
exp erim ental video as die emblem of p sychic fr agm en tatio n and h ence o .f
'
I our c urrent pl ight, I am inte rested in new media practi ces that, in the ir
re pre se ntati on of th e r eal, und ercut certai n ty o/ any so rt {e v en the cer·
tainty of thcmatization), casting the viewer/participant a{J rift in an oce an

of possibili ty . I am iraci ng a movenient from th e streamlining of v isi oo
toward a si ngul ar truth {the id ent ifiably mod erni st documentary proj ec t)
to the ombrace of ambi val enc e, multipl e, even co ntrad icto r y, b e li ef.
. Despite my attention to these specific applications of digita l media,
I am n ot, as I have s tre.sse d, claimi n g that the re is anylhi n g in tr insi c c o
digi_t al m edi a that prom otes ske pticism. The mos t commerci al us es of this
t ech n ol o gy wo rk i n the oppo si te di re c tion , for exampl e , th rou gh the use of
DOCUMEN TARY 01$AV0WA LS 139

digita l co mpo sitin g te chnique s to retou ch, color c orrect, even add new de
tails to rhe mise -en-scCne of commercial morion pictures, alway s with the
inte ntion of a seam less · resu lt. Illus ion rather than cr itique is the defining
ai m of digital tools su ch as the Quante! Domino sy stem, a sophisticate d
a nd ver y cos tly de vice t_ hat mo biliz e s s cien ce in the s ervic e of se a mless
nes s. In Quante l's e ghth e dition of The Digital Fact Book, u n der "e rro r
i
de tecti on , co n ceal men t and corre ction ," the following can be fo und:
No means o f d igital recording is perfect.Uotli mag1tetic rape and disks suffer
from a few marginal recording areas where recording and rep lay is difficuJt
or cvCn impossible. How ever the errors C...l"' n be detected and some action
ukcn for a remedy by concealment or correction.The former attempts to
hide.the problem by making it not so noticeable whcre3S the lacter actually
corrects the error so that perfect data is Output. .l3
The presu mption is that "perfect data" p roduce sea m less produ ct,
providin g motion picture producers with alternacive s to re shooting sceoes,
la bor ious ly dressi n g sets, or hi r ing la r ge number s o f extra s (n ow tha t a
han df ul of extr as ca n be digitally duplic ate d a d infinit um).\Ve a re bac k to
the p er fectibility of th e vis ual apparatu s ii la Ve r tov, b ut fa r from "laying
bare the de vice," a s the Russ ia n fo rm . a lists callcq>for, pe r fection is defin ed
a s invisibility, obf uscation.The mome nt of critique is n ot ably absen t.
The goal of su ch digit al samplin g ·sy s tems , then, is tr anspa ren cy,
the ability t o si m ulat e the look o f fil m i n all it s photoche m ical fidelity
10 the p rofil mic. Much of the d es ig n and re fi nement o f such sy stems has
foc used on th.is goal, as illustra ted in a pa s sage fro m Film in the Digit.al
Age, pu blished by Qua n te ! Ltd.for its cli entclc: "Study of the spatial and
dynam ic resolu tion of fil m has b een an e ss ential p ar t of ar riving at a s ui t
able digital s ampli ng fo rmat.... mea n in g that the digital syst em , film
ro-film is e ffective ly uanspa rcn t n- ot only for scene de tail b ut al so for
the 'filmic' k;o k."34 The s_ ame can b e said for the c om•ersion of analog to
-digital signa ls for te levi sion b roadca st. Ana log m ater ial is co nve r ted t o.
dig jtal (with 16 m m, 35 mm or 70 nun fil m , if. necessa ry, b eing tra nsferre d
to hig h-q uality D2 cap e stock); and corre ctions a re made or new mate rial
in trodu ced in the digital for mat be fore the r econver sion tc> analog.In a
manner a nalo gou s to the sam plin g applicatio n fo r fe at ure fil ms , the int e,it
here i s to "faithfu lly re co nst ruct the o rigin al ana logu e sig nal."35
The rhetoric of transparen cy suffus es the Quante ! manuals.
For the Domino system to be tra,ispare11t it is not necessary.to produce �rn
output negative which matches the original in terms o f abso lute density, but
it must match the dynamic range of the tegio 11 to be printed .36
. 140 OO CUM I:NTAIIT 01$11.VOWA&.S

It is a prime requiremen t that the use of Domino shou ld be transparent t o
the printed result-with input and output image.s matchi n g so - input dy
n�mic range muse 1�atch output dynamic range...l 1
The �Xposure control provides all th :.H is necessary for 1.ransparent opera
tion .fr<::im well produced interpositive material.3•
S ea mlessness a,in ou nces the successful blendi ng of photog raphic and digi
ta lly pr oduce d mat eria l so th at diff erence i s elid e d, disbeli ef s usp en d e d.
Th e tra nspa ren cy towa rd which the Doo1ino syste� s tr ai ns i s the guar -
ante e of illusi. on," the c re,\tion ,,f an invi sibility (a signifyin g aps cnce ) eo
� owed with gceat exch ange value. Perh ap s, in thi s "post -l egitimation era ,"
'
this ti me �f dissip� ting ce ctainty, of fra g mentari ne ss an� accent uate d dif
fere nce
. , what th e se. com01er cial appli cati o ns of digital me dia o ffer is no t
on fac t a guarantee, only it s semblance. Thi s spectral guarantee �ay b e
und e rs tood a� a postmo de rnist gest ure of a very limited sort, one whose
moral status must be questioned. These industrial usages exist. in . contra-
distinction to another mo. de of current digital media practice that ac ti. vely ". ·
cultivates openness and critique. '
I would like now to turn ro. several instances of wo rk in which some
t enets centra l to t. h e m od er nist proj ect- cer tainty, the. r ul e o f ra tio •.
nality, th e pursuit (>f di scur sive mas ter y-are pl ace d i n re lief: L.A. Link . .
·
'
( r 9 9 5 1- 998)", Daniel Reeves's Obsessive" Becomi11g· (1995), an d the digi tal
interac tive a rt of Jim C ampb�II (1991-1994).39 Whil e th e exam pl es gi ven ·· .
d o n ot conform to tradi tional d ocument ary format s , each of th em . engage s "''
· in th·c represenrati on_ of "flesh -an d-blood" historic al events, p erson s, or ,.'
experiences rather rbao ficcional ones; each of them interv�nes i n. our "
-
_perception or understan din g of the social world. I wi sh to d raw out the ,,
i·mpli cari oos of these criti ca l intervention s as evidence o( wh at I take to b e
a sig n ifi cant trend rebutting mo<lc rnis t prac tic es in the fi el d o f hi stori ca l
representation.
The fi rs t of the se. examples i s the L.A. Li nk proj ect, in whi ch J h ave
been engag ed for the past rwo;years and abo�t _:.,hich I ha ve written clse
wher_e in this b oo k.•0 Wi th the pcoje c t , Hi-8 i ma ges a re digitally c om<
pr es se d a nd tra nsmitted over ISDN lines for d eco mpression an d dis play
at di s tant sit es. Usi n g compu ter s and vi deo conferencing techn olo gies,
los A ngcl es ·area teens from diverse back groun ds ca n see and hear one
a no th er in so me thi ng lik e real ti me. The pcojec t expl ores t he ki n d o f rela
ti onships th at can be es tablish e d o ver the link, th e extent to· w hic h creative
colla borati ons are p ossibl e, t he quali t y of po tential encoun ter s b etween
interl ocut ors who . meet "fac e to face" bur only in cyberspace. I wo uld
OOCUNl:NTAIIT D1$A'l0W,H.S ...

· Digitized by Original from
sugge st tha t L.A. Li nk op erates a t a grea t re move fr om the modernist
documen tar y e thos. It is in tere sted in open ing up a s p ac e of interpe rs o.nal
c on tac t, of re ce ptiv.e ne ss t o an d "dwe lling with" th e other, ·rathe r than
clos ing down or re fin in g a p a th of r ation a l inquiry an chore d t o a t errito
ri ali zing discourse. .L.A. Link fun cti ons in a cc or d with the concen.trate d
or pr oduc tive list ening thar phil os opher Ge mm a Corra di Fiumara has
desc .ribe d as the rep re sse d side of a coercive logos. In The Other Side of
Language: A Philosophy of Listening, she re tu rns to Heidegg er's r emarks
o n the e ty mo logica l linka ge of "l ogos" (i n the Grce k; legein), whose
leg acy is pri ncip ally tha t of "saying," to the Germa n word legen, which
mea ns to lay down or lay b efo re. Fiu mara a rgues tha t logos bas, within
We stern cu lture, devolv e d int o a "saying-without-lis tenin g" rhat sub or
dina te s the she lterin g an d receptive side of l angua ge-fundame nts of the
maieutic meth od-to the assertive ness of <liscourse.41 And no variant of
fil mic disc ours e is mo re assertive t.ba n the d ocumen tary tha t Nichols b as
famously descr ib ed as constit urive ly a rg u ment base d. I there fore p ose the
L.A. Li nk proje ct a s a s o rt of tent arive a ntip(>dc to the document ar y proj
ect as define d in modetnist terms. le is an en te rprise intende d to �xplore
var ious e lec tron ic techno l ogies ' list e ning po ten tia l, their a bility to provide
a shelt er for rece ptivity rather than a scaffolding fo r arg ume nc or a bridge
for sp ariotem p oral conq uest.
I wan t t o say on ly a· few things a bo ut Daniel Reeves's re marka ble
video tap e Obsessive Becoming, altho u gh it cer tainly deser ves far m ot e e x
ten de d tr ea tment than c an be accorde d it here. I wish ro sin gle . ou r for at
tention the m orphing tec hniq ue utilized i n the ta pe. In the hands of Daniel
Reeve s, the digit al techn ol ogy that, as with the Qu� nre l D om in o sysrem,
has pr oved ca pa ble of seam lessly grafring simu la ted o bjects ont o indcxi
cal repieseora·tiOns is. l,sed inste ad to undermin e verisimilitude. Reeve s
ha s_ c alled hi s approac h in this tap e "ragged magic a l rcalism."42 Thr ough
digitizing nume rous phot ogra phs of v ari ous family members and recon
figu ring t hem as di sc re te c omp ute r files, it beca me pos.5ible for Re eve s, la
b odo usly an d over. a five -year p erio d, to c ontr(>I the ra te at which a single
pbo tographic_image liquefies a nd c ongea ls i nto another. Lines of gender
and generati on no lon g er hold sway; the tr auma s of Reeve s's ow n child
hoo d are ev oke d and ye t sup er se de d a nd tra nsmuted u nder hi s me dit ativ e
g az e. Through hypn o tic narration (Reev es's own voicin gs), th e ovecl ay of
diver se, often haun ting mu sical phrases, an d the fluid inter mingling of im
ageS, Reeves ushers his audience into a "liminal zone,n a space of height-
en ed re c eptivity.
Reeve s's is a worldview a ligne d with Ze n. Buddhist p rin ciple s more
,., OOCU MtNTART 01 $AVO WALS

In Daniel Reeves's Ob�sive Bee-0nii11g, a single
family photo liquefies and congeals
into� crossing lines of gender and generati on. Reprinted with permission.
than rationalist ones. He suggests that the genetic rnacerial that becomes
"us� is but one registe r of our being; we are th e source and temporary
containe r of counrless other beings to whom we arc linked and thus
i n som e measure responsible. To chc strains of th e Moscow Liturgic
Choir and over a liquid array of morphed visages captured from tattered
family albums, Reeves intones the following near 1h e end of Obsessive
Becoming:
DOCU11£.TA8T DISAYOW &LS ,..

If J raise my hand to the light, I earl se� my dead mother in the palm. I sec the
way I spring from her in every moment. I see her foc.e. I sec her face before
she Was borf'I and her face before her father was born. They mOvc together in
every momem like a garland of water. And like wr iting on water that c.innOt
be hel d, they are always becoming, forever moving, forever entwined.
Here we a re far f rom the g en e al ogica l mo de ls dea r 1,; s cience th at

trace here dity as linea r an d ir re ver sible. Moder nism, for its par t, ha s giv en
us t he e ugen ics o f textb oo ks an d clin ics, irrevoca bly bo;rnd ti> drea ms
of racia l p u rit y. Ree ve s show s us the cyclkal n a ture of becom in g and re - .
becom ing, doing so most dra ma_ ti ca lly 'through the plasticity of his digi
tized portraitures. ln Obsessive Becoming as in Bauman's characteriza·
ti on of vide otape as post m o der ni st m ediu m, the self is le ss the re positor y
o f sov ere ig n ide n tity t_h an th e sir e of a n endle ss re cycli ng, a surf ace "cal
culate d no t t o hold a nything fo re ver." If some man ne r of ra dic al doubt is
eng en de re d re g ardi ng a bsolutis t notion s of tr u th or kno wle dge, the deepe r
cha llen ge is le ve led a t the ontol ogical sta t us of t he imag e an d of the self
that is the image 's source.
Jim Cam pbell, traine d as an electr ical en ginee r at MIT, is n ow am on g
the most accom plis he d make r s o f digital in terac tive art. He is s omething
o f a bricoleur, us in g an ar ra y o f m a teria ls b o;h s trange anc:l fa m ili ar, recy
cled a nd custo m enginee re d·: fr o m weathered family photo graph s., a ch eap
Ti nie x p ock et watch, a nd a buck e tfu l of salt to ul trasonic sensci�s, se l f-.
des igned com puter programs, an d cust om el ectronics . But the re al sub
s t anc e· of Cam pb ell's installa tions i s ideas yie lde d th r ough a pa rti c ipant's
i nt era ction with the work oo di splay. These ideas are often inch oate; th ey
a re ab out,the self in r elat io n io ti me , mem o ry, and desire . .But fo r _th e p res:
ent pu rposes, Campbell's o euvre is n ota ble fo r th e wa y in wb. i ch de vic es
irreduc ibly scientific in th ei r pro venance are u sed tO thwart'tbe rationali s t
princ iples so often a-tt r ibuted t o m odernisin, d.efy· ing the "hum a n demand
' .
for factual su s te nance" once des cr ibe d by Richter.
The impac t o f Cam pbell's wo rk is en tirely bou nd up with its intera c
tive c h ara c ter. If, as h asbeen sugge ste d here, m o de r n is,;, has enge nde re d
a search for aurhOr itativc discourses and passive reCipients, arc tailored
co tha t mode l has prov e d a dep t at creating work s of gr ea t originality an d
force tha t n everthe le ss func tion as one -way c ondu its rather than re cipro ·
ca l c onversations .' Ar t is in this sense yet an othe r va ria nt of the log os as
asser riv� disc ou rse with the listening component repressed. In its inter
ac t ivity, Ca mpbell's work unde r m i nes the hie rarc hica l ch aract er of tradi
tional art; it requi r es the participation of che viewe r to create its m�aning.
I n Digital Watch (1991), Campbell c rea tes a wa rp of t ime an d sp ace_
i nto which th e pa rti c ip ant e mers. One bla ck-and-white video c amera,
... OO CUMCNTAfl'I' DISAVOWA LS

moun ted a t riglit angl es to a fifty-inch rea r-pr ojection video mon itor,
ca pture s a small pocke t watch ticking i n exora bly forw a r.d. The dosed
circ uit displ ay of t he m uch- enla rged watch face dominates t he screen . As
the-participant approaches the scr. �cn, a second video ·camera mo�nied
:itop the monitor· introduces one's own image· into the scene in re al . ti me
at th e edges of the project e d ima ge, b ut with ·a five -s ec ond del ay for the
po rt ion of th e frame o verl apping the wat,;h fa ce (tha nl s to Ca mpb ell's· .·
a lgo rit hmi c conco ctions}: Th e pa rticipant's del aye d self-i mag e h as t_h� ap
pea_rance of cin ematic ste p prin tin g; Campb ell's custom electroJ]ics stutter
· human m�vcment �r. the . preci s e nue of the sweep of the watc�ti;s second
· b and. Ente ring the space of the installa ti on , the i nt eractive p a rticipant i s
° ..
pro pelled irfro·the bre ach, forced t o confro nt a b<ldy ma rching t.�}he b_eat
· of instiruriona lized time yet radically our of sy. nc with itself. Thi s sy n�o pa-.
, ti on o f s�bjectiv e time a;,d space does ' riot res ult in ye t ..n orher effect of
James�nian p sychic fragmerfration but rati1er, I wo uld argue, en cour ages a··
m ore op en, pl ayf ul, b ut still radical doubt b orn of co ntra di cti on. It is te. ch-,
. n ol ogy; after all, that delivers the.goods here, throwing th e s elf massively
out .of j oint, but o nly at the partic ip ant' s b ehest: ..
In, anoth er . of C ampb ell's inst allati ons;Shadow (for Hfisenberg). '.
(1993-1994), a figurin e of the.Buddha i n a teacb.ing pose is placed within -·
a gl ass cu be at the far end of a sma ll room. Th e Buddha i s pl aced atop a
s� eet of text indeciph erabJe· at th a t distanc e. As the viewer appro aches fo r
a b etter look, a mo tion de tector tr iggers t he t el ease of LCD (liq uid cr ystal .,
displa_ y) materi al, f oggi ng th e gi ass and obscuring on e'.s :view. The closer ·'
rhe_approac h;the m ore opaque th e r ece�tly.t ra nslucem casing . The refe r -.
Cnce ln· rhe piece's title is to physicist Werner Heisenb er g's uncertainty prin ,..
c iple , the prop ositi on th a t t h e v ery act of ob servi ng and m eas ur in g a phe- :.
. n omeno n alters it,,\ the orem t hat implanted a se ed of doubt at th e hea rt of

e mpirical pro of. Shadow (for Heisenberg) forc es desi re ro c onsc iousness,
drawi ng o ur att emi on to an episrephilic demand, o nly ro stymie it. It p er
f or ms sadi stically on the g aze producin g,. if Lau ra Mul vey is right, a per
-fectl y refl exive gest ure . Th e pi ece, savagely comic, ma y produce discom fort
.
i,i some just as Maurice Blaoclior might ha ve ptedicted: "So an a rt which
.
h as no answers but only question s, which e� en que stio ns th e exi st. e nce' of
art, cannot fail° to b e s een· as di st urbi ng, h ostile a nd coldly vi olent."43
Campbell; who h as sp oke,, of his desire to creat e interactive work s
that are "responsive"' rather than "controllablet44 is inter<:sted in pro-
moting d ialo g ue b e tween the artwotk and th e user rather tha n rep roduc
in g model s of master y and submission as has been th e cas e for so m an y
c omputer -ba sed appli catio ns. With the dial ogue m o del, the pa rticipant.
.'
eng a ge s i n a n encount er with the a rr d e vice i n which tbe progre s s and
00(:UMtNTARY DISAVOWAL$

In Jim Campbell's Shlldow (for Helsenhcrg), an epi stephilic demand is styrnicd.
Images reprinted with permission.
outcome of the interaction depend upon, and are sensitively calibrated co,
the choices made by the participant. The machine "listens" to its other
and responds rather than delivering one out of a menu of preprogrammed
mechanical replies.
I find ir useful m put intcrnctivc work on a dynamic spectrum with control
lable systems on one end and responsive systems on the other. In controllable
systems the actions of the viewer correlate in a o n e -to-one way with the
reaction of the system. Interactive CD-ROM,s arc on this end o( the spec
trum and gencrnlly speaking so arc games. In responsive systems rhe actions
o( the viewer are inccrrrcccd by the program to create rhe response of the
system.... If a work is responding in a predictable way, and the viewer be
comes aware of the correlation between their action and the work's response
to their action then they will feel that they are in control and the p<>ssibility
of dialogue is: lost. The fir$t time I walked through an automatic door ar the
supermarket I thought the door was smart and was responding to me. Now I
step on the mat to open the door on purpose. The point is that often the first
time an interface is experienced it's perceived a s being responsive but if the
interface is experienced again it becomes controllable. The second time it's
nor a question but a command.4 S
Campbell's explanation helps us to see that it is not the newness o f

the technology that should govern the critic's determination of the "post
ness" of the work, the status of the digital or computer-driven application
as postmodern aesthetic practice; it is rather the relation to knowledge and
the power dynamics it entails. Which is to say that postmodern art, like
postmodernity itself, cannot be periodized through recourse to chronolo-
... DOCUM& ltfAIIT DIIA\IO WALS

gy al on e (i.e., art made after the e nd of modernism). Campbell's w ork,
like L.A.Li nk and Reeves's Obsessive Becoming, fashions itself as di a
logue rath er tha n as agg ressive , p ul verizing discourse .His installations·
require an active but receptive engagement with tbeir partici pant oth er.
The ac t ions of th e· othe r are inter p reted by the system along a c ontinuum
of response, sensitively cali'b rated ai;1d rev ersible at every mome nt . Thi s
openness .of the text, its i nc or p ora ti on of res p<mse cap abl e of al teri ng the
p ath of the w ork, recon fir ms its dis ta nc e f rom the single-mi nded self
assuredness oftbe documentary tradition.Grierson saw tb e cinema.as a
pu lpit fro m which to esp ouse values, the c.ame r a as a hammer th ro ugh
which to shape publi c opi ni on. D o c um enta ry prac titioners h ave frequ en tly
as sumed th ei r ri ght t o didacticism ba sed on assumptions of t ruth (.through
rigoro us me th od s of re. sea rch o r fide ity t o political doc tr ine ) or at l east
l
standards of obj ectiv_ity. Th e rece nt work t o which I have .b een refe rri ng
offe rs .d ramatic rea pprai s al of that tradi tion.
In the current moment, therC ·is·, to be Sure, far less c on�.ehsus aro�nd
' '
standa rds, fa r more d oubt a s to the reli ability of systems of th ought or
s ocial organ iza tion . A s Zygmunt Ba u man bas ar g ued in the case of p os t '
modern ethics, this ur::i-raveling of consensus presents an () pporcuniry as .<
m�ch as a chall enge in that it ret� rns n1 or al res p onsibility t o the in di vid u,,,
a l tatner than to the ethica l system . - whi ch i s whe re that responsibil ity
r ightly bel ongs. In a c omp ar abl e man ner, th es e cu r rent inst a nces of elec
uonic ally and digitally based rep r e senta ti on s of the hi st oric al teal have .•,
be gun t o shed the e pi stemol ogical a nd eth ic al burd en of s ingle-min ded
tru th t elli ng, the mains t ay of one hund red years of documenta ry p ra cti ce
deeply lin ked to th e modernist project. Instead they have opened up a fi eld'
.
-�
of unc e rt ain but op en- end ed expl or ati on· that sets asid e rati onal p roof in ,
"
fav or of recep tivi ty, u nd ers tandi ng that , as moral phil osoph er Enuna nuel
l,evi nas h as de scri bed, ''probl ems of k nowledge and truth must ...be · pu t
io relati on- to the event of me eti ng a nd di alogue."•6
According to this view, then, documentative work that invites radica.l
d oubt, ambiv alence, and the embrace of c onti ng en cy rather tlian c er tai n
k nowl edge should 1101 be vi_ewed as simply fa sh ionable or fa cil e i n its ske p
ticism.Its val ue exists both as chall en ge a nd affir mati on: p ro,•ocati vc in its
.ref usal of i ndividualist tr ut h, p rofo u ndly moral in its call f or, a nd r eli anc e
on, individ ual moral r�po nsibility.
DOCUNtlfTAII Y DISAVOWALS 14 7

] Technology and Ethnographic Dialogue
[ 9
Ori gina lly pr esent ed a t Visible Evidence I. V (Cardiff, 1996), "Technology

and Ethno gra phic Dia l og"e" pur s,,e s th e ethical dim ension of docu m en
tary discourse, as i n the pr evio"s ch apt er. My thi nking /,ere is deeply in
debt ed to the writings of th e late ethica l ph iloso ph er Emm anu el L evinas,
who, in dar ing to cha llenge ra tional i nqui ry a s an absolute good, points
to th e vio le nce inherent i n th e acqui sitive, totalizing qu est for knowle dge
("an a pp rop ria tion of wha t i s, an exploit a tion o f reali ty"}. But wha t is
pro posed in i ts stead? Wha t. is "the m ode of th ought bette r than kn owl
e dge" to which Levina s alludes, an d h ow can it be a pproached thro ugh
an aes the tic pr a ctic e such a s d ocum ent ary film m a king in which (docu
men tary) "s ub1ects" are tr ans form e d into "objects " (of know l edg e)? In
his boo ks, Levin as choo ses in fi nity, tha t which "esc a pes all human ca lcu
l a tion," ov er t otality, ch ar ging the s ubjec t with an e thical obligation, an
"un litn ite d responsibili ty" (or th e Other. It i s the stuff of. we ighty philo
sophica l i nq uiry. But wha t l e ssons can be le ar ne d f o r th e c ons truction of
the subjec t in documenta ry discourse? \Vh at follows is l ess an attempt t o

o ffer ;,nswers than to lay the gro u n dw o rk for a deepe r consider atio n of
.
the ethica l con di tion s tha t surr oun d ihe do c,,m entary project. My ten ta
tive insight s are offe re d i n r ela ti on to th e L.A. Li nk project, i n which
teens from diverse btlckgrou.11ds communicated rvith each . other over a
sever aJ-month p·er iod through a real-tim e vi de oconferencing hook up.
\Vi th L.A. Link, Lev in as 's belie f in th e pow er of th e face-to-face "en

C.O,fnter'' and its possibilities for human exchange was tested in a novel,
techn ol ogy-driv en se tting .
An order higher than knowing. An order that. resounding like

a call. touches the human fo his individuality. . . . From unique
, ..
to unique, from one to the other . . . t�e wondel of a mode of
thought better than knowledge.
: : Emmanuel Levin0$,Outs.id& the Subject
for th e pas t se v era l decad es there h as been considernble debate around ·

the stalus, eve n legitimacy, of the "human., in the humanities. In the l ate
1960s, Louis Althusse r went so far as to argue th at th e crucia l theoretic a l
cask of the Co mmuni st ·mov ement , in its s truggle ag ains t t he b o urgeois
and pe tit b o urgeoi s wo rld out lo ok, was to comb at the e ffec ts of ccom,
mi sm on th e o ne h and an d humanism on the o t her.' While there is no
d oubt t hat Althu ss erian sciemis m long �go relinquished its· hold on fil m . ,.
th eor y, the mo ve i n film stu die s bo t h t oward co gnitivism and empirical)y
b ase d ethno graphic resea rch te stifies to the lure t hat the "harder" sci ence s
h av e for me dia studie s.· Morcov er, the expl o s ion of computer-1ne di atcd
commu nicati o11 and its s tudy ha:v e pla ced te chnology-th e digita l, the vir
t ual, t he hyp erte xtua l a -t the c enter of emergi ng med ia di sc ourse:s, wi th
humanist or co mmun it y issues fre quently rend er e d periphcra l.2 A nd yei·,
in the face o f this empi.rical t urn, m any questi o ns h a ve b een ra ised about
the status and eff ects o f th e knowl edg e th at can b e prod u ce d withi n the
hurnari sciences.
: ',.
Th e pr o bl e m h a s b een pos e d i n various ways: To what extent is
epi stemologic al certa inty itse lf credibl e in postmo de rnit y, and o n wh at
grounds? To wh at exte nt c an we sp eak of a violence asso ci ated with th e .
produc tion of cultural k nowl edg e?3 Might not there be o ther v alue d re gis •>
ters o f expe rience not d e riv ed from rationa li st inqui ry? While thes e doubts
hav e ga the re d momentu m in phil os (>phy, ant hr op o logy, and acro ss cul- .
.,
.'
tural studie s, a resili e nt tend e nc y in film st udies, best t ypifi ed by Bordwell
and Carro ll' s re ce nt Post-Theory, has argued a gainst su ch skepticism. Bur
,.
t he knowledge de bate is s ev ere ly imp o verishe d wh en limite d ro t he te rms
pro vid ed by sci ent ific me thod and ,•erifi abl e e vid e nce. \Vhat if, a s Le vinas
argues, there i s a mod e o f though t outsid e the dom ain of ratio n ality, o ne
that .is "b e tter th an knowledge,'' t o which we in t he world o f medi a s tud-
i es might pr ofit.ably attend? ../
· A return to the pass'age from L evinas with which we bega n· allows
us to consider the a im s of our r e s e acCh within the human sciencCs
rese arch, y o u will recall, in which te ch nology plays an iilcrea singly cen
tra l rol e -from a re lativ e ly unac customed vantage point, th at offere d by
mor al philosophy. "I t is not a questi o n of putting know l edge in doub t,"
writes Le vinas . "The hum an being clearly all ows himse lf to be tre ated as
a n o bje c t, anid elivers himse lf to k nowl edge in th e trs,t.h of pe rce ptiqn
and the light of th e human sciences. But, tre ate d exclusiv ely as a n object,
T&CHN'OLOGT AND ETHNOCRAPfflC DIALOGUE 149

man is als o mist reate d and mi sconst r ued.... We a rc human be fo re being
l earne d, and re main so af ter ha v ing forg one n much."4
ln a ser ie s o f texts written ove r several decades, Levinas has suggest·
e d t ha t a cr ucial ele me nt o f our human n ess elud es the very proj ect of ra
.tiona l inquiry, the kno wledg e -p ro duci ng enter prise that Stephen T<ml min,
in a rat he r different co ntext, ha s trac e d ba ck to ·the twin pillars of modern
thought: mo dern scienc e as ina ug u rate d by Is aac New ton an d moder n
phil oso phy an d t he m e tho d o f re fle ction in itia te d by Rene D escar te s. 5
Lev inas has pr op ose d a 11henomeno/ogy of the other th ro ugh which the
fu ndamema l c on diti on of alterity can b e gras pe d, c reating a me taphysic s
tha t a ffir m s the philosophic a l pr im acy of the idea of infin ity over that of
t ot ality, human o r div ine .His is a sy stem of thou ght that, whil e acco unt -·
ing fo r th e te mpt ati on co re du ce differe nc e to sa meness (�he "impe rialism
of the sa me "), offers the hop e of a co exis tenc e in which othern ess can r e
ma in intact. As Levi nas attem pts to d emonstr ate in Totality and Infinity,
a ll k nowin g; ind eed the ont ol ogical s tatus of the subje ct, "already pre sup
p oses the id ea o f infin ity." This tu rn s ou t to b e a n argumen t in fa vo r of
ethics over epistemology in which the te rms "totality" and ''infinity" bear
the weight of c e ntu ri es of phil osopbical debate. To ta li ty is unders to od to
be the province of sy ste matic knowledge, that is, reason.It is mo reove r
a lig ne d wit h fr ee d om, bu t a f reedom th at leve ls all in i ts pa th: "That re a
son i n the last a na ly sis wo u ld b e the m anifestation of a fre e d om, neu tra l
izing the o ther and encompassing him, can come as no sur pris e onc e it
wa s la id down tha t s overeig n reas on kno ws ooly itse lf, rhac n othing othe r
limits· it."6
Th e inf i nite, £pr its part, is a more e lusive term.lt is "non-themat i.z.able,
[it) gloriously e xc eed s every ca pacity"/ "Whe the r great or small, the In
fin ite escape s all human ca lcula tion";8 "the i nfini te i s th e ab so lu te ly
o ther."9 Ab ove a ll else, in finity is pre dicated on the ine scap able encoun
ter with the a bso lutely O th er. The a wareness of a lter ity p r ovokes a re
spon sibili ty for the Other ("The unlimit ed res p on sibility io which I find
myself comes fr om the hither sid e of my free d om, fro m a 'prior to ev ery
rne mory"'), 10 a n e thical o blig ati on, a nd it is for this re a son that in finity is
a ligne d with jus tic e. In an e xten de d formul ati on, Levin a s a rgues that the
re l ati on with the a bs o lute ly othe r l ead s to a me t aphy sical tr ansc endenc e
tha t di ss olves t he tra diciona l opp ositi on b etween t heory an d pr actice :
"The as piratio n to ra dica l cxcer io rir y ... the res p ect f or this metaphy sical
exter ior ity � hich, ab ove all, we must 'l e t be,' con stitutes trutb."11 Le\.,i
1
nas, like Lac an, t hu s argue s for the Other a s the p re conditi on for the se lf
("Be_ ing in general c anno t dominat.e the rela tion ship with the Other. The
'" TEC HNO LOG Y ANO ETUJfOCRA PHI(: OIALO COE

la tter re lationship commands the first") 12 but. on ethical ra th er tha n psy
ch oanaly tic grounds."
ln :i move of astou,lding imp ort, metaphysi cs di splac es ontology;
freedom-the impe rative ro majntain oneself against the oth�r-gi ves
way to juscice. Why? ..,I think' come s down to 'I can,"' write s Levinas, ,.
"to an appropr iation of wha t is, to a n e xpl oitati o n of rea lity . Ontology as
first phil o s ophy is a phil osophy of power. ... Po ssession i s pree mine ntly
the for m i n ·which the ot her b e co mes th e sam e, by becomin g mi-ne ." 14
·
.Justice,'on th e. orh ethand, dep en ds on the willingne ss co receive from th e ·
Ocher bey o nd the c apacity- of t he L This rela tion is a n ethical one and is
epiphano·us: "reason,
.,
\Yithout abdicating,
. is foµ.nd
. to. b e in a positi0n to
receive."15
L1ngua·ge e merges as th e co. nstitut ive· me�ium in the reltltion be tween
s elf and Other:lnfluenc e d. b y, but re casting the thought of, Mar tin Bub er,
lev ina s argii es that "per s�ns wh o _�p ea k r o on e a no ther confirm one an
other, unique and irreplacea.ble . ... Never coincidence, always ·Proxi mi- .,:
' ,.
ty.... The p_rQblems of kno wl e dge and .truth mus e thus b e put in relati on
...
. .. to· t he e ve nt of me c. ting ·and dialo gue."16 It is· in this attribution- o f prima cy·
to the re13rion, the me eting, the encounter, that L evinas comes ro place .
.great em ph asis 6n th e notion of "fa ce-to-face ," which he define s 1101 as a ' "
modality of coexiste n ce or e v en of the knowledg e o ne can h ave of another ·
but as "the prim ordia l prod,lcti o n o f being ori which all t he possible aol-·
.
location s of the terms are found e d." 17 Th e face b ecomes the v ery figure of ·
the in_ fini;e: "th e way in which th e other pre s ents hi ms elf, excee ding the'·
idea of the ot�er b� Jne."1 8 The me eting-"fa ce-ro-face"-is an encoun
ter <>f unique beii-lgs thar respeccS both separacion and proximity; it is a ·· .
, breac h. of totality.in which �thought finds itself faced with an o th er refrac: ..•,
cory to categ9ri es."19
But how do thes e c oncerns f or a L e vin asian me t a physics relate to
_ th e "trouble with ethnog ra phy," th o s e myriad ch all enge s to e thno gra
phy raised sinc e lhe.mid-r98os? In �hat foll ows, I will fi rst su gg est the
rele va nc e o f l evinasi an principl e s to the proje ct o f the.eth nogr a phic
• < •• .,
film, ·rhen explore a p articula r c as e study, L.A. .Link, in which th e inter-
su bjectiv e rela ti on·s fam.ilia r from the e th no graphic traditio n-su bject/
· · o bjec t, know er/k nown�give way to a. d yna mic of the dialo gu e, the fa ce
t o-fac e e ncount e r . I . will clo se by re turning to .the que stion of ne w c om
· mun.ieaiion s te chn olo gy, origin�lly p o s ed as a div ersion from humanis tic
co nc erns, in o rder to suggcst·s ome p ossibiliti es -for a fruitful engage ment
of te chnology and ethic s.
In his "B eyond Observational Cinema," writ te n more tlian twe nt y -fi ve
TtCHNOLO CT ANO tfHIIO(aAPHIC OIAL OCU r; ISi

years ago, David MacDo ugall assail e d the s tandar d mecho d of rhe e th
nographic filmmake r, which, he arg ue d, "reaffi rm s rhe coloni al origi ns
o f a mh ro pol ogy."20 MacDouga ll ro ok n o te of the "disrinccive ly Wes te rn
pa rochialism " of che observational film i n which the ma ker, pre te nding
i nvi sibility, translaces and reshap es cultu ral otherne ss. I n d oing . so, he
mimes the omniscience of conquerer or expert� It is Levinas's "imp erial
ism of the same" as filmmaking practice.
Ma cDoug all echoes che r erms that Buber and Lev in as have so for ce-
fu lly incr o duc ed into ethic a l philosophy: mee ting, cn councer, dialogue.
The tmditions of science and narrative art combine in this instanc e to
dehumanize the study of man. It is a form in �hich the obse rver and the
obse rved exist in separate worlds, and it p{Oduc-es films that arc mono
logues.... No ethnographic film is me(ely a record of anorher society: it is
always a reco rd of the meeting between a filmmaker a. nd. that society. If cth
nogr�phic films are co bri:ak through the limitations in herent in their present
idealism, they must propose to deal with that encounter. Umil no w they have
rarely acknowledged thac an encounter has take n placc. 21
Seen f rom che cu r re nt vantag e p oint, M acDo ugall' s essay offers a politic al
and rh e<lreti cal rati onale for th e histo rical movemem fro m the obser va
ti onal mo de of document ary exp osicion 10 the in teraccive a nd reflexi ve. Bue
can w e say that the qu ality o f " encounter" as a breach o f totality can be
imput ed co the suc ceedi ng m odes o f docume . ntary exp ositio n, �v en to the.
p er formati ve that Bill Nicb·ols has most rece ntly de eme d the fifth mode ?"
While the a ckno wle dg ment of self in re lation to oche r that w,c associ
ate with rhe·latcr modes may h ave sig naled a s ig nific am movemen t<beyon d
the effacem ent of cnun ciative agency, w e in usc disti nguish b ec wee o the
fo regrounding o f the appropr iati�e gc.stu re a nd its elimination. Io the inter
activ e, reflex ive, and performative modes, the viewer is far more li.kely
r o u n ders tand the formal and ide ological c onditions within which the
pr oc ess o f pr o duc tion o ccu rs bur rhe fil m remains, fo r a ll thac, che con
ceptu alization o f th e maker. Can we i magine tha t, follo,ving these metl:i
od s, thought finds it$elf fac ed-wi th an other rcfra cc ory to categories? We
k now how easily the su bjec t of dbeumen tary discou rs e i� t ransfor me d ioto
witn�ss or symptom fo r Purposes of persuasion; in other instances, the
e xpressivity of gestur e, se tting, or the very surface of the image becomes
an ae sth e tic e n d in itse lf. In suc h cases, th e qu ality of li scening! of rec cp.-.
tiv eness, c alle d for in the e ncounter is unli ke_ly 10 occur. In L evina sian
terms, these later mo de s, like che e xposito ry mode be fore them, prod uc e
wor ks that can sur e ly be deeme d acts of p osses sion o f the oche r, appro
pr i ati ons of what is, exploit ari<ms of reality. Bur arc these nor the ethical
limit$ w ithin which all ethnographic pracfic e must reside ? Is ch.is n ot the
152 TCCHltOLOCT AND tTHNOGaAPHIC OIAl.0GU£

price of .any te xtual au th orship? Can. any d ocu m entary act ho pe to escap e
unscat hed?
Bu t our quer i es a r e pre m aturely po sed.To refine our irnd erstandi ng ·'
o f the .prospe cts for e thn o gra phic dial ogue, let _us return t · o our. s ource s
and bri efly c o nsid e r what M artin Bu b er m ean t b y "m e e ting" or "enc o un
ter." Wri ting i n the 1930s, Bub er call ed for a phil oso phic al anthropolo gy
· that, in seeking to answer .Kant's question "What is .man?'', moyed
th e . two prevailing m eth o ds or wo rld vi e ws: indi vidu a lism and collecti v-
ism: Moder·o ind iv idu alism was sa id to b e a gl orifi cati o n o f the <lesp ai
o f m an's solita ry state, whil e c o llecti vism, th o ugh e mbracing th e m ass e s-,
.'
failed as " a joining o f m ari to m an." In i ts pl edge t o pro vide to ta l secu
rity, colle ctivism "pr o gr essi ve ly de ade n e d or d es ensitized" th ai " tend
.· surfac e of personal life wh_ich.longs for contact witli o ther life ."23 Instead
.
Bube r va l orized neither the i ndi,idual nor the a ggregat e but rath er what
he ca ll ed " the sphere of 'b etween'": "It is roo ted i n one b eing turn ing to
. another as a11other ...in order to cqmm4nicatc with it in a. sphtro which.
is c o mmon to the m but which r e ache s- out beyond the sp ec i al sphere o f
each.'' Only in such a �ircumstance is "real . conversation" possibl�, and . .
h er e w e might w�nt to p o se this c onstru ct alongsid _ e th e stand ar_ ds o f the '
et hnogra phic film. "Re a l c onvcrs·ation" is o ne whos e individ'ual p arts t
· have not been "'prCconcertedt bu t one which is. c�mplctely �poma;.·eous,
io
i n which eac h sp eaks directly his partner and calls for th his unpredict
a bl e r eply... ·.·it tak e s _ pl ace betw een th em in the m ost pr ecise s e nse, as it
· we re i n a dimension which is acces sible onl)'· to th�m both."24
Giv en su ch a de s cri pti on, it is diffi cult to imagi ne wha t a "real con '
versation" or di alogue might be o n film or ra pe.Ev en if th e exchange we .,
to es cap e .th e prec once ptions or dictates of one or a no ther o f the interlo c�·
t(>rs, and even were t he fin a l prod uct to b e jointly edi ted, its spontane i t
and u npredic ta bili ty could o nly occ ur i n r ea l time .Inde ed, t he ex amp e s
.
l
· B u b er gi ves o f_ s uch m ee tings tend to b e the "tini es t and mos t tr ansi e
events wbich·sca rfel y enter rhe consciousness,". as in the chaoce enco'unt
<J( two strang ers who "sudd enly m eet for a seco nd in astoni shing_ and un
rel ate d mutua lity" in an ai r ra id sh e lte ; or c o ncer t h a ll.25 It is lik e ly th at
0
the m ee ting Buber. h as in mind cou ld never co e xis t wi th t he cond it i ons

re prod ucibili ty (n o t to m en tion i:ommodifi ca tion).th at th e do cu m enta
f o rm b e a rs w · ith i t. M oreover, the sphere o f "b e tween," th e ste ppi ng i nt
a living rel ation with ;n o th er human b eing as Buber d e scrib es i t, canno
exist for others; it mu st occur in " a dimension which is accessible only
them
h might,' how ever,be p o ssibl e to c o nsider th e Bub eri an encounter
as a ki nd ' o f etbical limi t cas e or asymptote - ag ai nst which a p articu l a r
TtCH NOL O(.Y AIIO CTJHIOOIIAPHIC DIALOGUE 153

HARVARD UNIVERSJTY HARVARD UNIVERSITY
documen ta ti ve practic e c an b e measu re d, in this ca se, L.A. Link. L.A.
Link is a project that co nn ects t ee ns from di verse backgrom1ds thro ugh
co mp u te r a nd videocon fe rencing t echn ol o gi es who se on-lin e pha se oc
c urre d from Febr uary to May r996. It is a coll aboration among v ide o ar t -
i st We ndy Clarke, m edia the orist M arita Sturk en, a nd myself, supp orted
by a gra�t fro m the Aoo enb erg Cent er for Communica tion with some ad
dition al funding from _t he AT&T Foundation. Two very dive rs e s it es with
fi ve pa rticipan ts each, aged fourteen 10 e ighteen, we re ch osen. Crossro ads
Schoo l is a pro g re ssi ve p riva t e schoo l (K-12.) located in S a nta Mon ica
with an especia lly st rong a cts p rogra m incl uding six film studi es course s.
KAOS Ne twork is a me di a ans cen ter jn the Crenshaw Di strict of South
Cen tra l L.A., founde d by UCLA film school-tr ained Be n C aldw ell w ell
ove r a de cad e ag o. KAOS has re ce ntly a ttr acte d consider abl e local me di a
atte nti on fo r its "Proje ct Blo we d," featu ring we ekly op en -mike sessions
f or r ap a n d sp oken -word a rti sts. The two sites arc se p arate d le ss by g e
ogr aphy-than by soci ally c ons tructed bar ri er s of rac e and clas s of th e sort
that h ave hi storic ally fue led civil unrest in L.A.
Th e bas is of the appa r atus is a code c si·st em ca pa ble of compressing
the ele c tronic s ig nal, a llo wing it to p ass through multiple ISDN (Integ rat
e d Service s Digital Ne twor k) Ba sic R at e Interface (BR!) lin es at a ra t e o f
384 kilo bytes p er se cond before dec omp res sing it for display at the o ther
en d. Use r s are th us a ble t o ta lk with and se e one a nother in som ethi ng
, v ery close. r o re al time . The fr ame rate of the displ ay d epends entirely
on th e da ta rate: thi: mor e informatio n p a ssing over the line s, the clo ser
th e fra me rare to the thirty.- frame s-p er -scc ond stan dard o f broa dc ast
telev ision. (For l ot s of reasons, L.A. Link's frame r are is cl oser t o fift ee n
fr ames p er se cond.) The app aratu s suppo rting L.A. Linle was designed by
Rich�rd Williams, a Santa Monica computer engiileer and entrepreneur
wb ose c o dec sy ste m is PC based, unlike those of his l a rge r c or porate ri-
vals, Panas onic and Pict ureTtl. Thu s ou r sy stem is firs t and foremos t a
c omp u ter with software prog rams tha t allow us t o input �xterna l sound
a nd i mage sou rce s. Hi-8 ca meras are use d at bo th sites to pro du c e the
sig nal t ra n sm itted ov er th e ISDN·Jin es, doc u me nt e very asp ect of the pro- -
ce ss, a nd all ow a ll par ticipa n ts t0 ke ep diar ies to share with others or keep
for themse lves. An esse ntia l element of all telecon fe re nc ing sy stems is the ir
a bility to p rod uce simultaneou s ima ges o f self and othe r, o ften through a
PIP (pictu re-in-pictu re ) fe atu re, the typica l for mat b eing a sm all recta ngle
fr om one's own s ite contained within tbe larger rectangular image source
r ece iv e d fr om clie oth e r end. With th e L.A. Li n k comput er-base d sy stem,
the for ma tted conto urs an d relativ e size o f th e image s from b<ith site s ca n
be controlled as windows on the respecrive computer screens.
"'' �CCHt!OL OCY AMO t:THNOGHAPHIC DIALOGUE

HARVARD UNIVERSITY . HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Th ere were many kind s of exchange s ewer the link gi v en the pr imary
goal of expl ori ng th e effects of on-line as o pp ose d to fac e- to -face encoun
ters a mong the t eens.A nother lar ge aim of the p roj ect was to engender
creativ e c oll ab oratio ns acro ss the gaps of space and cultur al difference .
.
To these ends, a great deal of ti me was spent in t he first months w ith o ne
on-ones, that is, relatively open-ended private conversations b etween in
dividu al_ s f rom ei ther site with no.others present . Participants had the op
po rtunity to engage in p eriodic exchange s of thi s sor t wi th everyone at the
o th er sit e. Th e tee ns were indeed fa ce-to-fa c. e, or p erhaps mor e tor rectly,
fa ce -by-face. \Vhat d o I mean by tlli s? ·
One of the real break thr oughs of a link pro ject of this,sc>r t is the
ttansf orma tio n o( the s cre en itself i nto a si multane ous a'malgam of w in
dow and m,irr o r . It is a window into another space, omo anoth er subjec- .
tivit}'; it is also a mirror in which·one sees the self ptojected, in minute and
unflinchi,\g d eta il. The doubli ng of the window a nd mirror f uncti ons pro
du ces an eff ec t that I b eli eve is altoged\er unprec edented. Du;in g the on
line one-on-one sessions dur ing which parJicipants come tO k now one .an
oth er, self a nd oth er a. re st ruc tured thr ough the repre s entatio nal apparatus
as equiva lent, co equ al (though fluid as to relative i mage siz e).Each exists
.
fot the s elf exactly as she doc s for the othe r; each sees h erse lf exactly a s
sh e is seen, k n o w ing that the s ame b old s tr u e for b oth par ties.T here is no
parallax effe c t, no rev er se angle s possible .Two peopl e share equal footing
in a virtual terrai n. The te mporali t,Y of the exchange is mark edly pres ent
tense .It i s who you are for the other a t tha t mom ent thar cou nts, not your
fu ture aspirations or your past accomplishm ents. What matt ers the most
i s th e d e g·rce to whi ch you are op en to the encounter, willi n g to exp o s e ··
part s of you rself and to hea r th e s am e fro m others. For i t is thr()ugh the
shar in g of i nti macies that a " therap eutic spi ral" is effect ed in whi ch the
openness of tbe· one i nduce s �ver g r e a_ter o p enn es s in th e o t her.26 Upo n
clos er i n�p ection, the temp�rality° of the encou nter, markedly present te nse
f or th e i nterlocutors, slips awayfr om a simple desig n ation ("i mmemorial,
u nrepre s entabl e ... the p ast that bypasses th e present , the pl up erfe ct
past"); i t is of the order of infinity,27 As we shall see, however, pastness
(and totality) interv ene when th e encounter is made to resp ond to the de
mand for re producibilitf.
Withou t que st ion, there is some thing new a·nd. tr aosformat i� e
ab out the possibili tie s of computer-me diate d "f ace -to:face" encou nters.
Might thes e exchanges be said to offer the possibility for the sort of non
preco nc ei ved and sp ontane ous encount ers that Buber describ es as the
b asis ()f the meeting or di al ogue ? Did th es e mee tings exi st i n a sphere of
"between," acce ssible only to the interl()cutors ·thert1selves?.\Vas ther e here
ftC HHO I.OGT AHO £THMOGftAPH IC DIALOCUC ,,.

the po tentia l for proximi ty witho ut the violenc e of appropria ti on? For
the most part, tbe ans wers arc probably no, and for several reasons. In
the fi rst place , ther e was no avoiding th e s en se of a l aborat ory se tting for
these di a lo gue s. Give n the g ro up dyna mi c-two after-scho ol me e ting s a

week, a lways tlie same participants-there could be no chance encounters,
no evanescent m o ments in which glances could meet and souls commune.
There were , doub tle ss, occasi onal sp arks o f fellow fe e li ng or sp eci al c om
mun ion exp eri e nced. And t he ai r of spont an e ity was ev er pre s ent, rhou gh
t he a ffective ambience o ften seeme d more a mix of chaos a nd e nnuj than
s ou lfu l im provi sation. Furtherm ore , the encounte rs we r e, by definition,

a ccess ible to anyon e w ho v i ew e d th e tape s. The only privat e ma teri als
were the video diarie s each par ticip ant kept. The one - on-one s were ne ver
mon itore d, nor have the y been publicly scre ene d thus fa r, bu t some sor t of
exhibition was a lways int en de d. This �vas a c as� of b alancing the priv acy
of the e xchang es w ith th eir he uristic value . \Ve. had set out t o a ddr ess a
series o f question s, a fter all: Can computer-me di ated face-to-fac e encou n
te rs pr ovide a us ef u l or meani ngf u l av enue for hu man int era cti o n? Wh at
are t he c haracte r an d limita tion s of s uch re la tionships� Can people c reate
coll a borative ly in such circums tances?

The answe rs t o a ll su ch questions would ne e d 10 be demonstrable
in some way, and there w e, the investig ators, wer e faced with an e n•
counter of o ur o wn- with tot ality. Just as Levinas h ad d esc ribe d the
p roc es s, human be ings were b eing de liv e r e d to knowl e dge in the na me
of the human sci ences. The Oth er, far from r ema ining re frac tory 10 a ll
c ate gor ie s, was inst e a d·the "liv. ing proof" of the effic acy of com puter
me diate d communic ation te chnology. Fo r while otherness m ay have b ee n
resp e cte d for its s imu lt aneous proximit y and ra dical e xte riority bt th e
p ar ticipants in the ini ti al e nco unter, the overall de sig n of the p roje c t de
man de d that ev e ry mom e nt of dial o gu e be m a de to subm it to a to talizi ng
im puls e of a s e con d order, along the line s of Bar tbes's sig n-to-my th mo d el
fro m Mythologies. 28 If the inve stigat ors w ere to share th e resu lts of. our
experiment in inrecpersonal communkation, we simply couldn't "let be"
the fragile a lt erity o f o ur subjects. How cou ld we sh ow the world, ou r
fun de ts, our schol atly p eers - inde e d, you- the evide nc e of o u � c.xp er i
ment i n m e t aphysics if we eschewe d re producibility?
Rec a ll, h owever, that I p ose d Bu ber's a n d Levinas's no tio n o f the
encoun ter or dialo g ue a s a kind of ethic al asymptote, which, as Webs ter' s
te lls us, is a straight lin e always approachi ng b ut ne ve r meeti ng a curv e ,

a ta ngent at infi n ity. And it is precis ely infi n i ty that is at stak e in thi s for
mu lat ion, for that is th e te rm Lev inas choose s to oppose to the totalizi ng
15$ TtCH MOLOCT AND. CTIUf OCRA PH I(:: DIALOG UC

grasp of ceni t ud e. I nfinity, the v ery c ondi tion of t ranscenden ce , i s posed
in te r ms of a d e sir e that n o sa tisfaction can arrest (agai n , the Lacan ian
pa rallels are striking). Give n th e c o nditions of cap t ure a nd reproducibiliiy
tbat govern n onfic ti on rnedi a , we can assu me that n o documentative prac..
tice c an meet .th e ethic,il s tand ard s o f t he encou nte r, si m ul ating a mo de of
th ought b e tter th a n kn owl edge. Ye t if we'wish t o explore the e thi ca l di-
m ensiori of do cume nt ar y prac t ices in this way, it may b e usef ul to mea su re
. e s a gainst the m etaphysica l limit I h av e de sc ribed. Th e .
p artic ula r insta nc
work of certain comrnunication th eori�.ts suggests·that tbere are indee d
significaot ethica l di stinction s td b e .m ad e a;,,ong medi a forms .
.
Ja mes W .C arey has distingui she d be tween two alte rnative concep·
ti ons of comrn'unica ti on alive in Ametic an cul ture si nc.e die nine teenth
.
cen tur y.29 On th e one ba nd, there ls the trans mission vi e w of comm un ica ··
ti on, in which power or control i s always a t stake. According co . th is pa ra:· .
digm, communi cati on is impQrt ant because., th rou gh rh e use of " space
bi nding m e dia" such as the te le graph; tel e ph on e , radi o, television , or
c ompute r,. te rritori al claims can be e xpand ed, che ,scal e of so cial organ iza·
ti on enl arged. Thi s is tbe majority view iil th e United States and is consis '
ten t with th e pursu it of what Carey caU s a "high communic ations pol icy"·
aimed sol e ly at spr eading messag es fu nhe r i n space while re ducing the
c o�r (and time) of tran sm issi on. The second, rninorit arian c oncepti on, th e_ ....
ri tu al vie w of c ommun ica tion , is li nked. t o ter ms such as "'sh aring,"' "par
ticipa tion," and "'th e posse ssi on of a comm<:m faith"; i t pl a ys upon the ety
mological proximi ty of "c o mmunic ati on" wich ''commun ity." According
to this. model, the spaii al imp erative is less'importan t th an th e te rrip<)ral
din1ensi on; the.mai nten ance <?f soci e ty and its va lue s i n tiIll e t.akes prece
dence oVe r the. " calcul us of commercialism and cxpansi onis�n ."JO Jt i s· n ot ••
th e imparti ng of inform ation th at counts so much as the re presentation of .,
, ;,· • ,'
sh_ar e d beli efs; the arch et ypal case und er th e ri t ua l vi e w is " th e sacre d c ere
s
mony th at draws p ersons together in f ellowship and common ali ty"31 .

L.A. Li n k conforms to th e ritu al view.32 Thi s expe rim ent in comput er
m e di-ated com munica tion .technology, though i t dis pl ays t he capacity to
bind spa ce,' to expand the physical iimi ts of th e face -to-face encoun ter,
se rves ne ither commercialism nor expan si onis1n. L.A. Lin k e xpl ored a
ne.w specie s of 4ia logi� encou nt er, creating ·a v ehicle of c�)mm unication
b oth f or th e eye and th e ear . But _despite the unyi elding fascinatio n with
th e yoked im age o f self a nd othe r that the apparat us ma kes possible , i t is .
the ear th at domi nates. L.A. Link, at its b est, was a tool for recepti()n , for
listening. S uch a circumst ance is co nsis tent with the Levin asian cri tique
of visi on · as totalizing. L e vioas wrote that e thics is an optics , but "it is a
tCC tlNOLO( rr AND £TJOfOC flAP HIC OIALOCU£ IS 7

'v ision' wi th out ima ge, b ere ft of the sy n optic and totalizing objectifyin g
virtues of vision."33 A udi tion, in its inuansitivity, is a laying open of the
self, a voluptu o usnes s of li stc ning.34
Inspi re d by the early writing s of Jo hn D ewey, Ca re y has a rgue d th at
p robl ems of co mmun ication a re linked r.o pr oblem s of communi ty. All
m od els of commun ica tion have diff ere m e thica l implic ations bec au s e the y
produce differen t forms of soci a l rel ati ons. Io the case of L.A. Link, tbe
s ocia l relatio11s pr odu ced ar e di a logic, r o oted in the fac e-to-fa ce exp er i-.
cnce, yet novel io their hybridization of human and electronic connection.
At least potent ially, di stanc e a nd in tim acy are fus ed. Tb e di stance is t he
resu lt of the bar to phy sica l c ontact, nearness the resu lt of an intensity of
discourse, a ze roing in on the othe t's a ffec tive d oma in.35 \Vhilc !)e ither
L.A. Lin k nor any documen tative format can ever achieve r.be transcen
. de nt motal status of the Buberian or Levinasian encou nter, arriving at that
ord er of experi ence higher th an knowing, L.A. Li nk's ethical a spiratio ns
and co1nple x p<>tcnti a litie s are per h aps its chi ef c ontributi on to the field
of medi a studies. Moreove r, it is. a bsol ute ly cr ucia l tha t ethic a l di scou rse
n ever be all o we d to d rop ou t i n ou r rush toward the tc chnolog ze d fu ture
i
u
a nd in o r resea rc h r e l ate d to these em ergent pr actice s. It is pe rha p s
in this way that we can hop e to r e t ain s om e thing of the huma n for the
human sciences.
"' TtC HNO LOCT ANO CTH NOC IUPHIC DIA l.O OUE

'
The Address to the Other:

[ 10 ]
Ethical Discourse in Everything's for You
Like th e pr evious two cha pters, "Th e Add ress to the Oth er " explores .
ethic al questions pe rti>i e nt·to the makinia.nd.study of th e doct111ien -
iary film. The focus h ere is on Abraham Ravett's Eve rythi ng's fo r You
(r989), a fil m that s e�k s to crea t.e a di,,/o gtte. beiiveen th e filmmak er
and his deceased fath e r, a ,nan who survive d Ausc!1t11itz but lo.st h is first
wife and two c hildren. Shot over a fifteen-ye ar period; co,npleied ye ars
aft er th e eld er Ravett's death, Every1h.i ng's for You is a meditatio n on a
fa the r/so n re l ationship, on a11 un speakabl e an.d in.accessibl e his tory, and
on the poten ti al for film to reanima te th e past . Thi film re mind s us that
auto bio graphy, as the enco,mte r be tw een self an.d o ther, can be e thically
charged in · J)rofott n d ways. For in a ddition to being an act of hisiorical re
cover y, self- expressipn, and memoria/ization, the au to biograJ,hic a/ fil m
can also be a debt fulfill ed. Here, Everythi ng's fo r Yo,i serves as · a locus
for the t e achin gs an d insights of E_mmanuel Le vinas , who asserts tha t
"no 11i11differenc
. e to th e oth er." is the very precon dition for th e co ns true-
.
tion f subje ct vity.
o i
The other is in me and in ihe midst ofmyveryidentification.

:: Emmanuel Levinos, Othf;!,rwise Than f!eing, orBeyond£Monce
The work ,if Einmanu el Levi nas atiracrs our attenti o.n t oday because of
bis e leva tion o f the ethical domain over the ge n erally priv.ileged phil o
s ophical categories of "being" and "kn owi ng.". This pri oritizing of the
ethica l � ou.ld h.ave imporran t consequence s f or d o cument ary theo ry,
whose m ost n otabl e debates have focused on th e o nt ol ogical stat us of non
fiction disco u rse and o n its claims to t ruth and knowl edge-in shor t, on
"being" . and "knowing." In what·follows, I Will pursue c thic al concerns,
.
begi n ning with a schematic descripti on o f the Levi nasian vi ew before
1$9

tu rning 10 a sin gle film, Everything 's for You (1989 ), by Abra ha m Ra vett,
io whic h.the et hical dinie nsio o emerges as the fil m's chie f conc ern. I n thi s
way, I ho p e to c ontribute to the lar ger project of placin g ethics square ly at
c ent er stage of docmn en ta ry studies.
! n his Tot11lit)• and Infinity an d Otherwise Than Being, or Beyond
Essence, as e lse where, Levina s argues boldly for ,he pri macy of ju stice
over fr ee dom, fo r res p onsibility, bein g-for -th e -o ther, a s predating con
sciousne ss. According 10 Le vinas , t he en counte r with the ot her, the ethical
�ncou n ter, an te date s and is the very precon dition of the const r uction of
subjectiv ity, fo r be ing -in -itse lf. Thi s enc oun te r, effe cted through proximi
ly, uncove�s a receptivity, a primordial vulnerability to the other, and in
the process the s elf di scov ers its substitutability for its ne ighb or. In this
fo rm ative m ome nt of the one -for-t he -o ther, s ignificat ion with its play o f
en dless subs tiiuti ons i s bor n. Thu s, b efore be ing, before la n guage , before
subjectiv ity, be fo re kno wledge , there i s this e ncou nte r with radic al ex,eri
ority, with obligat ion a n d with the Goo d. This encou n ter de fies lo gic.
It is not bcc;.1usc the neighbor would be recognized as belooging to tht same

genus as me that he concel'.'nS me. He is precisely other. The communiry with
him begins in my obligation co him....The ne ighbor assigns me before 1
designate him. This is a modality not of a knowing, but of an obsession, a
shuddering of the hu�an quite different from cognirio11. Knowing ·is always
conve1:tible into cr�tioo and annihilation.1
This "non i n difference t o the othe r" i s the foun ding momen t o f se l f
bood. "Resp ons ibility," "<,bligarion," "sac rifice," "inde bte dncss"-these
are the ter ms o f the ethica! enc oun ter, while k no wle dg e c ome s to b e con
strued as appropriative, agg · ressive, tenitorializin g, even vi ole n t. It is
wor th n otin g that Otherwise Than Being, or Beyond £ssenq:, the book
from which ,be foregoing qu ota tion is exc e rpte d, be ars the following de di
cati on: "To the memor y of thos e who wece clos est among t he six-m iil ion
assass inate d by the National Soc ialists, an d of the millions on 1nillions
of all con fess ions an d all na ti on s, vic t ims of th
. e same hatred ,:,f the other
. .
man, the same anti-semitism" (v). c'Knowing is always convertible in to
creati on and annihilation," writes Leyinas, the former Nazi labor camp
pri soner. One hea r s th e echoes he re of many sc holars of the Holocaust,
amon g them Raoul Hilb erg, Je-an-Fran�ois Lyot ard, an d Zygmu n t Bauman ,
_
who have terme d the Final Solution-genoci de a s a fi nely turi e d inachi ne,
autho ri ze d a nd enno bl e d by the ·sta te-the ve ry apotheo sis of the mod
erni s t project. In thi s se n s e, the philoso phica l writin gs of Lev in as ar e
in dissocia ble from their hist oric a l mo ment. Yee Levi nasian ethics do not
i n dic t knowl e dge in toto so much as they re giste r con cern for the prim acy
160 1'HF. ADD RESS TO TH£ 01'HC8
Oigitized·by Original from

. .
accord ed to rationali st pursuits. r or L evinas , knowledge i s aggressive and
se f- a gg ra ndizi ng, i n th e ser vi ce of the e go. Yet t he s ubj ect also h old s the
l
potenti al f or a n emptying of its be ing, a t urning itself insid e o ut , p ursui n g
i n i ts sub je ction to re_ sponsibility th e u nders id e of bei n g, the " ot herwi se
th an being."
.
This pi tt ing .o' f e th i cs agai nst e pistemol og y i s highly p ertinent for
do c umema ry St ud. ies, Wh en we talk ab out th e prospects for do cume nta ry
re p resenta tion, ,.;.;:� re mos t lik ely aski ng about k nowledg e: what c an we
know of his tor y fro m thi s fil,n; what can·we l ea �n about .t hj s p er sori or
· that eve nt, h ow persu ad ed ca n we b e by this-filrnmaker's rhetorical ploys ?
The ethical ".'iew rc(u� es r.his appropriative stance, ch oos ing instead re
ce p tivi ty and respo· n·s ibilify, jus tice over f reedom. "The more I return to
myse lf, th e more I divest n1yself, un der th e traumatia· e· ff ec t of persecu ti on,
of my freedom as a c o nst itu ted, willful, imp erialis t sub je ct, the more I dis
cov. er myself to b e res po nsible; th e more just I am, the more guilty I am. I
am 'i n myself' through the oth ers" (112).
Recall, in thi s regard, th at it i s the Holocaust t h at.h as b een viewed
by Hayden White as the event that has "j amme d th e s ystem" of hi stor io
·,
graphical knowl ed ge in t he current epo ch; un nioori n g "fact" and " event"
fr om th eir certai n anc horage ir> hi· stori cal discour se . 2 Too m. any d erail s
.. to ch ronicle, too 111 an y fr ames of r eference to choose th e defini tive one,

too muCh trauma blocking memory, too few surviying witn esse s t� n a r
ra te. D or i Laub, a p s ych oanalys t and cofo,i°nder of t h e Vid eo Archive for
Holoca i1st Te stim oni es at Yale Universi ty, h as ch aracterized the Holocausf
.,
as an· absol utely unassimjlable. eve nt becatise it was "an event without a
wi tness," and here he refers b oth to th ose wh o perish ed a nd to those for
wh om p ainf�I m emori es are foreclo sed.3 lf, as G eorge Stei.ner h as pr o
p ose d, " th e world of Au s chwi tz li es outsid.e speech as it li es outside rea-.· '
son,"4 th e Hol oca ust off ers i ts elf as aporia for aest h etic repr esentation j ust
as i t d oes f or histo riogr aphy. I n th e wor ds of Lyotard, Holocaust ,ar t "does
not s ay . th e u. nsayabl e, but says th at it c annot say it." 5
. .
I t i s h ere at the juncti on of ethic s and the u nrepresentable th at we re-
t urn to Abrah a� Rav en's Everything's for Yo", a �vork that refl e cts upo n ·
t h e fil mmaket's rel ac°ionship with his d eceas ed fa t her, Ch aim· R av en, a
man wh o survive d bot h t he Lodz Ghe tto an d Aus chwi ti b ut lost his "f rst
i
family," a wife :ind t wo youn _ g children . Sho t and edi ted over a fifteen-yea r
peri od, the film de pen d s upon R ave n's retrospectio n, his need to .r e vi si t
f oota ge sh ot years b ef ore and to reexamine his highly ch arge d r el ation,_
ship with· hi s f at h er. Everything's for You was p romp.te d in p a r t by the
di scovery, yea rs afte� th e cid er R avett's d eath, of s everal old family pho -
.
togr aph s of Ch aim an d hi s firs t family. I t is t hese relics of an unknowa ble
THC AOO.fltSS TO THt OTHER IOI

p as t, a ti me o f which Chaim could not s pea k even while a live , tha t p r ompt
the filmma ker 's re ver ies.The film i s more a ve hicle for m editation than a
'.
source of knowle dge for e ither the fihn s ma ker or its audience . As with
other i nsta nc es of Holocaust a r t, there can be no questi on of "knowi ng"
the elder Rav ett's e xper i ence, of.ever p enetrating the "ga ping, vert iginous
black ho le " t ha t i s the trau ma of the gbe110 an d the· c a mp. 6 Dor i Laub
has descr ibed the re la tionship that the children of con ce ntra tion c amp
survivo rs bear toward the u nsp ea ka ble p as t of their fore bears: ""It is thu s
that the place of the g reates t den sity of s ilence -the plac e of concentra
tion where dea th to ok place-pa radoxically becomes, for those children
of su r vivor s, the on ly place which can pro vide an ac cess to the life t ha t
e xiste d b e fo re the i r bi r th."' La,,b desc ribes the n ee d to listen thr o ugh thi s
s ilence , thro ugh ,he black hol e of knowledge an d of wo rds . Thi s pr escrip
tion aptly descr ibes the Lev ina sian idea of pr oximity, the call for a c om
mun ica tion with the o ther e ffecte d through an openness an d a pass ivity,
a stare . in whic h the s elf i s an unc onditio na l hosta ge, res pons ible for the
other "to the point of substit ut ion."!
In such a situa tio n, knowledge little ava ils. Abra ha m Ravett sp eaks
intermitten tly on the s o und tra c k ove r bla ck a- n d w - hite im a g es of old
Jewish men sitting i n the pa rk-in Yiddish, his father's fir st t o ngu e. Hi s
a�dress is equivocal, re petiti.ve, incondusive. How could it be otherwise?
Now I sec.Now I set ever ything. 1 understand n6w a I ii-tie more. Now I
sec. lt was so hard for you to tell me that you loved me. It was hard for me
to le t you know I loved you . .I don't unde.rstand it now. I don't unde rstand
i.r. What were you afraid of? What can I know? I can•t know anything. You
were alw a)'S quiet. You sat so quietly. I knew that )'Ou wer .c.... I knew rhat .,
something was brew ing inside you. You always sat so quietl y. You never said
anything. You always sat so quietly . You never said anything. Now I remem
ber.Now I r�membcr:· ·
Within a matter of mon1ent s, Ravctt can s ee, can sec cve ryd1ing, can
understand a little more, can't under stand, can know nothing, and can at ,.
last rememb er. But r emem ber wha t? Th at his father co uld no t spea k. We
are retur ne d to the apo re tic charac te r of Holoca us t a n, to a rt " · which does
not say th e unsay a ble, but say s that it ca nnot say it." ·
Judged by sta 11da r ds der ived from epis temolo gy, thi s wo uld have to
be terme d unrelia ble nar rati on, n o ba si s for knowledge. Bu, we would do
b etter to consider this nar ration in r cl�tion co Holocaust testimony, as ·
sec ond-gene ra ti on testi m ony ma de p os sible through a kin d of s ub stitu·
tion o( the s elf for th·e other tha t Levinas des crib es a s the s i ne qua non of
respons ibility. The s on's e quivocal s p eech attempts to sp ea k throu'gh th e ·
silence , offer in g it se lf a s a tes ti mony that, i n Laub's ter ms, find s it s t ruth
..
, TH C' ADDRESS TO THE OTHtll
Digitized by Origioa·1 from

.
,.., ,.
---
a iSE \U
scc1:z»•••q
···t)�...,,,...
From Abraham Ravett's Everythi11g's for You (1989). TI,e film is more a vehicle for
meditation than a source of knowledge for either the filmmaker or the audience.
thrtlugh a commitment to "a passage through, an exploration of, diff er

enc es, rathe r than an exploration of iden tity. "9 These spoken w ords indee d
offer passage, oscillati ng rather than zeroing in, narrating i nconclusiveness
rather than deducing identity. The words are directed toward a father, now
TH E ADD RCS S TO TH C OTUCB. ,..

beyond the reac h of wo rd s, for whom wor ds offere d little sol ac e or under ·
s tandi ng ev en in life . This na rr ati on is also self-dire c ted, an a ct of mour n·
ing, bur it is also f or us .
I would like now to close with a me dit ation of my ow n, on the title of
Raven's fihn, which is, it seems to me, the most Levinasian of titles:This
tac k will di s play, I co nfes s, an obsession for inter p r etation (>n wha r might
be c ons idere d a fine poi nt, the film's th ree -wor d title, bu t it is in keeping
wirh my subj ec t. "You don't have to be Je wish ro be a compu lsive int er
preter,"' writes Harold Bloom, "but, of course, it helps."10 "Evcrything's
fo r you" says being in it s a bj e ction before th e orher . Ta ken by su r.prise ,
the subjec t is a t once obliged without tha t oblig ari on h aving begun in her,
,
"as tho ugh," writes Levin as , "an order slipped into my consciou sne ss
like a thie f, smuggle d itse lf in ... [from ] 'who k now s where.'"11 The se lf,
se ize d thr ough a n i n volu n ta ry election, is char ge d with a respon s ibility
tha t alters bein g irrev oca bly al)d fr om which compas sion, solidarity, and
soci al justice em e rge . "Eve rythi ng ' s for y ou" might b.e rhe shor thand _for
thi s e thica l scena rio. Bur how pre cise ly are we to under stand this injunc
ti on here ? Who s pea k s, an d to whom, and wha t a re the implica tions rh at
this unqualifie d gift entails?
Levi nas descr ibes the co mmunicarive ac t, the saying be for e the other,
as a layin g bare , "a de nuding beyond the skin, to th e w ounds one dies
fr om, denu ding ro dea th."12 Such a descr iptio n is c er tainly a n a pt one for
Abra ha m Raven 's r ene we d listen ing, his re tu rn to his father's silence a
deca de a ft er his.dea rh. Thi s exposure ro the other is n ot without its risks.
Mosr s tudies of seco nd-genera tion Holocau s·t su rvivors ha ve desc r ibe d
a tra ,)smis s io n of pathologie s resu lti ng from an overidcntif ca tion with
i
t he pa re nt ( ofte n re inforc e d by the child's na ming aftera mu rd ere d rel a
tiv e ). ·As ev idence d:by the s tudy of clinical psyc hologis t Aa r on Hass, rhe
se cond g ene rati on te n ds to descr ibe it se lf a s depre sse d, a ng r y, fear ful,
mi strustfu l, a nd cy nica l. 13 Recog niza ble i n the co ntext of such researc h a s
yet anothe c instance of overide ntific�tion, Rave tt's obsessive re tu rn to his
fathe r thro,igb the re working of fo otage shot a d ecade p re viously ca n be
se en i n an other light, as enacriog wh at Lc v,inas would call his .electioo "to .
bear the wre tc he dness and ba nkruptcy of the othe r."" This reading would
mar k th e titl e a s the an nouncement o f a son 's filia l o bliga tio n, the re turn·
on an i rre dee ma ble d ebt.
Bu t there are othe r readings pos sible. In an earlier Rave n film, Thir
ty Years Later (1974-1978), c ompleted while the e lder Rave tt w as still' ·
alive, Abraha m constructs a dua l portrait. It is, on the one hand, an auto
biogra phica l .investiga ti on of the filmmak er's state of miser y cau se d by the
de pa rtu re of his l over (an d ben ea th tha t by feeli ng s of se lf-l oa thing) an d,
,.. THt ADOfltSS TO TIJ-C OTHER
Digitiie<I by Original from

on the o th er, a gentle portrait of his survivor parents. Rave tt's on·c amera
ran t s a nd self-pityi n g offer sh a rp c on rrast to hi s father's d ark sil ences or
hjs m other's sroic effort s to share her unspeak abl e p ast ( she too has·l ost a
fir st family, husb and and child).The re is a rem a rk abl e sequenc e toward
the end of the film in which R av en confronts his mother fr om be hind the ·-
ca mera jus t as. h e has hi s old gi rlfri e nd Nina pr ev iou sly. Ravert attac ks
Nin a f or lovin g hi. m no l onge r; h ere he cha ll eng es his mo th er for having
. l oved hjm too.much, for not preparing,hi m for th e h arshness and b e tray
al s o f the world outside .
"Everythin g I said w as righ t ," R av ett accuse s his mo ther, " the wo rld
doesn't tre at me.like th at." Hi s mo th er chides him , lovingly, of cou rse:
"You cannot com pare s tran gers to you r pare nt s wh o l ove· you! Why are
you co mpar ing p eopl e who hav e n o family !�CS 10 yo u With parents? ...
You h av� to be rea lis ti c . . . You have to adjust .yourself, to behave ac
'cordi n g t o th e outsid e world. You c annot b e all th e ti m e Abel eh, the only
child." Abel eh , the b el ov ed only child, th e only su rviv or am on g his p ar
ent' s f ou r child ren. Hi s ear ly life i s revea l ed to h av e.b een li ved a s th ough
" eve rythi n g was fo r him." Not a reci .p e f or success. A nd thi s too i s a tro p e
famjliar from the sut viv or literature, par ents overinvesting in th eir c hi(.
d re n, sa crifici n g the msel ves to th e next generation, wha tev er th e cost. By .
the rime of the 198ffihn, " e vcr ything's for you" c an b e understood.as a
g es tur e of re ciprocity. Alth ough L evinas st resses rh at the responsibility foi
the o the r in no way entail s a lik e respo nse (w e are re sp onsible even for the
othe r's res ponsibility}, we now h ave a con text for seeing the fi.l m' s titl e as, '
a si111ple inver si on: once, ever ything was for me; now, it' s all for you..
Here w e must pa use to cons i d er a s alient point. The other of this dis ,· ·,;
.
cussion is , in fact, a unique othe r, nor just� neig hb or, a srrai-tgcr, or Way·
farer but th e father, the p atri arc h ."Eve rything's for Yo u." The fil m's title
is an enactme nt, in extremis, of the Fifth Command irient, "Honor th y
father and thy m o ther ." Only instead of hono r, Rav ett offers his fathe r
th e whol e package; h e offers everythi n g. O r d oes he ?
In the cou rse of th � fil m , i n th e .portio n shot in the late 1980 s, we
·are show n Abraham c aring fo r hi s ow n son , whose name i s Chaim. Ir is
the cu sto m among·A shk enazi Je ws t,; name child ren after deceased fa mily
memb er s only, s o we kno w th at the boy's grandfath er is dead. Abraham
treats the child with tbe greatest t end e rn es s, l avi shing time and att ention
o n wm,.sh arin g physi cal intimacy with him as one sus pe c ts hi s ow n father
could n ot. We see Abr ah am diaperi n g the boy, putting him .to be d, ask
i n g hi m about bis dream s, sh owerin g with him.This is the name.sake; he
too i s Cha im R aven. A s such,·he is anoth er pl ausibl e obje ct o f the title's ·
.
add ress.
THE ADDIICS$ TO THE OTHf.JI ..,

Digitized. by Original from
HARVARD UNIVERSITY HARVA.RD UNIVERSITY
Bu t t here a re o ther re gis te rs of in te rp re ta tio n as we ll. The "you " of
the title is, as alway s, u nde cidable as to numbe r: it could be a sin gular or
plura l "you." Perhap s the film's tit le si mply echoes the motive of e very
enter ta inmen t: "La dies and gentle me n, e verything's for you." This read-
ing has li ttle tn re c omm en d it, though, beca use it cor responds very poorly
..
with the film's tone or subs ta nc e.
Bu t the ass ump tio n of a plural "you" for the t(tle's add re ss does sug
g est ano ther pos sibili ty, one that plays off the film's Je wishness. Si nce the
d�str uctio n o f t he Sec ond Temple in the first centu ry, Jewi sh life has bee n
condu cte d in exile. The g rea t rabbinic t ra di tion, fro m the Ta lmu dic p eri o d
en di ng in the fifth cen tur y right through the Middle Ag es, stre sse d throu gh
its biblica l cotn!Uen tarie s a nd tea chings the a bso lute nec e ssity for a kind
o f his torica l m emory, ena ct e d t brough ritua l and recirol,so as to ens ure
t he conti nu ity and surviv al of the Je wi sh pe ople.1.1 As desc ribed by Je wish
histor ia n Yose f Hayim Ycrush almi, the c omm and to re me mber is absolute:
"the ve rb zakhar ( reme mbe r) appears in its va rious declens ions in the Bible
n o less tha n o ne hundre d and sixty n ine times, usually with e ither Israe l
or Go d as the subje ct, fo r memor y i s incumbe nt.up on bo th" (10, 5). There
is no memor.y charg e more sacred, no agreem ent mor e binding i n perp e tui·
ty, t han the c o ven ant be tween Go d a nd Isr ae l outlin ed in Deuteron omy ·
2.9:13-14: "( make this covenant, with its sanctions, not with you alone,
but b o th wi th those who a re standing here wi th us this day before the Lord
ou r Go d, and a lso wi t h those who are not with us here this day" (10). Re
mar ka bly, the contrac t be tween God and people is ma de, in absentia, in
the na me o f all the generati ons to come. The dea th of the s ix million place d
that cove na nt a t ri sk, issui ng a near-fat al blow to a c u ltur e o f Euro pe an
Je wry ·t hat had f lourished for one th ousand y ears, e ven in the face o f the ·
fo rce d movem e nt ea st war d a f te r the expulsions from wes tern Europ e {from
England in 12.90, Fr ance in 1306, a nd, m ost cr u shingly, Sp ai n in 149:1.)
(59). Part icularly in the wake of g e no cida l assau lt, a few short decad es
after t he launching of t he Sr.a te of Israe f a s a Jewish ho mel an d, "Ever y
thi ng's for You " resonat es with that first and mo.s t ir reducible principle of
Jewish thought, the survival of the Jewish pe ople.-
Finally, Rave tt's titl e c a n be understood as a d edic ation of another
s or t. In M ar tin Bub er 's T and Thou (19:1.3), a wor k to which Levin as is
bo th respons ive and opp os itiona l, a g re at de al of attention is give n to the
"y ou• of the 'I-you " dy a d. For. it i& the "y ou" that u sher s the "I" i nt o th e
world o f rela tio n, o ffer ing the p oss ibili ty for a hu ma n encoumer u na vail
a ble throu gh the mac hine like "I-it " re l ation tha t Sube r saw dominat ing
modern life . Although Bu ber a rtic ulates three sphere s in which the world
of re lation a ri ses- the na tu ral, th e hu man, and the spiritua l spiritu - ality
16S TH E ADD llESS TO TH£ OT Htll

su ffuses the enti re ty of the b rie f text: "In every sph ere, t hrou gh ev erything
th at bec omes pre sent to us, w e gaze towa_r d the tra in of the ete rnal You; in
�ch w e perceo ve a bre ath of it; in ever y You w e a dd ress th e ete rnal You,
in every sphere according to its ma nner.''16 "In evety You we addre$s the
e t erna l You ," w rites-Bu be r, a pronou nc em ent applic able i n tlie prese nt
c a s e. If w e take th e "you" of die titl e to b e divi ne and et ernal, the fil m
.
bec omes a praye r or supplication, de dicate d to th e memor y of th e father ,
pl edge d to the f utur e of the son and of the Jewis h p eopl e; se t forth in the
pres ence of God.
Give n the principle of overdetermination at work in cultural criticism
for a c entur y n ow - a p rod_uc t, .Bloom wo uld say, of the qui n t ess. enti al
' Jewish c ompulsi ve interp rete r, Sigmun d Frcu d-'-w e don't have·to c hoo se
> meanii1gs. \Y/e c an instead ackno wl edge the m all, aware of the c omple x
manner in which a ppa ren tly contra r y m ea n ings (the "yous" of fat h er, self,
son, p eople, Go df are i n fact woven int o one an oihe r . But all these "yous"
share a n i nvest ment in otherne ss, i n the ne ce ss ity of resp on sibility a nd of
. the ethical encounter, dir eqing our consideration to moral concer ns tai:h er,,
than to the more fam iliar t errain of o ntology and epist emolo gy. "The fo r·
itself signifies self:cons�iousness," writes Levinas, ••the for all, responsi-
b ili ty _fo r the o thers, supp ort of the un ivers e." 17 Docu meJ}tary has glpr ie d ·. '
· in its acc ess to the cvetyday, diggi n g b eneath the g ri° my exte rior o f thi ngs,.·
showing us the fo rgotten ge stur e or the unacl<no,vl edged glance . But that
ao cu mentary gaz e. c a n als o b e a n inw a rd one , st ee p ed in me·mory, c ap abl e
of pl umbing the depths of the soul, in s earch of the ineffable: suppot t_o f • ,.
>
'
the universe.
•
. .
, _
.·
THC AOOQtS& TO THt OTJ.ttR ..,

III Modes of Subjectivity
Digi tized by Or.iginal from

New Subjectivities: Doc11mentary
[ 11.] ·.
and Self-Representation in the·
Post-verite Age
. .
This ch a pter, first written in 1995 for th e Japanese magazi ne Documen-
tary Box, offer s 'a historic al overview of a broad shift in documentar y
{ilmmaking styl e ov er a twent y-five-ye ar peri od (1970-1995). If man y
of the fot<ttding ambitio ns of nonfiction filmmaking were congr11en t
with those of th e n atural o r social sci ences as argued in chapter 8-the
gather ing of "fa cts,'' th e careful p reservation of imper iled folkways, the
cons(ru-ction of args,m ents thro11 gh de ,no;tstrative proofs-the w ork of
. late r practi tioners bears the marks of a radical shift of val ues associated
with the em ergen ce of second_-,vav e feminism by the early 1970s. A nesv
foregroun ding o f the politics of e veryday life enco uraged the int erroga
tio n of id en tity and subject ivity and of a vividly c orp or eal rather t han
in tell ectualized self. Str11ggl e s for equity in the p 11blic sphere were now
joined by in terrogati<Jns of (in ter)pe rsonal confl i ct, of private histor ies
a;ui_ interiori:t;ed str ttggl es. Th e drttmatic g r owth of p ersona l doc11mentary
filmm aking in·tl,e post-r96os era ths« comes to be 11n d ers tood in rel a ti on·
to a11 emergent cultural mome nt in which politics were not so much aban
done d as /ransformed. This essa y prov i des a se nse of histori cal context
fo r -the chapters of the third par t of th e book, "Mod es of Subjectivity," in
which vario11-s mod ali ties of autobi ogr aphical practice are explored.
Cinema and the Secularization of the Divine '
The doc umentary film has long been tied up with the question of science.
Since the protocin.ematic experimcnLs in human and animal loc omotion by
Eadweard Muybridge and others, the cinema has demonstrated a potenti' al
for the observation and investigatio n of people and of s<,dal/his torical
171

.
phe nomena. In the r93o s, noted avant-gard e filmmaker Hans Richter de
scrib e d this pot ential with particular urg ency:
Technology, ov ercomin g tim e and spac e, ha s brou ght all life on earth so
clo se together that the mos t reinore "fact s;' as much as those closest to
hand, h: we become significant for each ·individua l's life. Reaso n h as g i ven
rise to a se cularis ation of the divin e. Everything that h appen s on ear th has
be com e more interesting and more significant rhan it ever was before.Our
ag e dem ands the documented fa ct....The modei:n r eproductive technology
of the cinem arograph was uniqu ely responsive to the ne ed for factual sus·
reoan ce.·. .. The cam era created a res ervoir of human observatio n in th e
simple st pos.siblc way.1
As an instrument of "r epr oduc tive technology," the cin em a was endowed
with the powe r to preserv e and re pre se m the. wodd in re al ti me. "The (a p
p a re nt) incorruptibili ty of optics," wro te Richre r, "guaran tee d 'absolute ·
truth.' " 2
But as Richter's parenrhetical qualification of cinema ,s veridical sta
tus indica te s ("the [apparentI i nc orruptibility of optics "), few have e ver
trus ted the cine ma withou t r e se rvation.If e ver they did, it was t he docu
m e ntary that mos t inspired that trust. For the young Joris Ive n s, the small,
spring-driv en Ki na mo camera wa s a tool for inv e stigating th e na tural
world. Having lear ned "all its advantage s and also its weakn esse s from
· Profess or Goldber g, the inventor of this practical li"le in st rume nt," Ive ns ·
se t out i n 19z8 10 make a film about a railroad bridg e ove r t he Maas River
in Ro tt erdam:
For me the bridge -y,,a s a laboratory of movements, . tones, shape.s, contrasts>
rhy thm s ar1d the re lat ons betwe en a ll these. 1 knew thousands o f variarion s
i
w ere pos sible and here was my chan ce to work o ut basiC eleinems in the se
variations ....What I wanted was to find some general rules, laws of con;
tinuity of movement. fv(u.sic had its r�i1Cs and its g ramma r of tOnes,. melody,
harmony and counte rpoint. J)ai nrer s knew w hat they could do wit h certain
c ol ors, v al ues, contrasts.If anyone k n ew abo u t the relation or morion on rhe
sc reen he was ke.eping it to himself and I Would have to find Out about it for
myself.3
Ivens was researching the unique characteristics of a cinetnatic rendering

of th e world, already aware that the law s of Opt ics and o f c hernistry alon e
cc)u ld guarant ee no thing.If, as he was to discove r in his makin g of The
Bridge, th e re were r eal possibilitie s for a felicitous tran slation ont o fil m of
this engineering marvel, there re maine d much t o be disc over ed about ho w
this medium could best evoke the dynamism of the bridge s' mechanical ac
tion wi t hou t, for exam ple , sacrificing a sens e of the monume ntality of its
scale. The making of the film was a kine! of laborator y e xperienc e.
172 "tW $U8JECTIVIT1CS

Of cours e, Ivens' s en thusiasm for a syste mati c understa ndin g of c in e
m a's re pre sent ation al potential -.-, as pa r ti a lly hist orical, a by-prod uct of
mod ernism. Note · in tbjs conte· xt th e wdtings of Oziga Vertov, who in his
"We: Va riant of a M an.ifesto" (1922) produced blissful accounts of m an's
"de sire for kin�hip witb the m achine" and of "ou r path (which] le�d s
throu gh th e poetr y of-m achines, from th e.b ungling cit izen to t he perfe ct
ele ctr ic ma n.ti4 Ver t()v, tr ained in me dici. ne,.·d e scrib ed his cinema tic l abors
. .
a s a "complex experiment " and film itself as "t he sum of the facts rec ord-
ed o n film, o r, i yo� like, noi mere ly the sum, b ut the product, a 'higher
i
mathe matics' of facts· .· s·
All of these desi res evince d by th e .e arly practitioners of the ci nem a
fac t ual sust cna f\ce , the-discovery of the l a ws of cinematic moti on, an d the
perfectibili ty of p erc epti on- a re de eply implic ated wi th the sci entif i c proj
ect . It i s the d'omain of non fiction that has most explici tly ar,t iculated this
sci entisric yearning; it is h ere also that the debates arou nd evid ence, <·>.?jec
tivi ty, and knowl edge ha ve b e e n c.entered. I would a rg ue, th en, t hat non
fi ct ion film a nd th e· sciemifi c project are histori,ally li nked. T_he w ork. of
a numb er of s chol a rs offers fu rt her c orrobor a tion of thi s poinc.6 I would
al s o a rgue that th e percei ved relati ons b et we en the tW(J (p et ceived, th at is ,
by the co mm�nit y 6f pr ac titioners, c ritics; and scho la rs) ha� e shifte d i n
impor tant ways ove r the years . In the post-Worfd Wa r II period, the status '
'
of th e docu mentar y/sci'ence dyad has m ost fcequen tl y· c.cnter ed o,i the pa r
ticul a r y vexed question of obje c tivit y .
' ·
l
Whil e the djffi cu l ti es surr.ou nili ng t he d istinctions bet ween subjective
a nd objective kno,vledg e in the E uropean intellectual t radition· a re ancient ,
R aymond Willi am s poi nts to tbe developm ents in Ge tman cl assic al phi
l osophy fr om the la te eighteenth centurr on as crucia l to_ cu r rent und er
'
standi ng . Especia lly in th e aesthetic realm, an expl ici t"du ali sm w as-form in g
by the m i d n-i neteenth cen t ury . Bu t important changes we re und er way.
Whe reas i n previous.ecntucies, the pre vailing scbolascic· view of s11bjective
' ' '
was "a s things a re i n th emselves (from the se nse of subject a s sub sta nce),"
a nd objective was " as thin gs are prese nted to · coosci ousness (' thrown
before' the mi nd)," th e em ergence of positivis m in the late nineteent h cen
'
tur y eff ected a radic al reotien tation of meaning. Now objective wa s to b e
'
eonst�ued as "factual;fai r- m in ded ( neut ral) an� hence reliabl e, as disti nct
from 'the sense of sr,bjective as based , (>n impressions rather than fac ts, a nd
·
· h ence as in fluenced by personal fe�i,ngs and r_ elatively unreliable."' Atten-·
tiveas e ver to' th e "historica l l ay eri ng'.' of meani ng in intellectual concepts,
WilJia ms suggests that t he coexistence of an increasingly dominant posi
tivis t ideolo gy with t he re sidual idealis t tradit ion has c reate d considerabl e
mi sunderstaod ing:
lfCW $1J8JCCTIVITIC$ 173

In jt1dgments and rep0rcS we are positively required to be objective: looking
only at chc focts, setting aside personal ptcftrence or inrere.sc. In this con
text o. sense of somethi11g shameful, or a.- le. ast weak; attaches to subjective,
although everyone will ,ulmit chat there arc subjective fat.tors, which have
usually ro be put in their place.... Whac must be seen, in the end> as deeply
controversial uses of what are nevertheless, at leo. st in St4bject and obje,t,
inevitable words, are commonly presemed with a certainty and at times a
glibness th�u simply spread confusion.'
Given n onfic tion's hist oric al lin kage s to .the scientific. pr ojec t, to obse r va-
.
ti ona l methods and the pr otoc ols of jou rnalistic re portage, it is n o, at all
surpri�ing tha t, within the cornmunity of do cumentary pra ctition ers and
critics, subject iv ity h as fr equently bee n c onstructed as a kind of contami
n a ti on, to be expecte d but min imize d. Only re cently ba s the subjec t ive/
objective hierarchy (wi t h th e laiter as the fav ored term ) b egun to be dis-
.,
p1aced, e ve n rc've rse d.
The Observational Moment
I n his e lucidation of fo ur doc umen tary mode s of exp osi tion, Bill Nic ho ls
has described the o bser vati ona l mode a s rhat a pp roac h 10 docum entary
fil minaking o ften calle d direct cine m a, c harac te rized by tlie pr eva lence
of in direc t a ddress, the u se of lon g ta kes a nd synchro�o us sound, ten di ng
towa rd spa tiotemporal cont inuity ra ther than montage, evoking a feeling
of tbe "present te ns e."' Thr(>ughout ,he 1960s and well into the 1970s,
this m ode w as in its as ce t1da ncy in t he Unit_e d Statc_s and Ca nad a, wi th a
re la ted but philosophically antagon is tic a pproac h (de emed by Nic hols the
interac tive m ode ) d eve loping in Fra nce at a bout the sam e time under the
a egi s of J ean Rouch. Bria n Wi nston has argued t hat the Am erican pr a c
titioners ten de d, like Ric hard Leacock (traine d a s a phy si cist) a nd Albe rt
Maysles, to be un der the infl uence of the .na tu ra l sci ence s in the ir ea rly
pro nOuncemen ts of an ethic Of noninte rventi on, even artistic s�lf1e ssnes s:
for ex a mple, one critic's de scrip tion, "It i s life obse r ved by the c am er a
rather than , as is the case w th mo st doc�1ffie ntarie s, life rec reat ed for it,"
i
or Ro b er t Drew's statement "The fi lm makcr >s personality is in no way
' ting th e action.••0 Winst on sugg ests that Rouch,
di rec tly inv olve d in direc
an a ntb.rop o logis t, and his occ as iona l par tne r Edgar Mor in, a soc iol ogist,
_ ha d "the a dvantag e of a m(>re sophis ti"cated c onception of the problenis

raise d by p articipa nt ob servation" tha·n their American couoterparts.11
Bu t even in the heyday of dir ec t c inema, the spe c ter of subjec tiv ity
could not be wholly expung ed. According to Stephen Mambe r's acco unt,
174 Mew $u11ecuvn1ts

a disagree ment arose b etween producer Robert Drew and D. A. Pe nne·
baker during the shooting of Jane (1962) about whether or not th e sound
of the camera should be filte red out during an ei<tended s equ�ncc with
Jane Fonda, sitting alone before h er dressi'ng-r oom mirror: "Pe nnebaker
fel t that.the noi se should remain, making it clear that the audience was
not seeing Jane alone in her dressing room, but Jane alone in her dre ssing
room with a ·camera observing her."12 By the _ tim e of t he making of An
American Family (a twelve -part docume ntary seri e s about the William C.
Loud family of Santa Barb ar a, California, shot in 1971, broadcast on the ,
Public Broadca sting System in 1973), th ere could b e little doubt that the
. fifmmak er's personality was rather intimately inv olv ed in the crc_ation of
the final' product.
In several scenes with Lance or Gra.nt, the two .most active " perform
ers" among th e five Loud siblings, a ccmsp[ratorial g.lance is exel)anged
with the camera as a kind of confirmation ofits role as Witness. In epi
sode 4, Pat Loud journeys ,o Eugene , Oregon, to help c ele brate her moth er's
birthday. A s Pat and her mother s ettl e do,vn with cocktail glasses in hand,
the daughter offers a toast to her aging.parent: "To lots of birthdays !" Ap
parently misund er standing ihe intent of the wish (she reads it as a t0ast
to all those cele brating the ir birthdays rather ,ban as a }Vish for many •
more years of h er owil good health), Mrs. Ru ssell replie s, "Who else has
a birthday?" From o f f -camera, Pat rather flatly intones, "Susan has a
birthday." Mrs. Russell's gaz e shifts from her daughter t0 some point off
screen �nd to her right: "Oh yeah, sure, I knew it was something else. I'm
not the only one having a birthday." This rather puzzling exchang e is clari
fi ed only with the r ealiza tion that moth er.and daughter are sharing.thi s
scene with filmm akers Alan and Susan Raymond, the latter of whom is
the Sus an in qoe scion. Indee d, the Raymonds share d a lif e with the Loud
family for seve n months, thi s de spite the fact that th eir off-camera pre s
enc e and the e ffe cts of their personalities on the se ven principal subjects
ar e only rarely acknowledged. By tbe time of the Raymonds' American
Family Revisited (broadcast in 1983, updated in l990), only remnants of
the invisibl e fou'rth wall remain.Each of di e Louds in turn spe aks to the
occasionally imaged filmmakers about the impact of th e s er ies on their
lives as well as th e effects of the presence of the camera on ,heir b ehav ior.
(Remarkably, the e ver rational Bill Loud calibrates his response co Pat' s
· on-ca·mera announcement that she. is filing for a divorce in episode 9 in
th e following way: 80 percent or 90 percent sp ontan·eous, only ro p ercent
for the camera.) The Raymo·nds choose tb end th e follow-up piece on tbe ·
fate of this Am erican family, which had unrav el ed years earlier for all the
world to see,-with a refere nc e to themsel ve s, announcing that ind eed they •
MEW suaJECT l'I ITltS ,,.

we re s till married and that in r988 Susan had given binh t o a son , James .
C ov ering ne arly two de cade s, the updated American Family saga offers
dra matic evidence of th e s hift away from a self-consci o usly o bse rvati onal
approach to a mor e in.reractiv e, even reflexive, modality. Again, as wil'h
the mode rnist yearnings of Ve rrov, Iv ens, and Richter, this transformation
is historically conting em:
Performing the Sell
By 1990, a ny chr o nicler of documentary hist ory w ould note the g rowing
prominenc e of work by women and me n of div er se cultu ral backg rounds
in which the re presentati on of the hi st(>rical w orld is ine xuicably bound
up·with self-inscription. In th es e film s and tap es (incre asingly the latte r),
s ubjectivity is no l ong er con str ue � as "somethi ng shameful"; it is th e filte r
through which the real emers dis cou rse, as well as a kind of exp er iential
co mpass guiding-the work t o wa rd it s g oal as embodied knowle dge . Jn
par t, this ne w t en de n cy is a res p o ns e to the persistent c ritique of eth
nography in which the quest to preser v e endangered authenticities "out
there," in rem o te p laces , is called into doubt. In his int rodu cti on to Local
Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology, published in
1983, Cliffo rd Gee rtz sugg es te d that the predile ction for general theories
jn the social sciences had given way to a "scattering into frameworks."
This meant a movem ent away from "univ ersali s t moods"·toward what
he calle d "a kee n se nse of th e de penden ce of what is seen up on where it is
se en fr om and what it is se en with."13 It is not difficult to imagine obser
vational cinema <>f the 1960s as a cinematic variant of th e social sc ie ntific
approac h t o ·whic!, Geer t,; disp aragingly refers, a n appr oach in which gen
c ralizahle t ruths ab out in s tituti ons or huma n behavior can b e ext ra p olated
fr om small but cl os ely monit ore d ca se st udie s (e .g., Primary [1960 ), High
School [1969I, An American Family).
I n the d omain of do cu me ntary film and vid eo, the scatt ered fram e
works thr o ugh which the social field came t o be organiz e d wer e increa s
ingly de t ermi ned by the dispa r ate cultu ral identit ies of the make rs. The
docum entative s rancc tha t had pr evi ously been valo rize d a s inf orm e_d but
objec ti v e was n o w being re pla ced by a mor e personalist p er sp e ctiv e i n
which the maker's s take and commitme nt to the subj ect matter w ere for e..
grounded. What had int ervened in the years betwe en 1970 and 1990 that
might have co nt ribute d to this effusion of d o cument a ry subj ectivity?
The cultu ral clim ate of this pe riod, at l east i n the West, has be en
character ized by th e dis plac ement of the p o litics of social inovem ent s
178 11ew $ U8J£Cll'tl TltS

(e . g ., anti war, civil rights, the stud ent movement) by che politic.s of iden
tity. According to thi s sce nario, th e clarion call co unified and collective
action ca me to b e dro,vn ed out by the murmu r of human differ enc e s:
In.strumental to this sea change was che feminist movement, whose re·
valuation of the prior alternative political Structures suggested that social
, ine qu iti es p ersisted, inte rnal to the ri1ovement. Young men c hallenged ch e
authority of their fath ers to establi sh state policy but l eft intact gend ered
hie rarchi es. Wome n a nd the issue s that matt ere d to them - for thright .
inrerpersonal communication; equal stress on the integrity of process as - .
we ll a s produc t; op en and universally a cces sible structur es for de cisi on
making; sh ared re sponsibility for the domestic and familial-re ceive d
sca nt a ttention. The wome n' s mov ement change d all that and h el p ed to
ushei in an era in whith·a range of "personal" i ssues· -race, sexuality,
and ethnicity-b e came �onsciously politicized ( evidenced by.t h e post
Ston ewall gay rights movement as well as th e intensification of racially or.
ethnically base d poli tical initiativ e s). In all case s, subj ectivity, a giound
· ing in the pe rsonal and the experi ential, fu eled the engi�e of p oliti ca l
ac tion. Whil e some have see_n the em er gence of ide ntity politi c s as an
erosion of coalition� a retreat from m�aningful social intetvention, Other
cultural critics have argu ed lo udly and pe isuasiv_ely for its effi ca cy. Sta nley ;
Aronow itz ha s suggested that the cur re nt emphasi s on ·multiple and Ouid •' <
identities (and the critique of "essential" identiry as t he under pinning for ·
social collectiviti es ) is enti re ly consi stent wi(h post-Newtonian physics:
The sociological theory,accordi ng to wh ich i ndividuals a re crucially fo rme d

by a fixed cultural syste m co ntaining unjversal values that become inter·
'
11
nalized through the m ultiplicity of imera�tions between the "pc r son �nd
her exter nal enviro n ment, now comes unOe r radical r evision. We may now
regard the indi vidual as a proc ess co nstituted by iLS multipie·an'd specific . ';
reh1tions, n ot o nly to the i nstitutions of socializatio n such as family, school ,

a nd law, but also co sign.Weant othe rs, a ll of whom ar� in motion, tha t is, a r c
consta n tly changing. The ways in which individuals and the groups to which
they affiliate were co nstituted as late as a generatio n earl ier, ·may now bear
chaic. New identicies ari se� old o n es pass aw:ay (at least temporarily).r..
If ind eed we now live in an age of inr ensifi ed and shifting psychosoc ial'
identities, it should surp,rise no one chat the documentati on of this cul tural
scene should b e dee ply ;·uffused with the performance of subjec tiviti es.
\Vhile neve r considered a par t o f the mains tream documentar.y tra·
dition, video artist Wendy Clarke has produce d work that foresha9ows
c ur rent d ev el opme nts as we ll a s echo es important dis coveries of the past.
Beginning in 1977, Clark e b egan experim enting with the v_ideo diary for
mat, attempting to use th e c ame ra as a tool to plumb the depth s of he r
NCW SUIJtCT IV ITl£S 1 77

own psyche . This concept evolved into the Love Tapes proj ect, in which
individuals of all age s and backgrounds a rc give n three minutes of tap e
time in which to spea k abou t wha t love means to them. Each love tape,
while identical in length and subject matter, announc e s difference at
the level of sound and image; Clarke renders each subject the metteur
en-scene of her own discours e rhrough a choice of vi sual backdrc'>p and
musical accompaniment. Eack individu al i s se ated in a booth with only a
self-activat ed c amera, monitor, and the conce pt of love a s a s pur to p e r
formance. In all instances, those who might, in the interactive mode, have
been the interview subjec t become the source and subject of e nunciation;
differences of experience, affiliation, and identity join with che u npredi ct
a bility and variation of desire to ma ke each of these monologues u nique.
Thousands of lov e cap es later, the project offers testimony co r he absolu te
heterogen eity of the historical su bje ct.
Some yea rs previously, Jean Rouc h, a prime shaper of the interaccive
mode in whic h the filmma ker-s ubj ect encoumer ta kes precedence ov er
externalized ob se rv ation, had begun to explore the power of the camera
to induce ch e display of su bj ectivity. Far from avoiding or di savowing the
potential influe nce of the ca mera on its su bj ects, Rouch bad from the late
l950s on employed the cin ematic appa ratus as a kind of accelerator, an
incitation for "a v ery strang e kind of confes sion."15 Replying to an imer
vi e wer's qu estion regarding camera influe nce in 1969, Rouch replied: "Yes,
the camera deforms, but not from the moment that it becomes a n accon1·
plic e. At tha t point it ha s the possibility of doing something I couldn't do
if the cam e ra wasn't there: it become s a kind of psychoana lytic stim ulant
which lets people do things they wouldn't otherwise do."16 Tbe famous se
que nces with Marilou a nd Marceline in Chrollicle ofa Sr<mmer {l961) in
which the su bje cts choose to probe memory and e motion for, rath er tban
ill spite of, the camera offer a n apt illus tration of Rouch's concept.
But The l:i>ve Tapes and the films of Rou ch arc only pre.cursor s for
the new su bjectivity on display in docum enta ry film and video of the
1980s and 1990 s. The work to whic h I re fer may rework memory or
make manife sto-lik e pronouncements; almos t inevita bly, a self, typically
a deeply social self, i s being constructed in th e process. Bu t what makes
this new subjectivity new? Perhaps the answer lies in part i n the extent
to which current doc um entary s elf-in scription enacts identities f- luid,
multipl e; even contradictory-while remaining fu lly embroiled with
public discourses. fn this way, the work escap e s charges of s olip s ism or
self-absorption. In her recent book titled Family Secrets: Acts ofMemory
and Imagination, Anne tte Kuhn offers an e loquent rationale for che us e of
some of her fa mily photographs as ca se studies for a work of personal and
178 •tw S081ECTIVIT lt $

popular memory. In terms that echo th e femi nist precept that the p ersonal
is the politic al,Kuhn argues that memory work,. wh en prop erly conceived,
fold s public and private sphere s in to each othe r:
The images are both "pdvatc" (family ph orographs)'and "public" (films,
news photogra ph s, a painting): though, as far a s memory at leas t is cOn
cerned, pri\•ate and public tu.rn out i n practice less readily separable than
conventional wisdom would have us believe....if the memories ace one
individual's, their association s extend fa� beyond the personal.They spn:a d ·
into an cxtended. network or meanings that bring together the personal
with the fomilial, the cultural, the economic, the social, and t!te historic al.
Memory work makes it p-Ossib lc to explore connections between '"public"·
historical events, structures of feelir\g, family dramas , relations of cla ss, na
tional ide,uiry and gender, and "per sonal °' me,.nory. ln these ca se hist9ries ·
outer and inner, social and per.son-11, h is torical and ps ychic�I, Co.1lescc; and
the web of i.ntetconncctions 1hac binds them toge ther is made visible.I'
Kuhn's description of the coalescence ()f outer and inner histories offers
an ov erarchi ng characterization for th e rec en t documentary work s to which
'·
I refer. •
I n a number of i11stances, the ·maker's subjectivity is explicitly aligned
with social affili ations. As in Kuhn' s de scription, a network of famifial,
cultural, econ omic, and psychica l force s conve rg e and find express ip11 in '
'.,. '
an act of hi swrical se lf-i nscripti on; but in these i nstanc es , autobiographi
cal discourse i s condicional; contingent on its locacion within an explicit
soc i al !"3trix. . A particularly rich example of this phen omenon occurs
with works that explore exilic idemity, films such as Jon as. M ekas's Lost,
Lost, Lost (t9.75), Chantal Akerman' s News from Home(1975), Raul '
Ruiz' s Of Gr.eat Events a nd Ordinary People (1979), Marilu Mallet' s ;
Unfinished Diary (1983), M eeoa Naoji's Voices ofthe Morning (1991), ..
Rea Tajiri's History and Memory (,99, ), and Dick Hebdig e's Rambling
Man. (1994). Th e explorati on of di spl�c e ment and cultural dis(>ricntation
bridges the divide betwe en the self and an Other who is specifiab ly kin
dred. I n the fi rst two of Lost, Lost, Lost's six re els, Mekas focuses on the
Brooklyn--ba . sed commu
. n ity of Lithuanians, the Displace d Persons, wbo in
escapi ng Soviet persecution io the immediate p o s \Vor t- l d Wa r II years ex
peri enc e profound dispos session-<lf la nd,climat e, custom, language, and
cultur al cont ext. The po et s and s tates men of Lithuania find th emselv es
without familiar mooring in a land whose size and world stature d oubl es
that of the Soviet Uni on, rei nforcing th eir sense of oppression at the hand s
of the "big nations." Although Meka s's magi sterial film has mo st frequent
ly been categorized as an autobio graphical work of the American avant
garde, in fact it charts at least t�re e hi stories ov�r a fourteen-year period
NCW SU81CCTIYI Tl�S "'

(1949-1963)-that of the Lithua ni an exil es, the ba n-th e-b omb social
protest movement of the late r 95os a n d ea rly r96os , a nd the e mergen t
u n derg rou nd film s ce ne of the same p eri o d. This fil mic do cume nt ation
takes as its piv ot M ekas 's own hist<1r y an d exp eri en ce but envel o ps it i n
laye rs of historic a l do cu mentati on. Mekas's subjectivity is e loque ntly per
f ormed across de cad es of real time , th ree hours of film tim e , but his is a n
i dentity con stituted, a s Aron owitz has a rgued, by multipl e and specific re
la tions to institutions and signifi<;ant others, all of whom are in motion.18 .
During the post-verite pe rio d between 1970 and 1995, documen tar y
e xplora tion s of gay a nd lesbi an identitie s hav e exhibited a parti�ula r
dynamism and vitality. In this c ategory I wou ld include works such as
Territories (Sankofa Film a nd Video Co ll ec tive , 1984), Tongues Untied
(Marlon Riggs, 19$9), Gurinder Chadha 's I'm British But ... (1989),
Su F riedrich's Sink or Swim (J990), Sadi e Benning's prolifi c output f rom
1988 through 1992-includi ng IfEvery Girl Had a Diary (1990), Jollies
(1990), and It Wasn't Love (1992)-Thank You and Good Night (Jan
Oxenberg, 1991), Sandi DuBowski's Tomboychik (1993), an d Deborah
Hoffman n 's Complaints ofa Dutiful Daughter (1994 ). The re is no te m
plate to which thes e works conform; on ly a few of them fe ature a comi ng
out scenar i o, an d those that d o (Tongues Untied, fo r exampl e) o fte n
discover ways to reinvent the form. Riggs's controversial piece may be
the most outspoke nly politiciz ed of the ·group fr om its ope ning inc antation
("Brother 10 brother, b rother to brother ... brother to b ro ther, brothe r to
b rother ") to its iconocl astic summa ry cl aim, "blac k men lovi ng black me n
is the revo lutiona ry ac t." Fro m the outset, Riggs puts himself and his body
on the line. In a n open ing sequ ence , Riggs, urtdula ting an d u nclothe d,
mov es rhythmic ally ag ains t a black, featurele ss backg round, rive ti ng us
with hi s fiery gaze a nd dramati c oar ra tion. But the temptati on to read the
rape as a n e xclusively first-p erson di sco u rse is un der min ed by th e rec ur
ring pres enc e of a black m en's gro up, which fu nctions as a ra ppi ng and
snappi n g Gree k chorus. It is this co llectivity of bl ack ga y men ( of whom
Mar lon is bu t one) that occ;,pies t he film's political a nd ethica l b ala nce
poim. Succe ssfu lly fus ing the pers onal with the social, Tongues Untied
is both a germi na l political ma nifesto of its epoch and a pa radigma tic in
sta n ce of the n ew docu me ntar y subj ectivity.
Othe r gay-a n d le sbi an-identified pieces tak e up the m aker 's sexuality
less expl i citly..F reque n tly tli es e works attempt to situat e th e a rtist-subject
in the fam ilia l order, to witness or acc oum for tbe difficulti es of accom
moda tion within rigid family st ructu res t o qu eer sens ibilities a n d life
ch oices. In these ca ses, identity c omes tO be constr ucte d le ss i n re lation to
the family as a relative ly abstrac t institution than to particula r, we ll,lov ed
180 N£ W $U8JECTIYIT IC$

fa mily memb ers with wh om the make r must ne ver the less senl e acco.unts.
.
Oft eo, this relati ve (the mo th er i n Hoffmarm's tape , a grand mother in
DuBowski' s and Oxeub erg's pi eces) is ill, dead; or dying. Sexuality and it s
source s or e ti ol ogy ar e only occ asiona lly the ov er t subjec t matter of such
work. Instead the se films and tap es affirm the de gree to w nicb the (queer}
id entitie s of th e .mak ers are bound up with those of cer t ain s pecial (b uc .
straight) family me mb e rs. Th ese moth ers and grarldm(>thers , he terose xual
b ut uiierringly ecce11tric, have h elped creat e th e pe ople the art ists have
....... become. \Vork; such as these ;,;o_urn .an d me morialize l oss, ye t th ey testify
with equal force to continuity, (O rhe inti-ansi gei1ce of subjecti vity, a pro
cess cliarged and revivified by concact with signif icant others in life and
in me mory.-Th ese work s are perhaps th.e ne xt generaciori of the new qu eer
su.bj ettivity on film and t ape .:Janus-faccd, looking behind as we_ll as ahead,
·
�tsonal yet e mbedded in the corrimonality of family life; these �re·works
th at bridge many gaps of h_uman difiercnc e-th os e of gener ation, gende r;
and s ex ua lity.' · ·
.
· How can we account {or the ·dramati�, even explos iv e," appc.aranc�
·
·of new su bj ectivit ies on fil m aod tape as the century comes co a clo se?
Jul ia. �atson, has written about th� historical_qmd :: itions in which women
h ave voi ced th eir ''uns pea . k able diff erences" th rough autobiographical ::'
di scourses: ··For the immigranr or multicu ltura l daughter, naming the
unsp eakable i s at once a tra nsgres sive act that kn owingly seek s to ex
pose and sp eak the bo u nd ar ie s on wnich th e organiz ati�!l of cult ural
k now le dg e depe nds and a di scursiv e �cr acegy that, whil e unv erifia bl�,
a llows a vit al 'making s ense' of h e r own multiple differences ."' " Such a
-' '
·
. s t at ement we ll s umma·;izes th e circu mst. anc.es. i which this latest-phase
n
.
of documentary exposition has arisen. During the dire ct ci1l.ema period, ··�
·
self-re feren ce w as shunn�d. But.far fro m a sig n of sel f- e fface ment, thi s ••
w�s. th e s ymptom
. atic sil ence of ;h e e mpowcre.d, who sou ghi no forum for
. .
self-jus tification or di spl ay . A nd why wo uld the y need one ? These wh it e
mal e pr ofessionals ha_d. assumed ch e mantl e of filmic represe ntation with .
the ea se and scl f a- ss ucance of a bir thright, Not so the current genera
ti on of p erforma tive doc;u meniarjsrs . In more ways than one, ·th eir self
e nactment s arc t ransgressi ve . Th rou gh th eir expl orations of the (social).
self, th ey are spea king che lives and desi res -of th e many w . ho have .live d
·
outside "th e bou ndari es of cuh ural k nowl edge.� ·
.
N'tW SIJ8JECf l"t'IT II: $ 18\

The Electronic Essay
[ 12 ]
"The Electronic Essay," fir st p r esenied at the Socie ty for Cine m a Stt,dies
confere nce i n 1995, is the fi rst of four chapte rs tha t inve stigate sp ecific
modalitie s of subjectivity in documentary film- or video m aking. The
re f erenc e to video is vital he re , as I argue that the electronic medium o f
fer s possibilities for self-p rese ntation unknown to film. Fi r st-generation
vid eoma k ers a d-0pted the tools of the new medium .
to pursue the-ir prior
interests as con.ceptual or bc>dy artists; the c amera and ·monitor be came
extensions of the artists' sensorium. They also begdn to work with �ideo's
unique and qi,ite complex te·m porality-its ability to combin e and op
pos e taped and r eal-ti me m aterial. In this cha pter , I offer a tentaiive
"cr itical encounter" be tween the elect;Onic medium and the essay.form as
the orized in philo sophy a'nd liter ary theory. I look· a tJean-Luc Goda rd's
rem ar ka ble Scenario du film Passion,.in whicl, the a rtist. uses the video
appa ra tus to co mpose an iin agined s cript for a fea tur e fil m (f>assi(;n) tha t
he has a lready made. This convoluted t.e1t1/JOrality and the labyrinthine

textua lity it helps ,nake r,os sible echo the condition s of eisayisiic discourse
alrea dy s urv eyed in chapters. 4 a,,d 6.
Theessay's'innetmostformal law is heresy.

:: Theodor W. Adorno, "The Essayas Form"
M uch has bee. n written on the status of the essay a nd from innumerable
perspectives: philosophers have principally sought to position the essay
in rel.>tion to knowledge, while literary theorists have stcuggled with
definitions, typologies, arid exegeses of this ever elusive w1iterly mode. It
i s perhaps a ppcopciate to begin my own accoun. t of the video e ssay in the
manner of evocation, with Adorno's sense of the heretical establishing
the prevailing tone. The essayistic-1 pre fer the a djectival usage de spite
1 82
Digitized by Original frRm

Barrhes's p rotes t ations ("a rel ati onship which adjec tivi1,es is on rhe side
of the im age, on th e side of domi nation, of death")1 -is the undoer of
duali sr hiera rc hi es; it is the stuff of par ad ox.For Spanish philosopher
Eduard o Nic ol, th e essay i s "almost li tera t ure and almost philos ophy,"2
;.,hile Walter Paier and Adorno have deemed its app roach " method(cally
un methodical."' For Georg Lukacs, ci t ing the elder ScWegel, rhe e ssay
w�s an "intellectua l poem,"4 whil e for Reda Bens�ai a, the essa.y is atopic,
ec. ceniric, in short, an �•impossible" genre.s The essayistic emerges as a
. t, 'aki n to Ba rth es's invo cati on o f the w riterly. It is also..
ki nd of li n1i t tex
a projective scree n.for m any of its co1.nmcntarors, supplying a discursive
a rena we l l -suited to thei r visi on.F or Jean -F ran�ois Lyotard; the essay is
p ostm oder n; for Ador no, "th e essay is what it was from th e beginning,
th e critical for m par e� ce ll ence ...it is critique of ideology."6 But more
than th at, A dor no C:\n cl ainr, a few page s l at er, th at " th e essay app roach
. . es
the l o gic Of music, that stringent and yet ac o nc eptual art of transition, in
order to a pprop riate for verbal langua ge s omethin g it forfeit ed under the
..
domination of di sc ursi,•e logic."7 For R. Lai1e Kauff ma nn, the e ssay- •
given its " antinomian" ch a racte r ("poised betwe en 1. ite rature and phi�oso ,
phy, a rt and s cien ce, holding the antinomies of imagin ation and reason,
s ponta. n eity 3nd di�cipline, in productive tension•')-is ''the most ade quate .;
.,.'
form for interdisciplina-ry rese a rch and writing."8 In an epo ch in which
ide as su ch as hybridiry, nonidentiry, contingency, indetermina cy;the r e
flec tive , the interdiscipli nar y, the t ta nsi ent, a nd th e het erotopic (p edigr eed
es sayistic c ha tacteri siics all) resonate b oih with pr evaili ng theore tical para-
,.' ,
digms and with vast sectors of soc ial life, the es say deserves the renewed •'
c ritical attemion it h as begun to receive.
;
In true e ssa yisti c fashi on, then (fo r i nd eed, the es sa y must " refl ec t
on it se lf at eve r y moment"J,9 le t me pl ace my own ill!entions.tac tl essly on
trial· a· nd in so doing challenge my" own app ropriative gest urc.10 T o what
end d o I pro pose a cri,tical conve r ge nce o f vide o and the essayisti c? It
wo.uld not go w ell sim ply to aver tha t vid eo has yet to sustain fo r itself a n
ade quat e th eorizati on (whi ch it has n't) or to suggest a ki nd of om ological
i ne vitability to th e rendezvous betwee n vid eo an d essay, giv en A dorno's
aph oris tic r� mi nder that "the essay aba nd ons the royal road to the origins,
which le ads only to what is mos t der iva tiv e -B ei ng, t he ideology th at
duplicates what already exis ts."" In st ead it is my i n tention " to suggest the
fruitfulness of initiating a critical enc ounter between the elecr.cooic medi
um a nd th e essa y f orm. I will fur th er arg ue for the appropriate n ess of the
encounter based · on grounds th at ar e h.isrorical, th eoretic al, and t rop olo gi
cal, wi th par tic ula r att enti on giv en to the temp orali t y of self-i nscription i n
Goda rd's Scenario d1t film Passion (1982).
TUC t;LCCTRONIC £$$AT 183

· Everything attests to the fact that video is more deeply rooted
in writing than is cinema.
:: Rapnond Bellow. "VidooWnt:i.ng''
While the converge nc e of vide o an d e ssay has received little direct a t

tention� there are a number o f writings that posit a discursivity for videO
congrue nt with the cssayisti c. In his analysis of esteem e d vid eo artists
such as Ga ry Hill and Bill Viola and the Jap ane se poets Shito Teraya m a
a nd Shun ta ro Tanikawa (author s of Video Letter, a brillian t exchange
of elect ro n ic missive s), Bellour depl oy� a notio n of writing t o which any
comm e ntator of the essay might aspire: "Writin g is conceived he re as a
particular type of image, fra gme nted, inte rmitten t, a n etwor k of raw sig
n ification s that allows the image to b ecom e unstuck fro m its elf witho_ut,
for all that, causing i t to los e its se ductive force."12 In a len gthy i n te rview/
dial ogu e be tween Bellour and Vi ola, the sp e cificity of vide o is much at
iss ue. Vide o is con trasted with film in that the latter is compos ed of "fro
zen, discrete moments," whereas video is, according to Viola, "a living,
dy namic sys te m, an energy field....It's sort of like a light is on when y ou
c ome i n to the room. It's all there already....You se e th e effects of you r
actions on the image while you a re carryi ng them out.•n Viola bas spoken
of his work i n ce rtai n of hi s vide o pi eces as "sculpting with time " (with
panial fields of past- and futur e-tens e image s keyed over pres ent-tens e
material); in de ed, vide o's real-time potentialities prove d imme n s ely at
rrac tive to 1960s kin etic sculptors and perforrt)ance artists who saw in the
emerg ent elec tron ic medium an opportu nity to expa n d their ve rnacular.
In his in terview witb Vi ola a nd elsewhere , Bell our has i n siste d on
a c ettain co rpore ality that characte rizes video in c ontrast to film. The
paluche 1ni n icame ra de veloped in Fra n ce is the quintess e nc e of this al
leged connec tedness of ar tis t's body and creative praxis; ab andoni ng the
viewfi n der, the video make r "thi nks with th e ba nds." In his discussion of
a Gary Hill i n stallation, Crux (1983-t987), Bellour de scribes the use of_
five m onitors reproducing "the pattial images·£rom five cameras attache d
to th e auth or-ac tor's body: two on his feet, two on his hands and one at
bis waist, aimed toward bis face."14 Perhaps the co rporeality of video is
a re sidue of its pcrformative, installation -based infancy . Over t b e year s,
video art ma ki ng bas incr easingly been forced to depend on the repr oduc
ible artifact made possible by i ns titutional support (Hill a n d Viola ar e
am ong the few video artists still able ,o produc e large-scale in stallations).
And yet even in si ngle-cha nnel tapes such as Viola's f Do Not K11ow \Y/hat
I t Ts I Am Like (1986), the vide o appa ratus remain s capable o f e voking
th e shoc k of se nsation even if the con dition of nonreproducibility (for
,.. TH£ Ct£CfflONJC CSS AY

Peggy Ph el an and oth er the orist s of per form ance, the si ne qua non of the
ph en omenon) no longer obtains. In te resti ngly, Phel an has poim ed to es
sayistic writi n g s;1ch as _ B _ art hcs's Camera Lt1cida and Roland Barthes
by Roland Barthes as prc.cis ely th e kind of literary endeavor th at seeks
to do th e imp ossible-. prese rve th e u nre pr oducible. This"sh e c alls " t he
act of \\1riting toward disappearance ," in cont-:_ast to.th e act of writing
tow ard pr eser vati on, no ti n g tha t "the after -effe ct of d isappear an· ce i s the
exp eri ence Of Su bjecti v it y its elf."IS Uthe vid e ograpbic essay C3n b e Said tO
induce a simil ar kind of apha ni si s of the subject (a fading or sense · of sel f "
dissol uti on c onsistent with rbe experi ence of subje ctivity), perhaps it is due
in part to its genealogical ties to perfOrmance.
But my inte nti on is not to mak e claims for vid e o's defini ng proper
tiCs, an activity that Ma _ rita Sturken has characte�ized as video's "tick etof
admi s sio _ n tc)· mod ernist art the ory." 16 Rather, I '.wi sh to su gge st that vid e o
h as, from its mythic inception v ia t he early 1960s antiart installations of
0
Nam June Paik and Wolf Vos tell, retained an attachm ent to the p erforma
,,..
tivc and th e corporeal rha t is hi s tor ica l a nd i s distinct from t�e c inema.
All c ommen tators of video 's hi s tor y acknowl edge th e impact of its first
generation practitione rs- t h e painte rs, sculpto rs, and conceptual, body,
an·d p<!rfo· rmance arrisr s who lent institutionalized credibilirY to a nascen·t 1
medium (e.g., Paik, Br uce Nau man, Vito Accooci, Richard S er ra, Lynda ·' ·
Bengali s, a nd Petet C ampu s). The work of these artists ins pired Ro salind
·'
Krauss in an early a nd infamous essa y to suggest that "m ost of the-work
pt odu ced over th e v ery shor t span of vide o ar t 's e xisten ce h as use d th e \
human body as its central instrumen t" and that narcissism _ could b e ge ne(- ' ·•
alized as the conditi on of the wh ole of arti st s' video.17
Beginning wi th M ontaigne, the corpor eal self has been the linchpin
of ess ayi sti"c di s cou rse: "I stu dy myself more than an y other subje ct. That
is my metaphysics, that is my physics." 18 When Nlon ta igne writes that " no
man eve r pe ne trate d more dee ply imo bi s mat erial or pluck e d its limb s
a' nd consequence s cleaner," or begin� "Of Vanity" with mention of an ac
qu ainta nce who wa s so sel f -obsessed that he pla ce d on dis play a t hi s home
"a row of [hi s] cha mb er pot s, se ven or eigh t days'. worth," since " all.other
talk stank in his nostrils,'.' the bodily emerges as an intransigent, incscap- ·
abl e source of self-k n owle dge .19 For Rola nd Barthes, th e b ody is nothi n g
le ss t ha n the mana -word, t he "word whose ardent , c ompl ex, ineff abl e ,
and so mehow sacred sig nif ication gi ves the illusi on tha t by thi s word olie
migh t answer for everything.•20
Marshall McL u ha n hyperb oliz e d rhat te le vision was an exten sion of
the cen tral ne rvous system, b ut it has b een inde pendent videomak ers who
h ave de monstr ated the m edium's capabiliti es to write thro,,gi, the b ody, to
TH£ CL £CTJl01flC &&SAT 1 85
Digitized by. Original from

•
wr ite as the body. Durable, lightweight, mobil e, pr oducing instantaneous
results, the video a pp arat us supplies a dual ·capability well suit ed to the
essayistic project: it is botb scr een and mi r ro r, pr ovidi ng the te chnologic a l
grounds for the surveillance of the palp able wo r ld, as well as a reflective
surface on which to register the s elf. It is an in s trument th r ough which
the twin a xes of essayistic pr acrice {the looking out a nd the looki ng in,
the Montaignea n "measur e of sight" and "me asure of things") find apt
exp re ssion. Eduardo Nicol's descriprion of the lite rary essay ("a theat re of
ideas in which tbe rehea rsal a nd the final performance are combined")21
discovers grounds for its amplification in video's ceal•rime capabilities. In
this rega rd, I will focus on one videographic figure in particula r.
The incl usio n within the video image of a monitor, even if obliquely
· or inc onseque ntia lly fra me d, in which the artist's se l f -semblance is re
inscribed affor ds both viewer aod prod ucer access to a p erpetual inter
weaving that is the es sa y's textuality ("lost in this tissue-rhis texture
rhe subject unmakes him se lf, like a spider dissolvi ng in the consrructive
secretions of its wcb"). 22 The mise en abyme effect of the inser s elf-image
in-ptocess is an enunciativ·e rr ·a it available to the electronic, but not the
cinemric,
a es say; th r ough it we are reminded that the b(>dy of the a rti st
is liter ally a t stake thro ugh thl-se con str uctive secre tion s and that the un
folding has re al-time implications. It is as Viola ha s stated: "You se e the
effect s of yo ur action s on the image while you are ca rryi ng them our."23.
Such a pote ntiality is entire ly consistent with the essay is tic · as described
by Max Bense:
Th i�, then, is how the essay is dfatingu ished from a treatise. The person who
writes essayistically is th'e one who composes as he experiments1 who turns
his object around, questions it, feels it, tests it, reflects on it, who attacks it
from differem sides and assembles what he sees in his mind's eye and puts
into word s what the object allows one co see under the conditions created in
the c.ourse ol writing, 14
In Scenario d11 film Passion (1982), Jean-Luc Goda rd e ngages in j ust

such a c ritic a l op era tio n with liis o bject, hi s film Passio·11, completed only
months befo re. Scenario functio.ns as a kind o f prolegome non for the film,
akin to a b ook's int r oduction, which, though placed in the be gi nning,
can only be writte n last. Goda r d do es, as Bense suggested, tu r n his obj ect
around, rest it, reflect on it, attack it fr om all sides. His desire is to create
Passion's pre-text, a scenario to be se· e n as it is wriuen, one that cao attest
to hi s intentions as well as the ir enactme nt. To thi s end, Goda rd employs
video, a medium whos e density of sound and im age t racks ca n be scr up u
lously re-layed as he sits before the editing cons ole a nd as we watch. The
186 TH £ tL tCTllONIC &$SA Y

prini ary space of th e t ape's re alizatio n i s a small editing room in whi ch
a large bla nk s cree n ("le plage bla11che" afte r Mallarme) faces G odard at
the c ontr ol s. Th e mo st favored ca me r a plac ement is at the v ide oo1 aker's
back s o that we sha re . his view of the dazzli ng white sc reen. But b ecause
Scenario repeatedly repl a ce s thi s · sc ene or overlap s it with a se cond ima ge
sou rce-frequen tly from the film abo ut which Godard spe ak s-we see
both what lies before the maker (tabula ra sa as inciration) and the fut ure
anter.ior that he describe s. Thi s biza rre ten1porality bas been described by
Lyot ard:
The artist and che writer, fhen, are. working without rules in order to f o r
mulate the rulCs of whar ruillhave bee11 done. Hence the fact that work and
text have the characters of an event; �ence also, they always come too late
for their au thor, or, what amo urus to the same th i·ng, their beiflg f'ut into
. , �·�rk, 1;heir realiiacion (mise en oe"vre) always begj ns too soon. Post mod
er11 ,�otild haVe co be undersrt:>?d according to the parado?' of the future
(post) a1uerior (modo).
. J.t seems to me that the essay (Montaigne) is poscmodern.> whi le the frag .··...-
ment (The Alhae,neum) is modern.Zs ''
But such a sc heme-the stark, present-t ens e st udio o cca sionally in
habited by th e lu sh specter of the future anterior-could install a ki nd of .,
illu sio nist hierarchy in which the m�rerially constiwted scene ( a performa- .-.
tive Godard hypothesizi ng, nartating, and gestic ul ati ng before th e screen)
wo uld b e supe rs�ded by·the "magical" composite im age that be call�.
for th. Thi s is not the case owing to the i ncl usion io th e st udio location
of three monitors offering mi n iaturize d, angl ed, and partially obscured
versi on s o. f the l arger comp osite· ima ge that we are o urselves watching.
·As Godard's hand moves to the fader s witch, we see b o th th� inst udio
gestur e (an act of l abor) an_d its result (th e di s pla cement by, or super
imposition of, another, seemingly Imaginary, cil�ernatic sccncf The monj..
tors, ev en a s they prc)duce a verti giny of images, pa radoxi cally provide a
kind of doubl e an ch o rage-in th e present tense of the prod uc tive process
and in a spa ce tra versed both by a socia lly c onstruct ed Symbolic and by a
regis ter of so unds a nd im age s re dol en·t of the Godardian Imagin ar y .

I would a r g ue that tlies e multiple , involuted text ual articulati on s
produce a n essayi stic effect re sembli ng that whi ch critic Andre To urnon
ha s adduced to Mon taign e's Essays: "Th e re ad er, however, is con fronted
with a n uneven text ual surface , broken in pl a ces a nd wound around itself
like a Mo ebius strip-'No us voyla embo urbez' .. : ('There we are st uck in
the m ud'l.".26 I would also .ar gue tliat the density of Sce,iario's di scu rsive·
presentation re sult s from the canny but rather mi nimali s t use of vid eo's
TH £ £Ll!CTIIONIC £SSAY' 1 87

c.a pabilities in a manner consistent with ¥aurccn Tu rim's ea r)y and influ
e ntia l a na lysis:
\Vhat is spec ial 3bOut video is its ability to move between different image
.Jcgist1::.ttions, tO perform these shifts i n coding. By· si,litting the image or
superimposing images, video can present diffen::nt views or temporal in·
stances simultaneou sly. f.ach of thes e views may already be a "proce ssed"
imag e, that is, an image transformed by a process of shifting graphk values
and codes or representation ... The results arc images that challenge and
train human perception.21
The essayistic, a mode to which Godard has long bee n h·abituatcd, r eveals
itself as ideally suite d to the videographic app aratus.Video) potenti al for
textual "thickness," its facili ty in shuttling be twee n or keying in diverse
ima ge sources, can ably serve. the essay 's discursive goa ls. Nun1etous c. r it
ics have n oted that the essay's value is derived from the dyna mism of its
proc ess rather than its final judgments ("The essay is a judgment, but the
e ssential, the value-de t erminjng thing about it is not the verdict ... but tbe
process of judging")28 and from the richness of i ts textu ality ("Thought
does not progress in a sing1e direction; instead, the moments are inter
wov en as in ·a ca rpet. The frui t fulness of the thoughts depends on the den
sity of the texture"J. 29 Video's process orient ation and its tendency toward
discursive density are de eply consonant w ith the ess ayistic project.
But if we return to. Tournon's evocation of lhe MObius strip as ana
logue to essayistic textuality and to its realiza tion in the mise en. abyme
structure of the monitored self-image, we discover the extent t o which
descriptions of the e ssay as the he re tica l, the impossible; discourse mirror
contemporary tbeo rfr ations of subjectivi ty itself. lo a brilliant ess ay on the.
tensi ons within psychoanalysis between scientific explanation and h erme
neutics, Sla voj Ziz ek writes of Lacan's obse ssion with topolc,gica l models
of "curve d" spac e in t he 1960s and 1970s (the Mobius strip, the Kle in
boule, the inner eight, e tc.).
S uch a "cu rved" surface-str ucture is the structure of the sub ject: what we
call "subjec t" can only emerge wichin the strucwre o{ overdeterrnioation,
that is, in this vicious circle where the cause itself is (presup)posed by its e f
fect.... In order to grasp the constitutive paradox of the sub,iect,we must
cherefore move bcy�md the st�10dard opposition between "subj ective " aod
"objective," betwee n the orde r of "'appearances,. (of what is "'for the sub
ject"} and the "in·itSclf."lO
The "bizarre t emp orality" of Scenario d1t film Passion, in which the
vide ographic pretext produces the alre a dy written, Lyota rd's future an
teri or, �vokes the co�ditions of traumatic m emory as describ ed by Zize k:
188 THC. t LCCTaONIC CSS·AT

"Thi s parad o x of tr auma qua cause , which does no t pre-exist its eff ects
bur is its elf re t roactively 'posite d' by rhem, invo lve s a kind of t emporal
lo op: it is through its 'repetition,' through its echoes within. the signify
ing structure, that cause retroactively becomes what it always already
'.
wa.s."H This is so b eca use the t raum a is, in Lacanian· terms, of the ord er
of th e R eal and can gai n ent rance to the signifying chai'n only th rough
its e ruption in lang uage; this " p rimordi ally repressed" rraumatiC kernel,
this re mainder, this ob ject "which r ema ins stu ck in the gull et o f the s i g
nifie r," can ne ver e ff ectuate its cau sal pow er in a direct w ay . "In shorrt
·w rit es Zizek, "th e real is the abse nt ca us e which perturb s th e causal ity o f
s)'mbolic law. .On that acco�nt, the struct ur e of ovcrdeterminatio n is irr e
ducibl e: cause exercises its in flu ence only as redoubled, thro ugh a certain
discrepancy o f time-lag, that is, if th e 'original' t rauma ·o f th e real is to
b e com e effective, it must ho ok onto, find an echo i n, some present d ead
lock."32 Th e Re al thus returns to the plac e in which it nev er ce ase d t o b e. ·
· But it is a retur n with a differ ence , becaus e now, ra�hc r than h aunting the
s ubject as an unsymbo lizabl e shard of e xper ience, it is re nd ere d articulat e . •,
The t emporal l ogic o f thi s articu lation, howev er , challenge s th e regime o f
the discursiv e order into whicli it ente r s .:.
To re vi e w: Godard's vid eo can be chara ct erized as enacti ng a para�
doxical remporality in which anticipat ed e ffect s (the film that the tape '
aS scenario or pre-text serves to im a ge forth) are at the same moment
past causes (a resid ue or r e mainder fr om Go dard's exp e ri e nce o f the
film). Through its instantiation of the fut ure ant erior, Scenario du {ii;,,
. '
Passion displays an uneven t emporal surface ; like th e Mobius st rip, it
is n eith er one nor two, a mode l inc a pabl e of being seen " at a gl ance," a
struct ure alt ogeth e r co nsist ent with the essayistic. In t e rms d eriv ed from
Laca nian psychoanalytic the ory, the imag es fro m Passion .that, owing to
their specular, e ven dre amlike , qu ality, we hav e previ ous ly al'igned with
the l magiriary regist er (with the visibly p.roduced, pres ent-t ense foo tage
staunchly Symbolic) now become the traumatici "Re al" kernel of e xperi
enc e r ee nt ering the· discours e whos e s()urce it bas always already b ee n.·
This uncanny o bje ct that i s_ Go dard's Scenario echoe s the constitutive dis
positi on of the subject itself. More than. that, it. is the sit e at which a mod el
o f subj e ctivity, the potentia liti es of essayistic disc ours e, and those o f vid eo
gra phic inscription moment arily converge;·
· Whil e there is.a gre at de al more 10 be said o n beh al f of the appr o pri
at ene ss o f th e encoun ter b e tween rh e essayistic and vid eo (particul arly with
re ga rd. to vide o's current an d glo bal utilizations at th e t ech no l og ical l o w
end), I have ch osen to focus o n certai n aspects o f Go da rd's Scenario d11
film Passion t o e xamine in d e tail som e tactical as w ell �s episremok,gical
TH£ EL ECTRONIC t$$AT 189

MARVARD UNIVERSITY HARVARD UNIVERSITY
issues that arise. This excursus into a single text offers illustration of the
correspondences between certain textual features of the essayistic and
some recent theorizations of the subject (Lyotacd, Lacan, Zizek), cor·
cespondences that find particularly acute expression in the video ess�y.
In the spirit of these proce.edings, I close with the acl<nowledgment of my
uncertainty toward the present analysis. After ne,irly a dec,ide of study, I
am more daunted by my object than convinced by my formulations of it.
I find some solace in the ministerings of Adorno as set forth in his Minima
Moralia:
When· philosophers, who arc well known to have difficulty io keeping silent,
engage in conversatiOJ\, they should try always to lose the argument, but in
such a way as to convict their Opponent of untruth. The point should not be
to have absol utely correct, irrefutabl e, water-tight cognitions-for they in
evitably boil down to tautologies-but insights which caus e the qtiestioo of
their justness to judge itscl f ,J.)
190 THE ELE CtROMIC CSSA T

Video Confessions
[ 13 ]
..
.•.
Like the Previous chapter, "Vid.eo Confessions�� .exa,nin.c.s a 1not.fe of

a uiobiographical disco11rse that i s me dium sp�cific. In fac t, the chapt e r
wa s firs_t publishe d i n a collection of essays e ntire ly devoted to th e dive;se ..
uses a nd e ff.e.cts of vide.6,.Resolutions: Contemporary Video1'ra�tices
(Minnesota, 1996). I begin witlJ a n ov e rview of the rich hi s tory of con
fessional cult.,,e in the We s t, a history that e ncompasses the t_ heological,
juridical, and psychoanalytic contexts. 1 the,i move to an_ exa;nin.ation of
the ways in which. film0 and vid eom. ake rs have used the camera as a to. o{
to p·robe the psyches oftheir subjects en route to eliciting confessiona l
testimony. Video,! argue, has had a sp eci al confessional voca tio�_owing
In
to its pote ntial for intimacy and nea r.-inst a ntaneous feedback. the fi,,al
sectio ns of th-e chaf,ter, 1 foa,s on th e work of video-artist W e ndy .Clarke,
my collabora/or in th e L.A. Link project discussed in cha/1ter 9, who ·
·has created a series of projects {The Love T�pes since the lat e · .t97os and
· One on One in the early . r99os) tha t have allowed subject-p articipants to
e ngage in r�marka�le ac ts �f� el(-disclosl,re and to explore emotion and
experience �n depth.
EveryJidelis of either sex shall alterthe attainment ofyears

,· of disc.retion sepoi-o tely confess his sins with all fidelity to
Y�- . . .
: ':his pi-iest at least once_in tHe Let the priest be dis•
: . ·· creet and cautious. anc:I let him qher the mannerof sfUled
physicians pour.wine and oil upon the·wounds of the injured
man. diligently. inquirfrig ·the circ�mstances alike·of the sin
ner and of the sin, by which he mayjudiciously undetstqnd
whcrl counsel he ought to give him. and what sort of remedy
to apply. making use of vatious means for the healing of the
. sick m a n .
.. Canon 21. Fourth Lateran Council of 1215
191

Confe,;sjon increasingly talces the place ofpenance. This
development can best be recognized by considering the
fact that, in its early period. the Church ordered the sinner to
make apublic confession as an exercise of penance. Modem
Protestantism actually puts coming to terms with one's own
conscience i n theplace of the external confession. thus u n
consciouslypreparingfor the futuredevelopment that will
go beyond confession and perhaps replace religion by other
social institutions.
:: Theodor Reik. The Compulsion to Confess (1925)
Dear Lord, I'm sorry lHghl with my mother. but myunderwear

i�·my own business and the business of my audience. It ain't
that yellow.
:: George Kuchat, Cu/I ol the Cubicles (1987)
The Confessional Subject
In an incerview shortly after the publication of his groundbreaking first

volume of The History of Sexuality, Michel Foucault suggested a trajec
tory of continuity that linked his latest work with earlier profects such
as Madness
. a11d Civilization. In both. cases, the problem wa s t o find
out how certain questions-of madnes s or sexuality-"could have been
made to op'erate in te1'ms of discourses Of truth, that . i s co say, discourse.s
having the status and function of nue discourses." 1 For in liis work oo
sexuality, Foucault had discovered "this formidable mechanism ... the
machinery c,f the confes sion," by w h· icb he meant "all those procedures
by which the subject is incited to produce a disc ourse of truth about his
sexuality which is capable of having effecis on the subject himself."2 Like
autobi ography, with which it can be aligned,3.c onfe ssion was, for Foucault,
a discour se "in which the speaking subject is al so the subject of the state
ment," but unlike other autobiographical form s (e.g., the diary, journal, or
Monraignean essay), confe.ssion was, by definition, "a ritual that unfolds
within a power relation ship, for one <!oes not confess' without the presence
(or virtual pre sei1ce) of a partner who i s not simply ihe interloc�t or but
! • •
the authority who requires the c onfession, p'rescribes and appreciates it,
and intervenes in order to judge, punish,forgive, console, and recon�ile."
And, f inally, confc.ssion was a rituar"in which the expression alone, iride
pendently of its external
. consequenCes, produces intrinsic modifications in
.
the person wbo articulates it: !t �xoncrates, redeems, and purifies him; it
unburdens l1im oJ bis wrongs, liberate s him, and promises him salvation."'
..
, 'flOCO CONfCS$10N$

According to Fouca ult's formulati on,psych oanalysis fig ured as
s,i mply the most recent and most scie ntifically explici t d ev el o pm ent of
a confessional apparat us that could be t raced back to Tertullian and 10
Augustine.In all cases, confession was underst�od to b e ·a restorarive
vehicle,of mind or· spirit, yet one in. which power was necessarily t111pli
cate d. Jn · th e ma nner of the Augustinia n model (Au gus tine's Confessions,
a thi rte en-vol ume work of the late f ourth ce nt ury,is univ ersally cited as
or'iginary), confession cc)uld provide "a way to escape mad ness, to reveal
s ec re t,hidd en places,and to face the world with a new and 'eas eful' lib er
tY.,"' But acc ording to confe s si onal l o gic, the cure could b e b es t owed only
th rough the guarantee of Cod or ps ychoan alyst; confessi on r equired s ub ,
mi ss ion to authority, divine or secular. Significantly, in neith er case wa s
ih e confessor the bona fide recipi ent o f the con fessan t's·unburdening. T h e
prie s t was o nly a go-between in the dial o gue bet ween Co d and s uppli
c ant,.while the analyst was the s it e_ of a transference ,the object of ·" ce rtain
i nt ens e feelings of affection which the patie nt has tran_sferred on to the
phy sicia n, nor accounted for by th e latter's·b ehaviour nor by tbe relation
ship. i nvolve d by the treatmerit."6 The implicati ons of this depend ency ..
_confession as a play ·o{ auth orit y, a regulation- of desire-were th e provo ..
cati on for Fouca u lt's critique of co nfe ssional "truth telling." ..,
A ver y gre at deal is at stak e in th.is critique,fa r mow than simply a .. .
,r¢visionisc view of religious ritual or Psychoanalytic practic e. As so many
critics have noted, Western e pist emolo gy presume s a sub j ect who must
s ubmit ·to the Truth, on e who se substance and identity are cons tructed in '
relation to an authoritat ive Other (the truth as divine, Cod as tb e "tran- .;
scendental signified," tbe final gua'rant or of n,eaning).7 On e could then say·
. that th e Western subject fi nds.h is s we e test re pose in confess iona l discourse. -,,
Moreover,it was nor just the individual-as -s ubject wh o ha d b een condi-
rioned by c onfession, as sacrament or compulsion; social·eff ects foll owed.
I n The Hi;tory ofSex11ality, Foucault traced the influence of the conf es
sional mode at t h e le vel of the organization (>f social life in the Wes t:
\Y/e ha.vc ...become a sing�larly confessing society. The confession has
spread its effCcts far ana wi(.Je. It pl ays a pan in justice_, med icine, educa
tion, famil y relationships, and love relations, in the most ordinary affairs of
everyday life, and in the most sol emn rites; one confesses one's crimes, one$
,sins, one's thoughts :,1nd desires, one's illnes.ses and troubles; one go'es about
telling, with , the gre.atest precision, y.,hatever is most difficult to tell...�.
Western man has become a confessing animal.*
Riski ng a fall into absolu t is m,such a notion of confession is nonet h el ess
compelling for the way in whjcb i t or ga nizes an ext ra ordinarily d ens e
'110£0 COIO'£$Sl0N$ 193

'
.
discursive domain (theological, jurid ical, psychoa na lytic) articulated
around the conf�ssional act into an epistemological pra xis, thoroughly
imbued with relations of power.
The Therapy of Sell-Examination
But few cornmencators, Foucault chief among therit, construct confession

solely in ter m s of submission to an authorizing and exteriorized. source of
power; c(mfession has custo marily been assigned a complex therapeutic
value.9 Peter Brown, author of the definitive English:language biogr aphy
of Augustine, judged the Augustinian model of confession to be a pre
cutsoc for the modern obsession for se l f -scrutiny: "It is this the ra py of
self-examination which has, perhaps, brought Augustine closest to some
of the be st traditions of our own age. Like a planet in opposition, he has
come as ne ar to us, in Book Ten of the Confessions, as the vast gulf that
sepa rates a modern man from the culture and religion of the Later Empire
can allow."10
In the mid-1920s, psychoana lyst Theodor Reik pronounced Augus
tine "one of the greatest psychologists of Christianity."" for Reik, confes
sion wa s a fu ndame ntal-trope of psychic life, one response to repression:
«The general urge of unconscious material to express irself somer.imcs
assumes the charactec of a tendency to confess."12 Functioning at the
join of public and priva te domains, confession a s public discou rse (con
fessional litera.nore or perfor mative display) can be under stood either as
a kind of self-interroga tion that produces spiritu al_ reconciliation while
implicitly challe nging others to ethical action ·(a theologic al reading)'l or
as .:n acting-out of repressed material that, when subjected to analysis,
can facilitate the transfer o( unconsciou s psychic material to the precon
scious (a psychoanalytic re ading)-therap eutic ends, both of them. And,
of course, therapy ha s emecged as one of the growth industries of our a ge.
Give n an understanding of the multiform historical role that confession
h as played in the development of Westen, tho�ght, how can we now begin
to talk about the transformations of confes sional culture .in the late twen
tieth century? And what pla ce should we give to video in this account?
Foucault's theol'izarion remains pertineTlt. .
Despite the historic al sweep of Foucau lt's formulations, whicb·take as
their point of departure the advent of che "a ge of repression" in the seven
teenth century, The History of Sexuality draws our. attention co the d y
namic and protean character of co.nfess}onal utterance, particularly in this
century. Far from censoring speech, repression has produced "a regu lated
194. V lD&O C0Nft$$JO NS
Digitized by Originiil from

and polymorphous incite ment to di s course," 14 which, as Reik no(es in the
opening epigraph, ca n find express ion outsid e rel igion or th e therapist's
couch. Man y comme n tators have remarked on th e decline of confess ion in
its_rnost parochial or doctrii1al se nse : \Villiam James, w r iting at th e turn
of the-ce ntury, refers to "the complete decay of the practi ce of conf ession
i n Anglo-Saxon communities";,.. Norb erto Valentini an d Clara di Meglio,
citing a dramatic stati s tic a l d ecline i n the level and fr equency of c onfe s
sional participation i n che Italian Church i n the r970s, dee m . confession to
be "in crisis."16
And yet in the 1990s, c onfessional discourse proliferate s. lo wha t
follows, I will loo k b e y ond b oth church and couch to the aesth eti c or
cultural domain and indee d to a ver y pa�ticular corn er of that d omain
toward i ndepe nd ently pr oduc ed l ow- end video, which I will position
against capital-intensive , indu siri ally organ ized, mass: market cultural
commodities, on film o r tape. . In doing so, I tak e as my focu
. s selec. ted
work by in de pend ent vid eom akers worki n g co n sciously (some time s pa-.
rodically) within th e co ntext of c onfessional and therapeutic discou rse s.
What I will say ab out video c onfessions i s not, therefore, on tologically
grounded. [ don't wi�h to ma ke cla im s for somethi ng like a co;tfessional
pote n tiality in.tri nsic to the e lectronic me dium; what I say will be lim ite d
and con ti ngent. And yet I will argue for a uniquely charged link age be - . · · ·
_
· tween "video" and "confession,, in the current.cultural environnient for
.
reasons that I will re turn 10 later i n the ess a y . . .
Regardi ng the aesthe tic do main, it should be said that there a re sub- .,
stantial grou nds for a turn of the co n fe s sional impul se · toward spe cifically ·'
artistic e nds (never, of course, to the exclusion of c oexi stent theological,
psyc·hoa n alytic , or criminological conte xts). At le ast since the .Greeks,
art has be en judged capable of yieldi ng "cathartic" effects for a rtist and: ..
audience alike through the public disclosure of co nceal ed impuls es and
secr e t wi she s, s econdarily revised .. Indeed, a large nu mb er of book s have
be.en writte n on th e topic of confe ssional lite rature (among the chief ob
jects of inquiry, Augusti n e, Ch_auc er, Shak esp ea re, Rousseau, D.e Quincey,
Dos toyev sky). But in the latter half of the twe n ti eth c entury, the ve hicles
of cultural hegemo n y have been transfo rmed dramatically, along the li nes
of what _Raymond Willi a ms has id entifie d as a ki nd of o n goi ng but i n ter
stitial struggle
. of domi
. nan t, em ergent, and re sidual cultural
. forces.17 For
while it can b e said chat there has b e en an explosion of confessional and
therap e uti c discours es within the public sphere of Amer ican culture, that
efflore s cence has been less "literary" than popular cultu ra l - in the form
of tabloid jo11rnalism, talk radio, and commercial 1elevisioi1.
Mimi White's insightful bo ok on Ameri can televi sion's place withi n
·
'110£0 COlfPCSSIONS · 91S

this emerg j og landscape of public conf essi o n, Tele-advising: Therape111ic
Discourse in American Television, examines a range of TV fo rm a ts (day
time soaps, religious broadcasting, game shows, prime-time series, adVice
shows, shop-ac-home tel evi sion), all of which decisively if unpredictably
generate narrative and narrational positions for their audicnc.c.18 White in
geniously shows how television pr ogra ms not only borrow fro ni the world
of psych ologic al theo ry and clini cal pra ctice but also "c on s truct n ew
thera peutic relations."'� Following c lose ly on Foucault's pr emise that the
p roduc tion of confe ssi,mal knowledge is equally an exercise of powe r and
regulation, Tele-advising none theless poinrs to the multiplicity of subject
effects created by th ese TV the rapie s, outlining a s we ll t he pos sibiliti es of
re.sistant positions.
But I w ant to distingui sh be twe e n White's field of inqui r y and my
owo, betw een the worlds of b roadcas t tel evi sion and independent video,
and thus 10 be gin to account for the v er y differe nt conf;ssional manife sta
tions p roduce d io ea ch domain. Throughou t \Vhire's discussi on, it is cle a r
that c onfess ion is not only na r rativize d but c onunodified. (On e could say,
as Nick Brown e bas a rgued, that the master narrative of telev ision, in line
with its "supertextaP' function, is commodification.)2° Given the profit
orienta tion of broadcast te levis ion, all confessional t ra nsactions-fr om
Dr. Ruth to The Love Connection-are a lso commercial ones. If s u c
cess ful, the show's prese ntation of emba rr assing di scl osur es of newlywed
couple s entices a generous sha re of the viewing audience and thus highe r
adver ti sing rates fro m s ponsors. The lifeblood of such commercia l ven
tures .must be mass appeal, a requirement to which confession responds,
if we may judge by the numbe r a nd va ria ti o n of talk the rapy vehicles .
These therapeu tic di sc ourses off er illustration of Reik's c har acterization of
confession as a kind of rep e tition c ompulsion21 ("eve ryone confe sse s over
and over ag a in to everybody els e," says White ofTV tal k for mats), 22 only
tbese secrets a re ma de ava ila ble co home audi ences rathe r tha n professional
auditor/confessors. As partic ipatory as telev isual therapy ma y a ppea r to
be ("telling one's story on television is pa r t of the proce ss of rccovcr y"), 23
there cao never be a thoroughgoing di se ngag eme nt from the·consu mcr cul
ture of whjch the confessiona l sc ene is a support. As }Ve shall see , diere is a
rather diff erent dynamjc co b e d°isce rned in the realm of video c onfessio n,
Camera: Instrument of Confession
·we have learned from Freud thot verbal presentations are

necessary to make consciousness possible. It is only the c o n -
..
, VIOCO CONFESSIONS

lession that enables us to recognize preconsdously what the
repressed feelings and ideo-s once meant and whcit they,still
meqn f(?r u s , thanks to the indestructibility ond timelessness
peculiar to the unconscious processes. Bythe c�nlessfon we
become acquainted with ourselves. It offers the bestpossibility
for sell-und.irstcmcung and self-acceptance.
..:: Thoodor Reik, The Compulsion ro Coaless
Yes. the camera deforms, but not from the moment . that it.be-
<;<>mes an.accompli c e . /\t thcrl point it has the possibility of
.. doing something I couldn't do.ii the camera wasn't th ere: it
becomes a kind of psychoanolytic stimulant which lets people
do things they wouldn't otherwise d o .
:: Jean Rouch
Chronique"d'"'.' ete (t961 ), Jean Rouch and Edgar Morin's monument�!

experi,nenf in direct cinema, C?O also be see·n as a milestone in th e devel·
opme m of "camera <aon_ fessionS" in the docum entaty mode, an embCY�ojc
instance of what I have e lsewhere called "techno-analysi s "2• Th ere are
two key conf essional s cenes enacted in the fiim: Marilou's. (ace-to-face
eoco1iri. ters wich Morin, in which corrllscating s e lf.inquisition brings her
to .the edge of emotional
' c ollapse, and Holocaust sur vivor M'arceline's so-
liloquy of wrenching wartime m emory d eli"ver ed to a Nagra she cani es in
her handbag as sh e str olls through Les Hailes. These are two of the most
criticized moments of the film·during Chronique's famous penultimate ·
seque nc e, in which the subjects themselves argue over the sinceritY. of the
'
personal testimony and the fiim·s ove rall merits. The filmmakers, though.
.far from sanguine aho�t th e pr osp ects of success for their experiment, are·
..
y-a·
convinced that the r e Oil to somerhing. In Rouch's words:
Very quickly I discovered the ca ,nera was s.omething else; ir was noc a brake
but iec's say, to use an automobil e tcrml an accelerator. You push t· hesc people
to confess thcms�lves and ic seemed ro us without an)' limit. Some of the
public who saw the fil.m [Chrouique/ said che film was a film of ex.hibition
.ists. I don't fhink s�. It's not exaci-ly exhibitionism: ir' s a very strange kind
of confession in front Of th e camera, where the camera is, let's say, a mirror,
,.
and also · a \�iitdow open co th� oucsidc.1S
The cam era is for R ouch a �i� n d of t w o -way ·glass that retains a doubl e
functi on: it is a window that deliver s the profilmic to an absent g;ize and,
at th e same n1om ent, a reflect i_ ve surface that reintroduces us co ourselves.
Roucb's insight brilliantly anticipate s what the video appa ratus (with the
playback monitor mounted alongside the cam era) realizes.
As founding a moment as Rouch's experiments may be in the history
YIDt"O CONPC$$1 0NS 187

of filmic confessi o n, a crucial br ea k occur s when th e camera as confes
sional instr um�nt is taken up by the confes sa nt herself. In this configu ra
tion, the camera b ecomes th e "camera-srylo" first describ ed by Alexa nd re
As truc, a moving·image equivalent to the pei-, that has so assiduously tran
scribed two millenni a of co�fe ssi o nal discours es. Ther� ar c inde ed exem - ·
plary instance s in which fil'mm akers ha ve committed t<l film the ebb and
fl o w o f cons cienc e and mor al evalua ti o n: Jon as Mekas, for one, whose
ongoing pr oject Diaries, Notes, and Sketchf!S, reinscribes and puts to the
rest the anist's life since his emigration to rhe Unite d St ates in 1949. In
a fil m suc h a s Lost, Lost, Lost (1975), Mekas l ays bis na rtati o n, steeped
in rh e memory of the people and places we are shown, ov er foot age e x
cer pted from fourteen ye ars of filming (1949-1963). The "pre sent-tense"
voic e interrog ate s "p as t" images th rough a tempora lly disjunctive diaristic
method that pro duc es the co nfessi,m of hi s o wn cine matic p racti c� a s a
compulsi on to r ememb e r: "It's my natu re now to r ecor d, to try to keep
everything I a m pas sing th.rough.... to keep at lea st bits of it .... I've lost
too much....So n ow I have th ese bits tha t I've pas sed th rough."26
But the fi rs t-perso n, arti sa nal s tyle that has been r efined th r ough
five dec ades of th e New Ameri ca n Cinema (Deren, Mckas, Brakhage,
Baillie, et al.) ha s alway s st ra ined against a n industri al bi as as e conomical
ly grounded as it is id eologica l.27 The legendary spring-wound Bole x - so
light, so durabl e- even Br akhage's handw rougbt signatures, etche d int o
the emul sion its elf, co uld not f ree th e cine ast from a depende nce on large
scale manufac turers wh o could discontinue stocks (even who le forma ts) if
profit m ar gins sagged.Then too the re w er e the vaga ries of the local labs
to contend with. ·
Th e development of the Sony Portap ak in th e mid-196os pro vided
visu al artists with a g reater possibility of (elativc autonomy. Not that
th e porta pak, designe d and m anufac tured as.it was by a maj or Japanese
conglomerate, a nd its desc enda nts can be deemed a more a r tisa na l fornrat
than 16 mm film.Indeed, the pot enti al for the handcrafting so beloved by
16 nun arid 8 mm enthusiasts has be en lost in th e trans iti o n to electronic
pixels. 28 ln exch ange, the independent videomaker or h ome consume� · h as
been relieved of ce�tain mediating contingcncies-marerial, temporal- · .
tha t separate shooting from viewing, production from exhibitio n. It is the
syst ematic so lipsism and "immediac y" of vide o·(th e l atter, in parti cular,
a n o tio n to be approached with much caution for it s implicit me taphy sical
implicati o ns ) that suit it so well to the confessional impul se.No technician
need see or hear the secre ts confide d to tape. None but the invited ente r
the loop of the vide o confession .
198 VID EO COIHES5 10NS

The Electronic Confessional
I n i ts n early thirty ye ars of existence, the mass-m arketed vid eo apparatus

has s ucceeded in colonizi n g th e busi ne ss of the prese rvati on of family ritu
al (home vid eo, weddi n g video), of information excha nge (d ating s ervices,
instructional media-from cl osed·circuit patient educati o n in hos pit al s
an d cli nics to aerobics tap es),. and, in a less systematic fashion, of d.o-i°1-
you rse lf or "tech no-therapy."2 ' All of these itre n onfic ti on appl ications
consis tent with th at most ele menta l of do cumenta ry functions, _the .pres er
vation·aJ.JO Certai n of th e af orementioned i nstan ces combin e preservatiori
wi th persuasion or instruction (e .g., health education or exe(ci se tapes),
while .others (su�h as the h ome video) provid e a movi ng-im age catal og of
dome stic life to be stored and petused at wilt But as compa te d .to gen er ic
�h on,e vid e o," video confe ssions ate deictic. (Most of th e con fessio nal
video with which l am familiat is also .art fully crafted. The di sti nction . sI
a m delimiting here are b ased prima r ily on discursive func ti on rather th an · ·
a esth etic value.) Confessions of the sort that I a m exa min in g can also be
functi ona lly opposed to oth er preser vational formats, such as tb e·we dding
video, in that they· a re aurobiogt aphical and co� nterindustrial.31
It i s necessary to resolve t he precise object of th e prese nt inquiry wi th ':
.
�{n even fi ner grain. l�here have, for example, been some imp �rtant con·
. fessional works in vide o made outside t he autobiographical �mbit; such
as Maxi. e Cohe n's fntimate Interviews: Sex. in Less than Two Minutes
.
(r984) a nd Anger (l986J. In t hese piec es, Cohe n expertly (and from of f -
camcra) di.cits th e disclosure of intense emotion from a series of interview
subj ects. In Anger, for exampl e, a m an calli ng himself "M ast er James,"
a bl ack hood mas kiog hi s fea tu re s, confesses to th e ple as ures h e exp eri
e_nces through the whipping of compliant fema les ; he tca ces hi s sexual
preference to a mother who, though th e y sh ared a si ngle room, puni she d
him as a b oy for looking at her unclothed body. Another man admits on
came ra t o fou r murders. While he displ a ys no remorse for th e crim es, only
one of whi ch he cl aim s ro ha ve committed in an ger, he do es e vid ence an
.itonic self-knowl e dge: He describe s the i r repa° ra ble atr ophy of his liver ris
s.ue cau se d by yea rs of alc oholi sm and notes that Easter n medici ne alig ns
{
that organ with one emoti on-anger. In each of Anger's seven se.quences,
p eople ( as i ndividuals, couples, or gangs) sp eak about an em oti on chat i s
;e,y nea; the surfac�; anger is the lever whose expression frees discourse
from repressi on. The confessing subj ects h ave been rape d, slashe d·)vith
kniv es , b e trayed, abus ed, and ab an doned and have resp onded with tears,
YIDEO CON f'tSSION$ ,.,

embitterment, ot violence. The unres olve d emotion they have lived with
has in some c as e s driven them to unspeakable acts, whic h they nonethe
less'offcr freely to the camera with only the occas ional enc ou ragement
from Cohen off-screen. Cle ady, as Rei k predicted, confession has ta ken
the place of penance. The subj ects se ek not forgivene ss b ut expres s ive
release in the form of dialogue s-betwee n imaged subjec t and a present
b ut unimaged interloc utor -from which only mon ologues$urvive. l am
sugge s,ing that first-per son video confe ssions, addre s sed t o a n absent
confessor/Other, mediated through an ever-pre sent apparatus, c onstitute
a disc ursive formation significantly different from the truncated dia logue,
one that offer s partic ular insight into the specificities and potentialitie s of
the medium itself.32
First-pers on video c onfes sions satisfy Foucault's formulation of con�
fessi on a s "a dis c ourse in whi ch the s pe aking subject is also the subj ect
of the statement," with the "speaking s ubject" u nders,ood as n ecessarily
and simultaneously the "enunciating subj ect." (Here enunciation entails
the repertoire of tasks require d to conc eive, shoot, and edit a confessional
tap e.) The s�bjects of C ohe n's work s are thus "speaking," b ut not "enun
ciating," subjec ts. Indeed, it might be argued that"A11ger's subjects, like
those of other documentaries of the interactive mode in �vhich the inter
view format prevails, 33 a re more spoken than speaking. The distinc tion
is pertinent to my earli er cl a im that confessional discours e i s particularly
well suited to the s olip sistic pote.otiality of video.
With regard to the therapeutic valu e of diari stic video confe ssion s,
I do·not wi sh to suggest that the se practice s provide actu al substituies for
profe ssiona l the rapie s. For its part, traditional psychoanalytic theory is
fairly ca,egorical with regard to the distinction between ana ly sis and ca
tharsis or "acting-out," which Reik, for one, never accepts as a therapeu
tic end in itself:
Acting-out, if elevated to be the dominating eleme1u of psychoanalysis,
ruptures the frame of the treatrneot and transforms the provisional device
of analytical experience into a final phase whi ch is nowhere es.scmially
different from the C,xperiences '"outside." That technique gives the sup
preSsed impulses and wjshes, as well as the need for punishment, full
gratification, whrle we wish to avoid iusc chat in psychoan:,ly sis, wh.ich
should, according to Freud, be accomplished in abstioence. We said earlier
that acting-out is not an emotional end in itself. ... the analyst reopens
to him (the confessam] che way froin acting-out to remembering which
we expect.In this sense, :,1. cting-our, coo, is an unconscious confession
in the form o f representation or display; its interpretatioo is an essemial
part of analysis.J4
,00 '11 01:0 CONfC$.SIONS

Of course, the referenc e to "abstin ence" h ere is indic ative of the dis
t ance tha t se parate s a mona st ic Freudianism from th e free -for -all th at is
ar tisti c expre ssi on.I t i s wonh noting that auto bi o graph ica l forms, par ti cu
larly in th e public 're alm in wh ich film and video rece p tion gets define d,
ar e fr equen tly lab el ed " self-indulgent." The as cetici sm th,t t effectuates .
analysis (and the narrative economy of popular cinema is: in its own way,
.
asc etic) is. ana t.h ema to the se lf-imme rs ion of fi r st-p er son vid eo confes-
si ons that ob sessively trac k pe rsonal truths. I t c ould hardly b e oth erwi se.
.
According to the Freudian onho d oxy, then,"ac ting- out " (first-p ers on
confe ssion) d emands .its an alyt ic al Other {the analys
. t-confe ssor ). Could fr
be,howev er, tha t, in th e st ages of secondary revisi on we call e diting, rhe
vide omakcr/co nfes sant ha s the pot enti�I,in w(> rking th rough the m ater ial,
to produce, if only impli citly, something like an analysis, to .m ov e from
acting-out to remem�riog, from the unconscious to th e precoosci6us or
cv<:.n to consciousness?
'
F'ust-Person Video·Confessions
A par ticularly telli ng insra,ice of th e transition from Rouch' s incirational .,

ca ,;.,c ra to first-p erson vid eo conf ession occurs i� Ar th ur Ginsberg' s •
·
notoriou s doc ,;mentary soap opera The C6nti1111in.g Story ofCarel and
Ferd (1970-1971), in which the San Fra�cisco-liased vid eo gr aph er set o ut
to ch ronicle the vicissit ud es of a former porn queen t urned indep end ent
. ..
filmmake r and a one- eyed, bis exua l junkie, who �hopse to ma rr y anq .
�.
live their lives before the camera in a.videofreex vefsion of An American
' ..
Family. \Vlien, months d own the lin e, celebri t y and ·1be connubial l us te r
35
b egin to wa,ie; Carel a n d Ferd wr est the came'ra fr om ··Awful A rthur,"

t he b ett er to_ pr o b e the de p ths (>f thei r unhappiness through a on e -on-one
confr onta tion. (It see m s t hat the co uple had b ee n "seeing a shrink"-
'. )'erd's de scrip tion - in the peri od jus t p revious.)
Toward the e nd of an h _ our-l on g p recis of the Continuing Story pro
du ced by WNET's Tclevisi,;n· Laboiat ory (1975) in which a reunit ed Care l
and Ferd· pro vid e in-studi o commentary for th e edite d c ompila t ion, t he
latter-day Carel de sccib es thi s appropr iation of the apparatus: "It w,a s
impo rt ant for us to us e tbe ca mera ther ap eutically.... So w e took th e
cameras alon e ind us ed t h em." "And Arthur had nothing to do wit h it?"
asks their on•camera interviewer. "lie couldn't userhis . stuff,n replies
Carel. "It wa s too real." .<
Bur the foo tage is use d in th e hou r-l ong v ersion (no w distribute d
VIDEO CO NFC$$10 N$ ''"

•. HARVARD UNIVERSITY HARVARD UNIVERSITY
by Electronic Arts Inte rmix). Ferd and Card in turn focus in unfl.i nch
ing close-up on the fine ge stures and bodily details . of the other (Carel's
fing e rs ne rv ously flicking ashe s from he r cigare tte, Ferd's unsmiling lips
a s he s mokes, eat s, and talks). T he one inte rrogates the other, posing d i f
ficult questions from behind the lens, the camera straining to catch oi1t
truths be trayed or, better yer, ge t under the skin. It is a kino-eye usage,
an attempt to extend the perfectibility of the human eye to intrapsycl1ic
ends. While the ploy inevitably fails (at least the ir union -. a s well as the
melodrama-dis solves), The Continr,ing Story of Carel and Ferd estab
li shes the paradigm of interpe rsonal vide o therapy with an inrensity ap-
propriate to the genre . ·'
In the twenty years s i'nce the completion of Carel and Ferd, the re
have been a great number of first-person video confessions produced
by independent artists. And while T think it important to draw atten-
tion to t he range and particularitie s of thi s work, I will only be able to
discuss a few tapes i n any de tail. The criterion for selection is primarily
a heuris tic one {which piece s most vividly illustrate a particular discur
sive strate gy or conc eptual affiliation). Artists who have produc ed video
confe ssions of the sort I have de scribed include Ilene Segalove (The Mom
Tapes [1974-1978], T/,e Riot Tapes [19831), Skip Sweeney.( My Fathe r
Sold Str,dehakers (19831), George Kuchar (the Weather Diary series, Cult.
of the Cr,bicles [r987]), Lynn Hershman (Conf essions ofa Chamele o11
[1986], Binge 119871), Vanalyne Green (Trick or Dri11k lx984),A Spy
in the Hous e That Ruth Built [x989 I), Sadie Be nning (virtually all of
her work to date, including TfEvery Girl Had a Diary (1989), Me and
Rubyfruit [r989],Jol/ies (1.990], It \Vasn't Love [1992]), Susan Mogul
(Everyday Echo Stre et: A Sr,mrner Dia ry [1993]), and Wendy Clark e (The.
Love TaJ,es project [1978-1994 (, the One on One series [1990-19911).
Right now rm sitting hece with no cameraman in the room. rm totally alone.
I would never, ever talk this way if somebody were hete. lt's almost as if, if
somebody were in the room, it would insure
. lying ... just like eacing alone. I
think that we've become kjnd of a sOC icty of screens, of diff�rcnt layers th:1t
keep us from knowing the truth, as if the truth is almost unbearable and
too much for us to deal.with, just like our feelings. So we,: de-al with things
th.rough ,:eplications, aitd ch.rough copies, through screens, through simula
tions, through·facsiµ1iles, and through ficdon ... and through f?cci on.
:: LynnHershmcm. Binge
Lynn Herslunao's on�camera monologues in the various entries o f

her Ele ctronic Diary {1985-r989) tend toward the ove rtly confessional.
.
202 ¥10£0 CONFtSSIOKS ,.
Her pro_no unceme nts in Binge certa inly lay out s ome of th e i ssu es co b e
confronted in the analysis of first-pers on vide o confess ions. It is a c entral
pre mise of my argu1nent that taped ·self-int erro gati on can achieve a d epth
and a nakedne ss o f express ion that is difficult to duplicate with a er e,� .,,
or e ven c amera operator · present. At first glance,the physical isolation of
rh e confe ssant appears to b e at o dd� wi th the dynamic o f religious aod
p s ycho analytic c onfes si on;cach o f which requires a confe.ssor. To return
to Foucauh's characterizati on,'"one does not confess with o ut tb� presence,
(or virtual presenc e) of a partner who is not simply the interlocut or but
che authority �ho_ requires the confession, pr�scribes and appreciates it,
, and intervenes in order to judge, punish, forgive; console, and teconcile." 36
This inodel wo uld seem, h ow eve r, to apply ro w ork; like M a xi e
C ohen's; that depends on the artist's s olicitati on and preselection, varying
degrees of intimacy or di stance toward the subjects during pr odocti o n, th e
incroduccion of gestural O[ verb.-1 cue s to in. duce expansiveness, cl osure,
and the like. But this methQd e nt3ils , preci sely, "dir ecti on" of the m ore
tr aditional s ort; conf ession i s coax ed and elicited rather than simply given• }. \
the opportunity to is sue forth as o ccurs in the f irst-pers on m ode. In coo· • ,)
rr ast, the work of . t he priest o r analyst is typi cally undirected; it is th e ear
of the o ther as an organ o f passive l is tening, mirroring ra ther th a n cboos ·
ing, that facilitates confession. With the imeractive or dircctc.d variant, •

�onfession is tendered (not always c onsci o usly) to the vidc<imaker-herse lf;
c onfessional dis cour se of the diaris tic ·s ort address es itself to an absent,
imaginary other. Consider, for exampl e , Cohen's Intimate .Interviews: Sex·. .

...
in Less than Two Minutes;. in which four men and women speak directly
to the camera abou; the p ersonal idi osyncracies o f th�ir s exual lives.· l t is a.
co mprcssei:1, pa rodic pl ay of sou_ped-up self-di s clo sure, confe ss io n r ed uced,
to the edge of legibility (TV-fashio n), much in contrast to the extended,

purgative narrntion-gloi-ying in every pa�sc,every parapraxis-in which
,Hershma n engages in Binge.The latte r approach, through its willingness
to give center stag e to unexpurga ted self-di scl o sure as the enunciative act,
tell s u·s m ore ab o ut the sp ecific ch aracter a nd po tentiality of vide o as a
medium suited to confession. Frorri this point of view, video can be seen
as a f ormat historically joined to the private a nd the d omestic,a medium
_ capable of supplying inexpensiv e s yoc s ound images, a vehicle of a uto·.
bio g raphy
. in whkh the re flex gaze of the electronic eye can engender an
.
extended, even obs essive, disco u rs e o f·tlie self.
· Fr om a crudely devel opmemal pe rspective, one could say that fi rsr -
. pers on vide o conf ession has simply built on a n evoluti onary dynamic in
which the public confes si on initially ordained by me dieval chu rch doct rine
\IIDCO C0 Nf£$$10 N$ 203

gave way to a private, one-on•one ritual: Then, in the sixteenth century,
Protestantism eliminated the externalization of confession as a face·to
face. ritual of reconciliation, fostering a kind of spiritual entrepreneurship.
Video preserves and deepens tbat dy namic of privatization and entre pre
neurship. Now, with the help of their cameras, videomakers can ex hum¢.
the ir de e pest fears and indiscre tions all or their own-then pu t their
neuroses cm display. In a sense, first-person Video confession is uniquely
suited to its moment. Born of lace-stage capitalism, it endows therapeutic
practice with exchange. value.
There are other ways to u nderstand the advantage of the first-person
format. As Ro uch de monstrated with Marceline 's soliloquy in C/Jronique
d'u n ete, tbe pre se nce of the camera or re corder is sufficient to spu r sclf
revel a tion. In the c ase of video confe s sions, the virtual presen c e of a
par tne r-the imagined other effect uated by the technology,-turns ou t
to be a more power f ul fac ilitato r of emotion than flesh-and-blood inte r
loc u tors. Came ra operators, sou nd booms, cable s, and cl a pper boards are
hardly a boon to soul c onfe s sion. Hershman's statement, in the e pigraph
at the beginning of thi s secti on, the claim that she wo uld "n ever, eve r talk
this way" if there were another person in the room, returns us to the heart
of the mattcr.l7
Given that Hershma n's telling descr ibes the travails of an eating dis
order in which she ravishes a host of "c aloric s tranger s," frequently i n the
privacy of her boudoir, we can assume that the artist knows something
abou t the solitary character of compu lsive behavior. Bu t is the tape simply
a no the r re pe tition of binge beha vior, or do_es it enact a level of analysis
su ffic ie nt to m ove it beyond the realm of catha rsis or "a c ting-o ut" against
which Reik warns us? T would argu e tha t the contr ol Hershman exerts over
the struc ture and de s ign of her tape, signs of sec ondary revision, s uggests
that once-represse d unconscious material has been, at lea st temporarily,
rende re d consci ous and malleable. The r e is als o a way in which Hershman
refuse s to let he rself off the hook in what she s hows us of he r self. s · he
wa r ns that we a re a socie ty that fu nctions most comfortably b� mea ·ns
of simu lation r ather than authentic action or emotion. As she intones her
critiq u e c:,f the growing in authenti city of eve ryday life ("s o we dea l with
things through replications, a nd·through cop_ies"), her imaged self begins
to redu plicate itself in an infinite reg ress of video boxe s. Hcrshrnaii's s elf-·
indictment might also be se en as a fur the r indic ation of the analytical
insight-foreign to br ute catha r tic displays. Her sense of the limits of her
"cu re"-her confession as itself a kind of artfu l, socially ac ceptable repe ti
ti on of her condition-spe aks ro the internally contradictory character of
confe ssional dis co u rse that contains the symptom within the c ure.38
, .. 'II OEO CONF&SSIONS

HARVARD UNIV.ERSITY HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Although there are many more video confessions deserving of dis
cussion, I would like to turn to the work of Wendy Clarke, whose twin
vocations-as performance artist/videomaker and psychotherapist-make
her the ideal sub ject for this inquiry. Specifically, l want to focus on two
of her projects, each of which explores video's confessional and therapeu
tic potentialities in new and surprising ways. The place to start is with
Clarke's Love Tapes project, which since r978 has afforded thousands of
individuals a chance to voice deep emotion through a process of mediated
self-interrogation. The minimalism of the concept is compelling: individu
als of every age and background are given three minutes of tape time in
which to speak about what love means to them. Clarke facilitates rather
than directs the process; she supplies her subjects with the opportunity to
make tapes and the requisite tools to accomplish the task. A small, booth
like structure is erected, usually at a public site (a mall, a bus station, a
prison), containing a chair, a video camera mounted for a frontal, medium
close-up, and a monitor.39 Each participant chooses a backdrop and musi
cal accompaniment as mood dictates before activating the camera. The
subject is necessarily the first audience of the piece, for it is only upon the
granting of permission that the tape becomes a part of the insrallarion
instanrly available for public viewing-and of the larger project.
Clarke's (lnly other role is as the bestower of a single animating
word: love. As "anger" was the incitation for Cohen, so is "love" the
emotional levering point that explains the power of 'he Love Tapes. It
T
Love Tapes setup. Drawing by Loring Eucemey.
VIDEO CONF ESSIONS 21J5

is the m an a-wor d that spur s confession.•0 The per for mance pr oduc ed
· is undir ected, but no t, I think, unpr ompte d. I would ar gue that it is the
v ide o apparaws as "pu r e pot entiality�-· its capabilit ies for pre ser va tion,
instantaneous replay, repeared consumption, mass duplication, and public
broadc ast (all of which have b een re alized by The Love Tapes pr oject)
that effectu ate s r csp<)nse. Admittedly, the myriad soliloquies collected by
Clar ke a re not so pointedly therapeutic as tf,ose contained in Chro11iqu e
d'1<n ete or .Carel a nd Ferd. The y m ay not, in fact, conform so close ly
t o wha t Laca n has te rmed "full sp ee cb"-th e talking cu re th at works
through past trauma as an effect of languag e. Th e tap es do, however, tap
re markable, a nd unp re dictabl e, affective wellsprings in troubl ed youths,
guilt-st ricken fathers, a do ring dog o wne rs, tho se who have lost or never
known love, others whose cap acity for love has been re �ive d. Th e mono
logues, which frequently piv ot on the confessant's (in) ability to experi enc e
physical or emotional intim acy, r epe atedly sp eak the unspoken. Why, we
might ask, do these individual s, many· of whom claim 10 be incapabl e of
expre ssing their inner most fee ling s to those clo se.s t to them, choose to
ev isce rate thems elves so . pr ofoundly for th e ca mera ? .
It is a s if, in an age in which the information super highway breeds a
kind o f "knowl edge dependency" via antenna, cable, and clptical fiber s,
The Love Tapes effect a tempor ar y inver ;ion of techno-polarities. I nste ad
-. of spewin g a one -way str eam of words and images (which, at ano ther·
leve l, only soften up th e consumer for the kill), Cla rke's installed monitor
s.ho ws t he subjec t only herself as she ( re)produce s h ersel f . The screen/
mirror a ls o bec�o1e s a blank surf ace on which an acti v e pr ojection nf
the self, rather than a strictly recep tive._ introjcction, reigns triumphant .
Adast, e to Brecht 's dr eam, the
. in a re ver sal of broadcast fortunes clos .
·te levi sion
. stops ta lking and just liste ns.•• Video becomes the e ye that see s
a nd t he ea r that listens, powerfully but without judgment or repr i sal. As
for th e pot ential critique of the tapes -that th ey simply commodify emo·
t io n or gr atify narcissism-the t r uth is that only a tiny fraction of the se
piece s have · eve r b een publicly viewed, a nd fewer still have been broadc ast.
Th� char ge of medi a celebrity is unconvincing for work whose ·cumula
tiv c imp act begin s to fe el'mo re and more species specific, le ss and l ess ·
·
i ndividuated. .
I rem ain convince d that it i s video -a s-potentiality that fuel s the emo
tional impac t of The Love Tapes. \Vhat mak es th e expe r ience of the tap es·
so powe r ful fo r subjects and audie nces alike c an ne ve r be duplicate d on
the couch. Cla rke's succ es s t�ps inr,i the sr�gg er in gly hege mo nic me di a
curre nt a nd temporar ily r edi rec ts th e flow. The ver y force that, while in
forming and cnterraining us, deliver s us to the advertisers now becomes
V IDEO CONrtS$10 N$

a vehicle for performing ourse lves for o urselves. Th e pr ofessi onal analyst
can elicit, mirror, and inte rpret the subject's desire buc lacks the levering
capacity that th e media apparat us inch oately mobiliz es.
One on One
The main object that I really want is to see how open I can
get to be, andI think t/Jis is a unique opportunity for mysell
because I doh't know you. you dOn't know me. We don't have
to ever know each othef besides these tapes.
:: Ken from KenandLouise
It 's possible I cou ld say° things to you that I couldn't say to any-
body else ... Maybe, we'11 see. ··
:: Louise fromKen andl.Qu�e
I find that it's that vulnerable.place that I have to address. &d, ..

you haveJet me touch yoursin a short time.Sometimes people '.
can be morrie.d even for years and ·years and never h·ove al
lowed their partnerio touch that place. And tor that I'm very-
.•.
. grateful. fm very grateful. Itwas a type of a freedom.because
1kn ew I was like you. ... When you said it, Ifelt what you <o;
were saying.
:: Ken
•.
While The Love Tapes may be the most str e amlined· and populist of first
p erson video confessions, Wendy Clarke's One 011 One series may be the
mosi complex, bearing as it does ihe·t(aces of confessional discourse's
triple legacy--,tb e theological, the psychoanalytic, and the.ctiminologi- " '•
cal. For four years, Clarke was an artist >in-residenc e at th_e California
Institution foe Meri, a minimum�secuc:ity prison in Chino, during which
time she led workshops i°n p oe tr y writing, painting, phowgraphy, and
videomaking. Lace in r990, Clarke proposed a new pr oject to her video
worksbop: a· seri e s of video letters to be . exchang b
. ed e tween che class
members and pe ople on the ou tside . Like The Love Tapes, these video
letters would be intimate and self0re gulated but, unlike them, would be
addre ssed, directl.y and excl us(vely,.to an individua _l who would respond
in kind.42 ·,
Clarke's concept incl uded another ke y provis o: the relati onship be·
tween subjects was to remain a video exchange only."I wanted them to
have a very pure video experience," Clarke bas said. "And I felrrhat. the
relationships would be chang ed if they me t in any orher way outsid e of
V10 £0 CO"r&SSI O"S 201

thi s video space."43 To that end, Cl arke fu nctioned a s a go-between, mini
m a lly facilitating th e tapings (usually made in solitude, Love Tapes fash
ion), allowing partic ipa nts w play b ack tbe entry and reshoot if the y so
chose, tb en shu ttling tbe t apes to their prop er recipients. And, indee d, the
connectio ns ma de be t wee n these individuals are remarkable, c r ossing as
they do barriers of rac e, cl ass, gender, age , a nd sexual ori entation . Tho se
incarcerated ar e mostly young men of color (black, brown, and re d), while
the "outsiders'! are typically older, both bl ack and white, and freq uently
fe male. (Members of the l atte r group were drawn eithe r from rhe mem
b ership of a progr essive church in Sant a Monica or from a community of
suc cess ful Afr ican American busine s speople in the Crenshaw district of
Los Angeles.) Beyond this sketchy desc ription, few gene ralizations can be
made tha t apply equally to all fifteen of the tape s in the series except to
not e that the linka ges among participants ar e in e very instanc e effec ted
entirely th.rou gh a me dia · apparatus. In this regard, tbe One on One se rie s
is a remarkable case study, one in which, in cbe words of one critic, "the
calllera, instead of blocking communication, seems to be a two.way um
bilical cord chat nouris hes the candor of both parries."44
In a n ag e in whic h face -to-fac e encounters h ave te nde d to b e di s- ·
placed by ni ediated on es (e.g., Americ an politica l campaigns) a nd i n
which that developmem is inevitably figured as a loss, One on One de m
onst rate s tha t the contrary ca n a ls o be tru e. "I c an expre ss all of my emo
tions and every thing to you," says Raul, a twenty-three-year-old Latino,
fathet o f two, who struggles with alco holis m a nd i s e strang ed from his
wife. As the exchange progresses, Rau l digs dee per: "To tell the tr uth, I'm
h appy without drinkin·g, real happy without having the bottle and g e t
ring drun k, a ll of tha t. Becaus e all of that time, I ,n ight hav_e be en with a
smile but I wa s cryiog ins ide." How is it that Raul is ca pable of re ve aling
himself in this way to the vide o camera ? I s the answer to be fo un d in the
particular wisd om of his interlocutor, Jeanene, a Caucasian woman in her
late thirties who teac hes higb. sch ool in a Latino section of Los Angel es ?
Or c an it be that the One on 011e co nce pt eng ende red a the.rapeutic expe·
rience for its participants and that, in certain cases, we �icness Somerhjog
a kin to a po sitive transfe rence, as d escribed by Freud, in which the remov
al of re pr ession is a ided by the formation of a n att achment to the analysr,
. . an a ttachment pr ope rly b elonging to earlier (often pa re otal) re la tionships?
If the latter is so {tran sfere nce mingling ,vith incipient bo nds of kin
ship or affection), the wonde r of the 011e on One ta pe s is rhat rhe t ran s
ference tends to be bot h mutua l an d r ecip r ocal. In almost every instance,
vulnera bilitie s a re share d, positions of confesso r/c on fe ssam exchanged.
In fact, rhe psy chodynamic is such that the op enn ess of the one induces
20& VIQCO CONPF.SSIONS

gcea ter openne ss in th eothe c in a kind of therapeutic spi ca l. In Ken
and Louise, a black ma_n-married, restrained but co nfident, a talented
songwriter and vocalist-exchanges tapes with an upbeat bur s.oooewhat
. distant
white wom an of simil ar a ge and interests. He. suggests that she is
putting on an "air." She replie s that she is "afraid J'm going co say some -
thing wro ng to you"'; her dista nc. e is the Cesult of an exc e ssiv
. e sensitivity
to raci al politics ingraine<l from childho od. (Her father, once .a member
of the Communi st Pany, b ad beell j ailed for his politic al affiliation s in the
early 1950 s.}' With each tape exchanged,_the emotio�al intima cy g�thers
a greatc� force . Ken wci tes a nd sings a song _to Umi se about the col ors not
of rhc skin but 9f the hear t. He i s a startlingly gifted si nger whose .lyr ics
reveal a delicacy and depth of feeling. In r�plY., Lo.uis e share s with him
a small stuffed anim al, a. m onkey named Lucky, wh om she cuddl es and
kisse s; giggiiog with ner vous excitement. "Every day l hug .her a nd . squeeze
her, a nd you're just about the only pers on who knows aboijt this." His gift
to her has i nspired a n even riskier display ,;f her seccet seH: ("l t'. s·.p o ssible · ·
_ ..
1 could. sa y things to you rhat I couldn't say to anyb ody el se :. .. .Ma ybe, '
. we 'll s ee.") Aod ic is through the incitationof th e video medium chat sc;
powedully fuse s distance and intimacy that thi s cathartic pa s de ·deux
is effected.
As the exchange progresses a nd Ken ne ars his dare of . rel ease , many ,.
of the vi ewer's expectatio ns arc overturned. Ken is incr e;.�si ngly buoyant
of spirit, sel f -a ssured, o ffering more than ceceiving emo tional support.
Loui se strips herself bare, revealing layer after la yer of emocion testifying ·-
to th e lonelin ess of her life, her inability to find a m an co love. Her mood
dark ens. Given the audio/vi s ibility of the proce ss, we are able to judge
these interior changes through outward sig. ns - gesrure, faCial expression,
posture, choice of attire, as well as vocal torialities. Our initial assump� · �.
ti on s about these·tapes are likely c o includ e an implicit belief in th e posi
ti on of \he "outsider" as the more powerful and empo wering one (with tbe
attention paid to the inm aces res coring cheir damaged s elf-estee m). And ..
· while the assumptio n may hold initially and even through out m any of che
fiftee n One on One dialogues, it prove s w be far from universal. By h er
fifth tape, Louise i s slumped deep into her ch aic. Her unmade-up face a
mask o f despair, she announces rb at she is in a �· sc are of grief." In Ken' s
re ply, h e a ssures her that her "da rk, overclouded look. upon things" will
pass. He s11eaks of wanting to reach ouc ro her "in a real way," adding, "I '.
don't necessaci ly mean che man-lady cype of thing."
Both Ken and Loui se scr uggle to define the growing connecti on be
tween them. There i s che flicker of sexual attcaction, pa rticularly in L ouise's
flir ta tious beginnings. That edge n evec entirely disa ppeacs, evidenced by
VIDEO C0Nf £$$10N$ 209

Ken from Wendy Clarke's Ke11 and Louise (1991).
Louise's embarrassment well into the tape when she realizes that she has
casually addressed Ken as "hon.• And, indeed, what names do we have for
such a hybridized relationship-intimate yet remote, equal parts human
and electronic? The distance is the result of the bar to bodily contact,
nearness the result of an intensity of discourse, a zeroing in on the other's
affective domain. After Louise share s her Lucky with Ken, he shows
her the guitar that he has played in previous tapes. He has christened it
"Louis e" in her honor, adding, "It's like a lady-curves and stuff like
that. It happens to be brown, but that's no reflection on you.• Exchanged
confidences are gifrs bestowed, producing and eliciting confession. As
per the psychoanalytic literature, unconscious material is transferred
into verbal presentations and perceptions, repressed material unleashed,
preparing the way for "the possibility for a better kind of adjustment to
reality."•S
But there are more direedy political considerations to be encountered
alongside the therapeutic ones. In the context of Brecht's critique of radio
(see note 41), video exchanges such as those of the One on One s eries con
stitute a kind of resistance to the commercial broadcast model, which of
fers a "mere sharing out" of entertainment. Brecht imagined the potential
of radio as "the f ine st possible communication apparatus in public life,"
as "a vas t network of pipes" if only it "knew how to receive as well as to
210 Y !D£0 CONf't:SSIONS

Louise from Wendy Clarke's Ken a11d L.011ise ( 1991).
rransm it, how ro ler rhe listener speak as well as h e ar, how t:o bring hi m
inro a r clarionship instead of isola ring him."•6 Jf it can be said of the seri es
rhar r ransfcrential relations hetwe en ins ider s and outsiders nr e mutual
and re ciprocal, it cnn also b e said chat th e cl e ar-cut di stinc rion between
producer and consumer is obvia red. While a claim of media e mpow er·
mcnt can be made for other public art proj ects such as The Love Tapes in
which rhousands of individuals from all walks of life have made tapes by
rhe mselves about r hemselves, her e th e gains ar e even greater. He re, in a
pr eci se miming of the Brechcian pre scription, "th e listener spe akfsJ as well
as hearl sJ," indeed, speaks only after listening, perhaps speaks even whil e
hearing. This delicacy of listening is in fact enhanced by th e media re d
circumstances; ther e are no auxiliary sources of information for th ese in..
tcrlocuto rs. Th e subjects of the vid e o letter exchang es learn ro listen with
a special int ensity, frequently re playing che tape just received sev eral ti mes
before beginning rheir own r eply. Theirs is a special kind of speech, one
that t each es Iiste ning.
These exchang es ar e also profoundly co mm unitarian in their power
to overcome the isolation of those incarc erated. How rarely do contempo
rary media forms work to build bridges across human differences rath er
than si m ply make spe ctacl es of thos e differences? In thi s i nstance, the
bridges built transcend their appar ent li mits in de monstrable way s. People
VIDEO CO NFESSIO N& 211

'
who have never and will never meet·enrer into relations in which trust
grow s incrementally, in which vulnerabiliti es are increasingly shar ed,
in which emo.tions attached t o long-buried experienc es are ali�wed t o
surface. In Rickey and Cecilia, Rickey, a y oung Latino man serving a
sixteen-month jail sentence on drug charges, develops a video relationship
with Ceci l ia, a fi fty- one-y ear- old white woman. In his first ta p e, Rickey
sp eaks abou t the mix of fe elings he has for his younger br other, who i s
a lso serving time. Rickey is s orry to h ave failed as a role model, regretful
th ar' th e ir relationship has sour ed. In her reply, Cecilia repli es in kind:
· I was very close to my youhger sistert and we were very good ·f�iends when'
1 was in my twenties and she was in her.teen�. Then she bec:.1mc mentally ill,
and later, when she was in her twenties-and it was related to the mental
ill ness-she died. I lost her compktely except in my memories and feelings.
So m�yb e you have a fear that you'll lose your brother. But maybe you won't,
maybe there's still hop e for you two, and }'0/II
1 be able to connect UJ? when
you're both out qf prison.
The young man is cl e, arly moved by this disclo sure; he returns t o the topic
of his estranged br other seve ral times more during the remainder of their
e xchange s. C�cilia has struck a nerve. In 011e on One, relationships of
trust are built upon a f oundation of reciprocal confession, freely given
and exchanged. Confidences , pa inful mem ories, the willingnes s ro allow
tlie other to touch oiie's own place of vulnerability and vic e versa become
the basis for a connection between pe ople who will ne vci meet except on
videorape.
· The One on One dial ogu es are re markable from a nother perspective ·
as we ll: If! as I have claimed, the confessions exch anged are freely given,
they c an be contrast ed t o another kind of self-discl� sur e well kn own to
the incarcerated subjects. C onfes sion plays an important role in criminolo
gy and the practice of law, as evidenc ed in prim e-time cop shows such a s
NYPD Blue. Detective John Kelly's most out standing police skill is his
ability to induc e confessions through _ recourse to an emotional repertoire
r anging fro m the quiescence of feigned sympathy to the ne ar edge of vio
len ce . If K elly can move from tough guy to fath er confes sor so adroitly, it
is because, in ushering the accused into those airless rooms? be shares Wi'th
them a zone of liminality. I n criminol ogical t erms, c onfes sion is a thr esh
old moment, ma-rking the possibility of the criminal's first s tep on his way
back to s ociety. "By c onfessing, be finds th e first possibility of a re turn
to the c ommunity a fter he. had put .himself, throtigh bi , s deed, out side its
limits."-17 In that liminal zone, no emotion, no promise, no sign of remorse
r emain s unthink able. Kelly's weekly performanc es are s taged both for
212 .VI OtO CONFESSION S

th e pe rpe rrato.rs and for an audience of millions. Bu t ,he re is a p articu
lar legacy-visual represe ntation as an apparatus of social cont rol-th at
haunts this spect acl e.
Photographi cally based representation has played a su b stantial his
to;ical role in -the recent hist<>ry of sr�te power . As John ·Tagg-writes in The
Burden. ofRepresentatio11, photography b egan· 10 function as a re gul atory
and dis cipli11ary app aratus in the afterm ath of the failed rebe llions of the
.l ate 1840s: just at the moment of rhe consolidation of power of the mod- .
ern state.<8 Tagg trace s a rendezvou s b e tween a "novel form'of the: s,ate
and-a -ne�v and a de vtloping tccliriology of knowledge," in which photog-.
raphy could contribute to the control of a l arge and dangerously diversi-
-; fied workforce newly arrived in the u rban ce nters.
Like the state, the came ra i s ncv�r neutral. The representatit:ms it p(od ucCs
.. .ire highly coded, .ind the power it wields is oever its own. As a means of
record, it arrives on the scene v e st ed with a pa rti cular authority to a·rresc,
Pictu re and transform daily life, a pow er to see and record .... Jf, in the last
· · decade ;· of the. nine te enth century, the squalid slum displic
: e s the country ;
se.at a nd the "a bnormal" ph.y.siognomi es of pati ent aml_prisoner displace the
:!·
. pcdigrCcd feature s of che aristocracy, then. . thcir prcsence ·i� repre se ntation
is no longer a mark of celeb.(ation but a burden of subje ction. A vaSf ancl .
,
· !epetitive archive of images is .lccumulated in which the sm..1llesr deviations 1
may be note d, classified and filed . The format varies hardly at all. There. are ,.
bodies and spaces.The b 04ie-s-· workers, vagrants, criminals, pati ents, the
insane, th e pooi:, rhc colonized . taces-· are taken o ne by. one : isol ated in a
�hallo'°!', contained space; turned full face and subjected to an unrecurnable
gaze; illuminat e d, focused, �1easun:d, numbered and name d; forced to yi eld
co che minutest scrutiny of gestures and features. Each device is the trace of a
wordle ss power, r�plicated in. courit leSs image s, whenever the photographer .'
prepares an exposure, in pol i ce cell, prison, mission house, hospital, asylu m,
or school.9 4
-.
Lik e the confession, the mug shot pl ays a recurrent role in NYl'D
Blue. Eyewitnesses.whose te stimony will b e needed t<> convict �(e fre -·
quently given pages of i111ages-hea d shots that have b�en ill umii1ated,
focused, measu red , oumb e red, an d nam ed. - from which they are aske d
to choos; aod ti1us provide the cru cial ID. ln One on One,.tb e incarcer
ate d, whil e also "isol ate d in a shallow, contained spa c e; turned fu ll face,"
are not su bjected to an u;_1returnabl e gaz_e. These prison�rs, a ft er all, have
alre ady b een "s u bj�ctcd" in countless ways: re m�ved from social C<)ntact,
and fro m their familiesigiven clothing, livi ng sp ac e, �nd food me�nt to
reinforce a regimen of mind-numbing uniformity. Indeed , the expe rience
of i ncarceration is caicul ated to strip the inmat e of all the trappings of
individuation throu gh which subjecthood is_achieved. But i n seizing th e
VIDCO CONf£S SIONS 213
Di gitized by Origi nal from

opportunity ro r eturn .the m edia gaze, to speak as well as li sten, ·thes e men
are endow ed with a mea sure o f subj ectivity denied the mo st privileged TV
viewe r tune d to the bro adca s t signal.
The One on 011e project attests to a power . latent in the video medi-.
um, a pow er that has s eldom b ee n explo red. It is a power that i s political,
psychological, and spiritual: a power to facilitate the rev e rsal of repression
at th e l evel of (confessional) spe e ch and o f exp erience and in. so doing
f orge b o nds that ar e wholly media specific. C ontrary to expectation, these
m edia-s p ecific re lationships appe ar ro e ng ender effect s (th e visible signs of
bol st ered spirits a s well as audibl e testimony) that are bidire ctional, expe
rienced by both video parmers. It is my conte ntion that this n ew kind o f
relationship is a fundam entally therapeutic one roote d in confession, free
ly and mutually e xchang ed. In One on One, the i,una tes' confe ssions
the unco erce d expressions of unsp oken pain or pl easur e-elud e autho rity
rather than wholly submit to it as Foucault·would hav e it, These uns anc•
tioned 4tterances serve no institutional mastcr.50 While indeed judgn1�ot.,
consolation, even reconciliatioo, may be sought from the interlocutor
'"outside," the dynamic of do minance and Submission is every where re·
v ersibl e. If the car of the othe r indee d contribut es to the (r e)c on struction
of th e sp e aking s elf, it i s only on condition that th e positions of self and
other, confessor and confessant, rernain fluid and ceci procal.
Conclusion
As I stated n ear rhe beginning of this chapter, I have littl e int er est in the
o ntol ogical purity of my claims for vid eo confessions. I have, following
Foucault, been int erested in tracing a skeletal history of confession and of
tbe f o rces o f repression that have pr oduc e d i n th e Western subject a "regu
late d and polymo rphous incitement to disc ours e." I have claimed th at a
new and particular variant of ritualized self-exatn.ination has arisen over
th e past two decad es in the form of the first-p erson vid eo confession, with
vid eo unders tood as a format uniquely suited to tha t purp ose owing to i t s
potential for privatized production and consumption. \Vhil e pointing-to a
considerabl e body of r ecent work mad e by video artists that I have char
acteriz ed as confessional, I have given sp e cial attentio n to two pr ojects
und e rtaken by Wendy Clarke, The Love Tapes and One <m One. In the
tapes of these seri es, pe o ple o f disparate background and life experience
ar e given rhe opportunity to r eveal hidden parts of th ems elv es through di
re ct addres s to a cam era that th ey control. Video, as appa ratus and potenti
ality, b e com es in these works a facilitator to self- examination.
214 VIOtO CONF&S$10N$

But thi s is confessional discourse produced neith e r for profit nor for
tempora ry celebrity in the manner of commercial talk formats on radio or
TV. Rather, I have argued, most pointedly in r efe rence to the One on One
tapes, that video confessi ons produced and exchange d in nonhe gemonic
contexts can b e powe r ful tools for self -under standing as well as for rwo
way communication, for the forging of bu. man bonds and for emotional · ·
recove ry. In · contrast to the le gacy of photogr aphic represent�tion as a
regulator y and disciplinary apparatus , first-per son vide o co nfessions of
this sor t"affor d a glimpse of a more utopian t rajectory in which cultur al
production and cons umption mingl e and inreract, and in which the media
facilitate under standing across th e gaps of human difference rather than
simply capitalizing
. on those differenc es in a. rush to spectacle.
.
,
'
. , . ,.
..
VlOEO COlffeSSl0Jt$ 21S

Domestic Ethnography and
[ 14 ] the Construction of the "Other" Self
First pr esente d at Visible Evidence II (Los Angeles, 1994) and pr,b

lished i11 Collecting Visible Evidence (Mi1111esota, 1999), "Dome stic
Eth11ography and the Co 11strr,c tion of the 'Other' Self" stakes o,tt a mode
of ar,tobiographical pra ctice that couples self-interrogation with eth-
n ograr,hy's conc ern for the documentation of the lives of others. But the
Other in this instance is a family member who serves less as a source of
disinter ested social s cientific r esearch than as a mirror or foil for the self.
Du e to kinship ties, suhje ct a1fd object are embro iled in each other. The
result is self-portraitr,re refracted through a fam ilial Other . But the notio n
of domes tic e thnography has become an incre a singly useful classificatory
te rm f or a doc umentary film type that bas proliferated. In an era of great
genealogical curiosity such as our own, shared DNA becom es a powe r
ful incitatio11 to docume ntary practice. Festivals and stud ent scree nings
abound with film s about aging or ecc entric family 11iembers who se live s
pro vid e, if o nly i m plicitly, insight into the m aker's 01un J>syche or cor
poreal self. Moreover, the reciprocity of subject and object positions is
e choed by a recurrent trope ;,. these wo rks, that of the exchanged came ra
as the object of the gaze is tei11po rarily allowed to bec om e its subject.
Not'1ing less than "textuti_f authority }' is at stake in thi s trope, the e xtent
to which the sem iotic power of autlu>rsln'p i s rendered reversible.
If the West bas produced anthropologists. it is becauseit was

tormented bytemo�.
:: Claude !Avi-Strauss, 1nstes 1ropiques
The ethnographic project has long been haunted by the legacy of its co
kmialist past. Over the past fifteen years, critiques have been launched
from many quarters against_ the premises of participant observation,
216
Digitized by Original fl'om

whi ch James Cliff or d has describ ed as "shor than·d for a c ontinuous tack
i n g b etwee n the 'insid e' and ' outside' o f events," but J oh annes Fabian ·
has unders tood m ore .radically as a disjunction betw een exp erien ce and
scie nce, res earch a nd writing, and chus "a fostering episrelllolO gical sOre� '.
i n the disciplin e.I ·Pe ter M aso11 h as traced th e phil osop,hical·probl em of
a lter i ty (a nd the neces sary se tti ng of boun dar ies b etween s elf and other )
'
'
to th e work of Emmanuel Levinas, for whom the constr u ction of the alter i-
ty, ·the ab solute ex ter iotity o f the o t her, is a function o f d esit e. 2 Maso n .
no t es Levinas's concern for unders tanding the o ther wirti out recourse to
' '
the "viole nc e of co mpr ehensibn" . wh ereby the other is ,e duced to self, de - ·

'
priv ed of ih e very alt erity by which the· · o ther is othe t.3

. Trinh T, Minh-ha has, rather m ore stringently,.d eclared that antluo
p ology's romanc e w ith the Other ii "an outgro w th o( a dualisti c sys tem of
tho ugh t p eculiar to th'e Occident (t he 'onto- th eolo gy' ,yhich .cha ra cter izes
\Ves tern metaphysics)" in whi ch differenc e beco m es a tool o f sel f -de fens e
a nd c ollquest. A nt hro p olo gical dis couis e, ac cordin g to T r inh, prod uces
"no thi ng other than th� reconstru ction an d r edistribution o f a pretended
order of thin gs, ihe i nte rpr e tati on or e v en tr ansfor ma tion of [i nf o rma-
.
tion] giv en and f ro zen i nto monuments ."' Most re ceoily, Michael Taussig,
r e turn ing b r illian tly to th e work o f Wal te r Benja min, h as wri tten of the
mimet ic facul t y' as the compul sion to be come th e Othe r throu gh the ma gic
o f th e signifi er . "I call it tb e mi metic facu lty, the nature that culture uses
to cre a.c e secon d natu re, the fac ul ty to copy, i mita te ,.mak e m odel s, ex'j,l orc
<liffer e ncc, yi eld into and bec ome Other."S
All of thes e critic al perspec tiv e s converge aro und the problems en
tail ed in repr eseriting the other. For some, it is cepresentation its e lf that is
th e probl em. Stephe n A. Tyler has called for the p rac ti ce of wh at b e t erms
"p ost-moder n eth nographyt_whereby the i nher ited mode of scientific ·
rhetoric is jettisoned; "evocation" displace s representa tion. lo Tyl er' s view,
.
the ethnographic text, long treated as an "object;' is more appropri'atcly
understood as a "me di tativ e vebicle ."6 George E. M arcus has p o inted ro
th e es say for m as practic ed by Ad or no-fragmentary, re flectiv e , f nal jud g
i
ment s uspe nd ed-as a way ou t o f rbe trap of r ealist conv enti on. For m al
.
experi menta t on; atte nt ion to rhe dialo gical context of fie ldwor k, the incor
i
p orat ion of multiple auth orial voices, a reti eat from an illusor y holism-a ll
can cont r ibute to "a par ticul a rl y appropriate self-cons cious p·osture," one
"well s ui ted to a time su ch as th e p resent, when paradigms are in disarray,
pro bl ems intr act able, and ph e nomena on ly par tly underst o od." 7
S o man y replies to thi s cris i s of e th no graphic author it y: call s foe
c.oeval ness, evoc ation, fragmentation, magic, "understanding" shorn of
the viole nce of c o mpre hensi on, the unl ea rni ng of pr ivil e ge , e ve n silen ce.s
00MC$TIC IHHMOCR�PHY 217

My in terest here is in work currently b ei,,g ma de by inde pe nden t film and
videoma ke rs tha t sugg es ts itself- a t leas t to me-as y et ano ther response
to the e thnographic imp ass e. If indeed pa rticipant o bservati o n found ers :,
in its tacking between "inside" and "outside," a passage that (esragcs the
subject/o bject dic h otom ization installe d in the p ost-Enlightenment We st,
the fil ms and tap es tha t I te rm domestic ethnography play a t the bo und
ar i e s o f ins ide an d ou tside in a un iq ue wa y . This work enga g es io the
documentati on o f fa mily mem bers or, le ss lite rally, of pe opl e with whom
the m aker bas ma inta ine d l ong- s ta nding everyd ay relations and has thus
ac hieved a lev. e l o f ca sua l i ntimacy . Because the live s o( artist and su bject ·
are interl ace d through communa l or bl o od tie s, the documenta ti on of the
one tends to implicate the other in complicated ways; indeed, c(msanguini·
ty and co(i}mplication a r e d ome sti c e thn o_graphy's d efini ng feat ures.
By co(i)mJ>lication I mea n both compl ex ity and ihe inter pe ne tra tion_ of
su bje ct/o bj ect iden titi es.· To pu rs ue th e p oint y e t fur th er, o ne cou ld say
tha t domes · tic e thnography is a kind of su pplemen tary auto biog raphica l
practice; it func tions as a ve hicl e of se lf-exa m inati on, a means through.
which to cons tr uc t s elf-kno wle dge throu gh recourse to the familial o ther.
Bu t domes tic e th no graphy is more th an sim ply a no the r varia m of
au tobi ographical dis c ou rse, given its e xplicitly outward gaze; nomin ally,
at leas t, this mo de of documen ta ti on cakes as its obj ect.che father, moth er,
g randp a re nt, child, or sibling wh o i s ge ne cic ally lin ked t o che a uthorial
su bjecc. Ca re mus t be ta k en i n de fin ing the par ticu la r relations that _obtain
betw ee n the d omestic e thno graphe r a nd her su bject. There is a peculiar
so r t of re cip rocity (whic h rnighc e qually be termed self-in ter e st}·built into
the cons truc tion o f Other su bjectivitie s in this par a - ethno gra phic mod e.
The re ca n be no pre tense of o bjec tiv i ty fo r an inve stigation o f a now-dea d
mothe r w h ose al c oh olisin has helped give ris e to the ea ting di sorder ,,,f
th e videoma ker in Va naly ne Gr een's Trick or Drink (1984), just as there
is licrle dou bt that Kidlat Tahi1nik's elde s t son (als o named Kidlat), with
whom the fil1nma ker trav els anp t o wh om he frequently a ddre ss e s his in
sight s an d apmonitio os throu ghout The Rainbow Diary (J994), fu nctions
both as he ir apparent and a s au tohiog rapb. ica l f.oil. Fa milial i nves tigation
in c hese recent film s and tap es i s, on one le vel, a kind of ide,niry sleuthing
in which fa1nily-bound figur es -pr o gen itor s and pro ge ny - ar e mi ned f or
clue s to ch e ar tis t's vocation, sensibility, or patho logy. Domes tic ethoog-·
ra phics tend 10 be highly cha rg e d investig ations brimming with a c urious
\
b rand of epis t ephilia , a brew of a ffcction,.resentment, e ven se lf-loathing.
Tbe poin t to str es s is tha t for this mo de of e thnography, the de sire for the
o th er is , a t e very mo me nt, em bro iled with the que scion of self-knowle dge;
it is the all to o familiar ra th er than che exotic tha t holds sw ay .
:U8 OOMCSTIC £THNOCRAPHY

I do not wish c o sugg est, how ever , that d omestic eth nogra phy of the
sort I am outlining is e xclusivel y an exercise in self-inscripti on. Put another
w ay, th ese wor ks could b e said to e nac t a kind of p articipant observation
t hat illumi nes th e famili al o ch er whil e simultaneou sl y refr acti ng a se f,
l
m a ge ;· indeed, th e domestic echno graphi c subj e ct exi s ts only on co ndi tion
i
o f its cons titutiv e re lations -with the make r . Here there i s li ttle sens e of a
· ta cki ng b ack and forth b etween i ns ider and outsider p osi ti<)ns,' th e et h
nog ra phic norm. For th e domestic ethnograph er, there · is n o fully outsidt
posi tion avail abl e.- Blood ties eff e cc linkage s of sh ared memory, physical
resemblanc e, t em peramen t, and, of c ourse , fam i ly-f or ged b eh avi oral or
attitudin al dysf unction t owa rd which th e ar c st-th rough her work-,-can
i
fashi on ac comrn odation but n o es cap e.
Tn a limite d wa y, do mestic ethnogra phy oc c asions a kin� o f i nter
su bjective re ciproci t y in which th e rep rese ntations of s elf and o th er a re
simultaneousl y if unequ a lly ac sta ke. Thi s kin d of w ork i s all b ut i nd em
nifi e d ag ainst ch e char ges o f ten ma'de ag ains t the p seud o posi tivism o f .
_ th e an thr op ol ogist wh o treats the human subjec t as scient ific datum or

sta ti sti ca l proof. Th e domestic et hnograph er qua so cial s ci erttis t c an never
'
wh olly elude her analy tic sc ene . It h as , of cours e, lieen ar gued th at thi s is
ever so. and from several p erspective:s: Cliffo rd Geer tz h as add resse d the
"signa tuce issue," t�c ways in whjch tht a uthori a l voice necesSarily enter:s
in to echn ogra phic disc ourse, e ch oing Ha yden \Vhi te's notion of th e " tro p·
ic" di mension of schola�I)' dis c ourse (th e play of langu,,ge) as "ine xp� nge
abl e" fr onYtb e hum an sciences.9 For i t s part, ps ychoa na lytic c ritici sm as
sumes that· a�th orial desi re is figure d i n all t ex.ts, never more so than when
th e Oth er.is the s ubjec t of re pre s e nta tio n. With d omest ic cth nog ra ph)',
auch orial sub jec tivi ty i s explicitly in que sti on or on dis pl a y . There exi sts
a re cipr ocity b et ween. sub je ct a,.;d object ,·• pl ay of mutual
.
d�te;minati on,
a c ondition ofco nsu bsta nti ality. The d esire (figurabl e as dread o r longi ng)
of th e domest_i c e th nog_ r apher i s for th e Other self.
Fathers and Daughters
D esire is always dest abilizi ng � nd delirium ind uci ngiand inst ability is par'
ticula�ly i ns cribed i n di scourses of d ome �tic eth no g ra phy. S u· Frie dr ich' s
·
rem ark abl e Si11k or Swim (i990) evokes the arti st's family histor y th rough
a successi on of t went y-si x· titl ed segments, each b egi nning wi t h a one
wo rd ch a p ter h eading framed against blac k leader, one for e ach letter of
th e alph ab et di splayed in reveri;e order, b eginning wirh "z" for "zyg ote"
and rb e artist' s c on c e ption . The so und track is c om pose d o f wh at seem to
00Mt$TIC &THNOCRAPHY ...

be memory fragments, voiced by a younger Friedrich surrogate, in rela
tion to which the accompanying images (all of them black-and-white and
asynchronous, some of them drawn frc:,m Friedrich family home movie
footage) seem at times illustrative, at times responsive to the previous nar
ration, at times linked only through an associational logic. Despite the
elliptical (though chronological) character of the narrated segments, the
viewer is lured toward a thematically coherent reading of the text through
the chapter titles, which function as a semic reservoir for the family ro
mance: "virginity," "tem ptation," "seduction," " pedagogy," "kinship,"
"bigamy."
The film's textual coherence is uneven despite the fact that Sink or
Swim's narrative continuity remains more or less intact: the "zygote"
section properly launches the film's autobiographical trajectory, and
each fragment supports the "life story" trajectory. The sense of linearity
is undermined by the thematic discontinuities among the lexia, as well
as by the frequently oblique character of the sound/image relations, but
thes�e tactics arc altogether consistent with the dream logic of recovered
memory. As the meaning of the piece gathers force, the film's focus in
creasingly becomes the identity-defining relations between the father
This dreamlike image of the female bodybuilders from Sink or Swim accompa·
nics a story about temptation. Photograph courtesy of Su Friedrich/Downstream
Productions.
220 OO NESTJC ETHNOGRAPHY

ln Sink or Swim, filmmaker Su Friedrich typc..'S the letter she'll never send to the
father who abandoned her. Photograph courtesy of Su Friedrich/Downstream
Productions.
(accomplished, demanding yet remote) and the artist/daughter. "Sink or

swim" is the dictum that defines the father's philosophy of parenting; bis
is a world of maleness and action, aloof from the reactive feminine, which
tends roward lamentation and numbing resentment. After the father's
departure from home and family, Friedrich's mother spends her evenings
weeping to obsessively played Schubert lieder while the filmmaker re
sorts to consulting her anthropologist father's acaden1ic tomes, vainly
searching-long after the fact-for the emotions he refused to share with
the family he was abandoning at the time of their writing.
B y the film's close, Friedrich has assembled a cumulative portrait of
a father whose once-unassailable authority has begun to unravel. Always
the source of judgment, the father is now himself exposed to the collec
tive appraisal of the film's audience, who, in one notable example, are led
to intuit the father's sense of sexual rivalry toward his adolescent daugh
ter's admirers ducing a trip to Mexico. The film is, in part, her delayed
revenge for his having unceremoniously sent her home for her transgres
sions against his incesruous authority. Hers cannot be an outright victory,
however. Recall that the defining characteristics of domestic ethnography
are consanguinity and co(i)mplication. Even as Sink or Swim moves
toward its conclusion and a sense of the artist's vindication through a
OONtSTIC ETHNOOllAPHT 221

w illf ul act of historiographi�al revisionism, the fi n al rou nd elay o f aco us tic
cl cmems and the d ou ble printing of the home movie fo otage in ,he film's
c o da r e t!'rn us to the i nstability_ of the domestic eihnog raphic l ocus. Over
h ome movie images · of the a(rist-as "the girl," cl�d in swimsuit., rea·dy to
sink or swi m, Fri edr ic h s ings the "ABC Song" in a r ou n d of ove rl appin g
voices that rhyme wi t h the g hostly do ubling of the image. The fi na l and
fate fu l wo rds o f her son g a re , o f c ou rse, ··r°ell me what y ou th.i n k of me."
Only on that conc lu din g, d ee ply ot her-dir e cted phrase do the di scre pant
voices and images coalesce.
Bur even as we ga ze ar t he now-un ified se.mblanc e of an ac hi ngly
.
fragil e y oung girl, we arc filled with the knowledge that Fri edric h c an
n ev er entire ly e lu de her father 's g rasp. The ir histories are fore ver. in t er
t:,vi ne d, the ir pathol ogies enm esh e d io e ac h other's. Filmmakiog as thera
peutic · discourse, like anal ysis, reh1ains intermin able, alw ays unfinished.
Equally germane to thi s dis cussion, the p artic ularity of this i nstance of
domes tic e thnog rap hy-Sink or Swim as Su Friedrich's family hi story
is co unt er va ile d by the familia ri ty of 1he dyn amic displayed. It is on this
account t ha t iden tification (mor e with dy namic than with character or
sit ua tion) is enge ndered.
It i s the depth a nd in delibility of familial attachment that make the
d o me stic subj ect such a sp eda f ethn ographi c case . A nd I would argue
tha t Sink or Swim fu n c ti ons a s a ki nd of eclu1 ogra phy-insrru c1ive and
g ener aliza ble -for the way in which it exce e ds th e b ou nds of fam ily
ponrait ur e. The film is s tructure d by a serie s of generic·e lemems iha t
re in force the universality of the subject matt er: the use of the alphabet a s
s i r uc turing de vic e, the e l eme ntal c hap te r hea ding s,. the co nstant ·use of the
third person ("tlie girl," lat er "the woman") ra ther th an fi rs t p erson, the
g eneric hom e movie i mages, the c oncluding childhoo d anthem. Th e sp eci
ficity of th e na rration is sustained in tension with the universality of thes e
e lelll en ts, a nd thr ough ,hat tens ion domestic e1hnog raphy is forg ed. 10
Sharing Textual Authority
The gro wing a ttenti on be ing acc or ded indigen ous media ma kin g at film
fest iva ls and c onferences and in pro fe ssio nal jou rnals spea ks to ·th e de sire .
to share textu al authori ty in ma tters of c uliura l represe nt ation. The frontis
pi ece of Edward Said's Orienta/ism c on tain s ,, qu otation fr oµ, Ma rx's
The Eighteenth Brumaire ofLouis B()naparte: "Th ey cannot repre se nt .
·the mselves; they must be repre se nie d."11 The b o ok g o es on to perform an
..
exte nde d cr itique of the epis temol ogica l arrogance of su ch pr onounte mertts.
DO NtSTI C tTHNO Gl!.APt lY

HARVARD UNIVERSITY HARVAl:\D UNIVERSITY
More th an thi rt y years ago, Pau l Ricoeur could write ab out t he dawni ng
of a "universal world civilization'' and the disorientati o n it would bring
ro the waning colonial enterpri se : "W.hen we discov er that there ar e sev
_erai cultu res instead of jusi o ne and consequently at the time when we
ack no wle dge the en d.of a sort of,cultu ral mo nopoly, b e it illusory°or real,
we are tb.reate,;ed wit h t he d estruc tion of o u r own discov ery. Sudden ly. it
be co{lies possible th at there ar e just others, that w e ours elves are an ' ot her'
°
among otbers."12 To ih at sense o f aborted cultur al mo nopoli es mu st .be
add ed.the tremendou s growth of acce ss to the represent ational tools.
\Vhat on ce migbi have o ccasi oned the b ew ild erment or dis dain of social
scic nii s t s-tl).is vi sio n of ethnography as a free-for-all-is now rou ti�cly
reinforced by the camc or der d ocumentatio n of police abu s e i n ComP.ion
or c r umblin g Giotto fr escoes a t A ssisi. Given the explosiv e gr ow th and cu
Cious coalescence . of travel and surveillance technologies, representational .
authority no lo nger resid es solely- wi th the pr ofe ssional class es of- s cho ar s,
l
jOurnalists, and state funclionaric.s.
In th.is context, I propose to consider a particular tC?(tual gesture,
what amounts to,a moment of authorial crisis occurring in c.crtain of the
do mestic erhnogra�hi es. I am referring to moments at which the m aker
b a nds ov er the camera to bis subject, at the su bject's reque st, moments
a t wbich fili al ·obligation outpa ces di r c.c tori al c onir ol. Thi s shari ng of ...•,.
t extu al authority is born n ot of egalit ari anism or of a penchant for the
hype r-refle xiv e ; i nstead, it i s a n o ut gro wth.of the d omestic ethno graph er' s
i ntimate rela.tions. wi th her subjec t. \Vhen, in To,nboychik (1993), S andi ·>,,..
Du Bowski' s grandmoth er t akes hi s vid eo camera, th en r ollin g, sh e·intends

only to "snap _ a pictu re" of he r � adorabl e grandson." The camera is a mys
teriou s toy to the erst w hil e subject of the piece.,We, on the other hand,
k now the game and strai n to see a face already de scribed in d etail by th e ....
gra nd morh er. Tomboychik is a search·.for th e root_s of. DuBowski's s exual
ident ity by way �f the memories of his forebear- remi ni sce nc es of the
gra ndmother's gend er-bl ending childhood and of them annish st;ength of
her mothe r �eforc he r, who ro utin ely lifte d 100-pou nd sack s of sug ar un
a ided whil e making chocol ate . The pr esumption may be that D uBows ki' s
gayne ss c an be expl ained genetically; the tape may also f unction as an un
sp o ken reply to Nana' s occasion al referen ces to a wished-fo r weddi ng a nd
gre.at-gran dchildren.
DuBowski clj�i ts,uemorie s of t he young Nana' s gend ere d identi ty.
She b ad o nce b een thought transgr essive, a "boy/gir l": she wore panrs
r athe r than·d resses, foughdik e a boy, ran as fast and jump ed as high
as an y o f t hem. But Nana playfu lly tur ns the di sc ussion- as well as the
came ra'-to DuB ow ski himself. She caq d o this be cause she i s Na na and
OON £STI C tTH NOGB.APHY 223

because this i s he r dear grandson toward who m there can be no ba rri ers .
Suc h a n exchang e would not be possible with ao "outside r," but chis is
"insider " discourse. IfTomboychik i s e thn ography, it i s a ll bu t a bse•nt of
the so rt of descr iption o r explanation we associate with that mod e of di s·
cour se. But che pi ece is a bout sho pping for s exua l identity in gr andm a's
close t and about the per forma nce o f ao in terg enerationa l family mas que r ·
ade ( compl e te with wigs). The point I wish to suess is that the tr o p e of the
"s hare d c amera," whic b effects a n erosion of textual authoricy or di rec to
ri a l co ntrol, is endem ic to dom estic etl1nography, one measure of the inte r·
subjec tive rec iproc ity l have previously d e s cribe d.
The shar ing of the appa ra tus with the s ubjec t packs a particu·lat
wall op in Min dy F abe r's Deliri«m (1993), ao etsayiscic inve stigati on of
her mo ther's ma dn e ss and, more .broa dly, of the hi story of wome n a n�
madness an d of the li nk be tw een de pr e ssion and domes ticity. Fab er ma de ·
ch e cap e at the mom ent of her o wn motherhoo d, presum ably to break the
c yc le o f fa mily horrors. Th rough a serie s o f i nte ns ely frame d inre rv ie w se:
q uences, we lea rn a b out cb e mother 's symptom s, the threa t she bad pose d
to ber c hildren, as well as the mother 's own memo ry of childhood abuse at
the hands of he r mother. Fab er's vo ic e-pressing f or d eta ils , unsatisfied by
par tial expl ana tions -i s neve r l on g a b sent fr om the sou nd track. We learn
of the husban d/fathe r's pate r nalism, the mother 's re p eate d institucion ali
za cions an d escape s, he r su icide fantas ie s, he r ina bility or unwillin gn ess
w reca ll her c hild ren' s fright. These on-c amera recitations, pr ompted and
in dia logu e with the video make r, a re in te rsp ers e d with other re.gisters of
ma terial: a rchiva l footage of ma dwomen, vigne tres fr om Fabe r's imagin ed
sitcom a bou t her mother 's midale- c la ss doldru ms, printe d · exc er pts fro m
che clinical diag noses o f hy steria as fe ma le malady, a discursus on the ca
reer of Je a n Marti n Charc o t and his famous clin ic a t Salpetriere , a music
v idco-lik e per formance s eque nce o f a nude wo m an as a pupp et controlle d
by and for the pl eas ure of men.
Nea r the en d of che pi ece, as Fabe r-with inte nti o nality but iittl e
aggrcssiv ity-pr e sses her m othe r to re memb e r che dee.a ils of he r abusive
be hav ior toward the youn g Mindy, the mother says, "He re , gi ve me the
ca me ra." U npr e pa re d for the turnabout, the no w-image d° vid eomake r
struggl es to hold her gr ou nd a ga i ns t her mothe r's ve rsic;in of the ir past.
The author ia l subj ec t no w objectified sp eaks to ,he came r_a a t point-blank
r ang e about the ter r or s o f r etu rn ing fro m· school to a M om who. threw
p o ts and pans a t her hea d. But e.qu ally ter rifyin g is the se nse of Fa be r's
lo ss of c on trol in che pr es e nt-te nse i nter action. As with Fri edr ich's
·su
treati se on her father, bu t with gre a ter empa thy, Fab er's cask is, a t l ea st·
..
214 O OMtSTIC &THlfO(HtAPHY

Mo,hcr and daughter share texrual authority in Mindy fabcr�s Delirium.
Photographs counesy of Video Dara Rank.

i n part, a the rap eutic one - a setting to rights of a p ain fu l family ltistory
in which the d au ghter h as the last wor d. It is pre cise ly chis p ower t o s ha p e
-discour se that i s t emp ora rily ced ed along with the c am er a. Of c ourse,
the footage nee d n ot hav e b een include d i n the final t ape . !( is t o Fa_b et's·
cre dit th at s he recognize d the s equence as consistent with her the me:
th e delirium-i nduc i ng p otency of family-for g ed re lations across line s of
ge nder and generati on. \Vhen the vi deomake r recove rs the c amera, it is
-becaus e she has her own idea for an e n ding f or the tape: a staged s cene in
whi ch the m other's re veng e {a slow- motion st abbing of the father �vith a
banana) is enacte d from the p oi nt of view of the daught er, a prim al scene
o f ret r ibu tion. ·
Delirium offer s a s triking illustrati on of domes tic ethn ography's ·
pote ntial to mine c u ltura l me mory with a leve l of in te nsity una,•a ila blc to
outsiders. Afforded a depth of acc ess to its subjec ts, do mes tic eth no graphy
di scloses secre ts, per for ms masquerad es of identit y, a nd, temp orarily at
least, re arra nges fa mili al hiera rchie s. Its sleight of han d is the r ende ri ng
public o f priv a te-sp he re material, bu t not, I would a rgue, as specta cle .
Families We Choose
Des pite the att ention giveri"here to the biol ogic al fam ily as the nex us
within wh.icb ide ntit y i s cons truc te d, in which se l f -in sc ription a nd the
re pre sen tati on of the famili al o ther are rec iprocally det ermine d, it is im
port ant to note that our u nders tanding of "the dome s tic" h as u nd er gone
signific,int c han ge in ;cccnt dec ades. In c ontr ast to the family a s as crib ed
o r in he rited, Kath Wesum has drawn 3tteotion ro �n ascendent pa radig m,
.
namely, "fa milies we ch oos e." We ston's specific r.e fer cncc iS to the e me r
g e nce of gay an d les bi an famili es and the reconfigu ra tion of the inherited
m o de l they have ena cted. "Chosen families d o not directly opp ose genea
logic al mo de s of re ckoni ng kinship. l n_ stead, they updercut pro cr eation's
s t at us as a mas t er term ima gine d to pr ovide the t emplate f or all possibl e
ki ris hip re la ti ons."13 Fa r from aligning themselves with the c,,nser vative
rhetoric o f "fa mi�y endangermenct many comm cnt�tors �ee th� dchOse n
f�mily" paradigm a s plura lizing { r athe r \han destroying) the r ece iv e d
mode l of ki ns hip s truc tu re: "The mor e re cent f or ms of alte rnative life
styles hav e now bec ome p a ct of.the official fibe r of soci ety, bec aus e they
'
. are n ow be ing tole rated much more than in the p ast. I n shor t, what we
a re witne ssing is no t a fragme ntati on qf tradi tional family patt erns, bu t,
rat her, the em ergence of a plurali sm in family w ay s." 14
1"hi s plura lization of the f amilial-is dr am atically .ren der ed in Tl1001 as
,.. OO MC &TIC CTH lfOGflA PH T

All en Harr is's rec ent tape Vi,itage: Families of Value (1995), in which the
a rtist e xplores issu es of influence and id e ntity among three se ts o f Africa n
Ame rica n gay siblings. Harris anno unces his interes t in a tactics of plura l
ized fainily identities with the utmost directne,ss; his voiCe-over, accompa
nied by bl ack leader, precedes the firs t ima ge:.
In 1990, I w;rntcd to celebrate the incensi�Y. of m"y relati onship with my
brother Lyle. I was cwerny-cight years old and just beginniog co eXpl OI:'¢
fcdiogs of amb ivalence, fear, and hope regarding my family. I recruited two
ocher group.s'of siblings, mc:mbcrs of my community who are·also qUccr) to
join me in rakin g a critical look at their own families:This film is a fom ilY
album created over th.e course of five )'tars. . . ·
It is a family alb um constr uc t ed through rec<.mrse b o th to h eredity a nd

-to choice , affirmed at ev ery turn by the active p articip/lti on o f a ll th ree
s e ts of siblings: Harris and hi s b rothe r Lyle Asht on H aHis; sist er s Adri a n
Jones, Anita Jones, and Anni Cammett; and a brother-sister p a ir, Paul and
Vanessa Eaddy. If d�m�sric et bnograph;'s de fining feat ures are cons a n
guini t y and co(i)1nplicati . on, Vintage
. p.ushes �he
:
la t te r term to new end s.
Harris rarely· backs o ff from t he hea t of the rel atio'nsbips he shows
us, le a s t of all hi s own complex interaction wi th his b rothe r; fell o w art-
is t Lyle Ashton Harris. But iri a m�nner-�o_nsistenr wi th the pluiali�tion

of the familr. mo del, Vintage cbooses.· to focus o n queer siblings, t h ree
g roups· of individ uals e ach of which is linked internally. by bl oo d ti es and,
across the bi olo gic al family gr_ oupings, by �ffi�ity. Aith o ush this is not rh e
preci se "families we cho os e" template -discusse d in the r e cen t soci olo gic al
li t erature (i.e., gay or lesbian couple plus adoptiv� chfld[reo]), the .horizo n
·•
talizins emphasis on multiple sets of qu eer siblings_ p ositions communi t y
al ongside biologica l family grouping and intiod�ccs the element o f ch o ice.
Harris's editing scheme est ablishes· the mutuali t y of horizontal and verti
cal family investigation th roughout th e tap e's seventy-two minutes. We a re
nev er allowed to se ttle in on any o f the thr�c family n arcativ es; just as we
become thoroughly eng rossed_in th e hermeneu tic tensions o f .o ne sibling
set; we find ourselves else where. Harr,s consistently reminds us of the reso
n ances and ove rl a ppings o f sexual fantasie s, fan1ily secrets, and shif ting
allia nces na rrate d and performed-. within and across families. We thus see
for ourselve. s the co mplex, mu ltilaye re d ch a.ract er of sexu al ide miries,. for
while the siblings d efine themselves with, against, and through one a no ther
at the l ev el of the biolo gical family, rhey a re als.o define d, at the level of the
text, by a sha r ed identification of queernes s that links each to alJ.1S

Mor e over, all of the tape's pa rticipants share an o ther sort of c ommu
·nity affilia ti<m: a ll a re African Americ an. \e t e ach challenges stereo typi ca l '
DOMCS TI C CTH NO(; llA.PHT 227

gende r ro les recognizable within th e black community: Tbom as and Lyle
ce lebra te their m as culinity-ba ring sinewy bodi . es for the camera-yet .
iden tify with their mother; Vanessa Eaddy, not he r brothe r P;,;1, talks
of h a ving idolized he r father, tagging along aft e r him a nd his pals; Anni
Cammen sha res a pa ssionate commitmen t to basketball and he r young
daughter . Yet it is to Vintage's cre dit that neithe r "blacknes s" nor "quee r
ness" is accorded primacy of influence in the work of ide ntity form ation.
They are a ll queer, all black, but their quee rness a nd blackness neve r cease
to mutate despite the "family resemblance s." Difference and repetition,
self and community, race and -sexuality, are experienced as inter penetrat·
in g categ ories, mutually determining (indeed, undecida ble) rather than
c<mtradictory or self-canceling.' 6
What we see and hear are thre e s e ts of siblings -mobile in their a f
finitie.s, desires, and familial ide ntifications-narraring thei r life stories,
inte rrogating the di screpancie s of family bistorie s, questioning the hier
archi e s a nd psychose xual dependencies t hat formed ea ch of the m. This
interrogation of the pas t, at times singular and intr ospective (he re the ex
pository mode is de cid edly interactiv e, with Ha rris focusing his c.amcr a
and atte ntion on one or another sibling), 17 can als o be undertake n sibling
to sibling. In the latte r instan ces, brothers or sisters excha nge ve rsion s of
their shared historie s, at time s firing g·ues tions at one an othe r from ·behind
the camera. At such time s, the trope of shared textual authority discuss ed
earlier comes into play, re1ni1�ding us that the operation of the camera is
also always a wielding of powe r. "\Ve re you ashamed of rhe way I acted?"
Van essa Eaddy asks her brother Paul. Van es sa, though you nger, had been
out a s a dyke while Paul w as still closeting his sexu ality.Pressing a mo
menr..ary advantage, a camera-wielding Vanessa suggests that "Mommy
is gonna want to talk to you!" The brother hesitates to.re ply, shifting
unea sily benea th his sister's an d the camera's gaze. He ris e s first to grab
a ciga re tte, the n re turns to his pe rch, only to pop up aga ,n, demanding,
in an attempt to,regain control of the situation, that Vanessa "Move the
ca mera! Where's Thomas?" The younge r, female sibling is now a sking
the questions of the e lder brother, unsettli ng his inhe rite d authority, o ver
turning the hierarchies. In othe·r sequences b e tween them, it is also cle ar
tha t Paul an d Vaness a (two am ong eight siblings)
' are in fact quite close.
Their r e la tionship, like that of the other sibling sets, is inte nse, shifting,
'·
co(i)mplicate d.
In a ll instance s of dome stic ethnography, the familial othe r he lps
to fle sh out the ve ry contours of the enuncia ting self, offering its e lf as a
precurs or, a lter ego, double, instig ator, spiritual guide, or perpetrator
of.trauma: Domestic e thnography entails but excee ds a utobiography. In
-.
228 OONt:ST" IC ETHNO GIIAP HY

Thomas Alle n Harr is's tape , it is not just Harri s who matters - it is al so
his _ brother Lyl e , a s well as the othe r members of an aggressiv ely extende d
family ,vho perform a sha red ide n tity, that of bl ack queer sibling. Ju so
doing,' they' redefi n e the family as the crucible of iden
- tity and the locus of
domestic eth nography.
ConclusiOn
Wha t bri n gs out the "eth nog raphic" i n the domestic �thnography is rhe
way i n which the work call s atte ntion to thc·dy namic s of fa mily life. as the
most fundamental (which is not to s ay un iversal) crucible of psychosexual
identity. Univers ality is at odd s with the historical, cultural, a nd psycho
social differences encountered in any examination of family structur�s, as
exemplified by the vati aiio11s appa re ,u in four recent pieces. Domestic eth
nography offers up the maker and her subject lo.eked.in a fami ly emb race ;
inde�d·, as we have seen, subject/object positions are �t times reversed. I
have argued for dome stic ethnography as a n exte nsion of autobi ography, a
pas de deux of self and other. It i s discursively un sta ble .- lf i_t tells us ab out
cultures a nd soci eties (a s Fabi an claims that.all ethnography_ m us t), it does
so only in miniatu(e. But by abandoning any pretense to autbOtitative or
· generalizable knowl edge of t_h e on e fo r the other, domestic ethnography
eludes the colonialist remors e to which Levi-Straus s once referred.18 S elf
a nd other e n counte r each other at home, ra ther than in the vi Hage square,
but the dy namic s of social and sexual identity formatio n th. at enco!-'-m er
rehea rses leave few of us uns cathed.
,.
,:
.
00.JCtSTIC £THlf.0(;JtAPH'f

The End of Autobiography or New
[ 15 ] Beginnings? (or, Everything You Never
Knew You Would Know about Someone
You Will Probably Never Meet)
This final chapter, originally presented at Visible Evidence VlT (1999),

examine s a re latively new autobiographical phenomenon, the personal
Web page. \Vritten near the height of dot-com ,narket mania, the chap
ter analyzes the i,nique tnate rial
· and discursive conditions o f thC auto�
biographical Web site. "The End of Autobiography" is inspi red by \'I/alter
Benjamin's prescient insights regarding the constantly evolving organiza
tion of human sense perception and of the complex relationship between
the /Jerceptual world and the media practices that both shape and reflect
it. To his everlasting credit, Benjamin unde rstood the etnergence of new
cotnmunication technologies to be both des tructive and cath(,rtic, exhila
rating and annil,ilating: In contrast, then, to those who have, for decades,
bemoaned the end of traditional literary autobiography, the cha/Jter sets
out to interrogate some new Internet-based fonns of self-presentation
that have transformed and enli vened contemporary autobiographical
culture. Central to my approach is a consistent attentiveness to the twin
1nllnifestations of commercial cultural production 011 the one hand and
alternat,ive or artisanal ,nedia making on the other. I close with an ex
te11ded discussion of the work _of Amy Miller Cray, whose personal Web
site ill11strates s011te ways in which old ( diaristic) f<>rms can be wedded to
ne,u (technological) practices withoi,t the sacrifice of their nonc<>mmodity
status. In hind sight, the chapter is a bit breathless in its acceptanc e of the
hype surrounding all things Internet in the late 1990s, but it doe s so,.,n.d
an appropriately forward-looking note for a book devoted to the emer
gence and constant reinven·tion of the autobiographical irnpulse in the
late twentieth century,
Neatly twenty years ago, Elizabeth W . Bruss wrote about tbe disappear
ance of autobiography, a literary genre that has enlivened Western thought
230
Digitized by Qriginal from

for more than 1,500 ye ar s. In describing autobiography's demis e, Br uss
argued that a shift had taken pl ace, th at an activity " on ce cen tra l and p e r
. vasive" b ad lo osened its ho ld ove r both its pra ctitioners and audie nc e: A
.· displ acement had b een effetted ihrough a change In·the d omi n ant sy.stems
of c om ,uuojca ri o n: Film and vide o had b egun to replace writi ng ' as the ·
· chi ef mea ns of recordii,g, info rmi n g, and e nte rtai ni ng, a fac t of signal im
portante, gi�en BruSs's claim that there was "no real cinen:iatic equival ent
for autobi og r aphy." While I strcnu<,usly disagree with that ass essment.(1'11.
say why·sbortly), I find he r description of the dis app ear ance of the ge!'re
quite insighdul.
How doe:Vil genre like autobiography, a genre cha.racrerized by its dura bility
and flexibility, disappear? Not, I Would propose, all at once, in a fl aming
·apocalypse. Nm with :i melodramatic bang, n�t even'(necessarilyfwith a
whimper, oot wiih flcar symptoms of internal decay, di'sa.ffectjOn, or cyoi•
dstn. The d.isappcarance of a·genre is both subtler and more grad ual; it i s not
a cliangc in one genre alooe but a ch.:.mgc of the total environmcnt1 CSPC!=ially
in the relative stre1lgth of alternative modes of expression.I ..
The questi on of the transformaii on and displ acemen t· of autobio '.· · .

·graphica l modes i s my topi c here Having spe ni.more th; n adecade tea ch
.
in g an d writing about autobiogr aphical fil m and vide o ,. I \va n t to examine
. . a n imp octant·em ergent trajector y of auto biographical prac ti c e, that of the
pe rsonal Web p age produced for, and accessible through, rh e In ter net. But\
before doing so, it is worth returni ng to Bruss's argumCnt for what it ca n .
tell us ab o ut th e so cial and ideological meanings of drama1ic shifts within
the c ultural sphe re.
Published in the c ontext of a major coll ecti oniindeed a: now-classic
text-Jame s Olney' s e dited volume Autobiograplry: Bssays Theoretical
.�nd Critical-Bruss's pronounce ment o n th e displacemen t of lit�rary ....
a utob ography by new er c ultural forms s ou n de d a war ning to the literar y
i
critical com1nunity that cc.hoed those of other twenrie'th-c.cnturr critics.
As \V alier B enjamin had n oted i n "The \Vock of Ar t in the Age of Mechani
cal Re production" some decade s before , human se ns e p erception and the
schemata we us e to Qrganize perce ptu al data are profoundly histori cal,
subject to ch ange , always affe cted by the introduction of n e w tec hnolo
gie s. "Dur in g lon g peri ods of hist ory, th e mode of human sense p erception
changes with human ity's entir e mod e of e xist en ce . The _manner in which
human sense perception is organized, the medium in which it is accom
plished, i s deter mined not only by n ature but by hi s tor ic a l c ircumst ances
. as well."l Unlike many modernist commentators whos e pronouncements
skew toward 1itopian or dyst opi an p ol e�, Benjamin was keenl y aware of
the mixed blessings of the ne w . He wrot e of th e "tremendous sha ttering of
TH£ CNO or AUt081 0GIIAPHY ..,

tradition" e ffe cted through the cine ma: "Its -soc.ial significance, pa r ticu
larly in its mos t positive form, . is inconceivable without i'ts destructi ve, ca-.
_ thar ric aspect, that is, the liquidation of the traditiona l va lue of the cultu r?l
heritage ."3
In her essay, Bru ss is re sponding to what se ems to her the liqu idation
of the c u ltuxal he ritage of the litera ry autobi ography, but unlike Benjamin,
she fails to see the positive side. To her dismay, film and video _have begun
to displace literature a s the pre fer red system o f repre sentati on, as the com
municative mode be st attuned to miming contef!]pora ry sensibiliti e s. This
i s no impa r tia l diagn osi s but rather a doomsday message. Since there is no
c inem a tic e qu ival ent to literary a umbiography, "the a utobiographic al ac t
a s we have known it for th e pa st fou r hundre d years could inde ed be.come
mOre and more reco�1dite, and e ve ntually cxtincr."4
\Xlhile T don't dis agree with Bruss's overall assessm ent of the re presen
tatio nal shift, I a m nor inclin ed ro despai r; in fact, a utobiographical prac
tice s of all so rts h ave thrive d since the time of Bruss's w riting. I als o think
she va s tly overstates he r case when she a rgue s for the ou tright impossibili:
ty of fil ro ic autob_ iography. Br us s's r easons boil down to this: cine ma is
s imply incapable of producing autobi og raphy's disc u rsive conditi ons of e x
iste nce, in which tbe speaking subje ct doubles. as the s u bject of discourse.
For Brus s, such a dou bling would a mount to the unity of the observe r and
the obser ve d, to be ing in two places a t once-both in front of a nd behind
the cam era. This makes sen se given the e xemplars of filmic a utobiogra phy
she invok es - Truffaut, Fellini, and Woody All eo-whos c film s rcstag e
pe rs(ma l e xp erie nc e. Bu t the wc:,rk of cinema tic and videog raphic a uto
bio graphers suc h a s Jona s /\1e kas, Ge (>rg e Kucha r, Ross Mc Elwcc, Lynn
H ershm an, and Susan Mogu l sh ows that t_he filming subjec t can als o b e
the filmed su bjec t, th anks in no s mall measur e to those handy props, the
mirror and the tripod.
Bu r the deeper que stio n addressed by Brus s's e ss ay, and the reason
to re turn to it now, re gards how the cultu re c om es to gri ps with profound
and dee p-se ared shifts of communicative modes or re pre se ntational sys
tem s. At on e level, the a uthor is simply asking, "Can auto biogra phy su r
vive? Can lite rary critics stay in business?" ·At another, she is alenjng us
t<> the ways in which filmic and videographic mode s of autobiographic al
practice are themse lves subject to dramatic transformation. Thar is in
deed the s u bject of my own c once rns. It is my view tha t the existence of
the internet and the e merge nc e of the pe rs onal We b page have radically
altered the cultu re of autobiogr aphy in the late twenti eth ce nnuy. 5 In whar
foll ows, I will focus fi rs t on the commodity status of this ne w object with-
2:l2 THC ClfO O f' AUTOIIO G!IAPHY

in me dia culture, then briefly on its di scursivity-the {unctions and effects
of its self-presenta tion -with some atte ntion given co a few examples.
The commodity sta tus of the 'pers on al,W eb_page is complex and
equivoc a l. Web pa ges can be advertising v ehicl es, wholly gjven to commer
cial pursuits; or as personal pages, th ey can be lo,v-cost a nd quirky bas
tions of refuge from the marketplace. \Xleb pages find their existence on
a nd through the Internet, a mode i,fd eli,•e ry and c onsumptio,1 demanding
some lev�l of ana lysis in itself. This will not a lways be so. It is-as if one
.
,v�re writing in rhe decades following th e invemion of the printing press
and felt the need to discuss the economics of movable type before every
· •·
act of literary criticism.
As i s well known; the Internet, �hild · of th e U.S.. Depa rtment of De-
fense in co · llaboration witb the American· research
· university, is now wide
ly and wildly accessible.Capital has colonized the Net with bre athtaki ng
.
speed.· Indeed, an explosion o· f Inte rnet company mergers has mad e· it dif-.
ficult to know who own s a giv en company from one day to the next; -the
vol atility of this marke t sector has been unprecedented. The recent me rge r
mania , now cooled, was fuele d'by the skyr ocketi ng stock va lues of many
publicly held Intern e t compani es. Dow Jone s la unched a speci al Interne t
Index.in February 1999; that inde x rose by more than 50 percent in its
first six months, almost four . times faster tha n the Stan dard & Poor's soo ...
index, the s tandard mea sur e of bh,e-· chip stocks.6 The major pl ayers w ere
in a r· i;sh to position them selves within what was believed to b e a huge
growth industry in which the Net would be the nexus for most pu rchas ., .
ing decision s a s we ll as enterta inment delivery and informati on exch an ge.
Said on e online.adv ertising executive who likened thi's m erger/buyout
fr enzy to a sec o(ld C alifornia gold rush: "The first phase is sta ki ng out the
go ld mines; t,he second pha se is building the mines, and tbe third pha se is ,,
selling the gold." 7 This at a time when most de velop ed nations h ave moved
off the gold standard. The new:gold --:as virtual, inst.aota neously traded
and colossally expansive. Its chi ef domain was the Interne t.
One such cl a im stak er is Ya bo o!, currently the largest portal o� gate
way to the Internet, which a�quire d fiv e Ne t companies with a value of ·
Sro.5 billion in the first ha lf of r999 a lone. 8 Ya hoo! is the home of mor e
than 48,000 p ersoua l pages (http://dir.yahoo.com/Socic t y a_n d C _ ulture / ·
Peopl e /P · ersonal _Home_ Pages/). As a cleari nghouse for th e mak ers and ·
browsers of thes_e p-ages, Ya hoo! may a ppe a r to the casual \Xleb surfer to
be a neutral vehicle, but it is, on the contrary, a massive capital enterprise
va lued a t more than $40 billion (its first-quarter 1999 profits surged to
$25 m.illion from iust over $3 million in a single year).• Because it reaches
THE tND OF AUT0810.GRAP HY 23"
Digitized b'y Original from

so many people, second only to America Online, Yahoo!· can charge ad·
verrisers more than it s competitors such as Ge oCities (which . it is threat. en·
ing to gobble up}, functioning much i n the manner of a television network.
The TV tie-in is even more explicit now that Yahoo! has. begun to adver•
tise on Fox and other youth-targeted broadcast venues. Bue the crossover
is only beginning.Fearing duplication of "the cable mistake" when the
big three U.S. TV ne tworks held pat while ESPN, CNN, and Nickelodeon
ate into their market share, many of the largest media conglomerates are
now moving aggressiv ely into the Internet.Wah Disney Co., which owns
41 percent -of the Web company lnfoseck, has announced its intention to
ab'sorb chat established pon;il into a new publicly held, separately traded
company, go.com, that will consolidate all its Interne t interests, including
travel-oriented sites., Disi1ey's mail-order catalo g business, and its various
international ventures such as Brirain's popular Soccer.com sire.1° NBC
has made its own efforts to join the ranks of the superponals by spinning
off its various Internet holdings into a separately traded company. NBC
loternet will absorb both Snap.com and Xoom.com, which command the
ele ve nth· and twelfth-largest audiences in the Unite d States. The ide a, of
CO<!rse, is that, as with the Disney move, the new portal will-cross-pro_ mote
NBC's broadcast wares and he lp build a younger, hipper market niche.11
This digression ioto the vagari es and volatility of the Internet's polici
cal·economy is meant to und ersc ore the unique status of autobiographical
expression on the Internet. I will be focusing on the phen omenon of the
pers onal page, tens of thousands of which hav e be en designed and built
by individua-ls around the world. Disparate as to le vels of technological
expe rtise or design sophistication displa)'ed; devoted to political passions
or personal peccadilloes, these pages, though often deeply personal, are
n ecessarily imbricatcd within an infrastructure of staggering proportion
_
and immense economic si gnificance. This infrastruCcure imposes on every
purve yor of the medium and every signifying instance a profound social
and political valence. lt is my belief that, �s with Marx's earliest formula·
'
tions of the commodiry in the nine te enth century, the forces and relations
of production leave their mark on e ve t y ite.m produced. These personal
Web sites-evanescent, whimsii:al, radical though they may at t i-mes be
depend for their existence on the high-combustion engine of-capital for·
mation that is the Internet in the late 1990s. What follows will, I hop e,
demo,istrate the richly c omplicated character 6f personal e_ xpression and
entrepreneurialism that thes e personal pages.entail.
I have suggested that autobiographical \Ve b s ites exist in a very mixed
economy.Take, for example, the existence of hybrids such as Pe opl e C _ hase
(http://www.rainfrog.com/pc/}, a \Veb ring that doubles as a \Ve b site
234 TK E £ NO or AUTOlllOGa APHT

a wa rd for persona l home pages and other n on commercia l sites dee med
out s tanding i n c ontent and d e sign. Peo ple Chase , home to and sponsor
of numerous autobi o gr aphica l si,es, was founded a nd c ontinues to b e ad
-ininis1ered by a single individual with the support of volunte�rs. Bu·r sites
' and- r ings and ponals interweave w_ith one another; a Peo pl e Chase or
GeoCities site c an be acce s se d through Yahi,o ! ·
Jacques Lac an described all signification through recours e ro a com
pl ex to pol ogic aI metaphor, borrowed no doubt fr om th e na cura l sciences,
that of a multileveled signif. ying ch ain i n · which a ne cklace composed of
many rings · was it self, a, a nother le vel, but one ring of a larger recklace .12
The Internet has i mmeasurably complica.ted thi s notion of th e sig nifyi-n g
chai n with its al,e ady i1)terlocking, multidimensi onaJ grid s of meaning.
io the play of 1be lingui stic -signifier; a lready mind-bogglingly·c omplex,
mus t now be ad de d the snowballing · e ffec ts of te chnolog_y and ma rker
forces that drive this new language system. The Internet is a nec kl ace of a
higher order of c om ple_xity thari natural language, a topo s of rings, nets,
and webs. ,
The. lntetnet is al so; as we have seell, a media enviro. 1ull ent in whiCh
megacorporations co exist with Mom and Po p and a handful of v olu ntee rs,
.
a domain in which some playe�s a rc creati ng mass ive wealth whil e oth .•.
ers are carving out smaH;alternativc ·spaces. David E. Ja· mes has written •f'
.
inci sively of the small victories of alternative c ultural forms, those mod es
of nearly. autonom o�s cultural productio n that exist just be yond the reach
of capitali st c ulture i n the . rea lms of literature, film, and·musi c.Wh
. eeh er
garage .ba nds, a· mateur por nography, or zin es, the se cultural forms, pe
ripheral though they may be, can achieve a me a sure ofa ,itonomy and .
rel ative ly free circula tion, mobilizing values.o ther than those curr ent in '.
mains trea m culture. 13 in the nineteenth century,.Marx d. e scribed the ways .,
in whic h residua l or emerge nt forms of materi al production could coexist
with d om inant modes; cultural hegemonx is porous. But irrthe case of
the internee, at least co· date, no!lcommoclity forms don't just coexist with,
buc ar e deeply enmeshed withi n, the most high-powered sector o f venture
capita l. It is as if the theater premi ering the l ate st episode of the Star Wars
saga were also to show my bome movies.
But it is not si mply a ma tter of ar tis anal sites squatti n g within the ·
precinct s of high-powe red corpora te cultu re. Small- scale entrepreneurial
ism has al so invad ed che_d omain of Web-based autobiogr aphical discoucs e
in the form of numerous-sites devoted to selling con stuner s "how-co'·' auto
biography kics. The "Memories & Reflections" Autobiography Kit (http:1/
www.persona lprofiles.org/mem.htm) is a product offer ed by Per sonal
Profiles, a company billi ng itself a s au "expert in preserving the memorie s
,
THE tNO O f' AUTOIIIO(HIAPHY 205

of a lifetime." For $49.95, the buyer receive s a kit designe d to inspire the
"do -it-yoursclfer" to preserve he r fam ily hi story, memories, and experi
ence for future generation s. Milli Brown, the founder of Pe rs onal Profiles
a od, a ccording to the sit e, a "renowned family biographe r," explain s
th at th e busine ss w as created to mak e family history-taking fun, eas y,
a nd afford able. The Cyberscribes site (http://www.ellipys.com/cyb e r/
cb5_0.htm l) offers one-stop shopping for prospective Web writers
journalists, interactive storytellers, and autobiographers. Two volum e s of
helpfu I tips -are ava ilable from Ellipsys International,Publications, Inc.,
of San Diego at $24.95 ea ch. The b ook's ethos can be intuite d from an
excerpt from chapter 5 of Cyberscribes r: The NewJournalists devoted
to "Writing the Story of Your Life": "Define an d design your self as if
you a rc a product to be sold." MY BIO (http://www.erols.com/mybio/),
· a $14.95 offer, pro.vides a blueprint for writing one's life story, c ompl e
with clues for triggering memories to "enhance the episodes you are cap
turing on paper." For $89.95, the c o·mpany, based in Richmond,
will ship you a MY BIO gift box set in a pro ·tective wea therproof
MY STORY (http://my storywriter.com/home.htm) promi ses a
autobiography writer system for $r9.95. Unlike the print-ba sed Persona
Profiles, Cyberscrib es, and MY BIO pr()ducts, MY STORY is an "easy
use" but innovative software system that will help you "describe who
really are in your own wor4s." Reluctant customers are reminded that
one like you has ever been, you and your life are unique." The
of such c ommercial "how-to� autobiography sites sugge sts that the cultur
.
of autobi ography, far from being extingu i shed, h as in fac t proliferat
percola ting down to the level of popular commercial culture. This i s
one manife stati on of tha t "tremendous shattering of tra dition" of
Benjamin
Alternative ct,1lrura l producer s, those relatively autonomous auto
biograph ers of the Web, exist a longside the autobiography pitch m en. The
va riability of the scal e, technic al expertise, and content on display in · tliese
autobiographical per sonal pages i s a stounding; their tonalities range from
the home spun to the whimsica l, from the lyrical to the rnordanr. Grandma
$u e' s Place (http://www.northwinds.net}susanna/default.htm) i s the \Veb
home of Susan Anderson: Pr()ud Grandma, Quilter, Engineer, Breast Ca n
cer Survivor. Tha r li st of a ttributes pretty we ll sum s up the diversity to be
found within a nd acro ss the se sites. The brea s t cancer survivor thread o f
the discourse describes Anderson's experience of brea st cancer: early de
tection via mammogram, mastectomy, chemotherapy treatments, activism
in a local breast cancer support group in b.er Minne sot a community. This
narrative of disease and he aling recurs in many autobiographica l sites, the
... THt tNO or AOTO.I OGllAPHY

pages offering testimony to su rvival and the strength aff orded by commu
nity during the process of recovery.
Of cou rs e, the Internet has itself helped to redefin e th e me a ning
of therapeu tic comm unities. Steve's Crohn's Page-My Story (http://
home.swbell.nct/forc e/mystory.huu) tells of the chall enge s experienced by
Stephe n Bea u champs (>f Da ll as, Texa s, a forty-seven-year old man living
with Crohn's disease, a debilitating illne ss that has nec essit>1ted long peri
od s of hospitalization, multiple su rgerie s, _and recurrent post- op setbacks.
C ons tantly updated, filled with d etail s of the latest flar e-up s , stru ggles ·
with me dications , and a d eep appre ciation for his physicians, Ste ve's
Crohn's Page links to myriad other pages on Crohn's di se ase, incl uding
medical information sires, a contact ce�u�r for e-mail networking, and
other personal page s author ed by fellow Crohn' s patients.
I have· sa ved my personal favor ite for last; a site au thored by Amy
Miller Gray (http://hom e .fuse .net/bailiwick/), a thirty-something f ormer
journalist and single mother who is, co my mind, among the most compel
ling of Net au tobiograph ers . l have taken the legend sprawled ac ross her
h ome page as the ideal alte rnaiive title for my own disc us sion: "everythin g ·,
you never knew you'd know about someone you'll probably never meet."
Now thi s des cripti on seem s appropriate to the work Qf most au tobi o g
raphers, literary and cinematic, whdse audiencCs exccC .d their circle of ·-
· family and friends. Bu t it is tbjs s ense of the "everything" that rea lly sets
the a ut o -Wcbographer apart fr om her precurs ors in print and ce llu loid.
Here it is neces sary to sa y a few word s about the qu ite different discursiv) ,.,
ty found on the Web. If th e comm odity stat us of Internet a utobi ography i s
a mixed- one, the sa me e>1n be said for its disc�rsivity, in which the lit erary
i s not so mu ch bani shed as red uced to one of many av ail abl e tools. ,.
Strange to s ay, given literary a utobiography's death n otice ii l a Br uss,
but the p er so nal Web page phenomenon has forcef ully reintroduced . the
writcrly into the sph ere of self-representati(m. This sh ould come as no .
shock; it is n ever the ca se that one media form merely cancels out another.
As Caroly n Marvin has noted: "New practices do not so mu ch fl ow
directly fr om technologie s that in spire them a s they a re impr ovised out
of old practices that no longer work in new ;e ttings."14 It t u rn s o u t that
writing, as well as photography, film, vid eo,·an d the digital art s, provides
some of the b uilding bl ock s for persona l Web page s, which arc decidedly
composite products. lod eed, it might b e more accurate to sa)'. that the
Internet ha s ab sorbed rathe r than di splaced prior representational f orms
in a medi a s etting that emphasizes speed of transmission and b readth of
accessibility. And here the examination of di scu rsi ve conditi ons bec omes
equ ally a matter of ideological analysis.
THE &NO OF AUTOIIOCR APtfT 237

Without question, the autobi ographic al Web page r esponds to the
demands for speed and accessibility as n o ante cedent form bas. But sp eed
and acc essibility are not, in and of themse lves, to be misre cogniz ed as
absolute goods, though they may b e gre eted as suc h in the marketplace .
These would be the space -binding properties crucial to media imp erial
ism ab out which James W . Carey has written s o eloquently. At le ast sinc e
the advent of th e clipper ship, telegraphy, and now the Internet, spe ed of
transmis sion has provided a crucial underpinning for power, for the e x -
pansion of empire, and for the acc umulation of personal we-alth. This is
what economic historian Harold A. Innis meant when he argued that the
sp atial bias of modern communication bad been aggressively exploited
a t the expense of the temporal dim ension through which forms of c om
munkation can provide a container for enduring human interaction and
the affirmati o n of valu es.IS I would propose cwo perhaps counterv ailing
properti es of the Internet as determined by its (im)material characte r and
mode of consumpti on, that is, its ephcmerality and the unpredictability of
its reception.
First, regarding the matter of its ephemerality, I would argue that
the personal \Veb page is a _species of auto biographical discourse that has
sacrifi ced its object statu�. Ins tead of a b ook o r tape to be collec ted (or
fecishize d), the Web page tends to be retained only as a bookmark with- .
out guarantee; clicking on it may return one to the site as it once existed.
h bears a ce rtain res emblanc e to performance art. Of c ourse, on e c ould
download any numbe r of screens from the site, that is, create an object,
but only at che expe ns e of the inte ractive, present-tense character that de
fines it. As regards. reception;it is possibl e to count hits on sites as a way
to quantify spectatorship, but it is far mor e difficult to measure the depth
of the e nc ounter. Many Web author s, Amy Mill e r Gray among them,
maintain gu est bo oks that allow users to share the ir .r esponses, which
c�n be quite wide -ranging. It is worth noting, howeve(, that the common
metaphors for Inte rnet use emphasize the casual and the te mpora ry
"surfinf, 3.nd �'cru ising." F or thi s mcdia·form, speed of t ransmjssion an.d
breadth of accessibility see m to be purchased at the price of permanence
and depth. The spatial bias describe d by.Innis seems to dominate.
· Bijt th e example of Amy Miller Gray's Web site reminds us that depth
can be measured in a different �ay, as discursive density, .the extent to.
which the site become s a table of discrete, sometimes overlapping, some
times contradictory, signifying chains. · Philippe Lej eune has written of the
"autobi ographical pact," which is the unspoken c· o mpact that binds read·
ers and writers of autobiographical discpurse. Autobi ography is a form of
personal writing that is referential (that is, imbued with history), mainly
... THI! 1:JfD O f AUT0810C RAPHl'

retrospective {though the temporality of the telling may be quite com
plex), and in which the author, the narracor, and the protagonist are identi
cal.16 Gray stretches the terms of the autobiogcaphical pact co its limits,
promising us not just knowledge of the author but a surprising, totalizing
knowledge ("everything you never knew you would know about someone
you will probably never meet"). It is the links to diverse pages provided
on Gray's home page chat attempt to deliver the "everything." We can, for
example, gaze upon but not read many of Amy's journals, begun when
she was eleven years old (http://home.fuse.netlbailiwick/journal.htm). She
scans in a page or two to give us the look and texture of the weiring; an
early entry is about first menstrual periods and assorted heartthrobs.
Instead ,,f offeringto our view the journal pages themselves (we're
told Gray has, over the years, filled up several thick volumes), we're
given instead something like a history of Amy's diaristic practice, a meta
discourse on the virtues of personal writing and, a familiar autobiographi
cal trope, the revelation of her diary as the source and proving ground
of her wciterly vocation. There is both modesty ("No, I won't put my
personal journal online. Seriously, I think you'd be bored by it") and se)f.
aHirmation: "I received an e-mail in response to this web site telling me
Amy Miller Gray's personal Web site traces her aurobioi;raphical habit to child
hood diaries. Rcprint<-d with permission of Amy Miller Gray.
THC 1:110 OF AUTOllOGaA PH Y 239

retrospective {though the remporality of the telling may be quite com
plex), and in which the author, the narrator, and the protagonist are identi
cal.16 Gray stretches the terms of the autobiographical pact to its limits,
promising us not just knowledge of the author but a surprising, totalizing
knowledge ("everything you never knew you would know about someone
you will probably never meet"). lt is the links to diverse pages provided
on Cray's home page that attempt to deliver the "everything." We can, for
example, gaze upon but not read many of Amy's journals, begun when
she was eleven years old (http://home.fuse.ner/bailiwick/journal.htm). She
scans in a page or two to give us the look and texture of the writing; an
early entry is about first menstrual periods and assorted heartthrobs.
Instead of offering to our view the journal pages themselves (we're
told Gray has, over the years, filled up several thick volumes), we're
given instead something like a his1ory of Amy's diaristic practice, a meta
discourse on rhe virtues of personal wri1ing and, a familiar autobiographi
cal 1ropc, the revelation of her diary as the source and proving ground
of her writerly vocation. There is both modesty("No, I won't put my
personal journal online. Seriously, I think you'd be bored by it") and self
affirmation: "I received an e-mail in response to this web site celling me
Amy Miller Gray's personal Web site traces her autobiographical habit to child
hood diaries. Reprinted with permission of Amy Miller Gray.
T HE END or AUTOIIOCRAPHT is,

These stray missives were left behind by people who, I guess, didn 'J c�u-t
chat others re�d them. So I di d. And I saVed them. Each one is a little glimpse
into some st.ranger's life and I have fol.Jnd them fascinating. I keep then:i in a
file, righc 11ex\ to my taxe� and ,insurance forins..
..
,. .
· Various. ar tifacts ar e di splayed on the page,· along with a faithf ul
::
transcription o(the written �ontents, some amc)unr Of autbori�l·coni .
ruentary, and a teference to tl:ie scrap's preciSe lo<:ation at the mo1nent of
its iliscovery. 1.ncluded a re a chiM' s drawing lef t behind at a bu·s stop i n .
downtown Cincinnati, a tr�ddcn-upon sheet of paper fou rid two blocks
west ofthe entrance to the Unive r sity of Arizona, a nd a love lette r plucked
from the streer·outside Amy's dentist's office. These items a re charged
with the power of the chance e ncounter·once ably exploited by· m()dernists
.such as Stephane' Mallanne, Kutt Schwit!ers, and John Cage. But they are ·
· also s(gnp<)sts of anoti,er sort, ·mapping as they do the author 's own inoer
landscape of fa scination. Each of these random o bjects b ecomes a· relay
point foe a shared idencificarion., a momen_t of comniu11ioo with Gray,
th e curator of this strange show. In the allthor's hands, th_e se fragments
become profound instruments of autobiography. The page effects the ex-
. tension of the·horizon of autobiographica l discourse to inffnity, since it is
no longer just what the author does or thinks that matters. \Vhat counts is ;
also the measur e of her d esir e, which is , after all, o f the ord e r of the driv e, '
,..'
not the object. With he r "Things I Find on the Ground" page, Gray. shows
us why autobiography bas no end, only mate rial limits that . the Intern et
proves capable of reworking a. nd extending ad infinitu m. Finally, the site
may not tell us �ve r ything about Amy, b1it it does tell us a great deal abo ut
'
·. · · ;autobiography · , .
But I now want to_ expiore anothe r dimension of Gray's autobi ographi .
cal practice in re la tion to an accomplished piece of video art. Gray' s
. "Things I Find on the Ground" page bears a st riking r esemblance to Jem
€ohen's brilliant work Lost Book Found (1996), in which a lost-not ebook
filled with a se lection of apparent e phemera-addre sses, times of day, lists
of things-i s regard:Cd as a now-irretrievable ipte r pretiv e compass for the
urban narra.tor. I wanr°to suggest some of the resonances between the two
works as a wa y to explore hc,w conte mpora ry autobiographical discourse s
of dive rse sorts can . shar e commo n structural a nd episte mological ground.
From the outset, I should say that Cohen' s film/video composite may
be autobiography only indirectly. The narrating voic e is not Cohen's, it
turns out, but this is in itself trivial. Does not the use of another's voic e
a nd narrational p re se nc e only make Sans soleii a more acutely auto
biographical wor\<, Markerian through and through? We are told that
THt CND OJ· AUTOaJOCllAP HY 241
'
ch e "!" of Lost Book's celling had, upon arriviog in New York te� years
earlier, bee n employed for a time as a pu s hcart vendor and had briefly
po ssessed a notebook whose seemingly randorii contents may have been
a code , a key to the understanding of an invisible order through which the
welter of "things" might at last make sense. The book is almost certainly
the artist's conceit (and here r would return once more co Marker's epis-·
rotary conce its in Letter from Siberill or SllnS solei/ by way° of reference).
The book is not an autobiographical fact but a tool, an opporcunicy that
Cohen seizes on to offer up his vision.
It is, in fact, a vision about vision and its �icis.situdes, about how that
which lies beneath the visible world, bey ond the reach of order manmade
and imposed, may in fact provide the foundations for meaning. Of cour se,
' such a statement can be read eithe r as a profound critique of rationaliry
·or as a recipe for psychosis . The tape remains e quivocafon this point, as
art is prone to do. On the on e hand, Cohen's narrator says he knows that
"not everything can be imporrnnc," yec he is haunte d by the book, which
"stays in his head like a_ song I didn't know I kne w and parts of the book
come back in flashes, bits and pieces.• What is crucial is that the book ha s
inspired the narrator to inspect the world with newfound care and open
ness . His experie nce as a pushcart vendor had begun the ptoce.ss, for he
found that just as h e had begun to become invisible to others., he began
to see thing s that bad once been invisible to him. As vi ewers and auditors
of this neth,erworld, we are invited to share that transformative spectator
position.
The book is perhaps a relic of internalized ·faith. It offers a reply to
a nihilism that seems endorsed by Cohen's immcrsive technique: we are
thrown into a world of discount stores and arcades, whrrling detritus and
peeling signage. Alternating sil ence and direct sound, Cohi,n rhak� his
way thr(>ugh the urban obj ect-world in clo se-up, his postpr<'>duction e f
fect., producing a stuttering glissando effect. Immersed i n a ragged pos t�
modernity in which, as the narrator says, there is no longer any weather
and in which "the . seasons are mark ed by diffe rent kinds of sales,"
. it
would be easy for us too to l ose our way. And ye t the book returns as
a fragmenta r y and atavistic hope for epistemological _re demption.
Little wonder that Lost Book Found is dedicated to Walter Benjamin
whose own profound ambivalence for the future provided this chapter's
point of departure-Benjamin, a man whose greatest ambition was to
produce a work consisting entirely of quotations, a man for whom the
size of an obj cCt was in inverse ratio co its significance, and for whom
metaphor poetically brought about the oneness of the world.17 By turns
agnos tic and messianic, Lost Book Found effects a vision that embraces
242 THC tlfD Of AUT08IOGll.,.PHY

_the fragmentary, th e minia turized, and the meta phori cal, ooe that might
we ll ha ve pleased Benjamin. But it i s also a w . ork that, lik e Amy Mille r .
Gray's "Things I Find on the Ground" page, is cut to th e measure of the
.
artist's desire, a desire that entails both epistemology an d . ethi cs. Des pite
some important diffe re nces'(in the melancholic Lost Book Found, the
book's hermeneutic . power may arrive too late, whereas A�y Mill e r Gray
seems to suggest it's never too late to wrench the mea ning from things,
even or especiaJly.. rand om things), there is strong structural congru enc e
between the two pieces. The fr agment is Valorized, its horizon a nd pos·
sibilities u' ncontainabl e . The two anisis (one well esteeme d, the othe r
unknown) share a moral compass. How are we to determine wha t matters
in the world? Both· ask us to look down on the ground, to r�gard wh at is
hidd,en or discarded with n ewfound care, Is it difficult to im agine that th e
s�me openness of vision accorded to things may lea d to new possibiliti es·
for. human encount . e r? And through. this revelation of ethic al vision, the
artists' self-understanding is als o illumined.
I have only be gun to sugges t what is at stake in the appearance o f .,.
autobiographical Web sites , the personal pages that litter the Internet. I
h:ive argued that this new sit. e . of (im)material production has be gun to
transform the cultu(e of autobiography, situated as it is at th e intersecti on
of artisa nal practi ce and explosive capital formation. I have also made
some claims for th e unique discursivity of the autobiogra phical \Ve b s ite,
arguin·g for th e depth a od · brea dth of the �elf-presenta tional potential it
offers. FinaII�, I hav e sugges ted some important resonances betwee n one
· exemplary pe rsonal Web site and a celebrated work of videographi c auto ..
biography. In th e ag e of the Internet, I don't believe that autobiogcapby is. ·,
. '
on the brink of. extinction. Unrecognizable to some, disdained by many,
practiced by thousands, it has been reborn.
'
., ·
THt EJID or AUTOIIOCJIA PHY ...

Oigitiied by Original from
HARVARD UNIVERSITY · HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Notes
-·
.'
. ..
Swveying t.ho Subject ·
I. Phillppe l.ejcµne.'"fhe.Aµtobiogrophico.lPoet:· io On Aujobfography. trans. Ko thc.rino Lea:ry
(Mi,nneopolis: UniYerslly of Minnc.llQto .Press. 1989). 3-30. .. .
2. $98 chapt e r 6 of this book, Ibo Subject in Hist or y: The New Auto biography in Film. a nd·. .
Video .u·
, 3 . Sldonie Srtlllh a nd Julio Watson.De/CoJonb:ing tl 14; Subject; Tb e Politi cs of Gende, ih Women's ·
Autobiogrophy (Minn eo.polis : UnlvefsJty ol Mi nn850kl Press, l992}. xvi.it tn t.hL-. n,'Qord. it is
worth noting that one of the media da rlings ol the 1990s wos Sadle Benning, o Milwotitee teen
. agerwhose diar y tapes. mode in her bedroomu sing a Fisher-Pr�� Pixclvi.&ion camer a . earned
.her the status o f o utlowprino8ss .
4. Eliza.bethW .Brun. WEye for I: Mo.king and Urunoldng Autobiography in f'ilm," I�AU1obiogro•
phy: l:mrs'The01eticol and.Critical. e d Jome!'i.Ol
. n�ey (Princeton: Princecon Univer.;ity Prci.s .
1980).29 6 9-7. For o more extended di:;c�i oo olBr.u ss's position, see chapter IS • ..TM Cod of
Au,tobiogr«l)h y or NewBeginnings? (or .Everything You Never Knew You Would K� about
Someo ne You WlU Probobly Ne�r Meen. · ·
S . J erome Brunet, "The Avtobio;g-rapbical Proce-ss," in Ttie Cultu re oJ_Aurobfogropby : Construciiol1$
of Sell-Repiesent(ftjon.ed.Roben Folke nflik {Stcmfo rd: $1anford Univrus.ityPr ess, 1993}. 55.
6. Neal Gobler. ··foCu.sing on Onese ll in th� ·EPQCh oJ Ego;#LosAngeks .. Times. ?. Jon\lo:r y 2000.
Ml•2,
7. Thefollowing ls but o shor t 1iisl of the books that I have fo und mo!SI w.Gful in char ting the ebb
olld Dow of debotc <.nound the su bject i.n the eohtext of th e wto.biog:rophlcol proje<:1:Au.ro
blography: tl;S<JY$.'.fheoretical and CnticoJ.. ed,.Jo me,; Olne y (Princeton:Prlnceton Un i vc:m.ity
Prc;i;.. 1980): Po-uJ Smith. Disce�t1iagd 1 0Sub;ecf (Minneo:polis: Un.ive,S.ity of Mi� n8&0ta Press.
1988): Philippe Lejeu.ne; On }\u tobiography (Minneap olis: Unive.rsity of Mi nn esot9 P'JeSs."rss9):
DelC,olollUJ ng the'�ubi<-'Ct: The Politics ofGenderIn Women'.$ A,utobior,raphy, ed. Sidonle Smith
a nd Julio Wat$0n (Minneapolis: Unive rsity of Minneooto Pr8&S, )992): Tbe Cul1ure o1 Autol)jog.
mphy: Constr�tions of Se l lR - epresenlotiQn, <HJ. Robet1 Follcenllik (Stanford: 'Slo:n lord Univer
::;ity Pres&. 1993); Th e Po/mes
0 of lhc &$0}': J'emfoisrPefBPeCrJves, e d .Ruth•£Uen Boetcher Joeres
o:nd Eli2:abelh Mittman (B loomington : I ndiana Universll'y Pr�. ,1993); Su�ng theSubject,
.
e d Joan Copjec (Lond,on ; Verso,!994): Elbo.be th Gros:i:, Vobtile bodies; Toward aCorporeal
Fentirli$m {Bloomington: lndiqn,a Univetl!,ity Prc::;s. 1994); Ge rd nga Lile: Eve,·yday Ut,c:s ofJl.uto
biogrc,phy. ed. Sidonie Smith and Julia Wat&0n <Minnea polis: Universit y of Mjn nesoto· Press.
1996). I cannot fall to add tha t tbe writing-So l Mlchel de MonlOa!)llo. Roland 8ar the.s. Charles
Ta}'lor. Zygmunt Bo uman . o:ndEmma nu el tevl oos havo l»e·,; extremely influe'°nUal ln the to,..
mot oi n of my own sense of the au lobOgroph ·
· i i co) subj&ct.
8. Goorges Gu.sdorf."CondiliOM ond Limits of Autobiography.� in Autobiog1<rphy:Es.says Tbeo
r-edcaland Ctl tfcol, ed.Jomes Oln ey (Princeto n: Pr�ce«on Univor.;.ityPres s. 19130), 2 9 .
9 . ArlieRussell Hochschild. '
�Coming.
of AUe.Seeking on rd ontity,"New Yotk nmes.. 8 Mo 1eh ?.000,
·Dl.10.
10. F'or lur ther discussion on 1h11; poi.nt. see Dione Wold.man andJanel· Walker, oc;i$., Fe·minism and
Documentary<Mlnneopolis: Uni'Versity of Minne sota Pr� 1999). particularly W aldman and
Walker's important introductor y euc;i y . 1-3S.
...
HARVARD.UNIVERSITY HARVARD UNIVERSITY
11. Mich elFouoou.lt, "The Subject ond Power," in Art aJtwModernism:llethink-ing Ropr<:senlOUon.
ed . Brion Wollis (N ew York : New Museum of Contemporary An. 1984), 420.
12. D ori& Sommer, ... Not }\l!'it (I Personal St ot y:' W o men's Te.stJmonios: ond the Plural Sell .. in
Ute/Lines: Theoti.iing Wome n s' Autobiogrophy, c:..-d.B ello Bl'oc;hki ond Ce�ste Schenck Uthooa..
N .Y.: Corne ll Univ ersity Pres1:>.1988). 111.
13. Bill Nichols.ReptesenttngReality (Bloomington: Indiana Univ ersity Press. 1991). 1?9. In hls
,;u booqu en t boolc. Blurred Bou n dc n ics (B loomlngton: (ndiana Unlver sity P ress, 1994), N ichols
off ers on alt ered ond �xponded acc ount of th e role of subjectivityU) docwnentary filmmo.king.
Indeed. he suggeststhat o fifth mode ol doc\lm entory exJ)Ol;ition -t he perlormative-mu st now
be added to the fou r ·pa:rt typology desc ribed in Repr esentmg Real#y. ("Thing$ change. The
lout modes of documentar y produc tiOn that pre s ented themselve s os an ex.houstive $ul'\'ey of
the field no lo nge r i;ullic e· (93),l fo r unlik e tl'wf clossk:ol styles of documentary fUmmoking de
velo p ed over seventy yoor$-lhe expos itory, oboo rvalionol. in to roclive, and reflexive mode,;
lhe perfonnative mode stre sses · $· ubjective a spects of o cla,;sico.lly ob;ective dis course" (95).
Niehols' s account hl.sto ricizes thig,t ut n to subjectivity in the documentaryp1 o ctices of the 1980 s
o nd 1990$. :;ugge�ling th1s mode of performance o nd sell•in terrogatio n as the late:..t and most
nocable documentar ytrend.
· 14. While Mqn with a Movie Camera was a product of the :..OOn t ero ond :,.hould by rights be limited
to the vis ual rather than auditocy r"egi.!rter, Ver tov does mona ge to mimo oudiHon l n his 1929
lilm th, ough th e i.mogi.n g o f listening pow$. Si.nee one of Venov·s earliest cre o tivo c;ffotts was
o Laborat ory o l Hoor i ng , th.is otten tiven es& to sovn d can cornco.s no surprise.
IS. Joris Ivens, Th e Camero and !.(New York: lnter n«tion al Publi$hcn:,., 1969). 32.
16. Ibid.. so.
17. Ibid . 8 8 .
18. Althou g h lv4;m.i(s move toward a politicized proctice is an importa nt historicol lootnotc ond
helps t o exploin doc\lmcntaty lllmmating's styli stic i;hilt s fro m the 1920s to the 19301:,. it i!;
equally Impor tant to recall Pudovkin's o.llus io n to "ten&ion ond emotion.· Hl s comm ent s ,;ug·
gcst thot the creo1ion o l arg ume nt ,; on film and the documentation ot 'W011d�hi s-1ork:ol evel'lts.
vital rol<,-:i; lot non liCUon to play, suff er withou t the personal and passionate engogcmenl of the
rooker.
19. Hoe.hschUd."Coming ot Age.' 'DI.
20. Thi& period of documentary tilmmo.ki ng in Amt::t'iCO Is examined with much clorily by Willlom
Ale xande r i.n hi!; Film on rhe ieJr: Am erlcon 'Documen taryFilm from lS3J to J942 (Princeto n:
Prlnceton univer,;ity Pre !;$. 198)).
21. For thi deiln.itive account ot 'gu�nillo 1efevlslon's genesisand re in von. tiOn , see Deirdre Boyle,
Sv.l.>j(l(;I to Chonge: GuerrlUa Te levisionRcvi�ired (N ewYo rk: Oxford University Press, 199?).
22. N ewsreel hos in foci s-utvtved in much-oltered fo1 m . It$ twin lnocnnations are CoUfornio News ·
reel. a Son FronciSC<>mbased collective devoted. primarily to the d..lstrlbutio n ol lilms on divOr$e
soe.iol topics, ond Third World New sre el U) NewY or k. a �oding $0Uteit:of person al films by
people Of color.
23. Ste phe n Mo mOO,: Cinema Verlre fo Amer ioo: Studies in Uncoottolled Documenta1y (Cornbltdge:
MIT Press . l974), 2.
· 241. Cited in Charles Taylor. "F'ocu 3 on Al Moysles," in The Documentory Trodmon: Ftom Nanook to
·woooi;tock. ed. Lewis Jac obs (New Yo rk: HQpki n$onand Bloke, 1971). <101.
25. Brian Win sto.:.. "The Documen tary Film o ,; Scientific l�ption," in Theori:si ng Doeurn entaty,
e d . Michae l Renov (NewY or1c Routledge, 1993). 37-S/ .
26. The most su stained En g li!Sh·longuag e ue-atment of Rouch <J:!S- fihn m oker ls Mick Eoton's
A n ll11opology/.Cinemo/Reality: The Filrns o!/,eon Rouch (Londo n; BFI. 19?9). See al9o Poul
Stoller. Tho Ci n emalcl Crlot The Ethnography ol Jeon Rouch (Chic:ogo : Univo,'Sity of Ch.icag o
Press. 1992).
Zl . See. tn pani'culor. Bill Nic:hol3."Embodied Knowledge and tho Politic s of Locotk>n:An Evoco•
lion.#i.n Blurred Boundaries. 1 1- 6 .
28. The narrotin9 voiocs- i.n Chris Marker's films are typ ic;oll y performed by $UllO!JOIO$ o nd, despit e
their frequently dia ris-1iC/con f�i onol charact er.a:re'equivocol expressions of Mo:rke rion $\lb�
jcctivity. Somellmes the vocal pre sen �o is even female. as is 1hc oosi& with Alexa nd ro St e worfs
n ancrti o n in tho Eng li:sb long uo g e version ofSc;ms $0leil 0982).Of cour se. "Chris Mo.r\ef'' ls
·
it self o nom de ph.unc; no fihnmoke r hos veiled his inter ior' ify with g reat er ponoch9;
29, No d.i�cUS'.Sio n o f documentary voi�c�ove,-con fail to me ntion Luis Bulluel's Las Hurdes (1932),
who&G no no-lionol voice-'.-o ver hosperplex ed. t:nro ged, and enter tained oudience's since the
fil ms' initiol rel eo,;c.·some ctitl.cs hove laud ed BW'lool',; purportedly sUITeo:Li.51 oge-ndo. while
others.. including the Fro noo govommen t, hav e sim ply banned the Jilin: it is either a gros s ly in•
i.ens itiv-0 tn,ottnenl ol ,the impoverished Hurdoi\0$ of oentral Spain oc o veiled but 90\IOge attack
on the indilie nmc::,o oJchutch and state to . the d.i.&enhonchi$ed. No mott8f how it i$ 1e(ld, lhc fil tos'
246 MOTtli TO IMTAO DUCTI ON

voico� over ( m oot vers ion.$ (eo two o coolly d etached mole voic e dekribing the honors of th e
vlllog cn;' doil y, life) is a brilliant. if som ewhot opaque, vehicle of B\.ltiu�lio:n s ub;ectivity.
30. Ellzo.beth COWM. "TheSp ectacl e of Actuality,.. i n CoJJ(lf;ting Visible Evidence. e d .Jane M . ,
Goines andMichael Renov (Min neapolis: Un iV9J'$ity ol Mi nnesot a Press. 1999), 19 -45.
31. lbKl. . 25.
32. No!l Corr'oll "' Nonliction fil m ond P0$1modGmist SkepCicis m.�i l'l Post-1hoory: Rccot1$frti<:>ting
fl/tn �tudics. ed. Dovid 8«dweU ond N081 Car roll (Mod.iion: Univer;ity ofWiscoo.sin Preu.
1996). 293.
3 3 . Oziga VertOY, Kino•Eye:The WrWngs o l Dx.igo V o,tov. ed. A nnette Michelson. trans: Kevin
O'Brie n (B-erkeley: Uo.Jvers.il yol Colifornio Pr oss . 1984). 1 7 -18. ·
3 4 . Nidiols ; RepresentillgR<.10Ji� 156.
1. EorlyN ewsreel ·'
I. Miche l Fouocrult. Powet/Krlowledgc: &Jlcctod lnterviews and Qther Wrmngs-. 1912 �19?? (New
York: Pantheon Book$.198.' 0 ) .96-�.· . ' ..
2·. ·Mich el fOUCXl\.llt. Tb!J Archaeologyol Knowledge (New York: HClrwr ond Ro w, 1972). 12.
3 . Roym on dWillia'ms,Monism and Literature (Oxf01d: Oxf ord Univers ity P res s. 1977),114.
4. lbid•• 112.
5 . Tbe Sirtles without Apol0gy, ed. SohnY<J Sa�r s . 'An dera Ste phonsoa, Stanle y Aronowi tz . ond
f'redr1C Jome$0n (Min noopolis; University of Minnesota P ress, l984}. ,,
6 . With it,; two ntjet h onnM'trso:ry fast appro a ching (Decellibc.'1 198?}, t./GW,;reel. des pite ifs many
tron sfOftl]otions of p olitk'O.l strateg y and peis.on nol. ho,; rcmci:ined o f:ixtwe ot th e left.wing..film
community s ipce its begin n ing�. Thep recl$C iti nerary and various inca:motions of New$reel
tem ai n the subk!ct for' fur1h c;r inqWr y: o1 pr868nt. two functionin g en!lttes carry.on th e politioal .,
o.cllvlsin of the f01.Jn di ng mome nt CaliJornia Newsreel produce$ ond dil1l ri b1,1t$$ lUm s abou.t .,,
wo1 k andthe cha nging cha racter of th e wortploce (ind1.1ding itsownControl/fogJnterest (19?8)
ond TbeBusiness ofAmerica (1984]},in oddi1i on to odm.ini.s tering the So utbem Afr lceiMedlo
.,
Ce nter. featuring the wo,ld'$ lorgc$1oolJ Gci:ion ol lilms on apar thekl.Despite Its h.i.s.1ory of privi,
leging dlstr ibulio n over piod1,1ction. Co l Newsreel hos begun developing on ombitio1,1s n ew
ptojeet -cm c;.xten ded c ritique of media within U.S. society--i ntond.cd for public·broadcast.
Thi rd World Newsreel is a c ollective thut hos focused on producin g films 1hot ·giY&-VOice to the , ... .
voiC'8leas.· Since the e arly 1970$. th e leod en;.hip of Third Wodcl Ne wsreel hos been provided by
.filnunokers of color (m0$1ly wome n),wh ose work . has off ere d representations of 1be 3tr uggle$
of the explQilcd ond th e m arginalized (balle r e d women, Chtoese gorrnent •d $tric t wor ke rs .
i
Vietn off14}se re fugees. to name onl y o.f ew). More rec ent Thifd World Newsreel projects have '
included a series ol traveling Him exh ibili ong f<:."'(Jl1,1ringthe �rk ofAJrica n. black A m er ican.
and Askin American ei n C.-O:>;ls,(l$-wcU o,; the o r90nii.atio n of th e Min ority Me dlo Deve lopment
Progro� inlend(l.'(I os o com pre hensive stud y of t he· crisls ln med.kl producti on o:mon g minority •.
.,
praclili oncn; in N9w Yori: Stale.
7, At the height o f it s oppositi on ol'J)Oweni i n lhc l(Jt� 1960 s . NcW$1ee l could boo.st offices in New
Yo� Bost on, SanFrancisco, Lo,; An!Jcl es . lxit roit. Chloogo .a nd Atlanta ; ther e wos o d�r ee
of c om munkotion o:nd :;f rong fom.iliol tie s with groups in London , Po:rt s . ond T ok-y o .Nl.).Wsreel s'
lilm vo1,1JI,; con tai n ot least one film sent from Japa n duting the pc:."'(Jk pcr;c,c;t o4 co nfrontation.
whic h h0.& ne ver yet beeritran slated Or' U t le,d.
8. The lmogioory. in its Locon i on usago. is one ol the three e ss en tial orders of th e J>$yi:;h oo.nolytk:
fi eld: tho Rc ol. the Symbolic.the Imaginary.The latter ter'm tef e1:s to o lypo o l oppre bension in
which the S1Jbject c ons tr ucts a false an d ,l n Loeon's system,fou nding unity between self ond
othe r, based o n so me foe10r' ol tese mbl c:mco o r homoomorp� .According 10 Loplonche ond
Po nt olls,. lhe lmogi nary implies" o &Ort of coale scence of the signifie r with th e s igniJio,d," oco).
lapsin g of differ ence in favor of o deceptive lden tlfic aUon.Se e J . Lapl t mcb o ondJ,.B. Pontali s ,
1'h e Lcmguage olPsycho-A n alysts (W.W . Nor1on. 19'13). 210.
9. Herber t Man:use. A n £$$(!y on LibefO'tion {8 oot on: Beacon Press. 1969),53.
· 1 0 . It s hould be added thot all whoktsale labels-the moYemeat. the countere\.llturo. the New Left
o ro conco t enotkins o disporat e elements and te ode.ncics lhcrt th rool en lo sell-de struct at every
l
mo ment. Tb� e te r ms ar e n eces$Of'y b\.lt n o deq1,1qte one s; ea ch requires o cone.lde roble de-,
i
g ree of qu oliticoUo n impo ss ible to offe r here. For a YOluoble discus sion o.n.d clqr�fic ot i on of
th i,; probklm. see Todd Gitlin. Tbe Whole WorJd's Watching: Moss Moc#o in t he Mating and U n ·
makingol the New Leh (B erke ley : Un iversity o fColif 9rn ia Pres s. 1980). 293-96.
11. Rat ) , no. 20(15-28 November 1968): 3,
1 2 . Rat ), no. 2i (3 Oooomber 1 9 6 82Jan\.- lo:ty 1969}: lS.
13, $U$Cln Sontog, "'One Culture and theNew Sen sibilit y,� i n A gainstJnterptetoOon (New York':
Dell 1966), 302.
MOftS TO CHAP Ttll I 247

14. Ro t I, n o . 2 (22 Mo:rcb-4 April 1968): 8 .
IS. Jonas Mekos, Movie}outnal; The Riseof rheNew American Cinemo, 1959-19.11 (New York: Col
UerBooks. 1972),306.
16-. BUI N.tehol9,.Newsreel : fll m o.ndRevoJu Uon (mo�tc1·s lie$L<;,l Univer&ity ol California-Lo:;
Angol�.1972).·13, .
1 7 . N orm Fruc hter . te lephone inter view with a uthor:. 3 Nove mb er 1984. According to Fruchter. o
foun ding member of News.re el pri nts were rout inely re nted to politi¢0l gr01.1ps until they fo ile d
to retum the thild film.Co.Ufom)Q Newi.rc c.J',; present coUeeti on cont oim o m ojo, gop owin g to
the hd $ty d e p a rtu re of on Ir on ion student group ofter the 1978 revolutio«)., wit� NewsrOOl lilm ,;
in tow.
18. Dovid Annst:rong . A Trumpet ro Am:J:;; Alrcrnolive MediaIn Amcri«r (LO$ Angeles: J P . . Tare her.
1981),,375.
19, Film Quarterly 21. no. 2 (win ter 19-68-1969): 16.
20 . 'Mekos.M ovieJo urnal, 306.
21. Rat (29 October-12 Novemb er 196-9): 8.
22, Jone);!';Mt;.k(I:$, "'Mo vie Jou.mot." VJUogoe Voice. 29 febfllol)' 1963. 40,
23. N orm F'ruc ht er. tele phone intCrview with author. 3 N ovember 1984.
24. Ibid.
2. The "B.eo:l"' in Fictio n

l. Bill Nk:hols, Rep1esentJng Reamy:&$ue:;:o:nd Concept$ in Documenta.ry {Bloomin gton.: Indiana
U n ivc1s i ty P u.�. 1991}, 113 -IS.
2. See my ··i ntroductio n: Thq Tr uth obout Non-Fktk>n." in Tbeoriaing Docume n tary. ed . Micha el
Re n ov (New York: Routledge, 199-3). 2-3, 198.
3 . (bid., 3, 10.
4. Deliriu m hos been 1he-ot1.te-d by Julio K.riste vo i n ··J>sy c ho o na 1Jt;i$ a nd tho Poli$,- in The
K.tistevolleoder, ed. To,il r-{o i {New Yor k: ColumbKI University Pr ess. 1986) , as a name for the
process through whi c h discowse gtr oyg from "o pres u.med reol ity."According to Krist e va . oc
ce!'tS10 knowledge or human experi ence is more J){obklm01ic th on usuolly supposed .Why? ..Be
oow;e tOO knowin g Gu.bj ed ls o.Jso a desiring subject. andthe paths of desire ensnorl the paths
ol knowledge., . , W8 normally osGu me the opposite o( delirium to be <lll objective realit y. ob�c
U\#e ly perceptible andobjectively knowo ble . o:; ii the :;pe,oking $ubtect we,e onl y a simple know·
i.ng sub ject. Ye'! we must odrnit that. giv en the �eavoge,of the subje<:t (c;onscious/unoonsdo us)
a nd gml'n 1h01 the subject L<i o.lso o subieci o l desire.perceptualand knowing opprchc.nsi on o(
the orig in al objec i is only a theo rc,-t.iool. olbe il undoubtedly indispensable, hypotbes.is · ·(30'1).
This (ormulotion-pa:r1icularly opplioable t o the problem of the i.nte.rv'tew fonnat. but fun d o
mcn tol to nonlkt1o n discourse generally-raises o serK>u s choUcn go to Nichol.$':; no llon of
• .discursiv e sobriety:
S.: See my "Towo:rd o Poetics of Documentary.- i n T11eo,ixing Docume ntary. e d .Mic hael Renov
(New Yotk: Routledge.1993). 13.
6. The notiOn of the hiSlotko.l · r· eal i.s o probl ematic on e ti e d to debates a rou nd nomin olist
ff
Yer&U8 realist epistomolo giool po,;mon �. Se<t, fo r example . Barry Hindess ond Pou lHir&i's
now-leg endary cr itique o l the noti on ·ol the. .rea r' i n lh ci f Pre ,capJtolist Modes ol Produ ctio n
(l,ond on : Routledge o n dX:egan Puul 1975): -Histor y is no1 a re ol objc,et, on objectptlot to a nd
indep en dent of th ought, i t is on object c onstituted wlthin del init e ideol ogies and di$COOr:;os"
(318). furthe rmore. hist oricol o,,.,.n t,; o,;rcprcs,cnte.d.e�n with a minimum ol duec tor ia) control
ot conscious mediation os in c inema ver itG. o reoomo1ructions embedded with.in a oomplex ot
icleok)gie<r.l determinations ranglng lro m decision s a t the e diti ng bench to the petspeelivol
relations ground in to the lens $y$tern. Mediu m Cool places th e notion oJ th e �,oor in p orticuki.r
crisis. One e xampl e will suffic e QS illustration. I n the mid$t of a con fro nto1ion between polic e
ond demo nstrat ors {the film oontoins a gre at de al ol su ch documc:mtory looto,ge th a t ls lftcor·
porated into the ficti on). o too, 90:; con iG"IC1 is throw n. As- the co:m era s hakes and wobbl8'8
with th e operator's (Wexler's ) has ty retreat. the soundman ·$ w<i:r nin g ls clearly audible: -Look
ou 1. Ho,;kell. it'$ rea l!.. The term ..hls'tor kol reo1··will b e retcti ne d ( o1tho\)Qh under e rosure) to
s�nify prolilmic el,cmcn t:; ex.isling ot11$idc of 01 beyond th e filmmake(s control. Thequotati on
,ncub surrounding the word..rear will thus in di ca te the stotus of the te r m as necessary bu t
inodequ otc.
7 . Jacqu es De rrida.... Fo� - tho A o glishWord:; ol Nicolos Abra.horn andM oria 'fo rok:· tra ns..
BorboroJohn s on. foreword to TheWollMan·sMagic Word. by Ni(;otos Abrc;i.ba m a:ndMa.rio
Torok. t ro:n$. Niehol(l$Rand (Min neopolls: Universit y of Minnesot a Press. 1986). d v .
8 . J. Lapla:nche a ndJ. 8, Pontolil;, Th e l.,anguogoo l P:.ycho-Anolysls (New Yor k: W .W . Norton .
4
19731. 229.
... )f0TtS TO CHAPTCl'l 2

,.
9 , Oer rd i o•..Fors. xvii,
lO. Th e Americ an pre sence in f'rance is treated wi1h pr ogrC$$ively da rker irony in God ard 's late r
lilms. B y l965 JnMo.scuU.rle-Feminl ne: the o flici o.lVGhicle ol th e Amerioo:n. consula te bec omes
a moving bffiboord [o r the Jeon- Pie r ceLeavd ch aracte r's spra y-p ainted Peace in V ietn am:·
lncre,o.!tingl y, o,i; in 7wo o r Three Thing:; 1Kn ow ab out Her in 1966, ref crcnc:c:;t o IJ,$. politico!
inUvc nt;:� give woy too c ritiqu e ol Americonlted co m mo dific;ot ion. Still lot er, in the Dt.iga
V c rtov G rovP pe riod. the United Stat es o: nd o.U its c.imblcm& booome th e l ace ofthe princ1po..l
ene my.
l l . De spite the tnonume-nto lity of :;cote of Sclzni,,;k's bistoriool l nterpolo Uons, there i$ no$lgnifi•
cont incorporatio n ol th e hi$toric o l "rc,a
- l� distingulsboble among thet.c h.ngid bo-ckd.ro ps.
While elab orate dra matic conflict and Cb aroctet de�lopment (UC hallmark $ol t hEf S eh.nict
style. the hi&iory so dutiJully attended to is red uce.xit o ,;to si& or cliched tableau.
12, One might do well to add lbot RoyIs ooe of th e mos.t metic ulous of preproduction plonneftl. i n
all of clnemo hig;tory. with o penchont f or Sketching out each setup in mi.n.iotu1c•.Such on a P
pto.och i$ msuilod to th e inc or poratio n o l lo: rge -sool e hls-toricol even t s .
1 3 . f'or o fvUo, oocount of Wexl e r's formative years 0 $ polmool docv m ent ar.i.st, see David Tol.bo1
a n d Barbaro Zheutlin.. CreaUveDIJ/erence$: P,ofilC!i of Hollywood Disside nts (B o ston : South
End Pre5:9,, 1978). ·
14. Ernest ColleRboch and Allxn-t Job. n son. -rhe Dang er (s S e duc tion: An Interv ie w wi th Ho1okeU
WedC1/' Film Qvo.rroriy(spring 1988): 4---S.
IS. The p oint con bu illustra ted by a scen e from John Ford'; She Wore a Yellow mbbon (1949),
in whiich th e c avalry occomp onles o w<zgon t1o in ocroosthe pl ain in extre me long shot. Th e
de eply broodtng sky enh o ncc:$lho mcnooo o f India n attack with great economy.
16. e·ertolt B rechJ. "Th eat re t o rPktosu.re o r1'he01re Jor Inst ruction.. lnBtecht on Tl,c<rtre (�ow York :
u
· Hill cmd Wo ng. 1964). 75.

17. l>oramount Pictur es. a· subsl dlory of Gulf and We,tem o t the limo thatit distributed Medium
· <;ooi, is but the tip ol. !h e cotporote ice.b er g , accounting os it does for l essthan 10 percen l of
th eIot a) revenuet of o VOS1 m ultin otionol c;o nglomerat e. Jn 1977 Gulf and W est e rn ronked fift y.
n inth amo ng Fort\l� mo.g aaioo's listing of the live hund red l01gest ind ustr al firln$,Th omas
., 'j,
..,
>
i ·
Gvbock.. lheatric al Film." ' in Who OwnB the Medkr? Cor1¢enllQtionol Ownersltlpin the Mass
C ommunications Industry, ed. Ben>CJtnin M. Comp o ino (N ew Yor.k: Har mony Boob. 1979), 202.
18. Haskell Wexler, in tc:.rviow by Renee Epste in. Sight an dSound 45, no . I (w'mtE!-r l975-1976f: 47. '
19. The oorr«:1 :;pelling ot the protag onist's name is the subject of an enigma wor thy of mentio n.
h; it .,KatsoU as... as.m y ea r suggest s . or "Cas sellis," 0$ Talbot o nd Zh eu tlin -mist a t.e itly, I
think- rende r it in thelr ch apter o n Wex1c.r? Rt,.ooor ching the ans we r proves to b e a f ormida ble
los t . Because Medium Cool w o & bur ied by ii& Paramount distributors, ne\l'er' opening fo1 on of•
fi�iol New Yor'k rvn,the film wos never revie wed by the New York Times. The s.t o ndord �oforonoo >.: ,; •
forcr(Kijts doe& not exist: a kind of " e.xnornln ation "ot oll.iciol silence em;h rouds th efil m . ,
20, One is tempted't o disengage lhe spe,etot orol 1968 OI 1969_from th e sub &equent audience'. a t
least in sof ar os t he sho<:k o f rcco gnm on i:; concerned. Tb• :young co nt empo rary audie n c e . .
. <
unocquointed with th e powd or keg politics of ghetto uprising and police r eprL,o l. tends to viQw
thi$ t.eqvenoe as on uo.motivoted brea ch offilm etlqueue.
21. The co nc ept of int erpeUotio n-.-the bolling of the subject through orlwtorioal figut&-was
d eveloped b yLouls Alth u$Se1 in hi:; olt -c itod elSsoy "Ideolog y and Ideological St01e AppolO·
.tu.ses," tn Lenin ond PhiJooophy (New York: MonthlyR eview Pr es s . 1971), 127-.86. f'or o n OP· . . .
plicoti o ? of th e term to the Wodd Wt;t r U con.t ext and liLnlc representation. ooc Mich ae l Ronov.
"'Th e Stat e. Ideolo gy, and Prlortfies on Porade."Film Rc,'Odc. r S 0982>: 216-26�
22. Brecht , "On the Use of Music in on &pie Th eo'lre.." 86.
23. R olond Bo1thc;. "Oidoro t. Brecht €i&eostein,.� in Image/Muslcff'e,r1 (New York. : Hill ond W ong.
191'1), '/3-74. .
2 4 . The flattened portraitute motif remain$ insiS l¢nl in Godard's U58 o f dir ect -address interviews
even oJtet the Oe!'l-lhe1 ic impcro tiv'Q yields to o s taunchly rhetor ical one (see Tout Vo Bif...n
' 0972).
in whic;h oxtc ndOO monologuesb y fractio us labor mlllton� ore flotly shot ogoin$1 b ol d coklr
p<tDels).
25. Brecht. "Theatre !o r Ple o sure· ocTh cotro for Instructi on ... 72.
26 . Motsholl Mcl.uhpn. "Tcl�i&ion : th e TmtldGiant."'in UndentandJngMedi a: ne-Ex:tenlti 1 om;
ol Mon {Now Yori: McGra w-Hill. 1964). 317. With regard t o thi.9 nQ1uicrli:d0g ot tech nolog yCIS
body pon end emic to the expansionist :;lxtiO.$. MC<lfum Cool o ctivety t em p ers McLuhan's New
Age opUmbun wllh su99cgtion!S of the d&hum oniiing eUectsof thil elect ric e nviron ment. Tho
Mo r-xio n notion of commodity f etish.ismls certainl y evoked by on oflbond 1cm<::nk m ode b y Gus.
Ko:t&Glla&'s sound recordist sideklclc:. whon he dezc1ibC$ himl.elf 0$··.just a n elongation of a
tap e recorder."
2 7 . 11,;d. 313.
NO TES TO CHAPTtll 2 2t9
Digitized by Or�inaJ from

28. One ot th9 most p ervw.:ivo ir onic,si. n Medium Cool. a film deeply em.bedded withln the ironic
mode, is the title 's Mcl.uho:nesqu11.t ic le.rence. It was McLuhan who ccle.broted te.levi.si()n (the
Pf<>lOgonlst's m6Uer) os a vehicle tor h»gho-u<lioncc involvement and porticipotion. ··11 tho me,
dit1m i$ o l high dclinilio n . pcut.iclpo1ion tslo w . JJ the medium is oi low inte nsity, the partic:ipo-
tion i& high• (lelevisJOn: TheTimid Giant," 319). In fact. Mecfium Cool mobill:tes o:n unstinting
ouack against the television mediu m 011 pro clic ed ln Amerloo on th egrounds tho I it fu nciions
os on agent of soda.I control glorifi es 1otho1 than oxp)ain s violence. ond inducc!S o deepl y
ro oted PCJ$Sivity in it$ oudiel\Ce.
29. Bertolt B recht, lhe Mod8fn Theotl·e ls th e Epic Theatre," in Breehl on Theatr e (New Yo rk : Hill
ond Wang, 1964). 38.
30. The Kerne r Com.miWon.. o committee opp oin tOO by PT<mido nt Ni,,con to invC$tigoto the (:(Ju.!l;@S
ond cHcets oi civil unrei;t in the sixties.. tanned the series ot vioktnt do.shes at the Chi-oo!JQ
Democrati c Nat)0Q(I]. Convootion o -pol.ice tiot.u
31. Nicolas Abraha m andMorklToro!<. "lnhojecii on-lneot'potation: Mourning orMelanchollo," in
Psyehoonolysfa in F1onee. ed. Serge Legovici and Doniel Wk;llocher (Ne wY or1t-: ln te,rno!ionol
Uni-v13n;ities Pr85&. 1980).. 3.
32. Derrida, -Fors.-xi v .
33. David Talboto. nd Barbara Zheutlin. "H(I.SkeU Woxlor," in C.reorivc Oilfctenees;Ptoliles of Holly·
wood OiS$jdcnts (B«;ton: S ou lh Encl Press, 1978), 113.
3 . Warring Jmoge.s
My tha nks to Loni Ding, Lindo Maba.lot. Steven Okazaki. ReaTajiri. and Bruc e Yon9moto for
access to . ond discussio n of. th eir work.
I. I om grate-lul to Gregory Wollerfor bis useful study of Amerioon film trwtmcnts of the Japan ese
in tho J:M}riod botwcc.m 1909 and 191s. While th er e hos been ext ensivo scholar ship o n wotb
o l popular fictio n such o s Hornor Lee's The Valot of Ignorance (1909)-which pr edi-cted th e
successlul invasion ol the U.S. We st Coo.st by tho foP<,Jn�e ond wo.-s reprint ed ln 1942 <IS a .
p,ophctic worlc�fo r less ls kn own about th e more than o ne hundr ed film.$ from lorty different
oompo ni es that conditioned Amctieon r espons e loJapan a:nd the Japanese du ring this period.
Gregory A . Waller. "H.istoricizing. o Te,;t C a!SC: }Qpon on Ame.r1co n S creens. 1 9 0 9191S.- Hp aper
delivel'ed ot the Soc le-ty for Cinema Studie s confer9nce . l.. oo Angolc:s . Moy 1991.
2. John W. Dower. Wo, wllhoul Mercy :Race and Powe.r in the Pacific Wa r (New York: Pontheon
Books. 1986). 308, ln laime,;s, it :;hould b e noted. that Dower a mply historici..zes the shifti ng
ster'eotypes of Japanese and American dur i ng <.tnd oft e, the wor, not lng Uthe malleable and
dou ble Aoceted natu re of the dom inant wartim e stereotyp$$" (308). The onteceden ts o:nd points
o f r e lerenc;;,o to which Dower tutns fot explanation of 1he radi c ally shiftin g :;.t cro o typc-for
exampl e. th e demorucoutsid e• of,Jopono sc folk eulture-ote surely uselul histortOCl.l ma r ke r s.
There ls no effor t mod e , howev.er. to loe<tte the dynamic of t.torootypi ng o t the level of psychic
ope,otiont.. onother e:rueta.l dimension f or historical underatanding.
3. Cilma n describe:;. the long•torm $0Ciol utility of his ana.lytlc end eO¥Ot in thi& woy: lh e 089d
for stereocypes runs so de ep that l do not think itwill eve1 be thwo:r1ed; nordo I think that it will
ove, be c0nverted to purely harmless exp re s s ion. B u t I believe thot eduoolio n o:nd study con
expose th e ideolo gies with whie.h we str ucture our world. and perhaps hW.p put 1,1 1; in tho ho bit
o l s ell- reflecti on."Sa nd e• J,., Gilmo n . Dilfc,ence ond Pothology: Stereotypes ol Sexuality. �ow.
and Madness Clthaco: Camel l Uni v ors ity Press. 198S). 12.
4. Ibid,
S. HomiIC. , 8h obho. 'i'he Other Oue$UOn-thio:-Stereolype and Colonial Oi soou.nw."Screen 24,
n o . 6{November -Decem b e• 1983): 21.
6 . lb;,!.. 33.
7, for a clear but extended oeeount of the psychic orLginsof 1he stereotyp e, J;ee.Gilm,on's intt()·
d uc tory e ssay in Oifle ren c e o-nd Patho logy; "lnhodu cUon :What Are Stere otypes a nd Wh y llw
Text!; tc, Study Them?" 15 -35.
8. I have p.1rsuc-d the 4ogic of the Id e alized ocher in my "lmo ging the Othei: Represcntotioru; of
Vietnam in Sixties Politico-I Oocu.mcntory," i.n From Honoi to Hollywood, e d . Linda Dittma r and
Gen eM ichoud (NewBrunswick,. N.J.: Rut� rs Univeraity Press. 1990), 255-68.
9. Gilman. Dill-erence and Arthology, 1 8 .
1 0 . Dower, Wa.r wJthout Mercy, 10.
11. Gilmon . Dillcrel'#Ce and Pathology. 1 8 .
12. John Mort on Blum . V Wo.lS" lo, Victory : A>lil�and Amencan Culture during Wo.rJd W o- r11(Ne w
Yo,k: Horeour1 Broc e Jovonovicb. 1976). 159.
1 3 , Fron k Co p10, Th" Nome ab ove rhe n'tle (NewYo r k:.Macmilla n. 1971), 328-29.
:>SO NOT&$ TO CHAPT£ fl 1

14. for more di sc1.1ssi on on the ,·o nge and effects o l l he filmmoke($ crc,otive ch oice,;. soo my
�Ro-thinltln g Docunnmt o: ry: towo:rd o Ta xonomy of Mecliot-On.:· in Wide Angle nos. 3-4 a.
(1�86): 7 1 -7 7.
15. Soe my .. Towa rd a·Poe�s of Documentar y .. , l n The orizing Documen tary. ed. Mk.ho el Reno v
(N ewYork: Routle-dge. 1993), 12-36.
16. I und eriake a $imilor allolr.;is of tho roci.$1 de p ictio n o4 th· e Japcr.ne� enemy duri ng World
Wenl l , this time o sUw hi.51 ori,::al coritext t or rep,e s entolion.s ol th e Vietnamese two decodes '
lotcn. i n ..Imaging the Othe r : Rep18s enta1io ns of V i(.-tn om in.Sizti8S Politioal Documentar y."
) 7 . Dowe r. War wUbour Mercy, 49.
18. This desc ription· ls taken from a lUe mogo:ti.ne story on Canilf's wartime oonlr1buti0n, .. Spe'}a�
· ·
ing of Pkture!'l," Life. I M orch 19,43, 12.
19. Copies of thiJ; media re ference guide oa: n be Obtained 1,om Asian Cin()Vi.$.i oo, In c, F or fur the r
inf ormation se e hn p://aaioncinevisio n. org.
20. It w«s not until 1988 thot the U.S. C ongr� c onooded 10 the a ward of financial oompens aUo n
a nd the offedng ol. a: n official apology t o thoff who lost jheir liber ty beh1nd borb¢d wiTO:,
21. Carol Squien.,"'Screeni ng the Wa r: �ilinmo l:e r s , ond Critics onth� (mog0$ th at M od e Histor y" , .
lnterno lionol Oocumenral}' : The loumol-o/ Non-/ietion fllm c;ir1d Vidoo. no. 8 (s pri ng 1991): 21 .
4.Lost.. i.ost, l.o$t

I. Alan Wi.lUoms.·o;o-,ies, Notes. and Sk etches-V olume I (Lost,, Lost. Lost}," fllm Qoorredy 3 0 ,
n o . I (1976): 62,A ltho u g h Willi ama reviewed lost, l..o«t,, Lost 500n o:fte, ii.$re le ase. he wo.s
alr e o:dy familiar with the third voh.une of the o utobiog:rophicol project Vlalden (1968), fil med
between 196-4 and 1968.
2. RedaBeruun,o.i(r, Ttic &ntbesEllect: 1'be tssay asRellectfve Text. !Jons.. Pct Fed kie w {Minno•
opoli$: Un ivcr:;.it yo f Minnesota P te s-s. 1987), i x . ,.
3 . In on app end.ix t o The Bartbes FJlecr: The Essay as: Reflective Tax-t, Redo J3eo.smoi a oUer s
lbe hi.s.t orical and theoreUoo.1 grou* for his clQimS fo, the essay as on"impossibl e.. genre: .'
"'Amo ng all the te,rns lho-t rolcr tc t o lit erary genres.. th e wordEssay is certainly the one tbo t ti<r.s
gtve.n f'sse to the moi;.t <:Onfusion in th�h.istory of literature ....A unique (:(11W: in th o o:nnoh; of
lite,oturc. the Essay i& th e only litei-ory gen re t o hove reS:i$t ed intc91otion. u ntil quite rece ntly, ,.
i n the taxonomy o( gen r e s . No o ther genre ever 10iM!d :;o ma ny theoJe tiool problems c oncern '.
ing the Off.gin an d the de l inition of its Fonn: on ot opic g enre or , more precisely, On eccentrk : one
ins of o:r os lt see:m.." t o llirt wit h all the oen re s without ever lenin g Itsel f be pinned down, th e:li t or•
o:ry es$0y toclJ os Montaig oo bequeathed it toposterity ho s alw ayt h o d o SJ)(.-eiol $1 ot u s . : •
.
tho £&50:f o: ppeari bistOJioo.lly aS o ne ofth e ra:(e lilerory tex1!'l wh o:.e app aren t principal task
was to pcoYoke a 'g ene rol lied coll ap�e · of the cxo no mi es ofthe rhetorically coded text" (95, 9 6 . .,,• ,.
99). I n my wr iting on the c:;soyislic i n (U m o:nd video. I have chosen tores:t.s. the lure of ge.nre.
pre ferring in$1cod to consider the e ss ayistic as a modality of fllmlc insc-.rtption. Th e: invocati on·
of mode rath er than g erue sidesteps the dUUeuJ.ties fOised b yth e (JttCr' $ for great er hist«ical
l
st akeint axo nomic cer tai nty , os well as Ule · pres-umption of thematic c onsi&teru::y atta ched 10
'
it. Co nversely, lhe de1e:miQin9 prin<:iple of resemb'°nce IOJthe mode is a fo r mal or (u. ncilo Ml <
one. As JocquM Dc;rrido not es . quoting a d.istinction framed by G erard Genette ·cenrcs qrc.
:
p,opc.rly $P9Qkingi literary or o·esthetic c ate-gorles: mode$ ore cot<.-go ric,; th at per tain to lin
gu151:ics or. m ore precisely, tOo:n onth,opology ol V1:.rb ol ox:pre ssion,"JocQU e s Derrida."The
Law o( Geru. e ,"Glyph 1(1980): 210. [n the instance oi the e ssayistic for tilrn an d video, forrnol.
· funcUona:l o�d idco o gjoo_l oommonalities t;onverge as defining cha:,o ct etlstk::s.
l
4 . Groho:m Good. The ObservingSeU: Rediscovetf.llg rhe £1.s oy(London: fl o1.1tl009'e. 19"88). 4 .
S, Michel de Montai gne . The Comp/ere Wo,Jr.S ofMon.ro-igoo . trons. O ooald M . Frame {Stanford:
Stan ford University Pr�. 1948). 298.
6 . Ibid .. 296.
1. Gera rd Oetaux. "R eadings ol Montaigne" , flfont(Jig-qc: £swys in Reading, YaleFrench Studies
64, trans.J ohn A . Goll uo:i 098$): Tl.
8 . Mo nta igne. Complete Wor ks. 610-11.
9. R oland Barthes. The Crai n of the Voice: lnieniew, 1962-19 80 . Itani;.. Llnd o C overdal e (New
.
York: Hill and Wa:ng, 1985), 209-10.
JO. G{!org Lu.k 6 c$, �on th e Nature a nd Form o f the EssQf.� in Soul and Form, tco n $ . A. nn o Bo�tock
(Cambri dg e : MIT Press, 1974). 1 8 .
J I . lbid.. 14·. . ,
·
1 2 . Roland Barthes, Robnd Borth o:;. traM, Richa rd Howard (N ew Y«k: HUI and Wong, 1977), 169.
) 3 . Jbk;I . • 56.
14. Bensmoia.Tb eBaitbes£fleer. SL
1 5 . Th ere is c on skierobl e ekisticity inhcronl in my lorm u.lation o f the essoyis tic , with the result that
NOTES TO CHA PTER 4 ...

HARVARD UNIVERSITY HARVA�D UNIVERSITY
n o c-numeroUon of qxe mplcuy texts will wtlioe t o ncrmo if$borders. Of cow& e. laws of memb er ·
shi p an d exch.asio n alw ays po$€! o problem for oes1heti c t axonomies. which must re main op en
an d there lore "im pure" sets. C ert oin ptlne.iples oi c ompositio n do, howEWer , remo:Lo us e-lu l l,n_ .
d.lcotors of th e ess.oy�Uc e nterpris e for tUm ond v ideo. 0$ lhey hov e forli tc.ro t\m;. Tho ..twofold
-
p,ojc,c:t, dese, iptivc and reUedve, enfolding &elf an d othor. the outward (documentary) glance
R
coupled with the int errogation of subjectivity-these ore the signs of a discursive practice
t ermed " essoyi stic."' for l u rth e, di :;cussJon of the essoyisli c ! o r f1l.m and vkl eo. see my "'History
a: nd/o s Au tobiogm phy : The Essayisti c in Film and Video," inFt(lmo/Wo,1: 2 . n o . 3(19Q9): S -13.
16. JonQ$ Meko s, interview by S0011 M acDonald. Ocrob e, 29 ($um mer 1984}: 84,
17. See in porti culm S co4t M ocDonald."'Los t Lost Lost overLo5'Lost Los r." Cinema Journal 'ZS.
n o . 2(winter 1986) : 2 0 -34. as WGU o:; hi s October l nter vlew with Mekas. A more conceptually
ambitiou s accou nt of Mekos's c aree r a nd achi.evcm cnts. eontoino d in Dovid Jame$'s A JJego�
ri es ofCinemo: Americon film Ln the Si,cUes (Princeton: Pri nc eton University Press. 1989). 100.
co ntinues to t reat th e d e ve lop rnent of o n l n c.reo s ingly p ersonal style throughout the Werries
a s a kind of sp irltuol elevutio n . proch.i�ng o fihnic n\ode that "entit el y fullills (underground
fihn 's) o esLheliC ond ethl.ool program:·Th.is te nd ency to d�ibeo prog10:$$ive Myli$He: shlft
a s a he ighteni ng or pu1ifi ca tion of form is a romantic notio n trace abl e in the tirst inston�e
to the film.maker's own writings ov(ti several dec ades. To be sure , some notion of histori ca l
develo pment .ls ine$COpable in the di-sc\l:ss ion of Lost, lno!l.mueh os the fil m 's image track o p·
p(.'(11$ to be s.tructure,d chronologic ally. That irreven;i.bi.lit y i.$. h owever. con:s.iistently undo n e by
the voic e•ove r. which rongel5 oct0$S lime and memory, speo.ki.ng from a place of kno wlod go :
"Po ulius. Paullus-I see you . R enwmhot, that do y, that evening, tbot evening we all d anced
ar ound o y0ung bifch tree outsid e o l the b anacks. We th oug ht it will oU be $0 temporary, we'll
b e all home :i;oon,.. MocDonold ("Lost Lost Losn sugg ests tha t the six r e els of the film con be
grou ped as thr ee coupktt s: tho lirtl p otr focusing on the Lllhuanion c ommunity i n Brooklyn , the
s econd on th e fo r m ati on of a new lif e in Mcmhc';ltt(u\ ond the begln ning s of a n ew community
around fiJm Cultute. the lo s t on the d8Y8lopme nt of a cincmo tic OC$1hetic 0111p0ntoneity and
pe n;ono li3m, An y ctitieol en g ag em ent with the film must. in th e first instonce. com-p1 e hend this
p la y ol the progressive and the r�entlble.
18. M acDonald. in Metos. intervie w, 84; it ali cs m i ne .
19. Me-kog, interview. 93-91.
20. Jona s M ekos, introd uctio n to -rho F'ronli ets ofReol ist Cl neroa : The Wort of Ricty Leocock
(from o: n Intervie w C ondu cte d by Gid eon 8ochm ann)."'Film Cullute 22 -23 (1961): 12.
21. Rol ond Botthe$, Camera lucJda.. trans . Richard Howard (Ne wYo r'°: Hill o:nd Wong, 1981), 9.
22. for o tur th er dii;cu!;3ion of the necessity a nd. vadabili1y ol mediatio n to r the docurnc.ntQt y lilm.
se-e Mk,ho el Re nov. "Re . t hinking Documento ty: ·Toword a To:xonomy ofM ediation.7 Wide AngJe
8 , nos . 3-4 0986): 71-77.
23. Th o no tion of o p,ese r vationol obse ssio n held in t en.si.o n wi.th it s oppos.ile. the need to release
the pas to r dE!nY its ellicocy in the present through representation . p rovide s a cruc ial under•
pin ning forLost. Lost. Los r . Another fil m to 00 :;ituoted within the realm of the es&ayisuc. Chris
M o,lte.(s.50:ns soJ eJI, explores similar teno in throug h on equoUy vori e goted text ua l m a p
ping of t em pol'l) IHy ond ex perience . E ven while frag ments ( rom th e filrnm akc1'3 post retuf'n
o bse ssively-fr om his own lilm!; :;uch as l. oje46e (1962) or Le mystere Koumiko (1964) or horn
Hitchcock's Vertigo (1958)-M aik er celebrate& tlieir onn i hil o tion th rou gh .a ri tu al des truciio n
th o t i.n tum 1ne m orioll2.e s their l os s; represe n ta tion bec omes tlic $f'$1em through which reten
tion an d di&&0ll.1tM)n con be fu.<;.ed. "Memories must ma ke do with their deliriu m. , with the ir drill,"
..
y·sMarker in San s soJeil . A m o mont :;toppc,-d would burn lllce a frame ol film blocked befo r�
so
th e fut nac edi the projecto r. " Lost a nd Sons solqjJ shani o f o:;cinoUo n for Cine ma s ' special ad·
mixh.nc of p,esence and abse nce. a chemistry examined by g en oratjon$ of film theo,ist s.
24. Jooque& Derrkla.. ·0tobiogrophies,* in Jn the Ear ol rhe Other. tra ns. Avit al Ronell (Now York:
Schocke n Books. l9aS). 5.-6-.
'ZS. Jona:; Meleo$, "'The Diaryrum (A Lecture on Reminisce nces o f a Journey to Li thuo:nla).� in
Avant-Garde Film: A {ic odc,. Theo,y ottd Ctiticlsm. ed. P. Adams Sitney (New Yo1k: New Yo1k
UnJver!rlty Press. 1978). 193 .
. 26. lbkl.
27. Jo nas Metos. "f''ilm No tes ," in/orta.'JMeh'rs, ed. J udith E. Brigg s (Minneapoli s: Fllm in the
Citles/Wollc:e rArt Center, 1980),
28-, ln Gutdo Conve nts's "Docume ntaries «nd Propag an d a before 1914: A View on F.o:rly Cinema
a nd Colon ial Hil;tOt' y, • F,omcwo,k 35 (1988): 104-13, It ls arg ue d tha t the documen tary film
w as recruited J or the purpose s ol propag on di:r:i.ntreoloni oli:;t effo rts l n Africa as early os 1897.
29. Jon a$ Mekos. "A Call Jor a New Generation ol Fil m M · aters:Film Cult1.11e 19 (1959) : 3 .
30. Jo nas Mekos. "Th oExpcrimcntol·FiJm in Ametieo."' Film C u lture 3 (1955): 1 5 -16, Bes ides th e
,., NOT£ $ TO CHAPTER .t.

""document fil m."' M e . ko.s ·s cot9g0ri.z.ation of �ne matic forltl$•includes the film drama, the film
poem. and the cinema oi obsuaction or tt clnepkil;tjcs :·
31. Porker Tyler."Poecr ya nd the FUtn.:ASym�Lum.with Mayo: Deren. Anhur Miller, Dylon Thomo.i;.
Potker Tyl e(,''' i.nFilm Culture Roode,, ed. P. AdamsSi1ney (New Y ori:: Ploeger, 1970). 173,
32. The morty $l udi es of reflexivityin cine mo have focuse-d on liciionol workso lmos.1 exclusively
(e.g.; tho&roon. debot es on 8r e cht fro m th e 19?0$ Ol'MollinWot.sh. TheBrechrjanAspect of
Rodkal Cinema (London: BFI. 19811). A mortg the WTiti n91; that do address this problem ln the
docu men tal"f context the besI ma y be Jeo:nno Allen. MReUexivity inOocumentoi-y," C;ne-· trocts
I, no . 2 (summer 1977): 37-43: Ann etto X1,1hn, "The C amero 1-0bservo'Uo Mon Dotumcntarj.•
Screen l . n o . 2 (su tnmer 1978): ? l-83: and JoyRuby, "Th elmoge Minored: Re floxivity and the
Dcx:ufflCnt ory rum," in NewChaJJenge s foeDocumetJt<rty, od. Alon Ro,;en tha..l <B erteley and Los
AngeJcn;: Univer sity ol C a liJomia Pre ss. 1988), 6,4 ..? ? .
..
3 3 . Williams. "Diaries. Notes, andSkefcbes, 62.
3 4 . Andre Tou.mon ,"Sel(-Intet p tetotipn in M on.toi,gne·s .Essays."Montaigne : £!1Saysin R«rdind,
Yale Fren,ch Studies 64 (1983): 61.
3S. Meko s .'"The Di<ny Pom.· · 191-92.
36. Roktnd 6cirthe&. Stz. t ran s . Richard Miller (N ew Y o1 k: Hill OndW ons,. 1974).S 6 -.
37. ·A. di&cussed in Jean Lopla n cbe a nd J e o nBer - trcmd Po n toli&. The Language olPsychoanoly
sis, �ans. Oona l�.Nlcholson-Smilh (New Yo,k:W W . .�onon. 1973). 182-83 , Fr eud's use oftho
term nacbrroglichA:eil � intcndod to oon�y the man ner by whkh experlences, im prCWon .s .
o r meniory trocc:; are olterOO aher the tact as a . function of new e.xperie.ncQ:;ond a te thus ren
dm od oof)(lble oJ reinves tment, pro ducU\g new, even·unexpe<,;.'lcxt elfeci& of meaning.As Freud
wtote to his confid antWilhelm F1.less:·n1 o m woiking on th eO,$$Umption that our psrchk:ol
mechanism h as come o bout by o proce:$$ of .st:ra titic ation: the material prese.nt 1n the shopc
of rnemo r y - t rtu:e t i$ from ti.me-toti.m�subteet ed to o reo:rra ngemen't tn· occor dance wit h· frc,;h
drc�mskrn«:$-i.,;, os itWGre. transcribed... . . ,.
.. ,
-\r,
..
38. Jonol; Me k os. Ci. nemo of the New Generation,"'rum Culture 21 0960): 19. . . .
39. ·oJnas Mekas, "'Noces on the NewAmericon Cinemo,"' in. li)m C1,1Jture Reader. e d .P .Adams
'
Sitney (N ew York: Pro eger. 1970), 88 .
4 0 . Ibid.
•
41. Lu. k 6c1;, "On the N a ture and F orm ol the Ess ay," 18. /
.. S .ChargedVlalon ,
.•
I. Jacques Loc on , The fo ur fundomenraJCo ncepts ol Ps..,,..ho-
(New Y ori:: W.W. Norto n. 1977). l03.
, . A nalysts, tra rts.AlonSheridon ,. '
2. Ibi d.. 93. .
3 , Ja c quesLoco:n. TheSemi nor of]ocqueSLooon -Book I I , tron s, Sytvona Tomas elli (New Yorlc: ,
w . w . Norto n. 1988), 177.
4. Louro Mulvey, "Vi.$1,10) Ph::,os ure and Narrative Cinema," Screen l 6 . no. 3 toulu mn 19?S): 6-18. "
S . See Bill Nic.bols, Aepre�nting Reality (Bloomington: lrtdiono Univen;}ty PrC$$. 1991 ), 178-SQ;
on d Tom Gunni ng."'E mbarrassing Evid ence:The Dctoctivo Camero. the Hevelotion o l Daily • ·. _.
Life, a nd the Docume nl(uy lrnp ul:se," in Vi$ib'8tvidenoe, e d. Jon8Gaine s and Micha el Renov
(Mlnneopolis: Univc,:.r.;ily of M.in nHOla Pr8$S, f999). 46-64. .• ·
6 . See in th i:; rcg ord Mich el Cbion. ta volx au ci:riema (Porls: C ohle,s du Cinem o/ Edition5de
l' E1oiJe . 1982); Mary. Ann Doane, "The Voi ce in the Cin ema: The Ar ti cU.IO ti on ol .8ody and
Sp ac e:·. Yale Fteni:h Studies so· (1980): 3 3 -50; ond Ko;oSilve rnion . TheAcousticMl.trot: The
Fe.mole Voice ;rt Pllycl1oqn(Jly$is ond Cinema (Bloomington: lndian a Un.ive-rsity Pre ss. 1988).
7. I don't me an to:.'1.lgg:est that th e twentie s hove always been sligh tedIn the writing o. f documen
tary histo ry. Eri k B arnouw's Documentary: A Histw}' ot NQn •fK:lion Film, st.ill th$ most s ignili
oant oocounl of nonlic tion's developm ent·morc thon twe nty y:eors aher its public ation, tr e ats
th.ls period with depth ond subtlety.Moot recent historico.lly ori e nted wr itl.J\g on doc;-umentory, ·
ho'N1)ver, ho$ te nded to toke os its focus the thirties in Europe and No,lh Anierit;o (I™} Grierson
group,Work ers· f'ilm and Photo League. Nyldn o, F'rontic.r f'i.hn$, etc.) Or the emerge nc e o l th e
,direct cinema/clnemo veriM ph enomen on in Conoda . F'rance , and the UnitedSta tes ·during
· the 1960s. · ·
8. Hons Richte r, TheStruggle lot tbe Film. trans.Sert Bre wster{New York: St. Mo rtin'$ Press,
1986). 44.
9. Ibid . . 78.
10. Nichob,Rcp,c$Cnting Tleolity, 178.I don't mean in this dlscusslon to single out for om;ie.k Bill
Ni chols. without doubt the; most signJJk:ont crltlc ol voiee in oontcmpor(Jry nonficti on studies.
His for mulations are,I th1nk, sympto m a tic of tho mor e �e·n era l view that docu ment ary lilm ls
MOTES TO CHAP TF!fl $ 253

gr oun6ed in oonscioU-!:lness ond th�simplyn ot subject t o the cla:lm.s mode b yp.s y choo:noly1i
c oll y o rie nted ilm the o rist.$ o tho 1970s.
l l
I J. lbld� 107-33.
12. Pttul R.icoeut, F1eud andPhilosophy : An Essay o n lnre,pretation.. t rans. Denis Savage (New
Hemm: Y<1le Univer.;ity Pre�,. 1970). 33.
1 3 . Sig mund f'reud. The l nterpr ek1tion olDreams, !forts.Jo:roes Sttoch cy (N ew Y ork: Avon Books,
19 65).651.
14. [bid-.. 53?.
15. Here I a:m dra wing on two remor1coble ess ays: Louis Althu sse r, "Freud and Lac on, " in Lenin
and Pftllosophy. tro:n.s.. Ben 8rews1tn (New Yo1k: Monthly Review P1 e:;.i;. l9? l}, 1 89-219: and
Shoshana Felman.. "Jacques Laoo:n : Mad ness ond tho ru.sb ofThe ory (The U-&eSof Mii;:pfi·
si o n)." in Wtiting and Modness (LUerature/Ptdlosopby/Psychoan olysis) (Ithaca . N.Y.: Cornell
Univer&ity Pres.s. 1985). 119-40.
16. Slavoj Zi.iek. int r oduction t o The Sublimq Object ol Ideology (Lon6on:Vor.so. 1989). 2.
I?. M1Chel Foucoult, " H istory of Sys tems o f Thought." in Languogo. C ounter -memory, Proc;1K;C:
Sele cted �oY:; ond Interviews (lthooo.. N.Y.: C<>mell U niv ersity Press, 1977}, 201. Years belo re
Freud. it was Nietzsche who could wtile: ..Fot th e long e st lime. c ons cio us thought was co n
sidered thought itseU.Only now d oesthe tr uth d awn o n u!i thot b y for the g1co tc$I pott of ou r
spir1t'$ activit y temains unconscious and unfelt ...Co nscious thinking, e&pec:ially that of the
phi lo sopher s. is th ol oost vi!JQfOo$ and the refore als othe l'ela:tivelymildest and oo:lmest fo rm
of thinking a nd thus pr ec is ely ph.Uo:;opher:; 01e m0$1 op 10 be led crst,a y about the natu re o f
: t
knowledge." f'rledrlch Nieczsche.Tbe Gay Science . tram;rW o lte.rKo ut mcm (New Yod:: Random
Ho us e . 1914). 262.
18. Miche l f'ou ca ult, �Two Le cture1;," i n Powet/Kn owledge : Selected lnie,vJ ews Cllld Orher Writings.
19 1 2 1977,
- ed. and trans. C olin Gordo n (N ew YorJc: Ponthcon Boole$, 1980) . 85.
1 9 . N ichols.RepresentingReo/Jty. 3 .
ZO, JuliaKr istcvo. "�ychoanal y�iS and the Polis,"ln The -Ktisteva Reader. ed. 'fori l Moi (New Yo rlc· :
Col umbia Unive rsity Pres s . 1986). 30?.
21. Rol an d BOr1he s, Camero Lucido: JlelJectiom; o n />bok)g,o-phy, trans. Riehatd Howatd (N ew
York: Hill andWo:ng. 1981).
22. Cite d inJ ay Leyd a. /(j n o: A History ol the Russ.Eon and Soviet FIim (N ew York: C ollie r Book s.
1960). 224.
23. Borth<.-:;, Came,o Lu<::i do. 47.
24. J or is lwns. The Comc.roo-11dI(New York: l ntemationa l Publishe rs. 1969). 'J7 .
25. D%it1a Ver tov, K ' ino-Eye: The Writings ol Ozjgo Vc,tov. ed. A nnette Michelson.. t rans ,Kevin
01Men (Berkeley: University ol Co.lilornia P ress. 1984). ? .
6 .The Subject in Hist or y
o,
l. Redo Be nsma:la.. The Barrhes £fleet The Essay as Rekktiv• l Tcxl. hOn.$.. Pot Fedkiew (Mlnne-
.apoli.$: Un iversity Miflnetota Press. 1987). 98-99.
2. Roland Barthe s. S/Z:tram;. Richord Millet(New Yo t' k : HUI an d.Wang, 1974). 5 .
3. Jacques Lac on. The Fout Fu ndamentoJ Concopcs ol />sycho•AnolysJs, tto:ns.Alan She rid an
(New Yo rk: W .W .Not100, 1977). 246.
4., Gr aha m Good. Tho Ob$etvir lg SeJf1Red i scoverin g rhe Essay (Londos:i.: Routledg e. 1988), 4.
5. Mi chel d e Montaigne. The C-Omplc tc Works olMonto igne. tto:ns. DonaldM . Frame (Stanford :
Slo:nford University Press.. 1948). 611-12. .
6 . J ocqucs Dettido. "Otobiogra phie s," i nTbe Ecttol the Otbe.1:Orobio gu;rphy, T,onsferenee, Tton s-
lotion. trans. J>oggy Komuf (New YOt'k: Schocken Boots. 1985). 5.
7 . Jacques Lac on.E cr its: ASelection. troru;. Al o n Shoridon (New Yorlc: W .W . Norton. 19Tl), 172,
8. Rokind Batthes, Rolan d Ba.ttbes. tra n s .fficho:rd t lowo:rd (New Yo rk : Hill and Wo119, 1977).127.
.
9. Mon t a igne. Complete Wo,b. 611. ·
1 0 . Ba:rthes.Roland IJaTtbe.s. 48.
1 l. I.aeon, tcl"i ts. 154. Or to decl01e the imperma ne nce of me aning anoth0t woy: "We can so y th at
it is in the cboin of the $.igniJier that the meanlag i' n sists' but that none o l i� ele roonts · con sists'
in the sig n ilic01io n ot whic h it is o t th e mo m ent co))(lble..(1 53).
1 2 . Bo.rthet,Rokrnd Banbes; 49.
13. J' 'h ere is so me i.rony in my cloim for the "new outoblo graph y," since o simi la r pronounCGment
was mo<ie more than a deoade ag o in P .Ada m s $itn cy·g-Aut obi0gtophyIn Avont-Ca:rde Film ,"
in Tl,c Avant·Gotde Film: A Reader of Theory and Criticism. ed .P• .AdomG Sitne y {New Yotk:
New Yock Un iv e rs it y Pt0$$, 1978), 199-246.Whal stru ck Sltney as �one o l the m06t vita l deve l
o pments in the cin ema o l the late Sixties a nd t.'Clr'ly Scvun t ic s (202)-
" th e aut obio gmphioal
film$ of Mekos,HolJis Frampton. J eromeHill. Sta n Brakhag e. a:ndJome,; 81ought on-wa$ ii$
254 N0Tt$ TO CHAPTl:R f
· Digi tized by Original from

tendency to e ngoge with ce rt ai n fu ndamental qu estioru; o bovt the �nat ure ol cinema , an·d o ft en
on Us ambigu ous as sociation with language" (ibid-,). Th e lilm and vide o works that inspire my
criticol e fforts ore eng aged la q uestions tha t hove motivated artists an d theorists pri mo rU y lrt
the ��hlic$,i.n rc-sponse to pos.itiOn$ odvonoed beneath the rubrics o( post!'tfucturali.$m and
!emini.sm-i &SllC$ of plurivoc;o.Ut yo nd (gendered) J de nlity, the· eUW:Ocyof h i:;toric o lr e pr cson·
lotion.the meanings engend ere d by the biction �lwc¢n publie and priv01e s.ph ere & .While l
admire Sitney's g roundb rea king wo rk ori filrtuc autobi ogra ph y- and sha re his e n thusiasm fo r
cenaln key texts-the dlsportty of ou.r' r�poqive politic al and histor� ooordlnates SUQ{lests
that the ""new o utobiogrophy" di$CU!;,!Wd h ere is. U not novel o:t leost tenewed. ,_,
14. Clifford GG er tz."Thick Oe&e1iption :TOW<trd o n ln terpre live Theory ol Cu11urc," in The ln t!J,pre·
krtion ol Cultures (Ne w York: Basic Boob. 1973),29 .
.IS. Jacques Lacon. "The Mir ror St oge,u i n f.csits, 2.
1 6 . Janel Varne r Gunn,Autobk)gt'Ophy: T�cnds a Poedcs olCxperJence (PhiladeJphla:.UnlvetSity
of Pennsytvoni9 Pt0$$. 198'2). 2 S , . ·
17. Louil; A:Jw nio. "A Th eor y ol Autobiography,"' In Au1obsog(opl1 y:£$.,oy:, CritWl ond Theoref j .
ca l ,ed.James Olney {Princeton : Princeton Univer'Sity Protm. 1980). 2 /' 3: .
�8. 'Emo.beth W .Br uss,"Eye for I: Moki.ng o.nd · Urunalcing.Autobiog raph y in rum. in Olney,Auto:
u
bJogiaphy.29 6 9-7 . . .
19. Jona$ Mclco.i;.. "The Diary fUm.- in Sitn e y ,TheAvo:nt · GciTdeFUm� 191. .
. 20. Jonos Meka&,,-Note s on Walden." inFHm·Maket's' Coope,otive Co10Joguc, (N ew Yor k: PHm·
Maker s ' Cooper01ive . 1975), 178.
21. Scott MacDon. o ld,"Lost Lost l.o$t Qvcr l.0$1 Lo:;t
. Lo s, ·,· Ci nemaJoumal 25,no. 2 (winter 1986):
. ·
..: • 20-34.
2?.. Borth0$.RolandBortbes. 105. ,,.
23, f.'or on incisive discu&SKln of t he · lormol and eJ)istemolog.COl �ndition:; of the writt en wn;u&
filmed dlary lonnatsa:s the y pe1toin.to Lhe work of Mcko s. i;ee·Dovid lam-. ·oiar y/fllm/Dio:r y '·
f'ilm : )ooos Meleo�· W(dden.•Fn;rm e/wort 2 . no. 3 (Decembe r 1988).
24. Quoted in J eon Loplon che and JeanBer · trond Ponialia, "Defened Action;;Frel>ChFteud/Yole
F,cn cb , Studie s. n o .48 (1972): 182-83. <.
· 25. Bruss. -Eye tor Eye;
26. Friedrich Nlettsche.17. Je G oyScience.1ron$.W \ 0Jtc 1 [(ou fmon (New York: VintageBooks, '
1974), 116..
2?. Bo-rt.hes. Aoland Bartbes. 94.
28. Ibid.. 143.
1 . F'tlllng Up ihe H�l e in lll9Real

I.· Ebe·$s ta te ment in the epigraph occurs i n o:n o:udl� comrnenlo.t'y contoined on thct rocentl y re·
leased laser disc and CD ·ROM ve1·$ion.�ol the 1981 A.code.myAw(ird-nornino100 documen tary.
(VoyogerCompo.ny, 1995).
2 . Jacques Loco:n .·ocsi.re and the Interpre tation o( Desire i nHamlet." Yale French Srudies S S - 56
09'l7li3'1.
3. Mons Richte r.The s,nJ9'91e lot thefjJm,, 11ons.BenBrewSier . (Now Yorlc:: St. MOrti n · s Press. 1986).
43,42.
4. Rolond Barthe,;. C amero Lu cida: Rellectjons 0.o Photography.uon s Rlchard
. Howard ( Ne w
Yo rk: Hill ond Wang. 1981> . 92.
S. Sigm und Fre ud. "Mournlng o:nd MelonchoUo:,"in �1c,o'J P:;yehologicol Tbeory: Papers pn
Merapsychology, ed. Philip:fli ol ( Now York : Colli(P Boob. 1963).1 6 5 .
6 . Ibi d.. 16$.
7, Looon. "Desire and the lnte rpretotlon olDesire I nHam Jet 37. u
8. Michae lWalsh. "Returns in th e Reul : Loc on ond the F'uh,nc of P:;ychoano.lysis in PHm St udles."
PostScript 14, n 0$ .1 -2(fol l 1 9 9 4 -
sprin g 1995)�22.-32.
9. Slovoj Zizek . Tb e S ublime Object o fldeoJogy (Londo n: Verso.1989), 162.171. · . ..
IO. AJo:n Sherid an ."Trons!ato (s Note," lntcrits: A Sele<::lion, b yJ�C:$L acon (NewYork:W. W .
Norton, 1977).x . .
II. M.i.lcltel Borch•J oco�n. Lacon; Tbe Absolute Mosre,:, trans.OOOgo:s Brick (Stanford, Stonfor4
l
Un ive r&.ity Pr es&. 1991),192. .
12. Jacques Lacon . The Semin o ro/Jocqucs Lacon:Book ll . tto:ru;. $ylva oo To ma&Glli (N ew Yo rt: ·
W . W .Notton, 1988). 164.
13. J(JQ(Jl..18$Loco n. The Sem.inor of}ac,quer Locan: Book Ill. trans.. R ussellGrieg (N ew Yock: W ,W .
No rton . 1993), 148.
14. ·J acq u es Loeo:n., The Semino, ofJo.cquGliLacon: Book l .trans. John Fones.te r (Ne w York : W .W .
Nolton, 1$88).66.86•.
N·OTES TO CHAl'TCJI. 7 2SS
Oigitizeq by Original from

lS. Zizck,The Sublime Oh,jcef ofIdeology. 69. 173,
-�
16. Slovo j Zizelt, Looking Awry; An lillroduct.lon to JacquesLacatJ through Popu.Ja.fCuJture (Cam
brklg:e: Ml'I' Press. 1991), 1 4 1-5 ,
l 7 . · Borch ·Jacobsen, 1..acon : 1beA.bsoJute Mcr,:;tc,...16 ·6, 125, 103. .
18. Joeques Derrida., OfG,ommarology. trans. Gayotri Cholc-rovprty Spivak (Baltimore : JohnsH o p
lcim; Unive1-s.ity Press. 1974}. xvi.
19. Jacques Derrida. -f'Jeud and the Scene ol Wrttlng.'"trans. Jel:frey Mehl.men\, Yale French Studies
48 (1972): l l 4 .
20 . Borch-Jocobsen.I..odin: TheAbsoluteMa.ster. 193.
21. Locon, ThfJ. Seminar offocqV{J!; Locan: Book I. 223.
22. Sigmund F'reud, "Th9ughts for thu Times on War and Death," cited ll'lBorc-h-Jocobsen. Locan:
the Abs�Iure Mmter,9S.
2 3. .Loe<1n. The Se.rnirt<rr ofJacques Lacon: Book Ill. cited in Woh;h, "Roturru; in the Real:· 26,
24. Lo co n . "Del.irea nd the lntcrpr'e,tollon of Desire in HamJet. · ·37 3- 8 .
2 5 . Ibid
.. 38.
26. Jean Rouch. cited in C. Roy Levin,Oocumcntory £xpJOfCJlio.ns:f'Uteen Interviews wilh Film
Mol:ers- (Gorden Cily, N.Y .: Doubleday. 1971>. 137.
27. Sim one de Scou:voi1, cited in Noncy K .Mille r, "Autobiographical Deaths," Massachusetts
Review (sp ring 1992): 46-47.
28. Laco n. "Desire and the lnter pretation of Ocnue in Ht;rmlc:t:" 40.
8. Docume ntary Disavowals and the Dtgiiol

I wish to acknowledge the ge nerosit y and ossist once ol Doniel Reeves and Jun Campbell, with·
out whose eoopetot.On thi.s essoy could not hav e beenWTitte n .
l. Zygmunt.6ou mo n. We in Fra gmqnts: �oys f.r:l Postmodern Morallry (Oxford: Blaclcwe.ll 1995),
1 8 6 . 239.
2. fbid.• 200.
3, Hoyd en White. MTho Mode.rniSt Event"l.n The Persiste n ce oJHisrory: Cinema. Television. ond
the Modern £vent. ed. Vivion S obcho clc (New Yo 1ti::Routledge, 1996), 22.
4. lbki.• 38.
S. Fredr i c Jome,;on, "The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism,·in PootmochNnj$ffl. 01 The Cultural
Logic of Late C,c:rpi1t;1/ifm (Durham. N.C.: Duke Univer sity Pre ss, 1991). 4.
6. Zygmunt .Bauman. Postmodern t,hk!; (Oxlord: Bl odtweU. 1993). 10.
7. Stephen Toulmin, Cosmopolis: The Hidden Age nd a of Modernity (CMoogo : University of Chi
cogo Pit:$$, 1990}. Se-e in particular chapt er I. ·wl:!ot ls the Problem about Modcrnityr S-44.
8. l'lenry L.fe.ingold $101(."S the CO:..'le 1nost ditecily. u(Au9.ChwitzJ wo:s o.lso a mundane exiens;on of
the fa ctory system, Rother themp roducing goods.. th� !Ow materlo.l wa s human being s ond th e
end�pc-oduct was death. so many units per day marked corCf uUy on the manoge.r·s producilon
chor t:i;. The chimney$, the very symbol of the modern factor y syst e m. poute d forth oc rtd !';m oke .
produced. by burning hu man fl�h.The brilllontl y organized railr oad grid of mode r n E:wo))G
carried a new kind ol row mat er ial to the fo ctor ic::..... Eng ineer,. designed the crematoria;
monogets designed the sysiem ol bu re aucrac y that worke d with o xc,'$.1 and elJiciency mote
bockword n otions would envy: Even t he overall plan its eU was a reUection o! the modern sci•
e ntilic: spi1it 9on o ow ry. What we witnet.s<XI wasMthlng le ss than o mas sive &ebem,e of &0<:iol
e nglne ering." Henry l,,Fe ingold. MHo w Unique h; thio Holocouist" n Genoclde : CdUcal Iuues ol
i
the Holocaust. e d . Alex Grobmana nd Donie l Land es (Los Ange le$; SimOn Wlesenthol Cente r .
1983). 39�400. .
• 9 . Zyg:munt .6oumon. ModernityOr d the;HoJo«rust (I tho.ca: Cornell Universit yPtess. 1989), 1 7 .
l
"At no point of itslong a nd t ortuous execution.··orgvc$ B<tumon.. Mdid the Holocaust come in
conflict with the principles of rationalit y. T he 'fl.no) Solu tion'.did not cla sh ct ony s1og e with the
rational pwsu.it of efficient. optimal goal-implementotlon.... mode rn civilization wo s no4 tho ·
Holooaust's suWci ent co nditi on; it wo s.. ho wevor, moot c cr1 oinl y its necessary conditio n" (17, 13),
10. Tb-1.. 102.
JI. Bauman. Po:s:trnodeat Ethics, 8.
·12. ZygmuntBauman. PostmodcmJ:;m OD dIts Oi:;contcml.$ (New Yorli:: NYU Pres s, 1997). l24.
13. Tb-1.. 203.
14. Bouman . U(e in F,ogmc:nt.i:. 191.
15. D2190 Venov. Kino ·Eye: The Writings oJDtiga Verrov. e d. Aonotl e Michelson, tr a ns . Kerin
O'Brien (Ber"lreley: University of ColJJornioPress, 1984). 8 .
16. Anne tt e Michelso n.introducUon toKi no�£ye : J'he Wr'ilingsolDtlgaVer rov. e d. Ann ette Miche l
son,trans. Kevin o·s,ien (Berkele y: Univer sity of Col.Homio Pre$$. 19$4).x v -lxl.
N OTES YO CHAPTER 8
Oigiti?ed by Original from

17. John Gri e roon. "The £.M.8. fil m On it." in Grie,:1on onDoct1�nta1y, revi;&ed an d abridged e d i ·
tio n , ed .Forsyth Hord yCBerk elGy: Universit y of C:tUfon:aia Press. l979), 49. 63.
1 8 . Ibid., 41. 48. , .
19. BrionWlnston."Staotspoli.Usch B�nd er;;W ertvoU.� in Claiming rhe RooJ : n1cDocumentory
FiJm Revisit ed (London : Btiti!sh film In stitute , 1995), 7 4 7-8 .
i
20 . Homs R ichter . Th<: Str1,;1ggh, for the F Jm; Towarils o Soc.."iolly R41$p0l)sible CineDJ o. e d .Jurg en
·
flomhild. tran5,Ben 8rew6ter (New York: St. MQ rti n' s Pr$&$, 1986). 42-43.
21. Li&o Ca rtwright. Scfflenlng the Body: T,dc i ng M«i.icine's Visual Culture (M.h)neopolb: UniYOr•
slty of Min nesot aPress. 1995). , .
2 2 . Fo1imoh Tobing Rony.n,c Third £ye; Race, Cinema, and Erlw<>graph� $pt'1;1oclG (Du rham.
N.C.: Duke Un iv eri;ity Preas. 1996). 4.
23. B auman. Lile in fiagment s , 221.
24. See th e cliscUSSio n of dis avow al in J. L opl Qnche �d J , · B ,Pontaµs, The Languoge ofPsyel1�·
AnaJysfs (New Yoflc W W . . Norton. 1973).I 18 -21.
25. Peir fu r'ther d is cuss.ion o4 Oie idea ol epist emological vtOlenee 1ego1ding tro ditiono l documen
tar y film pr actice. partic u.ktdy el hn OQTophl.cfilm.maki ng, sCo d«:ipt er 14. �oomestiCEthno gro-
pby an d the Construction of the 'Olhe.r' Self." • · .
26. S ee in particul ar Andr6 Bonn.. "The on to lo�y o,i the Photographic Image," i.n Whc:rt & Cin¢mo ,
. lions.Hugh Gray (B e,kcloy: Univen;.ity ol C.o.lifomkr Press. 1$6'1); 9 1-6.
2 7 . Noel ConoU. ··wonHctio n f'ilm an d Postmode rnls1 SkeptLci!sm., " in Po:.1-theory:JWCOILStructing
filmSt udies. e d .D avid BofdweU an d Noel Coftoll (Mos;! i&on: Unives sity ofWisconsinPress.
.
1996). 285. . .
2 8 . Ibid- 284.
29. FredricJomc�n. "Video : Surroo.l.ism without the Unconscioos," in Postmodcrnism; or Th e C u l
ture! l,ogie; o l lote Capitolfam (Du rham.. N.C.: D uke Ul\iv(H'$ityPr ess. 1991), 69. 73. 76.
'"
30, $Qe i n this re g ard Maureen 1\Uim. "The Cullur ol Logic ofVid eo.' ' in IJlwninatlDg Video, ed.
Doug Holland Sall y Jo Fifer (New Yorlt : Apert ure . 1990, 331-42;Raymond Bellour; �The Im• ..
�
ag es of the Woild." n R�!K>Wtioll$;Con re1npO(Qr y Vkfeo Ptacrlces, ed. Mlc:hoet R¢no v Qnd £,µca
i .
.
Suderburg (Minn ea polis: Universit y of Min nes0ta Press. 1996), 149-64: MQ ritQ '$tu rke n. ·rhe
....,
Politics o l Video Memor y: Electronic Erasure s and h\kfiP,tiOn$..•· in R eno v and Sud erburg, Reso
lution s. 1 1-2: and Ertko Suderbu1g. �Tht: Eloctr on ic Cofp$e: Not es fo r an Alternative La:n9uo9e
. of Hbio,y and Amnc!5io.."i n Re novand Suderburg, Re80lutions. 102-23. '·
31. Jameson. ·Vi deo ," 9 6 . ·.
3 2 . B ouman. Lile in Fragm ents. 81.
33. Bob Pont. ed.. The Digital Faet Book.f.dition 8 (Nqwb\lry. UJ(.: Qucrntet 1996). 60: ltalles mtne.
34. David Thro up ,Film in thQ Digital A g e. edi te d en d with o ddi1ionol ma ter kll byBob Ponk (New-
bury, U.K.: QuQntel. 1996}, 74.
3S. Po:nk. The OigitaJ Fact Book. 1 3 .
3 6 , Ttuoup. rum I n rhe DigHaJ Age , 82; italics min o. . .- '
37. Ibid., 87: ilollcs mine.·
mmo.
' 3 8 . Ibid.• 98: UoHc • ,
39. f do not mean (o s ugg est that all modeml sl arineces�r'ily suppOrl$th e rigid maxims of in
strumen1ol rQ'tio no:llty that I hove Unked tothe mod crni.$1 proj e c t .Ind e ed, o:sI have described ·'
eor&r. a numbetof importo nt !5tron ds ol art making in th e modem era (surr e alism,. �mprem(I.
U11.m., an d litcrory mode r nism. to ria me jus t a few) octive ty defined th e m$Cl�s ogQirn;J oor to:inty
or :;c ience or r ationo.lism o:s u. no:s.gailoble bulwo rb.T h e digital work to which I no w tum is
notable fo r its so mewhat po:rodoxi<:ol cm.broco of:;c ic ntific tech nology o.s o tool to und e tmlne
truth as hnmu10.ble. in¢vitobl c .Qn d irreVQr&ible . Th e tr uths tha1 thes e d igita l 0:r1tsts min(} ore
qu.icbi�r. rci;porl$ive to .the touch. revetsible at ever y t u m .
40. Soo chopte r 9 .7'echn olog y and Ethnographic Di alogue."'
41. Gemma: CorrodlF\umo:ro.The Otl1e, Side ofl..onguog e: A Phil osophy ofListening. tra ns.
Charles Lombert <Lond on: R ou tled g e. ) 990). S ee i n po:rticu.lo:r c-h o ptet I. "Toword$(I Fullm
U ndtr$-ton ding oH.ogos."·1 1-7 . .
42. Oo:nie l Reeves. telephone oon vetsaUon with outhot;26 A\lgtJ:i;t 1997.
4 3 . Cited l n Baumo:a,. Lilein fl()gmcnl$. 66.
-4.ot. The:le id(}(r.; o:rc d rown horno 1996 public lecture give n by Jim Co.rnpbell ot NCw York's Mu
:i;cuin ol Mod e m Ar t .cited in curator Stephe n Nowl in·s cotol o g ci:;:;Qy for o 1997 exhibition a1
th eA r t Center College of Destgn i n PolSadcno. California. entitle d "M elnOrYfRecolle-cllol\(
TtonsformotiOn : Re(l(;livo Works b yJim C ampbell ' · {n..p.).
4-S. Cited in St ephen Nowtin's coto.log ess ay fot "Memory/Reeolleetiontrrons formQtio n : R eoetive
Wo rks by Jim Campbell. (n.p.).
46. Emmanuel Levlnas,. "'Mortin Bubo.r 's Tho ug ht and Contem por ary Judo:lsm.." Jn Ou.t�We the S ub�
jtcl, troru;.. Mieho cl 8 .S m ith ($ton.fo rd : Sto: nfotd Unlvetsl1y Press:. 1994), I S .
N0 1'£S TO (:HAl'TCll 8 ""

Digitized by Original from .·
9 . Techno logy an d Ethnographic Oiologuo
I. Loui.$Althusser. "Phil0$0phy os o Revolution ary Weopon. •i.n lenjn and PhJJosophy. uon s , Ben
· Brewst er (.Ne w Yor k: Monthly Revio w Pies�. 1971}. 1 7 .
2 . Fot on exceptio n '° tbJs scanting o f th e oomm un it y in t.he emerg ent discouroo ol oommunk;o:tk>n
tech n olo gy, see Stev en G. Jones. ed., CyberSociety: Compute1-Medktted Communkatjon a nd
Communi ty (Th ousa nd Oats . Calif.: Soge Publications . 1995}. ·
3. Se e. In this regard, Emmonu el L evin os . pr ef ace to Totality ond Infin;ty , t1on:;.. At phon:io Ungls
(Tho Ho gu e: Mottinu.i; Ni jh of{. 1961). 21:-But vio lencedoos not oonsist &O much in injuring and
a n nihilati ng persons o& in inter rvpling thel r continuity. makin g them p loy roles In which they
no longerr ecogn.b:.e themselves , makingthem bet r ay not onl y th$i.r oommitmen t$ but their own
s ubst c:rnco. m akin g th em cony out actio ns that will des troy every possibi lity for octio n:·
,4. F.mmonuel Levi.no s. preface to Out$"jd(:the Subject, trans. Mkhoel 8. Smith (St a:nJord: Stanford
Onivecsl.ty Pr ess. 1994). 2.-3. A fur ther r ef ere nce lo the h1,Jm(ln remains lo be men lionod, one lhot
!;,ears upon the work ot Levi.no $. In 'lbe Co nqu est ol America: Tbe Question ol the Other. tran s.
Rlch01ci Howard (New York: Harpe r ond Ro w. 1984}. Txveton Todorov's monumeotal crltiqu e oC
the<:olonb:ol:ion oi th� Am eii.Cos ln the l at e tifteenth ond s ix1oonth centuri.es. two e em l entary
figur es o f th e e xperience oi o Jt erUy th at impelled the Spanish conq�st ore ide ntilied-on e
o misguided equallla:rlonlsm ( i . e.. everyono'i; the :;ome} leodlng to the prote(:tion o l one's
own volues on the Oth,e.r ond thus an aggre ssive o ssimilationi sm; th e othe r tho 0$$\Jmplion
o( a fundame nt ally hier archioal 'IOl uo $ystem In wh ich the Other ls devalued ordestro yed. l n
both instances. "Whol i s·d enled is the existence o f o humon :,;ubi;tonce tr uly other , $Omethlng
copablc o f OOi.ng not nwroly on imperfect stat e of on eseU" (42, italics mine). Todo rov o ff er s o
brllliant and tho roughly convincing00,00; !St ud y focu$i.ng on o succes!S.ioo ol hlsto rkol figu res.
a mong them Col umbus. Cortes, andDiGgo D uron: he dcmons-tr01� that th e Othetho$ a so·
ciol ly and culti.uolly det e rmin o d hlslOl'f and that Europe can be und er stood in the prese.nt only
through recourse to its co lonizing po st. Yet on th e heels of this hlsto rical specifici ty . Todo rov
t;hOO.!;C$ toeonclude th e book with some proposals tor tho futur e, id ea:; tho! 010 deeply i.nfiu
enced by Lcvino s. whom Todorov eolls 1n o bibliogropb.ic note "the philosopher of aJtcrity." He
c i tes Levinas. in aU his evanescence: "O urp eriod i.$not de lined by the triumph of technolo gy
for tech nology's soke. as11 ls notd efin ed by art torort:s sok$, o s it l$ not dofinod by nihilism. It
is action !o r a wo rld to cofflQ, tro n.i;cendence of its petiod-t ran scendenc e ol sell which calls for
epipbo:ny o the Othef'' {250}.
l
5. St eph en To u lmin . CO$m<ipolit: The Hidden Age nd aof Moderrtiry (Chicago: Univen;.ity of Chi•
oogo Press. 1990}. i x . Toulmin 's conc.: lusioni;;eem to oller quallfied supp ort to those of Levi nas.
fo 1 he a,g ues that the sevente enth c:entur y ·s " pursuit ot mothom<.J tiC<ll exocmude and logical
rigor. intellect\lol ce rtainty <.Jnd mor o.l purity ... led bo th to its moat 61:riking t�b n ical $\JC00$$0$
a nd to its d eep e s t h\lmon toilures ," T oulmin coils kn renewed attentio n t o ..a pra ctical concern
f01 hu mon life i o iLS co nc r et e detail" as a w ay to " s alvag e what t $ :..Hll humanly important" Ln
the project of modernity. Here o goin we discover the ethiclst's concern for Mhuman foilur$$." for.
the "hun)Only hnpo rtonf' <x x - iJ.
6. Levin<'.J.$. Torali ly one/lnllnlty. '43.
7 . Emmanu el Levinos. Otberwi$C Tho n Being, OtBeyond Es-sence, trans. Alphonso Ling-is (The
Hogue: Martin us Nijboff. 1981). 12.
8. Mart C , 1'oyo l � . Al.to-,ity (Chloog-o: University o f Chicago Press. 1987). 195.
9 . l.evlnas,.Toralityand Iniirtlty .49.
10. [.¢vino$. 01he,wJse Tban Bejng. o r BeyondL'ssenc e . 1 0 .
t I. T he p ar agr a ph dr o 'lr.l lromAlphon$O Ungis's introduction. Levinas·s pre loOl.l. and tho opening
..
pages of the chapt er M$lo phr-;Q ond Tron.$CCndenoe," 1n To1aJJtyand lnllnlty, 11-35.
12-. L8vinos. Totolily and InllnJry. '47.
13. "We name this colli ng intoqUe $liOn ol my spont aneity by the presence o l th e Othe r eth ic$"
(ibid... 43}.
1 4 . Ibid.. 46.
I S . Ibid., SI.
16. Levino s, Ot1ls ide the Subject. 10. 15.
1 7 . Levina s. Totality and Infinity, 305.
1 8 . lb ;d., so.
1 9 . Ibid.. 40.
20. Dovid MocDougoll. "'Beyond Obs er vational CiMmo. ·· in Principle:; ol Visuo 1 An lhropoJogy . ed.
Pa ul Ha cki ngs (The Hogue: Mouton.. 1975}. 118.
21 . Ibid. . llB-19.
22. For o thof w9h tiootment ol the modes of docum en taryexposition . see Bill Nichols. Repres:en.r-
258 WOTeS TO CHAPTttl 9

iag Rco lity (Bloom ing-ton : lndio:n o University Press. 1991), 32-75: ond N ichol;, /Jfurred Bound-
01i8$ (8oomin
1 gt on: lndiana UniversityPress . 1991), 92,..106.
23. Cit e d in Martin Dube(.On lnteJSUbjecttvJty andCul l ur ol Cre ativity, e d .$ . N. Eisenst-adt ( Cbl ·
cogo: University ofChicago Pr e s s . 1992).3 6 3-8.
24. . ibid.• 39-40.
2$. Ibid .. 40.
26. Michoel Rcnov. ·video Conies$�" in Resoluuons:Coa1entpo,ory Vidoo·Prac:ticGs . .ed . Michael
A enov and erilc:o Sucte rburg (Min neapolis : Univer$.it y of Minneooto J>ress. 1996), 92. re printed
h ere as chapter 13.
2?. Levino s , OrherwJire tbon Beitlg. OI'Beyond £sseooe . IJ.
2 8 . Rolottd Batthes."'M yth Todoy;" in Mythologi e s , trans.Anne tte Love.rs (New Y oil:: Hill a nd Wong.
1972). 109-$9.
29. Jo mC$W. C o rey. Communication asCulrure : Essays on Medio ond &x;jqty (Ne w York : Rout:
ledge. 1988), In describing Corny's brillia nt fof mul o tion ot · the two vie ws of communlc01jon,. I
a m drawing upon sevetal chapteis, chief omong the m "ACultural Approac h toCo1 n mun i oo ·
'"'
Uon'"' (l3-36), ''The Myth«, ofthe £1ect:ron.ic: RevolutKln (113---41), and "Spoce, Time , and C om•
., · municot:iom;.: A Tr ibvt e to Harold lnni.s� 0 4 2 -72). As C are y so ge nerously note:;. throughout.,
hj:; conception u; deeply iniluenced b y the work of tbe tote Co nod ion wmmunicotion theorisi
Harold A . Innis. whoS8 most accesslble work remain$ hi:,; coUoction of ffla y s Jbe Bias ofCom
· ssn.
m unkirtof n (Toronto : Universily o l Toronto Pre:;.:; , 1
30. Ca rey,Commut1i<:Olion (JS Cvltul(t, 134.
31. rb;d., 1$.
32. Tho l o1e H arold inn.is wrote that "the tragedy of mod�rn cu hUJ;e ho:-,; ori�n o i. inVGQ.tion s ih
co mm ercialism hove destro ye da sense ol l.u n e "(Tl ic 8.iO$ ofCommunko� on , S S - 86).Inthis .
rega rd .he examlned at length the oral e1.1lturc:; o{ the J)(lstR1Ch as-Greece an d its concern for
· cornm.u nlca 1on by tho eor . fo, exomple . th e .Homeric epi c , which depended uJ:!On a repeated,
1 �· ,
,
1ilualb:ed telling. (W e m ight odd. th ough (najs does not empho.sb; e thls_po in t , Ihot n on -Wcn;t er n
cultures hav eg-eoerolly lO'VOr ed orality.) The papyrus toll, t he parchm ent co dex. tt;ie printing
pr ess, ond the linotype mochln e all focllitoled the over1h1ow o l tho oral tradition in favor of b u ·
. reoucr01ic hierarchy, me1canttlL-im, in short, progro:;$. These techn ologies mode pos!rlble a h t s
torlcal shlfl fro m the timo�b o:;cd oral culture of the spoken word.. o rnode geo:red to listen ing, t o
,
.,
tho $po ce�conque ring. re producible species of cul1ure fot the e ye: A nd in light o l both Levinos ·
f
an d Carey. we 'might say tha t the dominant space-bi nding mode <?f c om munication represents
a movemen t toward the trOl'l..•unL<ision v iew ond toward tot olity, ·· ·
3 3 . Levlnos,. Totality ond Infinity, 23,
34. O n tho nontQloliiing character ot list ening in t h e cootext of the encou nter.see Martin Bub er's
rcm o1ko ble account o l the "dream ofthe double cry," In whlc:h his d reomod ou tcry WCt$$ilenUy ,. ;
a nswe re d ."And the n , not lro m a dist ance bul from the air roundtrbout me . no i&Gl86$).y, come
t he answer."Really lt did not come: it wi:.,:;. tho-re .Ji h od b een thGJe-so I �y explain it- even ;
befote my cry: thou.: it wo:;, on d no� .wh en I laid my&GU o pen to it. it let Itself be rece ived by
me ....If I were l oreport with what I he a rd itI s!lould hove to soy 'with every por'c of m y body' •
,(On·[ntersubjectivity andCulturalCreoUvtry, 41--43).
3S. in -Vkl e oConJessJons" (cha pter 13),I Ofgue lhot Wendy Clor ke'$ 0neon One project, co m
posed of a series of video letters exchon ged 'betWGG n prison inmates and those outskie.resulted
i n no.,.cl ond hybridized r el 01ion$ of th e sor t I have described here.The dlJference betweq�'thc
One on On e and L.A. Link experi ences was t he Un k tech nology's in troduc1i on of o rooJ-t'ime
element; int erlocutors were able to coflf munieote in the pro:;ont to.J)se rath er than after the fact
through t he bicycling of tapes. Th c,o soom t o bEtcrucial difJerences with r e gaid to !he way ·
i n which listening ond respo nse d evelo ped with the two'lorroots . B ecause the One o n Ono
po:rticipa: nts , hall of whom were incarcerate d , an d frequently given t o pe15,0nol reflecti on, were
oble t o W01ch and hear th etoped video letters fr om their H other"' m on y ti.mes over. th e qual it y
· of llstenlng and re-11po nse wo� fr e<rvo.ntl y m1.1ch 'more re linedthan W(l8 t he case with L . A .Link..
Anoth c1 difte,onc owo& age ba;; ed , given that t he L . A .Link population w as u nder twenty, while
th e "One on Ones" were undertaken b ypeopl e ranging in ag e fro� twenty to .sixty.five,
1 0 .The AcklrC$S t o thoOthor

I. Emmo nue.1 l.evina $ .Orhe:rw:ise than Being. orBeyond Es.'lence. tro.ns. Alpho n:;o Li091$C'l'he
Hogi,e : Martinus Nijholf Publlshets, 1981), 8 7 .
..
2 . Hoyden Whit e, ,.The Model'ni�t Event_. i nfbEtAm;istenceoiHi.&toty. e d .VivianSobchocl: (New
Y01k: Roude<Jg o . 1996). · 3(j�.
3. Dori Loub, MD.. "An Eve nt without o Wl.tne ss.: 'ftuth., Testimony, o n<:t Survivol.-Testimony:
HOTCS TO CHAPTEll 10 259

Crises ol Witnessi ng in Utetoture. Psychoan oly::;i:s, c;rnd History, by Shoshana Felman ond Dori
Laub (New Yort: Rout ledge,1992). 75-92.
4. Qu ote d in Wh ite. "Th e Mo d er ni.$1 Event..u 30.
S. Jean-Fran� Lyotard. Heklegger ond "'the Jews." trans. Andreas Micrn,1 ond Morie S. Roberts
(Mlnneo:polis: Univer9lty otMinne sota Pre&S. 1990}. 4 7 ,
$. Doti Laub . M. D.. "Beoti.rtgWitness, or the Vkis &itud" o4List e ning,� ln Testimony: Crises o1 vt;,.
nes::;ing in LJtcrotr;re,Pl;ycbo ona.lySis,andHl.srory. by Shoshana Felman and Dorl Laub (New
Yort: Routledge. 1992). 64.
7. lbld. 6 4 6- S.
8. Lcvin os. 01herwise Tho n Being,or Beyond Essence. 119.
9. Loub. "An Ewnt without a Witm;$!1,,."91.
10. Harold Bloom, foreword to Zakhor: /8wfa;h History 011d Jewish Memor y ,by YoM.f Hoyitn
Yerusho.lmi (Seo.ttle: Un1ver9l ly ol Washingto n P r8&S. 1982). xxili.
II. Levino!S. 01h erwfae Thqn Bei ng. o r Beyond £.ssence. 13.
12. Ibid .. 49,
l3. Aaron Hass. "intergenerational Transmi ss:i on.." in. In the Shadow ol 1hcHokx;ou.st: The Second
Gc nerotiort (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1990). 2-5-50.
14, Levino &. Othcrwi.se Thon &frig,o ,·Beyond Essence. 117.
IS. See. inth.is regard: Yos el Hoyim Yeru$holmi. Zokhw: Jewish Hlstotyond /ewiSh Memoty
(Seattle: U niversity of Washington Pre.ss.. 1982), S-26.
16. Mor tin Bub e , ,I ond Thou, lfOrt$.Walter Kaufman (New York: Simon and Schust er. 1970). S?.
17. Levino&. Otherwise Than Being. or Bcy<ind £.�nee, 1)6.
11. Now Subjoctrrltiot;

1. Han s Richter, Th eSttuggletor the Film. trci ns . Ben Btewster (New York : St. Mar tin's Press. 1986),
4 2 -44.
2. (bid . . 43.
3 . Jori s Ivens. The Co-merc;r(md 1 {NewYork: lntematlonol Publishe rs. 1969). 26.
4. Oziga Vertov. Xi no-£ye: Th e WrWngsol Cnigo Vcttov. ed. Ann�te Mlchelson (B erke ley : Unive r
sity ol California Press, 1984). 7 8-.
5 , Ibid .. 84.
6. See. in particular. Brion Win ston. "The Oocumerttuty Film as Sclenlillc Inscription.� in Tbeotig.
f ng Docume.ntQTf, ed . M.icboel Renov (N ew Yor k:'RO\ltlodg,c, 1993), 3 7 -57 : and Uso Ca:nwright
St:seeni.ng rhe Body (Minneapolis: Universityof Minnesota Press. 1995).
..
7, Raymon d Wnuoms. �subj,ecli� . in Key'words: A VocabuJaty oJ Cultu re and Soci ety (L on d on:
f1anungo, 1976). 308-12.
8. lbkl., 312.
9. Bill Niehols. Rep,esen ring ReaUty: Is.sues and Concepts in Docwnen tO'.ry(Boom l ingtort: lrtd iano
Uniwrs ity Pr8$$. 1991 ) ,38 44.- Nichols hO$c.hosen to update his fourfold 1ypology i.n hi.& mon:>
rece n1work b y addin ga filth ocrt egory. thu P.erformo-livo mode, which corresponds rather close
ly to whot 1 o m ter mi n g th e " new subjectivity" in d ocument ar yfil m o nd vidt>O. Se e especially
the chtrpton."'Eml:>od ie,d Kn owledge ciiid the Politics ofLocation-an £vocation·· ond "Porf onn•
ingDocumentary,' ' in Bltmo d Bound c,riCf: QucsliOns: of MeaningIn Contemporary Culture, by
Bill Nicho ls (Bloomington: (ndio:na Uniwrsity Pr ess. 1994). 1-16. 92-106.
10. Wirn.t on ,"The Documentary Alm." 4 3 .
II. Ibid., 51-52.
12. St ephen Mam.ber, Cinem o Vcrilq in Amcrico: Studiwsirt Ut1cot1fr0Iled Documenkrty (Cam
bridge: MITPress. 1974). 95.
13. Cliff ord Geerb,LocoJ Kn owledge: Furthe r Essays in ln.terp1etive Anth ropology (New Yorlt:
Basic Books. J983). 4 ,
14. Sta nley Aronowitz. "R�flGction & o n (d entity: in hi &Oood Arti5ts; Live Tbeot Je s ,and Other CuJ
turoJ Pro bJem·s (NewY orlc:: Routledge, 1994), 1 9 7 9-8 .
IS. Quotedi. n Mick £ot on . "The Prod uc..1i o n of Cinelfl(JticReal11y," in Antbropology -lteo1Hy
Ci.nem9": TheFJlms ol Jean Rouch. e d . Mick £oton (Lond on; BF1; 1979). SL
16. Q1,1otc<.l in G. Ro y Levin,"Jean Rouch," i n Documenra,y £xplorarjom;; Filtf]'41n lntesvlews wUh
Film-Makers (Ga rden City,N.Y.: Oo ublod o y. 1971). 137.
1 7 . Anneue Kuhn,Family Secrets:Acts olMemory and Imagin onon (L ond oi-i:.Ver'!iJO,1995). 4.
18. For o:n exte nded (lnQly$iS of Melt�s·s piece within lhe documentary tradition. sec chopter 4 ,
"Lost. Lost, Lost: Maltas a&Esooyist,"
19. J uliaWatson , "Unspeakabl e Oilfere.nces : The Politics of Gender in Le,;bion Ortd Heteros elCUa l
WOffl8n ·s Auto biog r ophie$," in De/Colollizirtg 1h e Subject : The Politicsof Gender in Women's
Au tobJography (Min nGopoli&: Univ ersity o l Min n�oto Pr(}$$, 199'2). 140.
260 N OT ES TO CHAPTEi B 11

12. The Electronic Essay
l. "lie lstroubled by Ol'ly imoge of him:;ell s1,1.ff e1s when be ls named. He fin& the pc,:.rfcction of a
huin on rel otion:.;h.ip i n this voconcyo l t he imag e: to abolish-in ooo5o8lf. b etw een on eaeU and
othcr$-odjocifres ; a relationship which adjectivi:r.cs is on th e sid e oj the imag e. on.the side of
domination. of death." Ro l and Bot1hes,Roland Bartbes b yRoland Ba.rtbes,J:tons. Ri chQrd How•
ard {New York: Hillond Wong, 19'1'7). 43.
2. Cite(( in R . . l.Qnc K<rulimann. lbe Stewed Path: Es�oying Ct:.Un-methodical Method," Diogenes
143 Ual l 19881' 66.
3. Pate r's sta1e ment of l� essoy'$ "un· mOfhodi<:al method" serves os the epig,·o ph 10 K oufl mo-nJfs
'"The Skewed Poth," 66: Adorno·s pronouncement a ppear$ in "Tho Essay <ts f'orm.- in Notes
to l.itc,vtvre. vol. I , e d . Roll Tiedemann.. trortS. ShJerry WcOOr Nichoben CNeWYork:: Coiu mblo
· ·
Univer sity Pre ss, •1991), 13.
4. Georg Luk6:cs,"On the No ture and Form ol the Essery," inSoul and Form, ttant. Anno 80$tock
(Camb,i(lge: MIT Preu, 1974). 18.
5. R eda 8eos maia, The BattbeaElfecr: Tbe£ssayQ'SRcllo(;t ive Text.t rans.Pat Fe dtiew (Minne-
apolis: Unlverslly of Minne$0t(I PrCS-$. 1981). 96. 9 8 .
0
·
6 . "Th e postmodetn would be th at ,;hic h, in thG modern. puts forwo ,d the unprcoontab1e i.n
preoontation itseU; that which d enies ttself the solo cc of good forms. t h e consensus o l a taste
whioh would �eJl possible to sho.reoo�li�l y the nostalgia fort h e �tainobte : thot wh.ieh
new
se arches l or prC1;cntatioru,;.. not in o,OOr to en)Oy them but in ordet to impor1 a !,lrongor sen&e
of the ·unprescnt oble..•• It se e ms 10 me tha t t h e essay (Moo toign e) it po:;tmodern. whil e t h e
lrag:ment ffbe Arhaenewn) ls mod em." Jeo:n-Fron90h; Lyo to rd , '/'be Po s rmodem CondltJon : A
Repo,t .on KnowJedge, tto nt. Geoff B enni ngton and Brion Massum.l. (Min neapolis: Univcn>it y of
Mlnnesoto Pr� 1984). 81: Adorno , -rb e Essay asForm," 1 8 .
r 1. Ad o r n o, "The E ssa y as For m... 22.

8 . Kauflrnonn. " The Stewed Poth," 68.
9. A�orno."The Et$0y o:i; Form," 22.
10. Th e e$!:Kly ho.$. since Montaigne, been un derstood to be judgmen t "in oppr entioosfti.p and on '
. trial" Mich el d e Mo ntaigne. &says, tra n s .Donokl M . Fro-mo (Sta nford: St an ford University !
Press. l�8), 6,1 I. Tobio s W ol f f hos noted of 1he J)8rsonol essay that ·it doesn' t rewo rd oulhofi o 1
d.isetetion, self --cff ocement, th e artst ha t conceal ar t. N o rdoes ii re wo rd ony of thCcivic vir tues:
toC-1; polish; reaso nableness; noble. throat catching senli.m ent ; oom.1ct p0$1\ue .· Tobios Wolff, ''
introduction to Broken Ve.tcsels-. by Andie DI.Jhus (B os1on :Dovid R . Godine, 1991),Jdll.
11. Ad0n,o."The E:i;5(Jf o:i; form," LJ.
12. Raymond BeUour, "Vkleo Writingt in !Jlumlnatlng Video: An £.�ntiulGuide to,V'/000 Arr, trans .
Ali.son R owe (Sa n Francisco: Ape,1me ond th eBc?Y Aroo'Vid�o Coalitio n,' 1991), 435.
13. Bill Viola, UAn lntetview with Bi!) Viok,," by Ra ymond 8 eUou r. Octobec 34 (loij 1985): lQ0-101 .
Id. Bellou,."Vid eo .Writing: 427. . .
IS. Pegg . y Ph elan, Unrnad,ed.: The PoliUCs o/Petlormon<* (New York: Rou tl�e. 1993). 148.
16. ·Marita StU.rtc:e n . "Poto dox in th o Evolution of an Art f'orm : Gr ea1 Expecta tions Ol'ld t M Making •
of o Hl$ to,y," in Ill umiooting Vid eo, IJ9.
I?'. Rooc:ilind iCJaU&S. "Vkleo : Th e Aesthetics of"Ho rcbsi.$Jn,"October I (1$76); reprint ed in John·
· Hanhardt ed., Video CuJr ute (Roc�e�lcr, H.Y. Vi wo lStudies Wo rkshop and Per egrine Smllh
: : .
Boob. 1986).·179-90.
I�. M<>ntoigne,&� 82l.
19. Ibid...6ll, 721.
20. Botthes.R oJond Bo1tbesbY,.4tQ]and Batthes. 129.
2l. Cited in Ka uff monn.'7The Skewed Path.". 74.
22. Roland Bor 1hes, The Preosute ol th e Text. traru;. Richard Miller (New York: Hill and Wang,
1975):64 . Bor thC$'5 rnc tophO, ol the essoyistic text aupid er's web OOC'UJ'S earli er in AdQrno·s
Minima Morafio (writte n between 1 94-4,ond 1947), but with a cruci<i.l and informative dille r
·ence. for.Adonio, the spide(s web is o tile of iox1u. aJ occretio n rath er than subjective dissolve:
,"Pl'opedy written toxts< are like spide r s' webs : tight. concentric. trans porent, wCll•sp1.1n a:nd £inn,
The y draw into th em.selves o.ll the c rea tures of the �ir.Me 1oi)h or$ flitti ng hastily th r ough them
become their nou rishing prey. Subjcc1 matte , c omes wingingtowards them . The soundnet$
of o conception co n bo judged b y whethe r i1 cau ses one quotato l n 10 summon o nothc, . Whe re
thought has op ened u p one cell of reoU1y, it should. with ou t violen c e by the subject, penet rate
the next. h proves its re. loti on to th e object as soon as ocher ob;ects c rysto.llli.e arou nd it, [nthe
· light th o t 00$1$ on its ch osen .substance, others begin t o glow." Thood or W .Adorno. Minima
it
Moralia: Reflectlolu lrom Damaged LJI&, trons.. F: H. Jephcott (London: Verso. 1974), 8 7 .This
e.
pos.l.Oon ts reinf orced i. n thelater "Th eEssay .as form· (1954-1958) 1 n which, to,e$.SOy ilrti(; wr it•
ing."the fruitfu lness of the tho ughts d epends on the deni,ity of th e �xturc" 03),
NOTCS TO CHAPTER 12 211
Digitized by 'original from

23. VJo lo,.1.nte-rvie w . 101.
?.4. Cite d i n Adorno . "Th e�Y (1$ Form...·11.
2�. Lyotard. Tho Ptntrnodw- n Ccnditi on. 81.
26. Andre T oumon, "S eU-lnterp retotion i n Mont aign e' s Essaf.s... Yale French Studies 64 (1983): 62.
27. M aureenThrun, "Video Art : Theory fo ro F'utur'e,"in RegardJng TelevlSl'on: C1i�<;0I ApJ)(O<JChes-
o n Anthology. e d . E. Ann Koplcm (LosAngeles: Univ()n;ity Publ.ioolion:. ol Am eric a . 1983). 134.
28. WkOci.. "On the Noluio o:nd F'01m ol the Essay... 18.
29 . Adorno. "The £$soyus F onn." 13.
30. Slovoj Zizet. "ls T here o Cause ol tOO S\Jb;cct?" in Supposing the Subje<:.t. ed. Joan Copjec
(Lon don : Verso. 1994). 103.
31. 11,.i. 102.
32. Ibid., IOI.
3 3. .AdOfno.MfoJmoMoraJSa, 70-71.
13. V-M:leo Confff sion s

The chopt e(s first epigraph is cited in Jeromy l'o:mbling. Coafessk>n: S exuality, Sin. the Sub·
jeet (Ma nehea1e r : Mancheste r University Pless . 1990}. 3 7 . Cono n 2l, "'Omni.;ubus.que $eXUS,"
mo:ndo tcd o n nu ol c onfot.$io n f01' the f aithful to be fulfilled before lhe Easter.comm union . The
placeo l privoi e conf ession within church doctrlne was the subject ol inuch debat e and revision
1 b1oughout th e medievalperiod.
The 11eeond epigrap h ls drown from Theod or Reilt. The Compub.ion to Con(¢$$: Onlh e
Psyc hoanoly:;i$ ofCrime ondPunishment (New York : F arra r. Strou s ond C udahy. 194S).
302. The book is compo sed of a $itn'iC$ of lect urns delivered at the Teaching Institute ol the
Vi enna Psychoana lytic As &0eiotion in 1924: it.s cxhou.$1ive tJeotment of the subject received
Lhe endo fflem ent of Fre ud himsell. (in a lett er to �ik. F'rc\Jd tormod the tro,oti.$e -,houghU ul
and ex tromc-ly impot1on1 .") In Relic's analysis. confession em erges o s o· function oUyc omplex
psycho onolytic teim. Th e inclination tooon fes s is " a modilied urge for th e expressio n of th e
drives." which -01e l elt o r recog:ni-ied os forbidden .. (194-9S). Conf ession produce:so " partio.l
grotiftcalaon"of !h e reptes sed thought o r act, o kind ol Eimotionol rolie.f. Whil e Reik posits o
mw; ochi$.tjc compsme.nt to conJession to "need for punis hroenn. h e claims for it another �em•
lngly contradict ory f unctio o . -th e unc on�ck)u$ ul'g e IO achi eve the loss of love" (208). R eikgoes
on to an alyz ethe co mpulsion to conf ess in m;$CVCrol monifestations : in th e Uelds of criminolo
gy ond criminal low. religion. myth. o:nan d lang ua ge, child psycholo gy, and pedogogy.
I. Mic-h elFouca ult. "The Confcn;s)()n o f the Fle$h," in Power1Knowledge: Selected Int erviewsood
01her Wrlrings, 1972-l9'n{He w York: Pa nthe o n Book$. 1980), 210.
.
2. Ibid, 211, 215-16 .
3. J er emyT o mbling mok<l'$l be case for o disll.nction be-tween autobiog:.raphy. which ho IOlc0$ t o
be a "se.U-foshio ning... arid con10$.$l on . which of n ece ssity s ubmits ils eU to the judgmentoJ o:
higher o·uth ori1y. Despi18 these dilferen c es.. howewr. "tho intertwi ning of the two forms seem s
importan t . ultima1ely, f ath er than the pos sibility of att empting t o see thom Q$ opposites .. (To:m·
bling. Confession . 9). .
4. Mlc-h elFouca uh.. The ffi srorjr o f Sexvo lity, Volv me I: A.n lnttoducuon. .tra ns. Rober1 Hud ey (�e w
·
Yotk:V in tog e Books. 1978). 6 1 6- 2. · .
5. Peter Denn is Bothory. PolmcoJ Theor y as Public Confession: Th eSock,)t:mdPolilico.JTh oughr of
St. Augustin e ofHippo (New Biunswic.k . NJ.: Tronsoctlon Books. 1981). 21,
6. Sigmund F r eud. -rron slerenco ... i.n A Gcnorot lnliOdU(;tiOil to �ychoonalyai.s, t ro:ns, Joon
Rlviei-e (New York : W as hington $quo:re Press. 1966}. 448: F reud nc)IO$ that the transf erenc e oon
b e e ith er ofleciionat e O! hoslile, con evince faith in the ueqtment or de<lP•$COled tesis-tonce.
This is b ecaus e the an alyst lxwm<,�
: o:n ob;oC:I inves ted with libido . a p roce ss that &tcind s w;
on obsolu e requlreroent for suocessful tr80tment .
l
7 , ··even we seeke r$oft er kno wledge to day, we i,odless anti-meta physi(;ion.$ gtill)o.ke our fire.
t oo . from the ·uome lit by o foilh tho:t i$ thOU$0nds of yeo:rs old. tho ! Christian faith wh.ich wo:-1>
ol s o th e faith o f Plato, that Go d is the truth. l bo t tr uth L$ divi no.-But what U thi s should become
more a:nd mo, e i nCf"ed ible , U nothing should prove to be divine o:ny more unle$S it were etr or,
blindness, the lie -ifGod him$¢U shou ld prov e to be o ur most enduring lie ?"fried.rich N ieti::&eh e,
·Th e Goy Scien c e. trans. Wolt er Kau bna n (N ew Yori:: Vintpgc Book$, 1974), 283. Looanion s u b
jcc1 CQnG"lr'ucti on posiUons the Other asth e source ol desir eo:nd oJ m eaning. "Who! I see.k ln
speech is the re,sp00$8 of the Olh e,. Whot c ons titutes m e as su bjecl is my q uest on . tn o•der to be
recog nlzed by th e other. I utter wh at wo:s only in view of whot will be . l n order to fi nd him. l coll
him b y o n(lm e Lhot he must as sume or refuse in o rde r to replyto me:· Joe,gues Lacon , &::tits: A
SeJ ecdon.. tro:ns. Akin Sh erido n (N ew Y01'k: W . W . Norton. 1977), 86. in LOconion t e rm s. oonfcg ·
262 NOT&$ TO CHAPTCR U
Digitized by �riginal from

sional disoourse is always addres sed t o the othe r; it ia th e de siring Jecte r that olwoysarrive� at
it s d estination.
8 , Foucault. The His tory olSexuoJity, 59.
9 . Any onaJysi,; that con:;:tn,.icts the su bje,cf:- sdep end ency on on extem<1L oU-kn owing sourc e as
sepQro ble lr om the therapeu1il:: eff e ctsth<rt accrue fromeonfession clea rly mi&.Tecognit.es the
function<1L dynamic o f the confession al ac t .A scnt-0 of unburdening con only occ ur if one en·
do wsthe a uditor with the power to 9tan1 ab&olution.
tO: Peter Brown,Aug us-Unc ofHippo (B erlc;eloy:U niversity o f c<iufor nla Pl'&$s, 196'7), 181.
i
11. Reik, ComJM'ls-i on to ConIC$$ , 250. PhilipWooUcett. wrlUng in the /ot.unol /or the Scienr Hc Srudy
ofReJ;gi on , oonC'Urre d with Rei.k's assessment: "'Augusl:ino wo:;: th e greatest psych ologist of his
timea nd probably for many c en tur.les to c ome"' (B oth ory. Polirkal Jb e o,ry . SS).
12. Re ik. Compuls-1on to Confess, 192.
13. Bathory claims that Augusclirn> dcvcl orx.-d �o mode of instr uction th.rough public co nf�ion"
(Political Theory, 17), He exami ne& Augu stine's "therapeutic method,"' in por1icukn his u&e o f
anxi ety os o pos itive rather th an n e gative f orce. "Anxie ty was r;i nOCGS$0'.ry por t o f people's
l ives.o:nd be OUera them th e means .t o foee it. In thepr0<;es,s, anxiety took on a creative poten
tial in that it oould-lf properly peteerred -chr;iU�mge peo ple and lead not t o poraly9.ls but to
an active seotch fOC' $Clf•1coli1.otion"(38).
14. F'outault.,Hi $10ryo/S o:wality. 34, .
IS. Wi.lliCJm J< im es. TOO V<rrietieS ofReHgious Ex�: A.Stud yin H1Jm(rn Natu,e (N ew Yor k: C o l -
. ti. G rBooks. 1961). 360. .
16. No rberto Valentin i and Cleta di Me,gl.io, Sex ond I.he Con fe:;,sjoaa/, trans. Melton S . Dov'i.s (New
· Yo rk Steln and Doy, 19?4), 1 2 . 211.
:
1 7 . Raymond Will i om,,:;. Marxism andLirerature-{Oxiord: Oxford UA!ve rsily Pze:a.;$., 1971), 1 2 - 27 - .
·
16,. Mimi White. n11e ·odvising: T.iieropeutkDiscourse Jn American Te,Cvision (Ch apel Hill : Unive r
sity o f N orth Caroli.no Press. 1992). 81. l'78.
19. Ibid. 19. · ·l
'· '
20 . ""The actu al �ommodit)' , th.e.n, i$t h e \lll:imcrte referent o ft� television discourse." Nick Br own�. ,.
"'The Politioal Economyal the Teklvisio n ($ uper>Text," OuOTte rly Review ofFilm Studit-s 9 . n o . 3
(svmmer 1984): 181. ;
· 21. the c ompuJsive factor eventuolly found Us 1epa;!$entotion ond ob;ectification inthe obligati. o n '
to confess."' S(fy$ Rc:.ik in Tho Comp1Jl$ion to Con i8'U (300). Mandatory monthly confession after ·i
the Counci.l ofTrcnl finds its thera peu ticcounterpart in th e �tor y si;he duling of <,mo lyti<; ; .,'
s8$$ions . .
22. White. Tele-advising. 179. Th e OOnfesslono l displa y con also lx:f;o mc th$ basi.& tor the viewer's
. own rep etition compulsi on , os a numbe1 of televi:;ion o\ldfonce studies have shown .
23 . Ibid_ 182.
2 4 . Michocl Ronov. "The Distrust ol the Visibl e: Docu me ntary's Psychoa na lytic Encountecr... popor
p resente d at "Visibl e Evid ence: Strat egies o:nd Practices in Docum e nto r yF'i) m and Video ," :
Duke University, S eptemb er 1993.Teehno·analysi$ recfcrg t o tho di,,:;p aCemen t of the anatys,t ••
l
t,
by the oppomtu.sitself, l�ulting in o kind cl do -i yoo.rsell psychothe ra p y The � tech no logy be·
come$ both o ,;tto ot on d o relo y point for. uansfeienc e . ., ·'
2S. Joon ,Rouch. quotE!d in Mick Eat o n. J he Production of Cinemo.1.JcReolity," inAnlh,osxilogy
Reafity-Cinema: The Films ofJean Rouch, ed. Mkk Eaton (Londo n: Bfl. 19')9). SI.
21> . Spoken by Me kos.os nOft(ltiOn ovei imago:; in tool. �t Lost . Fo r further discus sio n of this re-
mo.d:ab! efilm, see c;.h optm 4 , ·l,os1, Los, , Loot: Mel::as as Essa�:·
2'7. David E.Jr;im$$ has writt en with greot insight on the a lternative clnem . as that em ergt-d i nI�
Unite,d Sta t es during the l.960s i n oppostuon to the hegemo n.ie or industti al cinom<i, At issu8 is
o notio n of the "mode of c uburol p1·oductic)n·' intpiu:.-d by Horkhei mer and Ad orno but c onside r·
ably quqUfied by, am ong o ther foe.to� the many " renega de uses"'at the point of c onsu mption.
Oovid E. James.-i\llegories ofCinema: Amerkan Film Jn tbe Stxties (Princeton. N .J.: Plim.x.-ton
University Press. l. 989). 3 2- 8 .
2 8 . Perha p s r ather lbon p oi nting 10 lhe-limi l:$ of cloctronic"h cmdcra fting." it would be more oocu
rote to $u90e�t that the orti sr;inpl poten tial for vid eo cultur e is simply unlike the ctnemo's, whid1
·ia, organiwd ar ound tactility (the "fe el"'. o l celluloid).The llrst and legendary v;(lc o art even s
l
o th e early 1960s. Paik's an d Vostell"s. wete ins taUotiOn$ in whic.h tho tolevi;i;.u al har dware wo.s
l
stripped ol Us techno-use vo ue and ,cwo,ked �b y hr;ioo·· t o i;uit the artist's visio n . Bonlcs of TV .
l
SCI$ be<; omc the p'la:;ti,c mediu m. Videoart thus · began as o kind ol ortisanal reOex to the very
te chnology that rendered ii possible.
29. A not e re gar d ing the title of Lhls section: 1..ong ofter ( hod bc,gvn t o re:&ea rch this essay, which
I pl anned to call "'The £1.cchon ic Cont'essional." I chanc ed up o n o bo ok of th e sa me name
outh ouxl b y o h u.s.ban d a - nd-wi.fe team o fwriters speclolldng in se:rology , How ard R. Lewi=.
o:nd Martha E . Lewis. The £Jectroruc Confe:;s/¢l)OJ.: A Sex BooJc o/ lh<: 80'$ (NewYork: M . E'lCtll&
NOTES TO CHAPTEII I� 263

1986).The Lewi.Se$ hod. it soom$, developed a computer service onllod Hun,on S exu oUt y {HSX.
lo r short), a · ·v idex>to.x�&ervioe off ering"diSC'usslon. lrtfonnatlon<md odv ice on a wide YOtiely
of lssues related to sex." The book o if ers an intro dur.:1ion to t� t.ystem and its u&e s lo r th e un•
iniHo te d while de Y04lng U,; elf prl m o r ily to the reproducti on of a sel e ction o l HSX qu eries. en 4
t ries. and c�hongcs . .O ne exo:mple may sel'\'e to illustrat e the tone of the book: o moffled mo:n
c onl esse s to a pr edil ectio n for JDO:jlmbo t1ng while wea r ing d1apcm; into whic h h e ho s p, evi·
ou.sly urinate d .-My wile andI have ·oonnol' ,; ,ex ,butI nood more sexual re lease tho:n sbe 000$-,
SoI turn 10 th e dia per' (88).Through the &er vices o l HSX, th e man ls lnfo r me d ot a: group called
the Oio-pc1 Po.ii Fro temtty ou t of SousalUo. California (with a member'$hlp of 1,500}. with whom
he may pr esumably choose to find fell�ip.Th e book cett alnly $U!;r9esicxl wh ole n ew frontie t-"
of confessional discourse f or the 1990s . lt also convinced me to find an04he r title tor this $$$0Y,
30. "'Tho empho�<i h e !'e i.$ on the 1e ptlcation o f the histofioa.l real, t�e creatio n of a se cond -o rder
re ality cut to th e moosu.re ol ou r d0$h'C- IO cheat death. slop time. te-store loSs." Mlchoel Reno¥.
"Toward a Poetics ot Docum enta ry,' ' in Thoo,ix:.ing Documentoty. ed. Michocl Rcnov (N ew Yotk:
Routle dge, 1993). 2S.
31. lnd ccd . th e we dd ing vid eo mu st delegat e th e first-person fu nction to the roving or multiple eye
of th e p ro fess ional. for a tho roug h troat m en1 of th.ls vid eo phenome non. se eJ omes M .M oran .
"We dding Video and Its Gen erat,00," in Resolutions: Contcmvorory Video Proctice:i;, ed.Mic.ho el
Rc-nov o:tld Eri1to Su.derburg {Mi..nneap olis: University o4 Minnesota P ress.1996),360-81.
32. Of CO\lroo. oll c onJ(l:$$ion i:i; sp oken in th e(h�I perso n. The distinc tion J wish to make is between
confession that is produced through the intor vo(ltiOn ot onother po,ty who controls enu nc iation
and dlscourse thcrt ls selt--octivoted ,su.bjeci only to one ' s own edito rial a g e ncy.
33. Th e "intctoctive mode"i $ the useful term ado pte d by Bill Nichols to describ e the th ird ot lou r
documen tary mOOQs o f rep re s en totion in his Rep,esentlng Reality (Bloo m i ngto n : (ndia n a
Univer sity Pre ss. 1991 ). 32-75. l n c ompa ris on to th e ex�itory modo, i n which arguments or e
,hetor'.colly de veloped, frequentl y via vok:e�ove r nana'tio n, or th e ob ser vati onal mode . which
opt:,; for th e noninte-rventioni:i;m ofAmer ioo:n direct cine ma, films oJ the in teractive type ·stress
ima g es of testimony or verb al oxc.ha nge and imog� of d emonst ratlon ....T extual authority
sbiltsto ward the social actors r ec ru it�•...the shift of empl19?;il; (iii;) from on ou thot-eente.red
..
voice of authority t o o wll ness -centered voice ol testimony (44. 48).
34. Reik. Co mpW,$lon to Conics:;, 210.. 1 I.
35. Ov er o period o l many months in the early 19705. Corel orxl Fetd re mained (I staple fe a tur e
auhe Video Fre eA merlco exhibition site in the wareh ouse di.stric t o l Sa n ·rroncisc:o. Lcx:ol
audie nce s we re oblc to de ve lo p o long-term re lotlonsblp with the unfolding melod ra ma i n the
manner ol mainstream soap s.
36. Fouca ult. HJstoryofSexua/Hy. 6 1 62. -
37. H(!r$hmon's 1.101emen t ls dellclously po:mdoxlcol since she knows h er discour&e to boo publi(;
on e. albeit o: n cxcwci otingly privote public disco utse.
3 8 . H e re l re fer to Re it's a n alys is of the c onl esso nal impul.i;.c in which he note s thol conlessl-on
..gronts a partia l gr otltication to the rep resse d wishes and UIIJ)Ul&e s" whil e ol=:;o h.i1Hll.jng th e
oood for pu ni$hrncnt. "Ac:tu olly, we ol!e n !lee symptoms dl.soppoor in analy sis when needs o f
th.is kind, a t o dd s with eo ch oth er , h� lound o c oniplete.ly adequ a te exp r es sio n in confes-
s1o n" (204).
39. I.$ it only coincidento.l thol th e edltlce in wh.ic h The Love Tape s afe made is architoctu r ol}y c o n�
gruent with the inc;rcx:J::;.ingly obsolesc enl chmehconte sslonol? The desig n of each. suited to t M
contai n ment ot a sin gle c ont'essing body, n ever thcl<:$$ provides windowed occess ,o ano the r
spoce that underwrite sa ndauthorizes it.
40.'I b ono.;., the notiOn ofthe roon o-w-ord from R-olandBor1he s: "In an autho r' s lexioon. will the re; not
al ways be a word•o1rmono. o wo rd whe>!;e ordcn t . complex, ln eUabl e . and som e ho w sacred
significa tion gives the illusion that by thi s wor d one roi� .ht o:n.swcr for everything?Such o wo rd
i:i; n e ilhet'. ec::eentr ic n or ce ntral: it is motionl ess o:nd carri.ed.ll-oo:ting1 never pig(. -onh ol cd .
al ways atOpic (e&eoping o ny top ic}, ot once re mol nd et ond suppl ement. a signilie r 1akin g u p
the place o l ever y signified," For Barthes. that word� body. Rolo nd Bor the s, Roland Barthes by
Rokmd Botthes, trons.
.. : Ric hard Ho ward (Ne w Yo rk: Hill and V/a ng .1977). 129.
41. Ln Th eR adio a s onA,PJ)(Jl'(ltut of Commu nic a tion,.. w r itte n i n 1932.B et 1ol t Bi-echt critiqued ·
radio for the singularity ot it& pu.--po&G: as a protit-motivo100 vchie. le for de.liver lng ente11oln
m en1 ro thet tho:n as o medhlm of t'WO· WQf excha ng e .!'8U1 quite opo:r1 f rom thed ul:>iou.:;n0$$ of
it s l unchons. radio ii; onc>•$ided wh en ii $hould be two ·. It ts pure ly on apparatu s tor distri b u
tion.for me re shoring ou t .So he re is a positive sugg e s1io n.: ch ange this oppo rotus ove.rlr om
distflbutiOn tocom.mu.nleotion ....The slightest advance i n this direction is bound t o $UCCCod
far mO re s.pect oculorl y th o n o ny pel'for monce of o cul ino :ry kin d A . s for th e te chniq ue th at
needs to bedeve loped tor all such op erations. it mus t oll.o w th e p r im� objedlve of t umlng the
l
oudicneec not only ln to pupils b u t into te achers." Bertoli Brecht. "The Radio a s onApparatus o f
..
, ltO TCS TO CHAPTCfl 13.
Digitized by Original frpm

Cornmunk:oHon.." in Yrdco Cvltu.te ,ed. John Hondh ord t (Roch(,-:;tet. N.Y.: Vi.sual Studi es Wort·
•hop P...• . 1986). S 3 -S4,
<12. Quc.i;.tions o l vario us sor t s aris e when the tOpo!; of tho One on One series are exhlblted or
broo:dcast. Is there a pact of sortsbetween the two interlocuto r s . wbkb the introduction of on
audien ce ext ernal to !he excho.ng e nec�s arily breaches? Otily te<:entl y, th ree yco 13 Qftcr th e
project' s completion,O.$ th e 101)0$ hQve begun t o be shown In Clo:!'.;$ 100ms. Qt public&c.re enings.
and :ioon on t ho Los Angelos PBS ofliliate ,�CET, ha$i)oblic exhibition become a ni:&&ue . 1n
my own experieni:e oJtalking about this work and $Croon,_ing it i n classes and public venues,
J hav-e lou nd. that audie nc es tend to be uneo$y with th eir porc eived po sition ingas vo yeurs
of exchange d confide nc es .That th eve.ryconcept of the On e on One sefie1. wos concei ved i.n
coUoborolion with th e vidoo work:sh o p pQrticiponts,all of whom signed 1cl ooscs oul h ori. z
ing futuf'C J:l.eJ'C'8:nings of the wor k . se ems not to dispe-l the um,03ino$$,Thi s response is lik ely ·
con ncc1.ed t o a historical te nd e ncy in th e West in wh ch publi c f orms oJ conf ession OO'i'e be en
i
displaced by forms o f self-d lsclowte that 01e privote Qnd protected (such as the "pr ivileged
communicotionsff belween our:i,elve,; cmd ou, doctors. lawy er s . and p riest s).The public di$ploy
of e-xcho.n.g� c onf<l$$iOnij-wh e.n r�ei ved as "real" rather than UctiOnol ond pr(ld i co ted on Q
o rie- to- on� recip ro cal exchang- e strikes some a udiences� o viol,;rtion of pri nciple. 11 seems
to me, how ever.that th e project's fundamenl<al value h o!i Q lw QY$ been 05a kind o lh euris.tic
deviCe. a mod el for l nte rpe,.rsonofcommunicotion in Q media age . From one point of view. the
particulars-clo.:ny eonfe�sion 010J oos n\OQningfuJ than the poen t tiality of the pr oject o� o whol e
for the oeotion cf human diQlogue QCross o whol e series of spotlol ond eulturol dil.iu n(;.'lu,o:i;.
43: Cued in HowQrd Rc&en berg. "'On e on One la lh e Best TV Talk You Can't �8.�LosAn geles
limes. 8 Dec ember 1993, F'S .
44. Ibid. .
4S. R eilc,. CompulSion to Confe.ss. 2 0 S .
4 6 . Breehl,"Radio," 53,
<11. R. cik. Compu/$io n to Confess. 279.·
48. John Tagg,TheBurdenofR eprese,uarJo n (Amherst : Univ(m;ity o f Mw:;sochuscrttsPress. 1988),
60-61.
49 Ibid.,63-6-4.
:
SO. In fact. although tho One on One topes were mode in conjunction with Clod,:ei:i ' vidCO W()1k.t;hop ;
at Chino and were thus institu1io nolly iegitlmote-." p,�on officiob; hod no idea obo·ut the par
ticulars o f th e project.Proposols for fut ur e p1ojects ol thils sort would ,in Clarke's opinion.. fac e
little cha n ce of occept on co .Pc,oon<JI commuilicoti on with We ndy Clarke: 19January 1994.
1 4 . OotMstic Ethnogropby and the Constructlon ol the "Other" Soll

..
,
I . Jom es Clifford.The PTedJcament of Cul tu .e r : Twe,ltieth Century £th oogro phy. I.Jterottlr e . andArt
(Comb rldge:Ho:rvord,Univer 5ity Prt;$$,198:8). 34: J oho:nnes f'abio:n, nme and the Other: How
ArlthropoJogy MolcC$ lt1; Ob;e ct (New Yort: Colu mbia University Pr ess, 1983), 3 3 :
2. "'Ocr.;ifc i:; de:si r e tor the abs olutel y other .... A desir e without satisfaction which', prcci.$Cly,'
undentands the remocen ess.the olt efl ty . a nd t h e e:x'lerior1ry of the othC.r . f'o rDe sire Olis aherity,
non- adequate to the kie a,hos o meaning.h 1$ unde.1$1ood QSthe alte rity ol the Oth er and of
· 'the M�-High." Emman uel (.c,-vino · ,;. TotcrJjty andlnJinjty. 2d ed.. trans.A .Llngis {The Hogue:
Nijh (>f(. 19?8). 34. . '
3. P9ter Ma&0 n. DeconstructiogJ\merlc· Represenlalk>mof the Other (L ond on : Rootk,dge.'1990).
a:
2. T be work o l t.evino.s,. calle d by Tz;vetan Todao:v ""the philo :roph cr o l alterity:· hos helped t o
lntrod uce on lncreosingly in0U(lntio l peri;.pecti¥'9 in debates sunounding th e ethic al stat us of
rescof'ch in t ho :;oc;iQ) and human scienc es. ln a d e eply radical gesture,Levino.5 hos sug go:o;tcd .
·
that it lS Reaso nit.sell that has functioned to "'neutrollze)in· '. d e ncompass the other. translating
diff ere nc e into 'lts own tenns l n lhe in$0liObte p ur$1.Jit of lcnowJ(,'<Jgc . Emmanuel Levinos.ToraJJ.
ty and lnfJnity, trans. Alpbon30 Ling&; CThe Hos; oe: Martinus Nijhofl. 1961). 43.Th e Levinasio:n
view docs not oo much und.ercutthe potential for knowledge in cros s·cul 1 ural research os ,CIQ.
tiviie i tsvolue within o moral universe : "lt 1s not o question of putting Jc-nowlod ge in do obt. The
human beingclearly o.Uomi hhnself to ho lre Qte,d a s on obj.,ct. and de!..ivel"S himself t o lmowl
E!dge Ln the tsuth of pc1c c ption o nd th e lig ht oltti e human scie·nces. B ut. treated e:rclus ivety os
on obicct. man is ol&o mist re at ed arid misconstr ued ....W e are human before being }(,'Omed..
and remain &0 after haring forgotten rnuch."E.mmonuel Le�n os,Qutsjd e th e S ubject,trans.
Michael8 . Sm.1th (Stonford: S tanford Un.M.m;ityPrc!Ss.. 1994).2-3 ,.
4. Trinh T. Min h-ho. "DiffEtJence : 'A Special Third Wor ld Wome n i ssue,'" Discoune 8 (loll,..wintc1
1986- 19871,2'1, 14,1 6 .
S . Micha el Taussig.Mimesis andA J1e1i ly: A A;rrticuku Hi1.;to1y of the Senses (New YottRoutledge,
1993),""'11.xlll.
JfOT&S TO CHA P TCR 14 ...

OigWzed by Original fcom
6. St ep hen A . Tyler. ··P0$1 -modern Ethn0groph y." ln Writing Culture: The Poetie$(md PcJiti<:s of
£rhnograpb y (B erkele y: Uni ver sity of Co lifon'lio Pres s, 1986}, 1 22 -40.
7 . �rge E . Marcus...Ethnography in t he Modem World Sv,;t e m .in " Writing Cultur e :T he Poetic.:;
and Politics ofF.lhllOqraphy (Berkele y: Unive rsit yof Calilo rnio Pr 8&$., 1986). 190-93.
8. H.is1oric0Uy, th e notion of the -\lnlo ornlng of privilege .. recal ls o notable retlponse of fem.lnls t
theorists 10t h G lure o f incremento:Lly sho red pOtfiorchola uthority ond l s curren tly ochoed b y
the growing 011en1ion b eing give n incligGnous media nl()king 01ound th e world. rho work of
c crtoin pr'ogressive scholo1s become s o "facilita tion" ot' rGpt8&8nto-lion mode b yo n<I for i n
digenou s i,9opl <," $ .

9. See Clifford Gee rt&.Wot.ks and Lives: 'J'.'he ArtJhropologist os Author (Stanford: Sto:nford Univer
gily Press. 1988), 1 -24; Hayden Whit e. "I ntrod uction: Tropol og y, 0i$C(Xu$4J. and th e Mode$ of
Hu mon Consciou s ne ss." ln Tropic.! o/Dfacours e: Essays in Cultur al C riticism (Baltimore: Jo hns
Ho pkin s Uruv1,m;ity Press. 1978). 1 - 3.
10. There remain s a locuno that the p re s ent commen1ory cannot odeq uotely oddreu,. pet1olnlng
to the edolog yo l the ortist's sexual orie ntation . Gi ven Fri edrich·� public �t(lnQC <r.; o IC$bion
tilmmoker, ond given th e film's lnclusion o f images aUudin9 lo Fr iedr ic h· s se xualit y(mostl y
water imo g1.ny: women �howering to gether. Friedrich b athing alon e). the matter o l t he klther"s
role in shaping th eda ughter's sexual id e nti ty seem� to be rots.eel. bul only indirectl y. Such o:n
clliplle o) treatment ol the top ic shrewdly sidestep s diognoi;ti¢$ while rem oining con1;i.$lent with
the geneioUy obliq u e opprooch t o the construal ol meaning ado pt ed by the wort.
11. Edward Said. Orientoli sm {N ew Y01k: Pcntheon.. 1978}.
1 2 . Paul Ricoe u r, '"Universal Civilizatio n and Notio no l Cultures, " in History and Truth, tro:ns.
Charles A . Kelbley {Evanston: Northwest ern University Pre:ss. 1965>. 2?8.
tt
1 3 . Koth WO$t on. -rhe Pol ities of G<ry Fo:mllies. in Retb.inJdng rhe Family; Som e teminist Qve s·
don s. rev. e d.. ed. 60:rric Thorne Qnd Marilyn Yolom {B oston: Nonheo.stern Uni v ersity Press..
1992). 137. One p rovi so is wo rth adding in th i s con text.The phr0-se "fam ilies w e choose tt
s1ress es volition. th e oonsclous selection o l new f([fflily grou,pin gs.While it would be wrong to
d eny thot goys and lesbi0-n.s haveindeed begun 10"c hoo se to reinvent I.be lomilym or e og •
'"
g resi;jvttl y and in grootcr nu mb er . it would be Q mis.toke to locus o diSCU&sion oJ q ueerness and

lls lnteTYention s solely at the l eve l ot co ns<:i ousn4'3$. Su ch o s1 once would miss the per tinence
of what Judtth Butler ho:s coJled"psychic exceH," tho1 which SU.rp(l$$0$ lho domain ol the con
scio us subtect in th e d et ermin a ti on of sex-uollty ...This psychic excess is precisely what is. being
s ystematically'd enied by t he notion of a v olitio nol · sub jocf who elects 01 will which gender
and/or sexua lit y 16 b e o t an y given timean d pla ce ••.• SeX\lolity mo-y bo ooid to exceed o:ny
definitM: n,;:rnolivizatiOn....T}:tete ore no direct expl'e ssive o r causoJ lin e s betwe en ,; ox- , ge.n •
d er. geode r PfGS ento-tion. ::;oxual proct«.:e. fo_n tasy o:.nd sexuality ....Pon of wh01 constit ut es
sexuality is preciselythat whM:-h does not appe<rr o nd th a t wh ich, to S(ime deg ree, con neve r
oppeor. "J udi th Butle r, "Imitation an d C'. en d er l.n.sub ordino ti on :· in J n skJc/Out:Leshion 17:a!'o
s-ies, Goy Th<.'Ories (New York: Routledge, 1991), 24-25.All ol which is to soytbot oox-uo .llty -goy
o r straight-elude svolition Qni;l tho regime of the vi!lible ln o most fundamental way,
..
14. Tamaro K. Har even. "Am erKlOn Fami li esi n Trcmsition: tli!SIOrico1 Per'$pe<::lives on Change, in
F('Jmily in T,onsmOn :RethJnkJng Marriage. SexuaJity. Chudffeas-ing. c:md FomJly0,gordwtiOn,
5th ed •. ed.. Arlone$ , Skoln ick o:.nd Jer001e H. Skoln kk (BoS1on : Little Brown, 1986).SS.
l S . T he matter ot sexuo..lii&d Klentifi<:otionG i.$a ticmendously complex one requirin g mor e quali
(kotion than can b e und ena ken he re. As £ve Ko&Of sky Sedg"!'iC-k hcts org ued. lderuUications
con be con$0lidotin9 os well asdeneg oting. structu red through a p la yof ide,alixotion ond ab
l
jectio n. Sexua iOOntifit:OUOI\$eon be lde n1Uk:01Jons wJrh. as. or against. Sedgwick cloborote$
on th e she er protu&ion ol relation$ implicit in but one $ubset, ldenrJlyJng with. which sOO d e•
scrlbes a s p otentially l" ro:ught with int ensitiesof inc Ofl) oro ti on , diminL,hment, inflation. trueat.
"'
lo:;$, rc))Ol'0Uon. o:nd disavowal . £\le KosolskySedgwick. tpisremology ol fJ1C' Closer (B er\ele y:
Univers ity of Co lilornjo Pre$$, 199 0), 6).To Us cr ed.11, VJntage:fo:mHies of Value allow$ f01 the
discussion ond p erformanoe ot on<1s1on ishing ano y of idcnlilicotory posili<>ns and intensitie s
p)(Jyed Qut among its three sets ol sibli ngs. The tape. for the m o&tpa rt. s tool'$ <:leo:r of etiology.
o search lotquoor oour<;e$, opling Instead for o: n ln1eroctive on-cam era intenogot.ion o fomily
l
dynamics entailing par ents. child ren. GJX'UOO$. ond lovers o:s well os siblings. U what emergu&
i s o vision of pluralized qu eer sexualities in which even s.iblinw, (118 uniq uec tn thelr object
c hotOOs. fo:ntos $$. ond preferr ed practices. th.is con only be o: contribution t o the overthrow of
i
the discursive rigidities in which queer $Ubjeclivi t y l!I s.till cl0$eted.
1 6 . I om purposely Invoking the Oenid ea n notio n ol und ecidabilit y witb rcgo rd to the det ennlna
tio n o( iden ti ty, �t'ivc,d from the critical wr(tlng of Jacques Derrida. tbe deconirtrvciive method
of textual an olysiacho.lleogci;. binary opp0$ili on$. fit$1 by oc.lcnowledglng t he ohen uns poken
hiero,chy through wb.icb on e term c ontrols t he other <rac eOve r seX\lo ljt y, :;�uQlily over raoe).
th en by over throwing 1h01 hiera rchy and finally displacing lt. Jacques Derr ido.. l>o.sWon:;. trans.
..
, "OTC$ TO CHAPTCII 1.-

Ala n B ass (Chicago: Univen�:ity of Chicago Press . l981). 4 1 -4 3.I.ti Dcrrido':;..wodc. apparen tly
coo.Ok1u ol cotcgo rics (UC often foond to inh abit one 01'.lotbe.l',l'OS;i,;ting on d �is orga nizi.ng th e
blnory in :;uch o m anoo r o s to betray the bou ndal'ie$ of "'iru;id c" and "outsid e .� This r:nay well
00100 co se lor the qu eer block/block quee r subject os com;tructed within Vintage: Families
ol Value, in which bla ckness .queerness, bir th order , and family relations ploy OUI unevenl y
thou gh decl.slv ely .
I?. The tefe,ence here is to Bill Ni chols'$ di:.cu.ssion of the several mo dc:m o f doc;umentary ex·
pO!'lilio n. omong them th e interocti.ve mode, whkh "s-tre-sses imoges of t estimo ny or Ye rbol
exchange..•• Textual autho rit y shifts t oward the $(.)(;iol octors recruited: their comments and
r e sponse s proYid e a . ce n tral por1 of the Hhn· s or gume nt. Va rious f orms of monologue on d dio·
log ue ( real or a ppo:l'ertt) predominate." Bill Nich ols.Reprtise.nr1ng Rea.l.ity (Bloomingto n: lndi•
ona UniversityPress-., 1991), 44, In Vinrogo.Tho ma s Allen Horr'.s dOQ$ indeed d elegate a uth orit y
to hi.$ interlocu to r :; , who have b oon quite literally r�r uilfXI for thot to$lt; th eir experi e nce s
supple ment his own.
18. Claude Levi-Stra u ss. 1\'i.stes Tropiques , tran.' l ,Joh n and DoroonWeightm an (New York:
Athen eum.. 1978). 389.
15. The E nd of Autobiography o r New Beg.lnnlng-s?

. . . ,,
L Eliio:beth W .Bruss,"Eye for(: Mo.klng o nd Unrnohn g Au tobiograph y in rum'." in AutobJ0g.
rapby: ts.says Tbeot�ticoJ ond C,mcol.,.ed.J o mes Oln ey(Prince to n: N .J .: Prl nc�ton Univet!tily
Press. 1980),296. ·
2 . Wo lt er B<:njo:mi n. "Th e Wor k o l An in the Age of Mech a ftl00.1 Reprodu ction,� in lll vminotions.
trans. Hany Zohn (New York: Scbocken Books, 1968). 222.
3 . Ibid..221.
4 . Bruss. "Eye tori."2 9 6 -9?. ...
.,
S . ·l am n·ot �ggetling th(rt 011 per sonalW e b pages ore . in any mea :ningtUI sense , outobiogio phiJ · , ,:_ .
col 01 thot Web pages oonform t o the oono ns ofautob logra))h y in the tJod i tM);,o l $Gru;e . A ny
seri. ou s ef f or1 to situate the outob iographl.colWeb site in 1eloti on t o it1; U1 eror y a nd cine ma tic
cOU n t erports wo uld requlte o. fo, inote d�oiled onolysi.$o f dis cursive oonditio ns and aesthetic . ,•,'>
properties th an con be undc.rfoltcnh ero.I co n onJ y hope to initiate such a dis cussl6n.I do� .' ,-
by gtvi n g special 01tcnli on to the-u nique and rothef oomplioot ed conunod11y sto tu s of thoWeb .,, ·'
�ite, which soom s to me a point of funda menta l contr ast with its ,epretentcrUonol forebea rs. <
6. Noelle Knox. "lnt emec Merge r Mani a Is pkldng Up,"'Bullo](, New$. 18 July 1999, 148.
7 , Ibid.
8 . Reu te r s ."Value o f l n1e,net Mo,ge,$ Climbs 22Fo · ld in First Ho.U." Son Diego Union Tffb une,
2? July 1999. C2.
• 9. JO$C:ph Menn. ..Y . ahoo s Prolit Tops Em.mates,"LosAngeles Times, 8 A ril 1999. Cl.
' p
io. Chr istophe r Pork-es. "Disney's go.com Gets Lukewcirm Roocption.," linanc.kd Time.s (Lo ndon).�-
13 July 1999. 34.
11. Rkha,dWate,s.. "'NBC Pioms to Separat eWe b sites Arm... FinondoJ nmes (London} ,11 Ma y
1999,29.
1 2. Ja cques Laoon. tcrits: A SelectJon. tr ans .Alo:n Shf!rid an (Ne w Yoilc:W .W .N ort on . 1977), 153.
13. David E.James. Powet Mlsses: £.<1saysoct0$$(Un}Popu lo1 CuJru re (L ond on ; Ver so. 1996). 1-24.
14. Carolyn Marvin . When Old TcchnoJogjes Were New: Thinking about Electric CommUl)Jcalion lh
1he La� Nl11c,:lt,.-Onlh <Ao tury<New 'to1k:Oxford Un iversityPress. 1988),S.
1$. $(lo i n th.is r e gard Jome sW .Cor ey, "Space , Tlme , an d Comm un icotio n5: ATrib ute to Harold
(nnis," in Commt.tnkatlon as Cultu.te:Es.<1ays on Medici and Society (New York : l\outledg-e.
1989). 142-?2. See o.lso Har old A.Inn is. The 8ios ofCommun.ioarion (Toronto : U niversity of
TorontoPte$$ , 1951).
16. Philippe Leje une . "Th e Autobiogra phical Po. ct. "in On Autot,Jog,ophy.h o n s .Ka the rine Leary
(Min neap olis: Un lwmlily o f Mi.nn 0$0IQ Pr C$G , 1989}.3-30.
17. See in th!s ,ego,d Hon noh A.rendt's i.nsig.btlul int roduction to .Benjam in's IJlumt.notions. 1...ss.
N0TC$ TO CHA PT ER Iii 281

.'
Publication History
..
"Eody Newsted: The Coru.1:ruction0,c:r Politioa:J lmaginory lo r· the New Left" w.o s Otig.inolly publi:;hcd
in Afterimor,e 14, n o . 7 (Febr uary 1987). Re prin ted wUh �tmi$:;iQn fr�m Afterimage.
"Warring lmoge s: S1e reolype and Am erlcon Repi�entat)Qns ot t he J«pane&e. 1 9 4 1 -1991" was orlgl·
no..lly published in Mt.-dic W<t�: Then and NoVtt a publication ofthe 1991 Yo:mogoto ln1etno1ionol
' Documentary f'il mF'estival lor th e Pearl Harbor Fiftieth Annlvetso.ty, Oetob t.r' 1991 Reprinted
.
with pfnnis sion from the Yamagata lnte matlo nal Doeuinent o1yFilni f'c:;tivul.
"Lost. Lost. Lost: Mekos as £$.c;oyL.ra"' wo; orlgino.ll y p1.1.blis hed in David E . James. ed. ToFree the
Cine.mo:}ot)(J$ McJcos and thq Hew York Un de rground (Princeton : Princeton Univeoiity Pre$$,
1992},21 5 3-9. Copy rtght 1992Princeto nUniversity Press. Reprinted by pe:tmission of Pr inc;eto n
University Press. ·
"Charge d Vision: Th e Ploce o l Des.he in Oo,;umcnt cny ·

, Fil m Theory"' was originCllly publlsh e d in ,
Swedish 0$ "'Ett Fonotot SoonOO.• Aura 3 . no&. 3-4( 1997).
"Th@ Sub ject in Histo ry : The Ney, Autobtographyln f'Um ond Vid o o · wo,; originall y publisMd in
· Atrerimage 1 7 , no. l (February 1989). Re()nn lod with pcrm.i,;s»onbyAfterimage.
''"Documen10 1·y Di$<tvowo l:; ond th e Oigital" was originally published os ""Documentary D�ovowob;.,
or t™" Dis,naL �umeritcny: andPos.trnodemity.uPolygraph 13 (2001).
-New Subjectivitie s: Ooeumenta,y and $().lf R

, c prC$c,:.ntotion in the Poel· verit8Age" was originally
publi!lhed ln Documcn1tr1y8ox 7 (En glish edition),July 1995. Repri nted with permission by the
Yomogoto International Docume nt ary FThn FestivalThisessay was previ0u$lyreprinted jn
Dione Waldman and Jan et Walker. eds.. Fefflinis.m and DocumCntory (Minneapo lis: UniVGrsity
of Minnesota Press. 1999), 84-94.
..Video Conf�on s.. wo.sorigin<t.llypublished in Michae l Renov and Erlka S udtHburg. cd:;.. Re:;olu·
tioru;; Contempo/01)' Video PracrJces CMinn e apolls: University Of Mi nncsoto Press. 1996). 7 8 1-01.
·:0o meslic Elhnogrophy and th@ Construction ot the ·0t� r· Self� was originally publlshed ln
Jar,eM. Goin0$ o:nd Michael Hen o v . eds . . Collecting Visible Evidence (Minneapoli.:;: Univer,;ity
·
ot'Minn esoto Press. 1999), 140-55.
,.,
,.
Index ..
.·._
..
Abtoharn, Nkolcm,�3- 2 4 ,39; cr yptonomy oJ. Anti-Jopones,e'.,hctoric.: .'4§ -·

40- 41 Antimodcmist position. 131. 1 32
Abeol4tism: confess.on and.. 193-94 Anti-Semitism. 160
Abstinence. 200. 201 Antiwqrmovement. XI(. 16•.18,66,I??
Abstroctlort, 107, 2S3n30 . A p,oposdeHlce (V',go),xviii. � 82. 93
Abst10CtiQn-Bowls ($tJand},9S ArabAmeru:otl$: r(lcil;.m og� 44,. 67
A<;coml,Uity,Il , 237 Archaoology ol Knowledge, The (FouooulO.3
Acconci. Yrto. 185 Aronowitz.Sto:nley,177, 180
"Acting-out" 200,20I, 204 A.t1,107,130. 201, 262; confrotitalionol,9: hooting
Acllon: doeumentotyer™.( I00 .,. powers o(. 120-21: �fOtehi(;ol choroctw oL
·A¢,,0Jit(::conj�ryond . 7s · 144; Hol<x.-oust. 162.; W9 and. 88; modernist.
Adorno. Theodor W.. 70.105,118. 190. 217; o n 9: ffM)V(}mC:nts.80; pedonnani:e, nil. 237; p o -·
· es&ay. 183: heretical and, 182 ... litical. 9 . 42: po6tlnodem.ist, 146-47 : perlodho·
Aeslhetic: concerns.xix,6.' 2,S2nl5: politicolly motion ol 132: process,.88; scieJ)<:e ond,106; 1,ll;().r
and . 145
·-
tivated. 38-39 .
AJti con Amorioans. 3Q. 31, 32. S2. 208, 227-28 ArUeulot.On. 94.118
Afterimage,3 .104 Arti::.ts for Victory. 54
Ag00W. Spiro. 66 Ashlcencni Jews: fss �·
AIDS epidemic, I W .121 As.ianAmerican independent ortb.1$, xxii. 63:
Ake:tmon, Chontol 119 fllms/!Ope$ by,58,' 59; .sf8feotype5 and,65
Allen.Woody. 232 ,\sja.r1 !",mc-ricon Media Jleleience Gulde. 59
. AJJ OrientolsLookthe Same (Soe). 57 A5tor1e,9
'1\ll That Glitters ..." (Mill.nm),65 Aswc,Alexondre, 86 .198
Alterily. ISO,217 AT&T FoundaUOn,1S4
Atth�!- Louis. IS,f;'/ ,249n20; onCommWlW Alheno<,•\un.Tho.187
movement. 149 ; onpsychoona.lysb,99 . Alone�nt. 68
· Alvorez.Sa ntiago,81 Aropja. 106
American RI.mily, An (Acrymoncl and Raymond). Audience .xxiv. 36
175,)76. ?.O t Augu��.xi. 10.S. 263nll;oonl86Sioo.0:!1d,193.
Am eri<=on FamjJy RevlsJted (Raymond oni:i 194,19S: selt-exomination<EDd,194; theropeu:
'
Raymond).1 7 5 ,)76 tic method ol 263n I3
Ame-tk:o Online, 234 Auscbw!l� )59,161. 256n$ .,
Amc1iw'• Fvnniest Home Videos. 22 Au thenticity,22.?I
.America's Most �red. 22 . Authority: con!essi.onand. 193
Analysis.xxiii. 3S, 83-84,85. 2.00; auto-.1· 1 5: cul- Authorship:seU-elfocemeru of. 11... 12: oom.iotic
luml. 5, 109; techno-. 19' i ,263n24;textual. 23 �r.ot2l6
Andcr$0n. S ue. 236 Au tobiogrophy;x_iv,m, 70,79.106, 110,1S9. 171,
An,;Jer . 199-200.2Jl5 192. . 20 I, m, 237,239; dnemallc equM'.:llent
Annenberg Centei fofCorrimunicotion. 1$4 Jor. 231; �nfession nl'ld, 262n3; wltwe, 2:36 .
Ant f'oon,xx. 66 2-43; dom�tit; ¢lh nogrophy and. 228-29;
Anthology n1m Atchi... 112
·,s
du,abWty/8exi.bility ot231: emergence/
Anthropology,107, 149.152;.home movie o-nd. reinvention ot 230; end of. 230-31; C:l.$oY os.
Anti·Amb hystet'IO, 4 4 ,67 71. 105; fllmk. xi,.xil,x vi ,xvii. 8 6 . lL 1. l 16.
Z71
Digitized by Original froJ!1

HARVARD UNIVERSJTY HARVARD UNIVERSITY
23?.: frogments and. 241; bow-to. 236; Internet. Bleecl:er Street Cincmo, 14
237, 243: new. I06. 111)..11 . l J .4 -
1 5 , 255n13: Blood of rheBeasts. The ( lyWr). 82
survival of.232; taxonomic 1.imitl'5 of . 106; Bloom.Harold: on interpretation. 164
tto:nsformatlon/displacement ol 231; uru;peak Bloo m{i� ld, Mile�: oound lfocl, by, 3S
oblod.iffotenees ln, 181: video.xi - "Blows against the.Empire.'' 10
xii. 116. 232.
243 Blue Oannon). 120. 122. 126
· Aurobiogropby.£ssay$ Tbeorc ticol(llld Ctiliool Bogart.. Humphrey. 2.6
(Olney), 231 Bombo.. Abtahom. 126-27
Auto-Wcbo:gtophe.r.. 2ZJ Book ol (Qe SeUCMontotgne) . I 06
Avant-garde, LS. 91. 10�. 11)6, 17980: documen Borcb-Jooobsen.Mikkel 124
tary and. 72. 112; fo.bricofor& oi . 13; su.bjcctivi- Bo,inoge Ovens), xbt
ty ond.n1.1· 8rakhogo. $ton. 73,82. 198, 2S4nl3
Axiology. documentoty end. 9 8 Breathless UibnJ. 2S
Bteorh.less (Renoir), 32
Babel l29 Broeht, Be11olt.. 29,36 , 38-39, 206; anolysis and..
Boch. Anno Magdaleno. 86 35: cinematico:ppli(;otion ol 32: epic thoote1
Background: ·f01(..-gtound and, SO. 32--33 oncl 31:Medium Cool and. 21: quote ot 24:
Bacon. Ftancis. 105 · on rodio, 210, 264n41; "socialgest'' and. 31:
or
Bad Day Bad Rock. A. 6:5 tobl00'1.J of. 31-32
Bon-fhq ..lJomb movement, 180 BRJ.See Basic il<rte ln terfooo
Barthe&. Roland. 70. ')5. 8 ?,88. 109.. 9 , 118-19. Brfan WinstonReads the JVNews. 66
129, 18S: Brecht/epic theater and. 31: on &i</ge. Theo,,.,,,.,. <h. 0 2 . 1n
dooth/�odety, 122; on discourse, 106: essay Brown. Milli. 2:36
a nd . 71. I05; imogc.M1f$1em on d . 113: on meto - Brown. Nklc. 196
pbot 106. 26ln22; Mo ntaig-no ond . 71; punc Btown. �ter: on coniessi.on. 194
tum and. LOO: a-en-to-myth modeb of. 156; · · Brone r , fo:r"omc: on a u tobiography. xl.il
�i(J) ges, o:od, 32; work of.104. 108. 183 Bruss, ElizoOOth W.. 237; on outobiography, 111,
Barth..£/feet: The £$,oyA s Re/lecu"" Thxt The 116, 230-31. 232; repre&entotiono.l :;hi.f1 ond.
(Bensmaia). LOS 232: on seUhood/tilm. l 16
Bosie Rote lnterfoee (BRJ), 154 Buber. Mortin, ISi. lSS, 1S6, 166, 259n34: on et e r4
&rttJe ofChino .n1 e (Copta). SI. S7. S9 nal You. 167; on meeting/eRC0,mtor, 1 IS3
8cn.unan. yg Z mun l 160. 245 n7 : on Holoooust , Buf t uel Luls. 69, 1 03 , 246n29
133. 2S6n9; on modernist project. 130. 131; Butden ofRe[XC$CnfotjOJ'I, The (Tog'g). SL. 213
J)O$lmodemlsm and. 1 32 . 147; on video, 138, Bureouaatic order. 133,ZS9n32
139 Bus.7he. Z1
Bar.In. Andm, 50-51, 136 Butl,c}l, Judith: pByehicexcess and. 266nl3
Booue'ha:mps, Stephen. 237
Beouvoi.r .Simone de, 129 Cage, John. 24)
Becoming: rebeooming o:nd. 144 Cohie,sduCJoomo.n.109
Being: knowing and. 159: Othe,and. I S O Caldwell Bon. l S4 .
89i.ng•o3'<l$$Mce. 7� Calilonua Institutio n (OJ·M en : Clorlce (rt,. 2fY/
Be.ing-o&-Sta sis. ')I "'Co:IJ fo r a New Generation of fUm�Mo.ken;'·
Belng-fot•tht:Kltbet 160 (Mel«>�). 8 , 1
Be-in�. 7 Camco rde r& : doc.:umenl(l1i(>n with, 22, 223
Sellout Aoymon<i., 1 38 ,184 Camero: confeSSlon and. 19�98; flOW.228:
Bengalis.. Lynd a. 185 Kinomo. 112: m1nL 184; shoJed. 224.: i;peec.h
,Benjamin. Wottet 231. 232.24.2-43; on communi- t or. 127
coUon tech nology.230: o ntradition. 236 "Camera.ty e.Tbe" (Venov). 75
Beruung._ Sodle. 100. 202. 2,s.:i Camero l.uddoCBarthes). 7 5 , 185
Bense, Max: 9n essay/treatise. 18$ Cometcr-s tylo. 198
Bel\Smo:io, Red«. 71. 72. 105. 183. 251n3 Commett . .Aruti . 22? .228
Berke-Joy &nb,1 Campbell. Jim. 144-45. 147, 257n44
Berlin: Symphony of. a Groot City {Floherty), 82 Campi.I$, Petet , 185
''Beyond Obsel'YO'lional Cinema" {Moci)ougoJl). Can.iff Milto n . S.?
ISl-52. Canon 2l_tfburth Lateran Counci.1). 191·
Bho.bha. Homi K.. 48 Copital 233, 243
Big Art game, 88 Cap ra, Pr onk:. 45. S2. s1: �9; on Ttiumph oflhe
Binge CHcn;hmon),202, 203 Will.SI
8it1er End Cafe. 15 Carbuncle Review, 1 .
Blockls ... Bktck A fn'r (RiggSqnd Afk:inson). 122 Carel: ferd ond .�I. ?.02
Bladt rniliton-1$. 3 0 .31; 32 · · Corey. Jomes w.. 157. ?%1. 259nn29. 32
Bkrclcn ess., 5 2 . 228. 287nl6 Co,<oll, NO<!!, ""'11. 136-37, 1<9
Blanehot,.Mourice, 124.. 145 Cartwright. Lis a: on docu!ncntaty. 135-36
I NOtX
212
C-as:;aw:toi;.. Joh.n. 88 Coolprchcmion : VX>Jence oi . 217
Ccrvolcr;r:nti. Albeno,134 Com,PW'sion ro Confess. The <Relk). 192. 196-97
CBSEvoo.ing News. 66 Conc entration comps,. 62. 84.. 162
Cer1ointy,106, 136 Confess..ion. 70,191, 192-94; o.�olutil.rn a nd .
Chodha . Curinder. 180 193-94; Augu.-o;linion model ol. 194: aut hority
Cbonnel Fow: 67 ond. 193: autobiography and, 262n3; camera
cho,oetcr, 18,31: ticboM.I. 34 ond. 196-98: culture and. 195: dknistk ; 200;
Choroot: Jean,Mprtiri. 224 $18Ctronic, 199-200; tl.bnlc,197-98; fu'S-l·pers.on:
Chouoot 195 200: Other and. 201: pett0nce and. 192. 200:
Chicago. 34,41; conf:r0rttOti0ool�.nl$ in. I0. 20, private,�: �hoo.n(Jty1ic, 200: thera py ot.
· ?.l, 28, 29, 39 193, 194--96; (ti; thrC$hokt moments,212-l;J: • <
Child p$y<;hol<>gy. 26?.

Cbineoo : 09Uation against 49:unoges0f. 52:
video. x:xili . 19S. 196,198. 20 1 7-. 214-15
Conle,ssion.s Ckigustin&} ,193, 194 •·.
and Jopcinese compared. 57..:.SS · Conie.ssioJlSofa Chameleon (Hetshman}. 202
Chtonide o/Anna Magdoleno Boch (S1:roub),86 Confessor: confessont and, 214 : Oth o, and. 200
Chso11iqued u' n et6 (Rouch). xxiii. 178. 197. 204.. Conwy:j octuolit� Q nd ,7S
206 Con.";(Jnguinity,218. 221
Cmeosu;,74 ConscioosRGSS. 9" 6 . 98. 103. 198: epiphany of. 38;
Cinema. 72. 103; I�. 187: dltect,. 95,. 97,181, 197. ·historiool. 4; mate rial conditionso:od,7·
253n7. 264n33: documentory,9S,.-96; EurOJ)O(m Coos�nsual oction,52-53
w1. 111-12: Lo1in Anw.rioo�. 88: nanotive, 96t Conswnptk>h,196,211; piod\.lctjon and. 211. 215 '
20 I : P;Opul6T. 20 I: secu.lorirotion o f divipe and, Coolinuing Story olCore l ond f'erd. The (Gins--
171-74:sile nt. 9 6 oo•u>. 201. 202. ?.06. 264n3s
Cine ma veri1Elo,1 8 ,Zl,2481'16,253n7 COlltroUingInre:resr. 247n6.
Ci.nepbiles, 103,129
Cine-poo.M,mii,.,Ja.{
Citi:tcru,,hip,97. 13$ . ..
Conversations. open-ended. I 5S
Cops, 22
Cortes,. Hecr'nO:n, 2S8n4
..
'
"Ci1y o, Coral" (Novo}. xnil Council o!n-ent. 2:63n2l "
Civil right&mcwemenl, xx. 177 · Counterdisoourse,xvi. SS . 61H>?
.' Civil wu-e!JI, 154 Counteri.nstonces,. 54
Clo:rk'e;Wendy,1 54 ,!91. 202. 2:10. 21 l. 214:vid eo Counte-imodernism,139 <
wary b y . ·I7 1 -78 : on video experience. 207- 8t Counter$10'feofype: mediaactivism as ,6� ..

worti:'ot. 20�: 265n.SO · Cowie.,Elizabeth. Xiii. mil. 93
Class: oondemnotk>n by,68 Cfootive practice : crillcal practice ond. 118
Clifio:rd,Jomes. 108. 2 1') CrensbawOistdd,154
CNN". 44,66. 234 , CrlnUnology,?.6?. •,
Cog;,o; I and. 110· Critiool inquiry,38. 100. 118. 182
Cognitivism. 149 · Crohn'sdisease. 2:rl
Cohen. Jem. 241. 242 Cronkite. Wolter. 66
Cohen,Moxie. 199. 200. 20 3 . 20S : '"C:rossl.ng Boundaf'le.1!" film fC$1ivtd. JQ
Coo)mplil;:,ouon. il8. 221 �· C'1�1oads School I S4
Colkrborations.. Xl. I 55 Cr ux (HilO. 184
Collecting Visible !Wdence (COWie). 93. 216 Cultof the Cubicles (Kuchar).' 192. 202.
CoOeeUvtsrn. I1 ....12. 1$3 Culturalcriticism,131,167 ''
Collogc do. Prance: f'ouccndt at. 99 Cubu:rctld.iJfetenc,i,,1 28 ,lSS
Coloniiotion. 49. 216. 258n4 Cub u1cd d.$>rie.ntotion, 179
Color of Honoi, The (Dtng),61-62: Cultural dispossession. 7
Co/umbier Re-volt,I S ,16,17 Cultu.ra.lforms. 195,23S.
Cotum.bia Univvs:.ity. 7; revottat. 9. lS--16 · Cu1tu:rot tus:ion. 13-,.1,1,
Cotumbwi. Cbristophet 25&4 Cultu,alg,oo-1;)$,opposi.tiono.L 12
Come See the Paradise, 65 Cu.ltw-a.lguerrillas, 10
Coromefcioll!un. 81. IS? Culruro.l herita ge,232
Commodi.Jiootion. 153. 196. 249nl0 CulturolintervenUOn . S . 10
Communication. 164; altemotl.ve conceptions o(. Cultv1ol rosi.$tonce,7
157: blocking. 208; co mmunity ond. IS?. 158; Cultural wo:rs., I29
domlrlonl poc,;itioru; of. 2:31: inter personal I77. Culnue,5 0 ,223. 231; a1temotivc. 68. 23S. 236:
26Sn42: spatio.I bias ol 237; transmisslonview , cOploli!d,235; wmmcrcial xvii. 3 8 . iJo . 236;
of. 1S7; two-way,215 oonfe,ssional 70. 191. 193. 194,l9S : consumer.·
Cnmmunl s.t<t ,149,209 196; disposable,12; European }e-with. )66:
Cofflmun.ity,xvii,129; AJricanAnwrioon. 227-28; fabdcotot'S- of. 13;-hiztoryof . S . 'I: IOOCl&Uring .
c ommuniootionscrnd,157,158 108; notionaVrogiona.l. 131; l)Opulat 46,66,88,
Complaints o/a Dufl/ul Daughter(Hoffmann), 127; pursuing. 107; studies . 149; violencei n .
122. 126,128. 180 36; Wesi ern. 52,. SS, 1-42
INDEX
273
Digi tized by Original from

Cybe<S<ribG&,236 Oisc:outse.ts. 71,106,us, 194: anthiopologiCOI,
CyberscrtbesI: The NewJournalists devoted to 217; Cl$:lC1tiveness ot 142: outobiogfo:phicol
"KHting the StoryofYourWe,..236 179. 19!, 218.235.241; ci.oomotic. 30; confes
akinal. 195.198. 200 .204.215; documentory.
Daley,Juchmd ). 29,36-3? 94-95,121,148,152:eosayistlc,IOS,182,189;
Doll S alvador. 97 e-thiool dimeMion ot 148: histoiiool.102. 1 0 8 .
Donlsh F1hn lnsUtute,xi 109, 161: incttcmcnt t o ,195,214:-int ensity ol.
Doughton: (<rthef'!I o n d ,219-22 158. 210; media.149; non6cti.onol.8 3; pbib
Doyafte, TriWty, ni e (tloo),120,,.21 sophlcal. 99; publlc. 178, 194; scholarly.�19;
Days of \lbidng (Okazaki>.62-63 :;cicnti.fic:. 108: $bophlg,226: ste,eotyp icol.<15.
Death. 123; as negativity,120; Real and. l21. 48, 54.: t eni1oriolizin g .142
l?.4,125; ,cpt'<r'"..entOtiOnot,121,124.125.126; Disney.52.234
society and,122 �oed pel'90ns, 77. 179
December 7 (tJoct),6S Oi:,.--ploooment. 9S. 179
Oecomi1rucUon. 4,38 Dissent. 54.. 67-68
D eep Dish TV Network,66 Divine: seculoriurtion ol .171 7-4
Oeknu. Gerard,70 Doeumentoty,75.102. 106, 153.167; aooJ ytic.11;
Oetl.nitlons: struggles with.182 CIJ.)l)COl of.96, 100; cu1.aw. 83; assertiveness
DeGoulle.Charles.25-26 of.139; hisiorical rol e of.. 135-36: indepe ndent,
Oe Kooning,Willem.88 44: modes 0,,97; observational mod e of.152;
Delirium. 23. 100,2>9 . poUticuM.3; roots of., 97; sell<0nfldence
De#Jrtum (Fatier) .224,225.226 of.131: silent <HO ol \IX)..101: staodotds ot.
"Dclive, Us !tom E vil. � S4 2 1 2-2: theory.137.159; trodition.xvii,14'l;
OemocroticNotionol Convcnli<>n .. 17, 21, 23: con- volue,138
frontational event& o1 .2 5 .28 .2SOn30 Documentury Box, 171
Depress.kin: domesticity aod.224 Docurrwn tory do tou 1.73-85
DeQuincey,195 0ocumento:rydi&(JVOW0::b;,136,13?
OG-.rcfl. 198 Documentary films. 74. 82 .8 5 .99. 103,121. 176;
Derrida,Jooques.79.108.11 8 ,2$6nl6 ; on B�h. 53; closskol styles o f .246nl3; d evetop
Abmham/Torot.40-41; on autobiography/ ment ot 135.136,171; ethicolquestioosof.,
¢S$0')'itlic.105 ; oonflk1ua.loategoriee oJ. 159; moss projection and, 50-54: movomcnt,
287nl6 : on 9cnrcl;. 251n3; hem ietie.!I ortd .23; 134; teallty ettec. ot 45: socially conscious.96;
on representation/death.124 stote-sponoorod.. 135: subjectivity i.n,130,178.
Desco:rtes,Rene,xi v .132: 1/cogito and, 110; 260n9: theor y, 94: war time. S.3.S4
method of re,Oection and. ISO: subiectJobject Documentary impulse.105. 109
modelot 105 OocuinentOty proctke,22; Bazinian precep4:s
Deske. 100,103,2 l 9.26Sn2 oi.136:oommun it y o f ,174; ethics011d. 157;
Detective,The: review of.LO meaninga/effects ot.136; P<)St•vcritC.X>dil; sub
Deus £xCBrokho-g c ).82 )e<IMty l n ,246nl 3
Dewey,John.158 Documcntoty spectotorshtp.96
DeWitt,John L.. SO Documentary $h.lW8$.xvi. 133--34,139,142,161;
OiQJomJe : eihnogroph.ic,153; meeting and, I S i ethicsand,160: Griel"50rucu:1 tradition of .
OiopG.rA:ti.lfio:temity.2$4n29 " "'1 xvlll,
- 135
Diaries., xi. 86; 192. 198.239: electronic.IIS; ox• Documonto1ion,111, 216
pot'IS!veness of, 88: taxonomic limi,s oJ. 106; "Documenting Fictions : Oocu-iµento:ry Di.mens.Sons
vxl<,o,156,177-78 of the flction fllmff (oonf ere,nce). 21
Diories. Notes. (lll(f Sketches (Mekas},70.72. DomesUc.lbe: understanding,226
87-88.11I. 198; W$$OO& from.11,l l 4; Losf Domc!;lic �hnography,x1il. xvU. 223: autobiogra·
and, 112; subjective i n .79 pby and. 218.228-29: choroct<.'l'i$lb ot 221;
"[}i(rry Film., T h e " <MekO$),69 oonsanguinity/co(iJmpliootion and.218: cubu,
[);o,y films,64,74,82,83,8$,111-IS al memory and,226; lntersubjective reciprocity
D,derot,. Denis. 3 l ond 219: notion of.216.222: 1SeU-inscrlpcion
..Dide,ot. B,echt.Elset1Steltl" {Ba and. 219; subjectivity and. 2l9
rt.bes).31
!neg-.18,23,2S, 28 ,35,38,95,98; Ucticool, Dot:runoUon. xvi.4 .214
41; b.istocy and.. 'SJ Domino sy,;lcm; �,o:n!Spc::ueney of .J-40-41
Diffe,ence.48,163.228 Doolittle.James,57
Dilforcnoo and Pothology (Giltnon).43 0oe1.,.,..ky,Fyodor,195
Digital fact Book. Tb e (QuonteU.140 Ooog1o:.. John,11, )2,, 17
Digi tal Mbtch (Compbell): described.144-45 Dowe�John W.. 45.46.57.250n2: on gtor<.-otypes,
Di Meglio .Clo:ro.19S . 47,49.50
Ding, Loni. 61. 62 Dow Jort0$: lntA;met Inde x by .233
DifectorloJcontrol: erosion ot 224 Drama.21. 33
Oi;continu.ity. 3. 25. 117 Drew.Robert.xx D - i 174. 175
2,, llf()CX

Drew Assodate,s,. 88 £ve,ything's lotYou (Raven}.122. 126. 128. 1S9,
Dr'Jrets {Grierson), xix 1 00 .161. 163,165
Dr.Ruth, 196 Evolutionism.46
Duoli&.m. 173. 183 Executive Ordet 9066.60 ,62
Dubai nationaltelevistort. 67 Expedetl(:e, GS ,240; rcpr9ffntotion ond. L 14; s ci ·
DuBowsld. Sondi, 180, 181, 223-2• ellCCond.217
Ducho:mp,MorceL '¥1 .1 32 Expl oilotiveness.xvi 126
Dyadic $Y'$f8-tn$, 4 Exoo,eo .19
Ddga Vertov Group. :a . 249nl0 Expositio n, 9 7 ,174
Expression. xx. 1 4 .81-82.. 83: ottcrncrtive modes
wddy. Fbul, 2 2 1 . 228 • ot 232; d i� of. 84
&od�y, Vcn�.22?,228 · "Eye for I: Moking and Unmo:Jcing Autobiography
£cce Hom o (Njet:esche} ,79 m film" CBruss>.111
Education:tools lot 130 Ey@mo.ke.rs. 9 .1 0 .12
8½(Fellini), 116
Eig hteenrh Btu.mCJil'e of 1,ouis 8o,nOJ><1.rte,The rabe 1; Mindy.22 4 .226
(Mon:). 222 .ro bicm , Johannes, 2 1 7 . 229
£isenhOWGt Dwight. 25-26 roc��•ooo. ISi. ISS-S6. 157
Ei.senhowe.tMilton ,59, 60 follof the Romanov DynOSly, The (Shub), IOI
Elecfronic Artslntennlx. 202 families,181; blologkcl, 226 22 , 7:documento--
EJecuonic DJoty {Hetshmcm}.2024 Uon of. 218 ; pcrttcm:;, 199.226 :-,edeli.ning , 229
EUot,T. S . , 131 fomlli<::>; �choose. 226-29.266n l3
£1.Li psy:; lntematiqnoJPu.blioations, Inc.. 236 Fo mily Secrees(Kuhn)',178 .
Else. Jon. 120-21. 25Snt3 Fanto51.39-40,266nnl3. IS
Emociort. 11, 191,221. 246nl8 Farodci.Haru.n. 97
Empi.ie Motketi.ng BO(J:fd. 81. 134 lb3'ltl1p,LongDrop. 120
En counter.;,IS3. ISS. 156 Fathers.: d oughtc,� ood.. 219 -22
Enemy. S O .M-58 Feingold.HenryL.: on Au&chwiti/1octory system.
Eng a g ement nonnction an d, 98 256n8
Entertainment. 166,210,233 Fellini. Federico,116,232 ,
£nrhus£rum (Ver1ov).·134 Femple bodybuildet'S: imogc ot 220 {
Entropn:mcurialism. 23S . F'emini$m,xiv, 171, 25Sn l3 ,.
E:pil;;1.emology,93 ,1 62.167. 242: documenlary Fominis1:;.xvii. 1 .1a 1n . 266n8
and. 98; ethics o:nd'. ISO, 161 Ferd, Cor eland. 20I, 202
Epistepbilla, 93,98,218 f\ction: onnihilo.6on ,ot 35: 3 8-42: �tory ond. 23.
E�teiri. Ronoo. 24 40,42; nonlu;tion an d .22.2 3 .72. 83: real in. 21;
e:5PN, 234 $0Ciol}y conscious. 42
Essay. S . 84. 85, 1 0 5 ,188, 240; os cutobiog,ophy, f'IID>os-mliable-index, 13,6•
71; certalnty <m d , 100 ; choroctcrilrtic:&. ot 183: l1lm Cu/lute, 80,81. 82,1 1 1 ,252nl7 ,·
electronic,xxiii. 182: interm.i.nobility ol 71; fUm feS'IJvols/confeic� 3 .21. 182. i22
knowledg e and; 70: taxo nomiclimits of,106: Film.ic eletm.:nt:;, 11. 3 0 . 76. 86. 134-35. 140: col - _.
textuolity of. 186; treatise and, 186; Y1 d e o ,184, lective coherence oi. 84-85; histor y and.28
190 Filming: rellecting and. 8S-89
"Es90y os Form.T h c -(Ad omo) .182 Film1n rhe Dlgirol Ag'e (QuontoO. 140
E$$0yii;tic. '12. 16, 81. 8 5 . 104.118. I 19. 182-83. rJmli.go,. nx
185. 186: autobiography and,IOS;d.tologtsm . F'Jm,M<J,kQrs' Cmematheque. 9 ,13. 14.. 112
of. 7�?4; fllmk lnscr1pUoi;t <md. 86; l():Xti.lQ) f'U.m-MakeIS'Co-op! 80,112
(eatute s ot 190; vi<:h,- o ond, 189 fUmmoJdng ,�v. 2 5 ,85: outobiog,oph.ioal 4 3 ,
&soy on .l.i.bc,ouon. An <M.arcuse ). 6 104; <f9cumen1ory. zvui. xx. S, 1 30 .148: non
E:ssoY$ <Montaigne). as . 10S. 187; quote from. 69, f�io n,.' 171:politioal S ; reconcepcuolttotion
104 ol. II; style o l. J:Xii; subject ond,. 130, 178: 0$
EternaJ You,167 therapeutic d.isooui'se ,222
ElhiC$. xxii.. xxiv, 148, 158, 159,,243: documen- fUm Quot1e11y, 12. 2 /'
1aryprac6cesa:nd. 157, 160;epls1emology f"altru; : ovt obiogrophico.l. 1 2 1 -2 2 . 231; diary,64,
and, 150,161: 8'hoogtophyon(l,ISZ-S3: 7 4 . 82. 83. 86. 11 1 IS;- essay, 69 ; elhnogrcrp�.
Levino!tion,160..6!; Other. 2S8nl3: J)Ol!lt 152. ?S?n2S; lietionol. 38: h�ophyand.
modcm, 147;1echnoJogy and. IS-I 111: histor y ond. 3 ,28 .29-30.7 2 . 131; informa
£thnograpby, 149. 2 1 7 1-8:critl,que o(. 1?6:e thic ol tional. 11: interest. 82: maldng/pu.blie disploy
limits of. 1 5 2 S3;
- upo$1·niodcm.• 21 ?; vi&ion ol oL 129: nonfiction. J0dU. ?3,8 4 ,93 :,pcx.-tic, 82:
223. See ol$0 Domestic eihnogro pby as polllicol tool. 39 ; roa.l. 111; selihoodand.
e1>ropoo nJews; cultureot . 166 116:toclioaL 11; underground. 180. See also
Everyday E.cho Streer : A SumJlN"...r'Diary {Mogul). Oocumentary films
122, 1 2 6 ,202 "Hlms of the 1960s. The..(c��).21
IN D£1 275

Alm studies. 72. 93 Goy Science,Th�(Nieti...'"ICbe),99
F'Wn theory,a . 254nl0: delirium and, 100; d ocu · Gaze,69 . 100. I�'): oome.ro,228: eroticized. 96;
mcnto:ry,9$. '¥/ feminist.. 96
· pul98rizing. 96; returned. 30: triumph of. 94, 9S
:
Final Solution. I 60 . 2S6n9 Gee�z.Clilford,108,109,176.219
unN . . . OU CINl:.MI\�(Godard). 42 Gender. xxi v ,177,181: condemnotion by,68
Fi.res Wete Staffed (Jennings). 53 Genealogy. 104. 144
f"ust-pen;on fotmot. 20 4 General Post Oitioe: Grierson and. 134
lltst PetSOO Pfwol(H cf$M'lon},106,11 0 . 115; Gent1ette. Getard: on genres. 2Sln3
de=ibed, 1 1 7 1- 9 Genocide . 166
F'"1$hci:. Wdd Man,36 Genre: laws ol. 70
Fishman . Morvin. 12 GeoCities. 234.. 235
flu.moro., GGmmo Conodi. 142 Gcog rCiphy : lime and. 29
f1csclcs. Diclc. 21 Gessner. Pet er. 12
flohcrty. Robert,lOd,75,82. 95, 134 Gerring a We {Sm.itb o:nd Wcrtson}. xiii
flaheny S.minm. 80 Gll.Jncm,Sander C... 4 3 ,4 8 - 4 9 . SO. 250n3
fliess. Wtlhelm.1.14,253n37 Gin.sbcrg,A11hu, 201
Fonda. Jo:oe,175 Global VillOQO. 66
r
Fo d. John. ?.49nl5 God: as tronscende ntoJ sag:nilied. 193
Foreground: ba:ckground ond,30,32-- 33 Godo1d. Jean-Luc. 25, 32 ,39. 42. 72, 84. 86. 109.
Form. 70--7l.25Jn3 182. 183. 18?: C$�i$lic films ot 69 ,188: Fbs
Fortvn'e mogaf.1.ne.: Gull andWestern ond. 249nl7 sfon an d ,)86,189: refcn.mtiolity of. 88
Focty·&eoond Stu)Ct Ployh011$t:,I S' Good \¼tr. The ere.rte)). 43-44 ·
Fouocrult, Michel. 196. 203, 214; onconl<.'$$ion. Gorin. Jcon•PieiYe ,u:
192,193. 194,200; on discourse. 192; o n Gosb.no. IOI
do min(Jtion/explo1totion. xvi; formulations ot Gramscl Antonio. <t
194-95; on kn owlooge>,99; new hls1ory <md,3, G,andmo Sue's Floce ,236
4: on psychoonalysi&, 193; work ot 4 ,S . •OS GroY,Arny Mille,. 240,24), 243; autobiographical
Fou r fl.mdaffle nral Concep(S ol Psyl:ho-A.na#ysis. pact and. 239: dx:rri$tic pr a ctiee of. 239 : Web
The(Locon),93 site ot 230,23 7 . 237-38. 239. 240
four Hundred8loW$. Tbe (Trti ffou1). 116 Great Refusal, 7
442nd Infantry Regiment,61 GTeen . VanoJyno. lM,?.02. 218
f<>t1r More Yoor-s (TVTV), 66 Cre�e•. 31
fox: Yabool ond. 234 Gr�.rson. John,xix. Xii. 23 . 74: on·CU'.lemo..147;
ftogmentation.7 0 ,226: autobiograph yond. 241; docu�ntary and,13-4-36
peycluc, 138, 139 Grien;.on $JTOUP,xviii. 81. 97. 253n7'
fRAMED cYoncnnoto brother'$),59 Grbzard,Vernon. LS
Ftance/Tout/Detour/Deux/£nlunt:;(Goda rd and Gv<>dolcu""1 Diaty. SS,S6-S7
M.e-Yille). 72 Gu errilla journol.c,.m. I 0
fronchini. Potricio. 25. 26 Cuen:illa tele vision. xx. 3, 66
Freedom. JSO. ISi: jusliccond. 160; ruminotiOns Guenilla theatet 7
on.. 6-7 Gu1J ond Wo:,;tom Corporotion.. 29,249nl 7
Freoc:Jom mo: r chets,27 GuttCrisis 'l'V Project. 44. 47. 66 . 67
f'wud . SigmVJld. 3 9 . 9 5 . 106,108. 13), 167,208; GullWar: ontl·Arob bys1erio during. <14.: medio
case histories of. 128; conJession o:nd. 196,,97; eove,·oge of, 6�6
on oonsclousness, 98--99; deathan d . 120, Gunn . Jorw1 V omor: on Q\Jtobiogrophy, 110
122-.23: mOu.ming cmd. 125: nachtroglJcbkeir Cunning. 'l'om. 96
and. 8'),253 n 3'); J>$ychioo1 t�po,olily ond. Guns o f rhe »ees(Mekas). 80
l14:psychic topogrophyond°. I 18: on Reik. Gu$dorf,Georges.xiv
262; secondary revision and,l09; on troru;.ter•
e�,262n3 Ha.bennos. Jfugen. 99
"Fre ud and the Scene of Writing -(()(.'f flda). 124 Hall,Stuo:rt.. 4
Ried.rich. Su.9 7 . 1 80. 219. 220. 224: family h.istory HoJvi11g the Bones(l.otinsbvry},4.3
of,22?.; goxuciHty of . 266nl0 Hamlet(Shakespeare): Lacon on . I 23 . 129
Ftom Here to£re.miry. 65 "Happy Doys AfeHere Again," 36-37
nontier fllms..xx . 253n7 Ho:ri.ng, Keith. 240
Fi'uch.tei; Nor m. ) 1, 12.17: Newsreel and. 248nl7: Harris.Lyle Ashton,227. 228 . 229
Svmmer '68�d. 19 Homs.Thomas Allen,226-27,22 8 . 229,287017
Fhg,. I S Horvc:sto/Shomo,19
F\ljlso.ld ,Toc n . $1 Hass. Aaron. 164
"Ho$IOJo viCfO(ia Siempre(Alvaret},81
Gabler. Neat xiv Hatred:'wartime, 46, '4 9-50
Garcia,)Ohl\. 43- 4 4 HeartMountain: internment comp at. 63
Guy$,xvii. 1n. 226:collactivityof. 180; fomi.ly Hcbdi 9 e,Did: . 179
groupings and, 266n13 Hecat<>.9
IN DCX
276
He,g()J]lony . 4 .S Identity,3 .4.8,180; orti�tic.78; crucibl e o t Z29:
He. idcgger,. MQrtin, 142 cu1t urol. xi,9 8 .1')6; deducing.163,266nl6:
Heis,enbe,9, Wenici.14S �,se.ntk:t.l, ITT : nploration-o l.163; family, 227;
Hera<:litu:;.137 form'otion, 220. 228 .229; goy /tesbl o n.180,
Hetshmo:n.Ly nn. 106.110,112.116,l l 8 ,232: 181: gendered. 223-24: notiOnQl. ?4; P.Olitie�
outobiograp�y ond,l 15; eatingcioo,dl"...rond. ol 18,111: posimoder'n.13$ : Problem of.
204: e.lectron.lcdlory o ( 115 ; monologuci; of.. xl v .139,227: p�ho:;;()C iQl I 7'/; &e:11.1ol 9 8 .
202-3: plwolily<::md, l l7 ,, 223-24,22?.228 .2 :29 .'l66nnl0,IS; shored,
High School. 176 229: $OWreig:n,)44; subj ecti vity and.xxlv, l71;
Hi.I.berg.Raoul l60 .&Ubj ect/objeci. 218
HW.Gory.184 IDo Not KnowWhat 11Is IAm l.i.ke (V'iolQ), 18,4
Hu0$hima,l21.133 II Every Cul Ho d o DJory (Benn in g ) ,l80.202
H1stofre: disrupting,30.,.31 l ·ln·di!leOur'$e, pl urivocolity in; 117 .'
Historit:ol event � .2 0 .25.26.39,64; Uesh-o:nd· lllusioni$rn. 32 · .·
blood. 141; incorporation and.40 lmo ges.3 3 .120.26lnl; odvertis.:I.Dg,22; docu·
HistoriooJ revi3ionism. IS.222 mentary,7 6 .9 5 .101; lure o f ,94; 1 ,nitr01 o nd.
HistoricoJ understanding.45 113; reo.l. 54; sound ond,8 S ,220: :;owoes.64.:
Hmtotiog,o phy,7 7 .86.100,114.131 • swo:nn of,12?; unfixing of. 68: word and, 85
Histo ry,70.1 6 .107.1S9;ode quo:cyo t 104; con · · lmoginor'y,23 .123.187,247n8
tinuOW..4: di&cOW"Seol. 42; diseng orgement �lmog.i.nory Signilier.The" (Metz>,30
of.28: documentary, 96, 176,253n7: family, I'm Briti s h Bur ...(Chadho),180
228.236; flctlon and,23,40,41, 4 2; film a n d .3 . lmm.igration: Chlneseflopol'le!le,46
2 8 .29-30,72.131; mo<fom.. 24.: oow,�-4.104; lmprcwlsotiOn. 88 ,IS6
publ�/privote.45, 60, I10: rewriting.65; self Impure Cinema.7S
o:nd, 110; s oc ial. 46: textuolillcorporaton
i ot Jnoorpoiotion.24. 28 .266n l5; denial o(. 38-42;
2 4-38; Truth i n .137; unprocessed ffl()te,iOI of . b.istoricol event OJld.40; lnb'ojectlon vetsu�.42 ;.,
38: wilness!ng of .20
Hi-sr0ty and Memc>ry(Tajiri),..,. 43.53-59. 63,
122.17$
social pheno menon and, 40 ; $1rategy of.. 2 5 .39· ,.
lndepe,.ndent FUtnAWQl'd., 88
Independent lilmm ok cn;... xi.109.218
,·
His tory ofSexuality,7be(Fouoou11),192. 193,194
Hi1chooct.Alfred.252n23
lndividuali:;:m.xx. I53;1065 o l,, 43 ..
,lndivjduation: trapping s of. 213.
Hltle1 : Adolf,S4,117 Infinity. 148. 155,156.157
Hochscltild.A.rlic Ru.i.sell. xi v .xix lnfotm(Jtion exehcrn90.1 99.233 •
Hofuoo: nn.Deborah.180,181 lnfooock.234
Ho li&m. 217 Innis.. lioroldA .. 237. 2S9nn29.32
Hollywood .27,3 8 .41; or1 einemo., 1 11-12; wo:r lnscn,tctionats. 82
films i,, , .31. 4'.ss Integrated Se� DigitalNcl'\'l'Orl: CISONI.141.
''Hollywood in Progress;The Y80l'S o f Transition" 15'
(conference}.3 . : ln tc.:.Ucch.Joi cwioG�ty, 93
Holocoust. 63 ,1 3 3 .160,161,197; or1 ol 162; i m� lnterno.ldoctrin.e,106
ages of.84; raUono.Uty and.2S6n9: swvivors Internet, xi. 206,231.241: ou tobiOgu;rph y o nd.xii.
o(. 1 2 6 ,127,1 28 .164;1estimony o t 16'2 243: copitol ond, 233:�complicotions ol 235:
Homoge neity: ambitionsof,136 merger.; on.233: political economy ot 234: · -ii
, Hope. Bo b .30
'Horton, Eileen. 33,3 4 .3 5 ,31,38
therapeutic communities ond.. 23 6-37: U.S.
Deportment of Defense o:nd,233;Web pogc;
Horton. Ho.fold. 33 and, 233
Hot <m<1 Cool (McLuhan).24 {n1e 1·ne1 lndcx· (�lonc:;),233
HousingProblem (Grierson),8). 13S i n ternmentJapanese Ame.rioon.43,45.58,59,
Huillet. 84 62- 63. 64. 67 : roda.l prefudke ond,. 59,,-60.62
Humo.n diJfetenoo:� o t 215 ln!erp.retadon ofDream.<1,The CAoudl,� 98
HumQn dignify: violation ot 68 ln1e1,oci0l morri.<.J 9 0.63
Humoni&m.l07.108: reolltyand,27 lntoJT<.>QOtion.83-84
Humanities! humo.:nm .L49 lntersubjective reciprocity.219.224
Hwno nne$$: 101ion ol inquiry ond.150 Inttmafe Interviews (Cohen),l99.203
I-lunger in Ame.riocr, 19 lnttoduction to ·� Aocom_paniment lot a Cine-
Hunt. John. 6 matographjc Scene"(Stroub and HullleO.1W
Huntley.Ch.et. 19. lntrojection, 10,31. 39,42
Hurwitz,Leo.xix ..lntrojectiqn-lncorpoi(ltion: Mourning or Melon·
Hw.ton.John.mi
Hutton. �,er. 94, 9S
cho llo" �roham ond Torok},39
IRemember Beverly Hms (Sooglove), l16
ISON.See Integrated Service$ D!Qilol Network
!<,nQTho u C8u.bGr), 166 Jshigo,Arthu 1 ,62
ldeol l 110 I:;hi go.Estelle .,62-63
ldentl.6ootion.xxfv,10.31,126.128 Lais. 9
INDEX 277

l&.roel: lOl.lnching of.166 anoJytk: crllidsm of .109; psychooi:.'lc o nd.
lssei. 5 8 ,60 ,6 8 124-25; �enunor onocdoces of,128
/J mttn'l Love (Benning). ) 8 0 ,?J)2 LA. Unk.141,147. 14a ISi. 158.191: computer •
· lvons,Jon$. 23 ,69.82. 93,96,102-3,172. 173,176: bo:sed system ond.. 154: docum.entcuy pro;ect
8orinogeond.xix ; �ne-poem ol,xvlil xix - ond. 142.: frome tote ot 154; ritual view of. IS7;
Imtness Video.22 teoitoiio.lizing dl$COU1· s e o:nd, l 42
· .languog e of Psycho A,nQJ� n1c O\>ntalis).114
Jom03, Dow:l E., 69,235,263n27 Lonunann. Claude.xxil. 126-27
JalD8s.William: on confOS,'!OOn,195 Loplonche. Jean.111,247 n8
Jameson.1-red:ric. 132. l:rT.138 Lo$t Bolshevik,The (Mo1ker}.IOI. 122. 128, 129
Jane (Dre-wand Pennebaker). 175 Laub. Dori. 16 I. 162-63
Jopa:ne:;c: (Ind C�compared.5 7 5- 8; repr� Leacock.Richord.xx .174
seatcnioa ot: 44.45.49.54,SS,S7,25lnl6 Leo.Oet wo,nen.. 77-78
Japanese Americans: altemcrtive cultural vehi(;lo:; Left.� S .11: betrQYOI ot 129: Chloo.goo:nd. 29.
foe. 68: orusts.43,66-67: Gls,6 1 -62: bisl:ory/ Seealso New Left
rei.nscription of,60; internment of, 43,45,58. u,geln/Jegen. 142
59,62-63. 64. f;/: se lt-OWOt<ir10s; of.62; me,eo Lejeune,Philippe,xii ,237
types obout. 49,63; subversion/espionage Lenin. V. I.: oo ci.nemQ.53
o:nd.60: s.u�s foe, 64: Taooko and,62: war Lesbian families. 226. 266013
timeaxpGrienceot 44,61 Lessing,31
JapaneseRelocation Uilm), 5 9 .65 Le:Hclr from Si.bcrio (Mofked.xx1. 84.102, 128.242
Jenning$,Humphrey,xviii,53 Let There BeUght (Hu,;ton).xxii
Joan Does Oyn0$ty. 66 Levfathan (Hunt). 6
Jollies (Benning).180.202 l.cYinel$,Emmonuel. 147,156,166.217: o nco m
Jones. Adrian,227 muniC(l'ljon., 164; on humonness/ratio no.l
Joneti,)cruillec,26 inquiry,ISO: o n imperioli$m of the some.152:
Jo�23 bilin.1tyond.148: on lcnowledge. 160.161:
Journolim. 174. 236 rDOrol phi.losophy and. 149; on ontology.151;
Joumols.. I 92 on Otb er/oolf.ISO.165; Proxtmlry ond,162; on
J � .lon\0$. 131 sell-consciousness.16'/; WOJk of. 148-49, 159
Justioe. ISi. 160 Levtne, Charles. 80
(.evi.$tJ01.1$$,Claude, 108,216,229: mythJldnship
Kont. Inuno.nuet I S3 structure and, 109: p(m$00 .sc:ruvoge and.12
KAO$ Netwo,k;,IS4 Lewis. Howard R.:.aodManha £. .264"29
Kotse.llos.. Jo hn,30.33.36-3'/,38. 249nn1 9 .26 Ubetty mogatine.55.56
Kou.tlmonn. R.Lane.183 Lil,;do,123.262n3
Kelly, John. 212 LJ/e magazine : w<u posten. in.54
Ken.207.210 ; l.oui.$00:nd,209.210 ··we story"trajectory.220
Ken andLouise {Clarke). 207. 209.210.21 I Limini;r.l wnes,142,. 212-13
King,MClrtin Luthec,Jc.,32 ULine o:ndLigh1,The" (Lacon) .93
Ki.no-eye, xxiv. 103.?J)2 Ung.ls.Alphonao: o n Ykllen ce .2S8 n3
KlrioMoekvo, 101 Link projects.. 155
Kin!lhip,100.,216,220: model ol. 226: myth a n d . Listening.164,2 1 1
109 Usren toBritain {Je nning'&).53
Knowing,160. 162; beu,g and. I 59 1.it�ary modes,73.104.182,233
Koowledge. I00,161: obsolutist notions ol. 144; t.ithu o niQnCOn'Ununity.74,-78, 79,112-13.179-80
oequ isilion..o(. 130: cultwul. 181: dependency. Lived ex;penenc e.4 I
206; �,cry ond.?0 ; sub jective/.ob Jectfve.173; Uving Tbealer;. 88
sw;pic:ion toward.·99; technology of. iI3 Locc,JXnowJedge {Geer12).176
KojeYe.124 Lcx:ke .John, 105
Kouitliko Myilery (Mor-ker). :al LodzGhetto.161
Kramer,Robert,12. 19,20 Logos,125,142.144
Krauss.RoealincL 18S London Con Take It J ( enning$). 53
K�eva.Julio.. 100,2'18n4 Loss..2"nlS;artand.120-2l;mouming,18J
KuOOlko.Petet. 82 Lost Book Found {Cohen).241,242- 43
Kuchat Geocg e,1 92 ,202,232 1.o«,tost.Lost (Mel«,•).72. 75.76,81. 87.104,
Kuhn.Anniette,178.179 106.J10,111: ano.Lytical .impu.l&c ot 85: oulho
kuroh. Charles.19 r1ol Yoke ol. 73: bardic quality ot 83: culturol
m omentand.80 ; Oi(mes o:nd. 112: dlary ln. 86:
Loocm,JooquC$,105,108,121,1 90 .235;,ollegory historiograpbic braid ot 11-18: iconog1ophtc
of.9Ston consciousness.93-,99; docth end. l;guc e ln. 79: lmprovisotion an d .88: o s pootwot
120; lull speech and. 206: on Homier,1 2 3 .129; wba ng,oohi.$tory.77; p.:· e history of,73; mview
logoeenLnS-mol.125;onmo uming,123.125; of. 69-70; signilico:noe of. L14;i,;peclat(?• ot 74
on OtMI/se lf. 150: on �he.110; psycho- l.Qs:f .U>St. Losf .Lost (Mekos andMe-Jcos),73
IN DCX
278
Digitized by Or iginal from
Loud.Grant. 175 War ond,..66: imperinllsm,237; irtstruc:Uonol.
Loud, l.aru: e. i 75 199: print 65;spooe,-binding ,1S7 : under
Lovd.Pat. 175 ground, 3 ,7 ,10
Loud . WilUom C., 11.$ Media Ph.rs: Thc,m (Jlld Now. 43
L o l.1i&c .2f1J, 211: Ken and. 209,210 Mt.idium Cool (Wexler).Dii 23 ,27.30. 3).42 ; dis
Lounsbury. Ru th Ooolri. 43 tributio no. l . 249nnl7.19; editorial to:mpe.dngs
Love. 178,20S with. 29 . 33: etfective.ness o f ,29,3'6: fo$Cin0.1ion
Love Connection. The, t 96 with. 21: lllrnic p,roctiee ond. 41: forogroo:nd/
LoV9 1aJ::,e$ .T h e (CkukQ). 191. 202. 207. 208. 211. boCkground <.Jnd,33: l ormaltoctics in. 38-39:
214;described. 178,�: setup for. 205 9()$1ie. hinction in. 32: historical action in.' 2 5:
Low Library,17 nondiegetic sound in.35; o:spolitical o n . 2 4 ,
Luk6:cs..Georg. 71. 89. 183 38: setting/structural eleme.nts o f . 28
Lu.mler e brothers,9 . 2 5 . 7 5 ,96: c,ctualitm ol. 81 Medved.Jcin,Alexo.nde-rlvonOVitch. 101. 128. 129
Lyotord. Jeart-Ro�=.160, 188. I�: on arti.51s/ Meetl.ng,151, 153
· wri1el"$/ru!es. 181: on essay,183 Meko:$. Adolf <.Ji;. IS.73. '/5. l 11
Mck<.J i;;. Jonas.xxi. i . 8 7 ,104,106,l 10. 116. 232 ; on
MacOonold.Dw,ght 107 Asirw::.86: ovant--gard e and, 179-80; cor�r/
MacDonald.Scott. 7 3 . 74,11�,_.13 achievemen ts of. 252nI 7: o1Ucol end or!",o-
MocOougall.. David. 152 menl by,81; di0.ll$1ic J)lojoct of. 86: diary
Mochiriez: poetr y of. l '/3 ll1ms ol 7 2 ,76-77. 8 2 . 8 3 .86. 111-15; docu
Machove r .ROOOrt. 12 men tarypoetry and: 73; documentoti�p b y ,
· Madness: &eXUality ond. 192 J 11: dominant culture and . 88; experience/
Madness and Ctvllb:auon {FoucaulO.192 representation and. l l4 : fktlon/nonfklion
Mollomlb,Stephone. 187. 241 dlvide and,. 75;independent moV(lmcnt o: n d .
Moll¢t. Mori11,1., 179 112; ti l e chronidc ol. ' / 8 ,113: lil erary/ti.lmic
Mambet Steph e n,xx. 174-75 prQcliooi;; ot . 74: nonation by, 112. 113. 116. s
Mano.Anthony,2 8 198; Newsreel and. 13: npnfktiOn film and.
.Mcmu/octuring theEnemy (Gulf Cri:;i!,TV Ptoo,ct j ) , 85; odyssey ol n-78. 79; oeuvre o(. 88;quote
44,47•.67 o4. 10,69; re\!iew of ,69-70: tubjettivity ot
Mun w ith oMovie Comm a (Venov),zviiL mil, 82. 180; w1ln��in9 by,80
84. 134. 246n l4 Meltas. O ona. 80
Manzonor . re rum t o . 58-t:5 M81i 8& . 75
Monwnar {Nokomuro),61, 63 "'Memories & Reflections"Autobiog-rcrph y Kit 23S
Morcellile,197,'204 Merooty,65,83 .1 5 9 ,181: cultural 22$; erO&Kln ot
MorCIJ.$. G«,r9ce.. 217, S ,75;himoryond. $4 : poinful. 128,212: per4
Marcuse. Herbert 6-7 oo nol. 45. 179; populo:r. S; recOYered.. 117. 220;
Market Chris.xU.. 6 S ,72. 8 4 ,86,2-12 : comm(lntory sacred. 166: shored,219: structuro.lexc-lU$i0n
of,128-29: documentary imo�s®d. 102: cl,138;1rlggefing,125,127,236
doubl$ noncrtiVE1 'ond. ·LOI : e,ss,ayi.stic films "Meny-Go-Round"(F",.,he,),36
of. 6 9; lo..byrinths ol 88: on M edvedldn. IOI; Mckrphol'$. 107. 108. 261n'22: oudiomuol. 118:
relerentiality/bistoriool norrotlon o n d ,129: "'1J•. 105 ; &Ubjectivityand. 106
SLO�grouP o(. xx Meto:physjcs.4. 150. ISL 156. 217
Ma,�holl. George C .. S 1 Metonymy,9 5 . 108 1 •.
Mo:rvel Com.ie&.. 12 Meueu.r-on,-.\;OOn,o, I'/8

Mo:rvin. Carolyn: on personal Web pages,237 Metz.Ch.ristion. lOcii. 30
Mon:. Karl. 98,222. 234,235 Meyemold. 129
Monism. xiii. 4 ,7 . 99 Michebon.Annette: on Ve.,10v. 134
Afo.r,ci$JJJ ond Uterotur e (Williams),4 Mievtlle, Ann,Moric. 72
Ma.sculioe-Hmtinlne: Godard I n . 249nl0 Milo!.>"lone.Lewis. 57
M080rl,Petet 217 Millner. Sherry,GS
Moss proe<:tion
j : documentary lilm ond. 50-54 Mimetic loculty. 217
Mo1JlorJames. 199 Mlnico mei·a,poJuchc,J&4
Maysles.Albert,174 Minimo Morono <Adorno).190,26ln22
McConnell. R-o.nk D .. 116 Mmoelli. Vincent. 28
McElwee, Ross,xxi. 232 .Minority Med.lo Development Prog,om: 24?n6
McLuh an. Marshall 24. 249n26. 250n28; on tel� Mtn-01 S togc. 123
"¥ision,3 5 . JSS-86 Wse en abyme, 186.188
Me andRubyfmil (Benning.),202 Mise-e&-scene,25,28,32,33-34. ltO
Meonin g: hi$toc:ical kryGring ol l 73 MwecognitiOn : �1·uctu1e$ ol . 98-99
Measure o f sight. 186 MQbi\1$gtrip. 18'/,18,8, 189
Measure of things, 186 Mod ernism.97.1 33 ,144,173; documentary and,
Mec:Uo.. 4 '1 ,214; Q(:tiviGm b y .GS-$ ; alternative. 130; 131, 139: replacement of. 132
<S: bridg<> building b y . 211: digual 136,139, ' 'Mode.,�tEvcn t ,Thc"<Whi1e). 131
140. 141.142,l44; empowetment 211: Gulf Modernist project,130. 131. 132. 139.141
IND tX 219

Modenti t y.131. 136; li mitcrtions of,133;poetmo New Leh Review.l9
dem.ityond.139 socio!systems ond. 1 3 2 3-3 NewLeft Superberoe&, 14
"'Modem Theatre Is the Epic Theatre .The" Newsfrom Home (Akennan).179
CB,ochtl.35 Ne w1tmcn.34
Mogul. Su..an.202. 232 Now-,:.popers.underground.7-8
·Mom Ybpes. The <S eaglove).11S. 11 6 .202 Newsreel.xx. xxii.7.18, 97: e1hoGof. 11:6lms by.
Mon1olgne,Michel d e .BS.LOS.106. llB.137,185, 5.10,14;first--generationtilmmok8l:5ond.12:
18'/; Borthcs ond,71: betng-os-stoslsand. 71; · logo o(, 14*'15 : mythlcoutoconstruction of. l3:
dualloeu&ol.l l2;GS$C?Y$Of. 70.71, 2Sln3; New Lett and,3 .6.11, 14,247n6; oppoeitional
Olght ot 88; measwe oisig hthhing;s ond. 6,9; trojecloryot 6:·prog:ram ot 9 .11, 12-13::;tylo
Mek0.11 ond,73; quote ot. 69.104 of. 19
Moral evoluotion.198 New1ticcli;.. S2. 82
Mo ral responsibility.14 '/ Newton.lsoac. 150
Modn,. F.dgcu:. 174,197 Ne wYork a rt scene: politicized 9nVUonment of, 88
Moc;cowLiturgie Choi.r.. 143 NewYorkerBookshop: Eyemo.kers at. 10
Moses: images ot 52 NewYo,km'TI,ectet,l<t,IS
Mother (Puckwki.n).xix Ne wYork lligh School Stvdent Union.. IS
Mo ul'ning,125,181: psychic and.l22-23; Sboub New YorkPortrai.1.lb:rt llJ. <Hutt on ).94
ond.128:worli: of. 120,121.1 2 223. - 12.6.128. New Yod: runes-: Medium Cool and.249nl9
164 Nichols. 8Ul.142. IS2. 2S3nl0,287nl 7; on docu-
''Mou.ming and Melanchooo"' <Fre ud ) ,122 men.1ary liJm. 99 : epi.stcphilio ond, 98;on
Movement, 3 ,9S exposUJon,174;r:nodel oL 97:on nonficttOn:.
r
"MoYieJoumo (Meko,; ),13.81. I 12 22: PQ!.,1modemism and.137; sobriety and.23 .
Mulvey.Laura. xxii. 96,145 100, U8 n4: on subjoctivtly.xvill.xx:iv,9?, 98,
Murrow, Edward R .19 246nl3
M1,1oou.m of Modetn Aft, S4.. 257n44 Nickelodeon.. 234
Museum o l th e Rc volutM)f\. 101 Nicol. F.duwdo.183, 186
Muybridge.Eadweard.171 Nidr� .Kol.76
MYBIO, 2:l6 Nietzsche.fnedrich. 70.79.98.IOI, 25fo17: on o.r-
My Fat.he r Sold St1,1deb:lke,s(Sweeney),202 tlculation .118; creative forgettul:oo&s ond.65
My Pubeny(Seagio..l.106.I 1 0 ,115-16 · Nighl M(riJ (Gr.Cl'$On group).Bl
Mrsttre Koumiko.L e ,252n23 1968; Summ.i.nQ \I P , 10-2()
MYSTORY.236 N-58.60,68
My1h.109.262 Ni$(tl$oldie((Ding), 61
MythoJogfes (Borthes).156 Nixon,luchord M .. 66. 2SOn30
Nobody's &isiness 03edin8f) .xv
Nochtroglichhit,8' / ,114, 253·n37 Nortfl,c1ion, 96: analytkol impuls e and.85: e n
Naga,al:i C21 gogement ond.98; Oct.ion and.22. 23.83
Ncd:oml.l.l'a , Robert. �I. 63 "Nonfiction Film ond Pootmodomis.t S k e-pti.<:i$ ro "
Naked$PoC()$: Livitlg lsRound (ni.nh),72 (CarroUJ, 137
Name above the Tide .The (Co-pro).SI Nc>stolgki, 129.26ln6
Nano: Jdentity o l. 223--24 "'Notes on tho Nc,-w Arnoricon Cinemo�(Mekos).
Ncmji. Moena,179 . 88
Nanookolthe North (F1ohortf>.7 5 .82 Noro.,lOdil
Narcissism.J'iii. l26.206 Now!(Alvol'ex),81
Norrotton. 22.38,SI, 112. 113.l 16.198; elliptical Huit er bro1.Jilt(ffc:l(RO$nCJ:i.!;),8,4
<:ho1oc:tc:.1 of. 220; histot'u::ol, 4; hypnotic .142; Nytino.:o: .253n7
roasier.19.104;self - .ll'l,164; t onalvoluesof, NYPD Blue.212. 213
84: YOCal xvii.18,7 6 ,85
Notrcrtional ·1,.. 33 . Object.24: self ond. 95:subjoci ond.l48, 174.
Nandtivci 35.40: <lii;ruption of. 37: -owistortlon . 219,229
137 Ob;octivity,xxi. lOdv,21;question of. 173; sta�
Notionol Guards.men.. 33 dordsot xvii. 147: sub-jectivityO"nd,173.174.
Nationa1 Socioli$t$,160; imog¢$ ot 54-SS 188: woning of. xvii
Nation building ,130.134 Objcls 1ro uvt:s.210
NotiWlm,.46 Oboorvotion,111. 174-76
Ncrtu.rol :;cM)rt(;c:o;, 1'11, 1?4 Obsessive8ecoming(Reeves).141.14Z.143-44.
Nauman. Bruoe.185 147
NBC lntemet,234 Oc:rober: Grwrson/Rotha on d .7 4
NEtW Amoncon Cincmo.?2,80, I12.113,198 OU-camera presence, l75
Ne w CinemaPlayhouse. J,4 Of Greol Eve,us olk'l Otdin,:;ny People (Rulij,72.
New left,S .7 ,1 2 .14,247nlO;disooUl8eof. 1 7 1-8: 1'19
Ne-w,µoel ond.xx .3 , 6.11 "OfRepentance" {Montaigne), 106
11101:l
280
.. Of Vanity"' (Montaigne). l85 Pcn;ono.tism. l13. 2S2nl7
O'Haro. Soadett. 26 i:-arsonality. xx-xxi. SO
QlcQzald. Steven: 61, 62-63 Personal Profiles.. 23S-36
·oldMole. 1 PersonalWeb poge,s, 230,231, 2:)3...3,4 ,23.s .237;
Olney. James,23l · . ··. autobiogrophy and.. 2:32--33; oonimoditystatus ;
Omori, Emiko,43 · ·< ol. 233
One-f ori-the-othe,. 160 . Phelan. "'9gy,185
Oaeon Oneseries (Clarke). 191. 202. 207-14. 21S PhiloeophY:107, 130. 148. l�O. 182; �ro J ,•149:
One-on-one sessions,ISS, IS6 pc,MS!ructura.l.is:1,. l09
.. "'
On Repe.ntonee (MontOignc). 70 PhotOQtoph. 215 ; mooning o(. SI: os oo;ect. s 0-s1•
..
On. the U!'ie ·of. Ml'A>ic in on Epic;theater.. (Brecht}, Photograph y: vidoo and.139
�32 Photomontoge. 9
Ontology. 151, 167 �teceri 7 7
· "Ontology o f the Photog.rophk lmoge.The" PictureTel, 154
(Batla), 50-51 . Pie 1n thesky.·xx
<>,;to-,1heology,21? "Pitt11�.11gh Trilogy "<Brok.hoge) . 82
Oriental $XC.I\Won. laws.46 ·P/.a1oon <lilm>. SS-S.6
Orientab·s m ($aid).49. 222 Pluralis m. l I, 22�27
Other. IOS, 156. 216; 223; <ruthor'itcrtive,193: Bei.ng A:>ct e t GuJde to China (U.S. Army),57
and. 1 SO; coru�n and.200 .. �I; �1otifying. Poetry ,97. 240; doeumentaty,23 ,7 3 . 74 .
49: nonindilfc.ncnoe to. 1; 59: phenOmenology Poe1$,.,.,,
ot ISO: rocialized,43. SS; r.�principle and. Pt>ioeord. Michel 2 5 . ?.6
123; responsibilitytoi 148:· seU and,48,�1 2 , �tiool concerns. 3 ,3 5 ,38,128. 129, 147,210;
ISO. ISi, 214.2'19; slgnillqrond.217; w(1r1iln o. racially/ethnically based, 177
' ' 5 2 ,55 A:)ntollil,Jeon-BerttOJ'ld,11+. 247n8
Othem� 4.4; coo:xisl:ence in. 150; cultural. 1S2; FbS:iti-AM ideology.173
inVGSbnenl i n . 167 �-Enli ghtenment though t . l�
OfhetSide ofLanguage. The (f\umoro), 1'42 �c,n;,. 44
Otherwtse Than Being, ot Bey0nd Essenot Postmodemi.sm. 132, 137-38,141: chronology . '
(Levloo>l),159,. 1.60 • d ,146-47,
on ;,
Ou•oW<>,1""°"'9Y ot 2 4 Po.stmodern.lsm ond IL<JDfacontcn l; (Bovmo:n ) . ••
Ouwde the Subject Clevinosl,148--19 133
'. · OYerdetennlnatlol'I. 9 5 ,i67. 188,189 Pos:tmodemity, 136. 138,146-47. 242 : eplsletl'IO: ·
Oxenberg,Jon,122; 1 26 ,1 80 ,181 logical certainty in., 149 : niode.mi1y ond. 139
f\:is1on: lntem.men t co,np01 . 63. 64
i:mk. NomJune. 185. 263n28 �!;lfU(.iUJ(llli;m,xiii.. 4 ,2 2 ,108,109,l 13
R:llfty .William S .. l6 Poot•Theo ry C8ordwell a· nct Canolll. 149 . ••
A:masonl.c. 1S4
f.bpopO'pu (Riveto). xvi
Po61-Yerite period ,180
Potentialities. as, 206
•
•'.!
�pc, iage�TY. 66 . A:lund.Euo,131 •
Alradise Not Yet Lost. a/k/a Oona'S Thitd Year P.O . v.:. xv
(Mekas), 80 • �, �r . 4 ,213 ,
Fbtomounl Plctwe$,27: Medil)m Cool and, 29. 33, Practice-:theoryand. 150
41, ?.49n17 Ptaddwandi (The Adve!Ml"y),26
�Communards. 84,122 Pre$f:tv<Jtion, 74-75,81. 199.206
Porker. Bonn.ie,9 Primary (Dre w Associates) . 88. 176
Ponbas.tos. 9S ; zeuxm ond,93-94 Prinn . He ster. 9
·J\'J$$09C: in<.'Vi1obilityot 7S Pmocy,xv i ,156
Possion, l 82 Pdvoti&: pu.blic: ond. l2$, 11 9 ,22$ .2SSnl3
Pastness: re.licsot. 12S Product>OO.'I: consumption an d,211 . 215; privo-
l\'rter. Walter, 183., 26 1 tized, 214
Pntl'iotchol ordet . 5 5 . �- Z66n8 . Projectio n ,6�10,47
PBS.See Public Broadcasting System Propogundo. J 1, 4 3 .4 9 ,81; film s. 53-54: wartime.
Peace movement. 113 44 .6S
Peo:d Hotbot',4 3 ,62 Procestontism: c:onfee:slonlpenanee a nd. 1·s2.204
Pooogogy,220. 262 Ptou�.Marcel. 131
Penanoe: confession and. 192. 200 Proximity,151. 162 ,;
Pennebaker ,D .t,. . ,a. I75 Ps eu dopositivii;.m. 219
Peopl� ChO$e,234-35 Psyche.49, 110,216: ste.r-eotypes ond.47
Pctception. 100,149.173 Psychk.4 .4 0 ,41,96,114: fro gm,e.ntO'tion . 138,
Performance. 36 ,8 3 ,246n l3: 10\'e and,I 78: sub 13$; identification. IS,17 ; incorporation. 40;
feciMty ond,177,18S legitimation. 6: mourningond.122-23; topog·
Pedo;·mcruvc work.. 9:6 . 194. 260n9 raphy. l l 8
llfOEX
281
Digitized by Original from ·· '

,
Psychoonolr.;i$,xxiil. 47,99,l2?,130, 194: con- Reeve!!. Doniel 141-44: becom.i.ng/re.beooming

fession <md,193; th80ry. 9 3 .96,189,200 and.144; W011dvicw of.. J.12-43
""P,ychoonalyaisand the R:ilis''(Kristevo). 100 Referent: subject and.7l
Psyehologioctl theory.dl J .196 Referentiolity.6, 95
Pl.r<;b0$i$. 123. l24-2S,242 ReOection.. 85-89; methodo1: 150
Public.195,210; privoto o:nd.129.179, 2SSnl3 Reik.Theodo,,192. 19$,196-97,262,: on "acting•
Public Broadoosting System (P8$).xv.xxiii 7, oo t," �- '204: on Au gustine.. 194,263n l I: on
. .6 ,
17S.26Sn4.2 confession. 196.200.264n38
Publi<; pol;cy,45,67 , Religion. 262: confess.ion and,193
Pudovkin,V sEWOlod.xix ,246nl8 Rcmini$eMOO$, 5 ,166
Pundum. LOO Ftemini:;cenc;e:s ol<r /oum(,-y IO lJlhu Oni<J <Mcko l;},
Pure Cinema.75 86
't\uloined l.eHe.r,The>.. (Looon),129 Renoir.Auguste.26.32
Pwple Heart,Tho (tw,il.S S .S? Renoir,Jeon,27
Repetition. 'IIJ .228
QuontelDonln 1 osygte.m.140-41. 142 Representation. 38.128.263n21; cuhu rol 46.. I I S .
Ooocme""...s,?Z I ,228,229,266nl3,287nl6 222:dealhand.124:expeOOnceand., 114:bis-
totical 42 : photogroph.lco.lly based.213:.9eU·,
Rabblt 1n the Moon (Omori).43 118.231:s.ocial. llS:w;uol: 213
Robbil ShH Holkus,80, 83 Representing Reality (Nichols.): Div.2 2 .9'i
floce.. 1??; S4;."X'l)olity and,266nI 6: stereofype ot Rep«xluclhllJ!y,15S,1S6, 157
45-50.68 Rcpu bliico n Notio"'?l Convention : coverage of, 66
Rodsm,.5, 4 6 .49; AtabAmericanaand.67; i n · Research. 108.109.149
lernmenl ond. �. 62: Japanese Ameriocms Re9nais. Alain, 84
and.44; wcntimc.S9 Resolutlotts: ContemporaryVidE!O Pracoces. 191
Rodi p ,7 ,210.2$4n41; underground,3 Rc:o;poru;ibility,160, 162. 167 · .
"Radioas anApparatus otC ommunicotion.Th�� Revision.ism. 88
(BrechO.264.n4 l Rhetoric. 30. 71. 93
RAF. S3 Richte.r,Hons,97.144.122.172, 176
RainUvens). xix. 82. 93 .I 02-3 Ri<;kcycndCccU io .212
RatnbowDkny. The. 218 Rkoour,Paul. 9 8 .223
Ro mbling Man (Hebdlge}.179 RiefeM$0hJ,Leni. SI. t 35 ,,
Ron.kin. John.46 Riggs. Morton. xv,9 7 ,180
ff«.7 ,12.13: Chic ago edition of. 10 :cxwe, o l . 8: Riot 'lbpes- ,The (Soog1ovc), 202
Eyemakers in,9:Woodstock and.lO Ritual.36. 129.192
Roth er .Don. 66 Rivet. Tbe (Tyle.r). Q2
Rationalism. 93..103.131. 132: humonness ond. Rivo10,Alex : on m�liw kienlity,xvi
ISO Jtogerand Me.xxiii
Rotionallly,130.136,137.242 ;,i.nfoJlibilityol. 133 Rohmer.Eric, 109
Aovett. Ab ra ham. l6l -62.J63; deoth of,159; duol Rolond &:nrtiesparRokmd Ba.rtbes (Bartheg),
portrait by. 16,t,; ethics<tnd.160 : onli&hming, IOI.IDS.1 00 ,18S
164: ran1s/seU-pitying b y ,16S Rony .Fatimah Tobing, �36 ·
Rovctt..Ch<'.Jim.161. 162. 164.165 Roosevelt. f\'onklinD.. 37
Ray,Ni<hola&. 28.39. 97 Rotho. 74
Ray,S<rlyajit,26-27,249nl2 Rouch.Jean. 174.201. 20,t; on c;omc.ro,197-98;
Raymond,Alon. 175 oomero style/voicing& of. �x:xii; fi.lm.mokc,
Royniond.Jcunes.176 . subject encounterand.t 78; psychoanolyti(:
Rovmond.Suoon.175, 17$ �limulonl ond, 127
Real 21, 97. 129.145.247n8; oudibW.96: oonve.r Rooi;:;.eou. Joon-Jooqvo;, I.O S .195
soUon. I 53:Death and.124.125 : electr o nk, Rouss<!I.Raymond,132
147; hi$1orl(;ol. 25.39.40.41, 75,147.248n6. Rubbo, Mlchael >Od
264n30; Loc onion.121. 123,124: rqi>1C!';en R1.1U:..Row,72.179
.
totional potency of. 41:subjecti:rity ond.70; Rul&J/ruled: binorismot .4
ti·o umo and. 127,189: vWble.95 Rup(Ure .3 ,4
Healism: 75.9 8 .136, l<t.2 Ru?;�n fonnoUsts, 140
"Realist Cinema" (Metos).75 Russian Revolution: betrayol o (. 129
Reality,39,124,J.IQ; humanism and, 27; other
ond, 123: Sell and.88 Soid. Edword,<19,222
Reason. 2.6Sn3; technology and. 172 Salt of the£anb (Wea.kn} ,?:1
Recording,74.-75 Son A'ancisco Mime Troupe, 12
Rcto:'<ihevoo.llprei;.oNO modality,83 Son Ptonci$00 S101e,7
RecOYery,196.215 Sonkola F'lhn and Video Colle<:tivo.180
Red. Seo: i.mo,ges of. 5 2. Sansef, 58
INDEX
282
S m:s!EJOIJeJ
1 (Mo1ker}. 12. 88 ,102,128,241,242 Sbero,Jeff. 10
sac AAWtolion TY. 6? . She MbrcaYcUow Ribbon «Ford). 249nl5
Soe nario dtJfilm Passion (Godard>. 182. 183. 186. Sh ooh (l.a,;t_imonn}. Dii. 120. 1 22 . 126: tracking.
189--90: d.iscursiW presentation of. 187-88: 127: as work of roouming,128
temporolityol. 1 8 8 -89 Shub.Esther. 96. 1 0 1 2-
Schlegel fnedrich. 183 ,, Siddo:rtha. 26
Schoon.berg,Artur, 84 Slgh1ai.d Sound. 24
Schubert�e.r, 22 I Signifier, 125. 189:0ttwro:n d . 217:s�and.
S<;hwitter!i. Kurt,241 . 106
Scienoo. 1.03,107.14. 9 ; a r tand,106:expertenoe Si g:n-to-myth models.1S6
and . 217;,modem. 150 Silverlate Lile Ooslin'O:l'ld f\1edmon),1 20 ,122. .
..
Screening the War� (Sqweffl)•. 65 . 126
Screen/mirror. 206 Sinatra. Fronk,.10
SD$. See Sh1de;n-t$ fora Oemocrcrtic Sociecy ·Since You Vknt· Awcry. 26
Sooglove. Ocne,106,I 10,llS. 116,202 Sink 01 Swiro ffiiedri,ch>. 180. 219. 221: eilinogto.·
Seberg. Joon. 3 2 pb yand . 222:image from.220,221; no1'r<rtive
Second Teinpie. 166 .continuity of. 220
Seinfeld. Jeny. 30 Sit-In, 19
Seu. xiv, 24. 99. I SS . 229: ocknowledgnwot of. . Si.1-1.rls. 7 . 9
l 52; corporoli%<:.-dt111teUect.oo.lited. 171,216: Six(oi:;d<:,"UX(Godard ClOd MievilJe).' n,,
go;odJboid components of.48; bislOJY and,110; Sucti l()$octivismloountercuhute. 5 . 21
ob;ect a nd.95: ocherand,48,112,150,151, S· imes WithoutJlpology ,The.5
214; outsider and,44; perfotming,\16-81: 60Minul e& 22
Roolity and.88; temporol/cpi,;NJmolo,gioa) syn· Smith. Sldonle. xii. xili,
copcrtiol'lof,114: writing wrSUs written . 114 Snop.oocn,. 234
SeU-oboorption. 1 1 0 ,178 Sobr iety,23 . 99. I 00 '
S.U-<>ifirmotioo. 239-40 Socoor,com. 234
SeU-o:ssuranc:e.'t47,181 Socialaction . 25.69,78.98 ..
Sell-discourse. 19L.212 Soc,ialattitudes:ooru;tnacting,32
SeU-dlsoovery,8-9 Socktlchange,xix,' ' / ,20
SeU-es1e,e.m: clomog-00.. 209 SOck.tlcoru;ent: manwactute ot 130 .
SeU-examination.69 . 70,72. 218: thefCJpyof, Socialco ntrol. 213. 250n28 • -�'•
194-96;videoond. 214 .. Social·critique. 3 6 . 3 9 . 67
Sell-expresslon,lilli.' l 5 9 Socialengineedng. 1 3 0 ,131.133. 2S6n3
Se llhood ,xvi,116. 160 �Soda.I geld," 3 1,32
SeU-imogo. 48,186. 188 SocietlU'loqu.itics : pen;.istaooe ot 177
SGlt-immokmon . 3 7 -38
SeU-indulgence. 18,201
. Sociallrotion : institutions ot 177 . '·
. Socicr.l life. 4. 183, 193
.,
SeU-inscripllon. xU. xlli ,xvi ,xxi.ii. 87. 118,12t.176: Socktlmeaning: OOl'l$lr\Jdin9,32
doc:u1nentory. 178 : dom,esticetbnogtophyand. Socktl movements. 4 ,38,.!76,192 ,·
219; hi:;loricot 179: instance·of. 120 Soc,ol order: docwnentory,and,135
SelJ-iotegration: stereotypes and,SO
Sell-intenog,otion. 10S,194,203 ,20 5 . 246nl3;
Soc:"'1 ph enomenon: incorporation and, 40
SocioJ reality; ono.ly� of. 133
.. .
counte:dlex ot 70 ; doc:umcntotioi:i and•.' ·216 Social rekrtloos. xi. l0 0 . )58 · ·
SeU-knowlcdgo. 17. 199,218 Socio) scie.nCC!';, 109,l')l ..
Self•prc:oont crtio n,79,88,111,182,233 Sociol i;%fcms; mod.em.ity and . 132-33
Self.unde rs1ancling. 197. 2lS. 243 Soci.etol vo.lues; transmission of. 109
Seb.nic.k.'Davld 0.,26,' 39, 249n11 Society loi"Cinema Stud.Jes confere.nc:c. 21, 182
SensibUity : viOlu-ncc ond. 38 Socrates, 71. 137 ',,
Sepcnotion:. 18. '/6. ISi Soe . Volcrio. S1
Sen a. R.ic.horcl. 185 $Qlipsism. l'/8,198
Setting: structural e�menl$ and. 2�. 29 Songo/Cey/o n (Grierson}, 135 '
SexuaJ O!lt'Oction, 2()9 ,:>.27 Sonto.g. Susan: on modenili;t on. 9
Sexual id entity,98. 266MIO. 15:multiloyered Sony �opok: do�lo pmentol. 198
charo.cter oi,2Z'/; shoppl.n.g for, 223-24 Sound. 120: imogeand. 35-36. ·31,85. 220
Sexuµtity,177,180. l8l.266nnl0,1 3: cl �ing, Sou.them Amco Media Ce:nter,2<l7n6
228: de-tell'llin<,J1ion ot 266013;, etiology and . Spoce: cull.Ut'oJ diffe(tncc o:nd. ISS; fictional. 28:
181: modnes&cmd . 19Z; raceand. 266nl6 reol 28
Shadow{lotHeisenberg) (Campbell},I4S 46 Spooe r ace : rhetoric o l . 107
Shadows (Cassave«E!S). 88 Special Services. 61-62
Shadow's Song (Hor.:;hman>. 122: l26 "Spectacle of•Aduolity,Tho" (Co'WKI). 93
ShokeSP!)(UO,W-tlliam,123. 129,19S SJ)CCIOclo of the real. 83
· Soormon's Match. ml.I $pect<rto1�p. 98 . 100. l03. 249n20
INDEJ:
OigitiZed by Original from

Spiritt>atily.166-67 Tanu. 26
Spontaneity.88.113.1S3.156.252:nl7 Taussig, Michael. 217
SP'ftn the House ThatRuth 8uilt.. A (Groen),202 Tochnology.149. 204.213: oommunicotion. 156,
Squiers. Carol. 6 S .66 230.2S8n2; computer/Yideoconf8f enci.ng:.141.
Stohx>trl on Dope Suee-1 (Wexler).27 154; digital 142; documen1aryand, 131; ethiC$
Standa:rd & Poof':; S00 i ndex. 233 and,. ISi: introduction ot,231; link. 259n35;
StatWars &ago.235 power of. 133: ,ocioon o.nd,172.;-l'epcoductive,
Stote Uruversity ol New York<rtBuJICDO:NtJWSrool J ? Z; wrveillonce.223
"' · 13 Tele-ocMs/ng (Whlte).196
Stein.Gertrude. 131. 132 Tel.econfe,enclng.1S4
Steiner.George.161 T ol4..�3ion. 22. 3S.$S: centro.l MtVOUS system and.
Stecreot� 43.57-58,64: blindn86S ot. 50 : child� lSS-86; guerrilla. xx.3 .66; ma$1e1 narrative ot,
bood de-.·eloprnenl ot'ld, 4 8 .SO ; deposing, 63: 196: reconceptualization of. 11; video ond,138
dynamic ot 46: govom.mcn1-s-ponsored.45; Tele-vision Laboratory (WNET): ContinuingSro,y
Japanese and Amerioon.49.63; pr� of. ond,201
45,47,48; projection and. 50; psyche and. 47. 18royoma. Shilo.184
49.2S0n2: r(I(�(Ind, 4S-SO,68; seU-integration Terkel Stud s.' 44
and.50; &UOplillcotkm (Ind,48; .$0ci(J) utility of, Te1ti l0lie!: (Sankofa rum and VtdeoCoUectiw).
47; wartime, 44. 46.55-56 180
Stevo's-Crohn's fuge-My Story,237 Tertullian. 193
S.On e. Oovid.12 Testimony,JQ. 126
Sto,ytelling.41. 236 Texl: opennt-$S oi.147
S!fo:nd.A: rul. xix.95 Tex.t-in-pr<.>C8$$,41--42
Str<,:rub,84,86.88 Textuo;J authority,216.222-24. 22S,226
Structurol e l cfl14)nts, 28,29 ,41 Thank You mxl Goo d Night(Oxcnbcrg), 122,. 126,
Structurolist&.. xiii . 108 180
Student movement. xx. 177 "Thootre for Plco:o;we orTileatre for Instruction�
Stude.nts for a Democratic Society (SD$),9 , 12 <Br<>ehtl.29.32
Studi es on the Leh.,19 lbeorlw,gDocumen,a,y (Renovl .93
Sturk.en.Morita.138.1S4.18S n.eropy,155.194-96, 222.263nl3; lntemet ond.
Subject.x:xiv.4 3 ,10: abstracc/oonaeie.xili-ltiv: 23$-3'/; tollc.I IS.196; teehno-.1 99; tele¥isual
aggression ogoin!ii,'13: centro.llty of. 104: 196; viOOC>, 202.
character of. 105; ooru;cio',1$,hmoon$Ct0US. 100; Thin BlueUne,. The, xxili
coMtructlonof. 7 ,130: desiring.100; knowing. ·Things I F"md on the Gtound� (Cray),240.241.
100: ob;eel and.148.174.219. 229; ontologiool 243
stotui. of. ISO: ,ofe,ent ond, 71: return ot. JlO; Thi.rd World Newsreel 246n22. 247n6
structure of. 188 7bltty YeanLate, CR�.164
Subjectivity,73,79,80.109, l l 2 . l l 3 .118. ISS,
'°'
'Thi$ I'.$ tht)Enemy," 54-58
160,174., 179: celeb,at!:og.XYili.:aiii; di&coww 'Thoog.ht s tho Ti� on Wai and Deat h "
and.xxii: documc:mtoty,98, 178,180: effusion (Freud).124
of. 176: essayi.stic&'ages ot 105: cxp}o,otiort Three Gcoces on the Stony Brook beach.78
o(, xvi.I,:aW. 81: meosu.re ol 214: mode s of. · 1'voo Song!l /or Lenin (Vertcw).81,134
mii.21. ll7,171,182; new.l-0:260n9;0the.t lime: g:eogrophy ond. 29
218: post&truch.ualist �r,;tQn of.. IIO: queer. TodoroY,Tzveton.258D4.265n3
181: repression of.xi,. xviii,; &OCiaL xvi.ii. 69 ,97 ; ToFree the Cinema Oames).69
!:llag1ngof ,114; theori.:zations ol 188 10lllboychick (DuBowskO.180,223, 224
Sob;cci/ob;,.-d model,IDS.218 'longues Untied' (Rig�), xv,xxiil. 120,122.126.
Subordino1:ion. 4.214 128. 180
Suderburg.Erika.138 Topogro:phlcal reordering.40. 41
Sul:d)e,gei: Mhur Hay.16 Top Vo lue Te1ew:ion (TVTV), n.66
Summe, '68 (Pruc;htor and Douglas},10.ll, 18; Torok.Mario. 23-24.3 9 .40,41
. described.17; sound bock of.19 .. T01allly. ISO.ISi
Supetp0rtols,234 Totolil'y'Ot)d Infinity U,evinas}.Iso . 160
Svilo¥o.Ycl.x i � I O... V
x ill,
84 T oulmin .Stephen. 132,2S8nS
Sweeney, Skip.,202 Toumon.Andre.as . 187
S y,nbollc .123.124, 187.189.247n8 Tra�(etence.211, 263n2(
S/Z (ll<,rtho,) .86.105 TronsfotmQtion.3 .11,176.242
Trauma.124.125.189: Roo.land .JZ,
Tagg,John.51,213 Treatise: essay and.186
Tohimik.IGdkrt.218 'l'tebli.nlco dooth <:0mp,126
Tajui.Ilea. xv .43.63.6 4 ,9?.171): memo,y by, nx-k or Drink (Green).xvi,202.218
58-59.64-65 Trmh T.Minh-ha.7 2 .217
Tonolco.Rud y, 62 Trinity $i10.121
Tanikawo,Shunlaro.184 rustes Ilopiques (L8vi-�lrOU&$), 216
IN DCX
284
Digitzed
i by Orginal
i from
Triumpb ol rbe Will (Riefensto hl),Capra o n ,SI "Video: Surrealismwlthout the Unoo�w;"
Truffaut.A-o�ois, 109.232 Oo meso n). 137
Truth. 147, 193; obsoluli$1 notionz of, M4: i.ndifler· "Video Wrili.ng"(Belloor),184
ence t o,106 V-aetnom(l!",e: imogesof.55.25lnl6
Truthi n H.i6tory : predilecbon tor, I37 V'.go.Joo:n,mil. 69 .93 .96,103
Turlm. Maureen. 138.188 Villoge\bke,9.13.15,81.112
Tutnei:. Ted.66 Vin t� : Farnillesof\.blue (Hom.$),2 21 ,228
TVTV. See Top Value Televi$i0n V1<>14. BUJ,18<.186
'Jwentieth Century ro� 57 V'utuol: er.; gold $tO-ndord. 233
1wo or 1'hroo 11.til1g$ IKnow�ut Her(Godard), V'1.$i.bl e Evicfo nce ll 216
249nl0 VisibleEvidence CO. 120
· 1e1,Fbrker.82
1y Visible Evidence rv. 148
TylCf.StephenA.:217 Vtslbl e Evidence V, 130
Typologies, 182,260n9 V'.sihle Evidence V U ,2::30
Vii;i()n,.55.96.100; alternative.fiT: ethnogropbk,.
Ulysses.8 3 .113 223: o.bjoc1ifyi.ngvirtues ot 158: soclol, 54
"Uncle Som Wonts You!" (postei-).31 YisionTY. ol
Unconscious,9 6 ,9 8 ,100.103; di$cour:";e ot 99 Voice: outbodol,73;�1e-i.19; mctocliscun;ive.
Un/ini$hod&,�inc$$ (Oko:rotci).62 19 ; n;orroting, 246�: pre:i;enl·(eru;e, 198
l.lnlinW»edDiary (Mollet>. 179 l
Vo,oo, o � � 19
UJli.vel&Olity,133. 176,229 Vo�,. xxi,.18.102.227,246n29.247n29
Un.sere Alrlkarelse (Xubelko).82 \<:iicesoltheMomlng (Nonjl), 179
Qp o gatns1 the Woll.�h�ri�r:s. 8 Voste-11. Wolf, 18S,26ln28
Uf•Splochc. 9 '
USC School o f Cinema-Televisio n. xv-xvi \fuJden : W-dlio:111$ on< : I.25 I n l
U.S. Department ofDefense: lntem� o: od,233 Wolkot Robe•.26 '.
U.S.Military Intelligence,61
Volo.ntin.t Norberto.195 .•.·,
Wollo o e .Mike.66
Walsh. Michael : on Loco:ruo:o Real,I?.3
WarOepo:.rtment, 46; documt.nlori� by. 44
-·•
'
'hloro llgoosabce.The (Leo).250nl
V� der Keuken.Johan,97
¾bt wHl 1ou1Mc,cy(Dowe r) ,45,57
Wo shington Monument: S4
,• .
\wfeugnung,136 woison. Julia.nl.xili..181
\t>rtigO (Hitchcock),2S2n23 WBAl-f'M. 15
Vet1ov,Dxigo.2 3 .69 .75,81, 8 4 .96.129.140. 173, �er Dio.ry 9e:nes (Kucho,).202
' 176: documentary tihntradition ond.135; 9n WeoUie.r Undc1gr01>nd..12
filn:unaketa.:rxiv; o n forced Industriol l%olion, Web pos,es: QUl obiograpbioalJOdii. 230.232-37,
134: tcrtiono:list/scientil'ic potentio}ttjc;m <.md. ' 239-41. 243.287.S: pe,sonat ,ill, 230 ,231-35,
100:: sub�ty Qnd.xviii 237
Vertov,Mikhail. xviii · Web81er, Noah,t56
�.rwerlung,125 llwhn d(<l<>da<d),<2
\e,y£myDeath.A (Boou"'u),1211 Western culture.55,l 42; blockness tn. 5 2 :
Video, xii,72.JO$,176: art th eor y and.185 ; Weston. Kath: on families we c�e.226
outobiogrophicol,xvi. 1 2 1 -22 .231, 232.243; "We : VcniOht of oMon.ifc:;to" (V ertov).173
confessiono:nd, 191. 195,205: contempotory, Wcxlo� Ho skeU.23, Z4., 2 5 .3 6 ,249nl9; cinema
xiv .xx:I; corpoteolity of .184; C!l$CJ}' ond. 18(. verit8 and. 39 ; docu.mentar y filmg and, 27-28 ;
189: h�.199; image registrations and.136. tilmicpractice ot 28, 41: his1oriool l'e,ol o:nd.
n18: nonfiction applicationsof. 199; photog 2�8n6 : �1ory/diege5m ond.. 37 : os image .'
raphy and,139; as postmodern medlum,138 ; moke,.42: incorporation by, 39; MedJum Cool
pote.ntl.o:l o f ,186, 188: proce$$011e:ntott0n ot . and.xxii. 21:�n-scene o:nd.33-34; � .
188 ; pubbc di$plcry ol. 12'9: ooU-exomination .mounton d ,27: sound/lmoge ond, 31
ond.. 214; televisio n and. 138; theory,138; .While.Hoyden,108.131.13?; 161. 219
wedding.199 White.Mi.mi: on telew..ion.l 9S-96
Video ArchJ...e !o r Holoooul(I TeMimonics. 161. White fence (Strand).95
V'ideooonfe.f¢neing,141, 1S4 W h os' A/raid oJVbginlo VrooU?, '?}
Vidoo fr oo A.merico.xx, 2641135
Vi.deo� 66, 201
"Why W e Agbt" ser'ies. SI. 61
Wlllicuw.,. Alon. 69-70.8 5 .25ln l '
Vldeog:mph.lc worb. 125 Wtlliams. Raymond,4 .5,173.195
Vid(.'O Letter (Teroyomo ond Tonikowo).184 Wdliams. RJchord. 154 ·
Video letters.207 . WindDowc, (M olt<l$) ,IS
V'.ldeor:nakers.1 9 5 .2f11. 218: au.tobiogrnphioo J. Vnng s otthe ' wirwalle.:aiii
104; confesoont ond. 201: fis�·91..-n0-ration.182. Wmsto n,. Brian. xxi .135,137.)74
185-86 WL'lenlOn,Preder'ick,xx. xxi
\1deoNation, xv W',,;h,,,.,cl,o<;u;,123
Video partners,. 214 WNl:I; 201
IMDCX ...
Wolf Mo n. 24 Yamagata lnterootionalOo<:umcnto:ry FUtn F'es-
Women's lntemotiona.lTenorist Con&pi.ro cy from livcl, 43
Hell {WITCH) , 8 , 9 Yomoto r(Jce, 49
Woolf. VirgiruCt. 131 "Yellow Peru' 1b81oric. 46
Word: image <md. 8$ Yerushalmi. Yoeel H<ryim.. 166
Workers' film and Photo League. xx. 253n? Yipples, 33
Workingclass: social change and. 7 Yone.moto, B1'u<: e, 58
"Wotk of Art Ln the Mkt� Age of Mecbcm.ical Yonemoto, Noonon. S8
Repnxh>etion. r � -(Benjamin), 231 Young Socktlists. 33
Xoom.com. 234 Zcwci:;: Po 1'rhcrm0$ ond, 93-94

Zine&.. 23S
Yahoo I: Fox o:nd. 234; GooCiOOl>ond. 235: per Ziiek. Slavoj. 99 . 188-89, 190 ; on Real 123, 124
sonal Web pages and. 233-34
,., INDCI

,
MICHAEL REHOV is professor of critical studies in the School of Cinema

Television at the University of Southern Cal ifornia. He is author of
H�flyw.ood's Wartime \Vo1n�11: Representation qnd Ideology, editor ;,f
Theorizing.' Doc141nenttlry, and �dcdit�>r of Resolutions:· C�nte,nporary
Video Practices (Minnesota, 1996) and Collecting Visible Evidence- (Min-
nesota, 1999). .-
.,.
. _,'
j:'....
��
'
.
�'•;r.
'
1!:-

"In the thick of calls to rethink the representation
of the Other, Michael Renov asks us to rethink
the representation of the self. From Montaigne
to Mekas, and from Sherman's March to
autobiographical Web sites, Renov expands our
concept of 'visible evidence' to encompass the
self in profoundly revealing ways."
BILL NICHOLS. AUTHOR OF REPRESENTING REALITY· ISSUES AND CONCEPTS IN
DOCUMENTARY ANO INTRODUCTION TO DOCUMENTARY
In The S11biect of Docunumtary, J\llich acl Rcnov focuses on how documentary filmmaking ha s
become nn impon-anr 1ncans for borh rxamimng an d constructing sclfhood. Whether chron1ding
family history, sexual identity, 01' a personal or social world, the new generation of nonfiction
filmmakers has defiantly embraced autobi ogr aphy. By looking ar key figures in documentary
filmmaking as well as noncanonical ,1 ideo an and avant-garde anisrs, Rcnov broadens the definition
of what counts as documentary.
Offering historical context for the explosion of personal nonfiction filmmaking in the 1980s and
1990., Rcnov analy<es films from Ilnskcl l Wexlcr"s Medium Cool to Jon as Mcka s's Lost. Lost, Lost.
Looking bc)·ond rhe rradirional documentary, Renov contemplates such nonrradirional modes
of autobiog.raphin,I prncricc ns rhe ess.ay film, chc video confession. nnd chc �rsonal Web page.
Michael Renov is professor of critic al studies or the USC School of Cinema-Television. He i s the
edito r of The orizing Doc11mentary and the coeditor of Resolutions: Contemporary Video Practices
(Minnesota, 1996) and Collectmg Vis,ble Evidence (Minnesota, 1999).
11111111 1111• 111111

VIS..[ [VIOi NC[ S(IIIES ISBN 978·0·8166-3441-5
UrMr� ol ltmtsot• A-H1 90000>
Pmtld in U SA
Cowr de�n "-' 11!amt i.ft
SI '"'I � Rtd llr( NI'""'"' 9"�oa11'63441 5�
Ptw,iog,aph d Maflon 'fa:s and UIO ........ (OU(IISJ ol s.,..,, Wt)!"\
Digitized by Or iginal from

Michael Renov The Subject of Documentary UMN Press 2004 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Michael Renov The Subject of Documentary UMN Press 2004 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

t

The Subject of Documentary

. Digitized by Original from

Memory, Pho tograplry, and th e Holocaust ..

Digitized by Original from

Copyright 2004 by the Regents of the Unive rsity of Min nesot a

Published by tlic University of Minnesota Press

Library of Con gress Cat a loging-in -Public ation Data

. Pr in ted in the United State s of Americ a on acid-free p ape r

The University of Mi nnesota is an equal-oppor tunity educator a nd employer .

Digitized by Original from

Univers'ity of Minnesota Press

Digitized by Original from

Copyright 2004 by the Regents of che University of Minnesota

All rights reserved. No pa rt of rhjs publication may be teproduced, store d in a re­

Publishe d by the University of Minnesota Press

Library of Congress Catalogi n g -in -Publication Data

Printe d in the United State s of America on acid-free paper

The University of t.1in nesora is an equal-opportu nity educator and employer.

Digitized by Original from

Digitized by Original from

Surveying the Subject: Ao lmroducti on XI

PART I. SOCIAL SUBJECTIVITY ..:

3 .. Warring Images: Stere otype and Americai{ Representations

5 .. Ch_arged Vision: The Place of Desire

8 .. Documentary Disavowals and the D igital l30

Digitized by Original from

II .,. Ne w Subjectivities: Documentary and Self-Repre sentation

12 .,. The Electronic Essay

14 .,. Domestic Ethnography· and the Construction

Digitized by Original from

This book is the cesult of ma ny years of teachin g and wr iti_ng a bout do cu - ·

· c r itic al _ ,<ernacular. The confer ence's incre�singly gl ob al rea ch has ce r tai n­

Digitiz ed by Or ig inal from

Digiti zed by Original from

"S11rv eying the Subject." was deliv er e d as a keynote address a t the

On more th an one o ccasion, I ha ve atte mpted t o de scrib e iliis book in ·a

Digitiz ed by Or ig inal from

,u SU IUE'II NC THE suutCT

Digiti zed b y Original from

. A nd it is n o singular self, as a ny d ecl en sion sh ows: I, me , the ego, the

SUJtVETINC TH£ SV8J £CT

Digitized by Original from

xiv SURVtTINC THC S U8JtCT

. Digitized by Origfoal from

Business (1996) get laughs in a ll the r ight pl aces.

_i n th e new B ritain . Video Nation, a s the program wa s aptly ti tled, intro­

SV 8'1CYINO ,TH£ SUBJCCT

Digitiz ed by Or ig inal from

HARVARD UNIVERSITY HARVARD UNIVERSITY

..,t SU RVEYING T,_it SU!IJ CCT

SUIIVCTIMG THE S08J £C T

Oigitiz� by Original from

by the c lass values and s ensibilities of the young, Ca mbridge-educ ated

xvi ii $ URVETINC THE S IJ8JE CT

Digitized by Original from

Thus did Ivens describe hi s conscious embrace of a ki nd o f asceti­

6URYETINC THC S USll:Ct'

Digitized by · ·original from

SUllVtYING Tfft SOIJCC T

Digitized by Original from

subtlety a nd sophistic ati on pr eviously unkno wn .29 Althou gh I would not

$QIIVtTINO THE SUIJCCT

All rights reserved. No pa rt of rhjs publication may be teproduced, store d in a re

· c r itic al _ ,<ernacular. The confer ence's incre�singly gl ob al rea ch has ce r tai n

_i n th e new B ritain . Video Nation, a s the program wa s aptly ti tled, intro

Thus did Ivens describe hi s conscious embrace of a ki nd o f asceti

idea s drawn from p sychoana ly si s, as well as fro m ce rtai n strands of post

Bey ond all a ttempts at de scription, analysis, and hi sto ri ca l conte x

or govern in g animus in fa v or of a proces.s of discove ry-of a ser ies of sub

ph asi s on rupture and transformation can chus be cast as an act of affir

The development of the productive forces beyond their capi

Many times the films of Newsreel. the p)Ovement'sonly orga

inju nc tion "Every perso n a ri arti st!" I n a d o,it-yourself explanati on ap

Acts of c ul tural in terventi on such a s tho se of the Eycmak ers we re ac