“The act of reaching for a lighter or a spoon is a familiar routine, yet we hardly know what really goes on between hand and metal, not to mention how this fluctuates with our moods. Here the camera intervenes with the resources of its lowerings and liftings, its interruptions and isolations, its extensions and accelerations, its enlargements and reductions. The camera introduces to us the unconscious optics as does psychoanalysis to unconscious impulses” (47) – Walter Benjamin, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction
Benjamin’s essay examines the authenticity of art in an age of burgeoning mass reproduction. When discussing film, Benjamin realizes that the medium has expanded our comprehension of the world around us. The use of close-ups allows us to see in detail things we never would have noticed before, while slow motion highlights the fluidity of movement in a way that our eyes cannot. Film allows the viewer to explore the significance of each individual movement one makes. The question is, however, in the context of this essay, is how authentic is this medium? It is obviously revolutionary insofar as it “introduces us to the unconscious optics” and calls attention to those unnoticed aspects of life that in the context of a scene can mean so much, yet are too fleeting to see. Is it authentic, though? Has the modernization of production allowed visual art to become so overproduced that it no longer reflects reality? Does the fact that film (at the time of this essay) captures real life then shows us only what it intends for us to see void its authenticity or reinforce it?
Another point that I found interesting about this quotation is that it sounds so much like Mulvey’s piece from nearly forty years after Benjamin’s essay. Mulvey also address film’s representation of the visual unconscious and refers to the controlling aspects of film. While it can expand upon the restrictions of space and time allowed us by nature, it only shows us very specific parts of space and time that help to develop the plot. It is controlled; therefore, we as viewers are controlled. It does reflect nature, but it manipulates it so much that the spectator no longer recognizes the change, which once again brings me to the question: is film authentic?
Film is not authentic. The moment we see a title when we wake up in the morning film will serve as a true adaptation of human life, but this will not happen nor will it ever. This is not necessarily a bad thing, to give humans a false sense of reality. Do we not let children read Dr. Seuss? Was The Matrix a sufficiently realistic way for people to fight? Of course not. Reality is always a nice thing to have but getting close to reality is the only thing that is possible for film.
ReplyDelete