A
Films, whose natures defy
easy description or those whose structures clearly break from the traditional
narrative formats, would seem to break wide open the possibilities of writing
on film. It is in the space between the potential viewer and the film in which
writing, especially this writing, posits itself—writing for the viewer so that
the viewer, in consequence, accordingly reads the film. When the writing is
precisely ad hoc writing, no amount
of editorial freedom can liberate the writing from the already imposed
strictures that tend to find their purpose outside the film, so that writing is
actually produced as a third element coming between the film and the viewer. So
that 'title,' signifying recognition, does not pass directly to the viewer but
is passed and mediated by the writing to the viewer, In effect a trilogy is
established, the structure of which is apparent whenever two things come
together and something is passed between them. The third element is always
present, be it this writing, language in general, or films; and the third
element always finds its roots in desire.
It
is at the title and the passing of the title that the film itself begins
operating. ?O, ZOO! and A Trilogy both veil and reveal; both
actively produce some other element which situates itself as an absence in the
discourse of the film and is nothing less than the film itself as an expression
of desire attempting to satisfy that absence.
"I've
come up against this problem before," so goes one of the lines from Philip
Hoffman's ?O, Zoo!. The
responsibility of the film maker and what he should and should not film occurs
again and again in Hoffman's work. In an earlier work entitled Somewhere Between, he decided not to
film a dead boy lying on a Mexican road, rather to capture evocatively the
spirit of the event by footage structured to suggest the absence and the loss
and the truth of the event without sensationalizing it. In fact it is by
cinematically putting into the foreground that absence, by selecting images or
discussing their absence, that the absence becomes a presence, a presence
outside of time—fictionalized, represented—re-presented.
In
?O, ZOO! absence, loss, and truth
undergo a series of transformations from playful fictions concerning the film
maker's newsreel, cameraman grandfather, and the National Film Board, weaving
into the ostensibly truthful documentation of the shooting of a fictional feature
film in Holland, to a story on a more serious tone about an elephant—the
veracity of the story remaining questionable till the end of the film.
The full title of the film, ?O, ZOO! (The Making of a Fiction Film), derives
from the title and making of Peter Greenaway's Zed and Two Noughts, the fiction film set in
The film and its internal
logic seem to be calling itself into question here. Structured on absence, the
film (as desire) moves to fill a hole. Earlier in the film the film maker
wonders whether Grandfather had hoped that someone would find his footage one
day. The making of Hoffman's film, his own fiction film, which in its final
section propels the film maker through a cinematic ricorso, brings him back home to a home-movie image to grandfather
and grandson together, to his innocence, his present wishes, dreams, as if
Grandfather had passed title of the footage to him, to his desires sprung loose
by the spring of his camera - to a calculated fiction which aspires only to
poetic truth.
Although stylistically
different, ?O, ZOO! and A Trilogy are remarkably similar both
thematically and in the codes they use. In A Trilogy the film's focus is on the relationship between the film
maker and her son, structured both to allow and to refuse easy dissection,
whence is generated the main tension of the film.
Breaking down A Trilogy into three separate pieces or
even searching for parts of the trilogy as distinct sections is misleading, for
trilogistic elements abound in the film (three sets of rolling titles, three
seemingly distinct ages at which the young boy is shown, the three days marked
out by CBC's "World Report", the three distinctly separate letters
read by the mother, et al.). Furthermore, the film has three major distinct
sections which weave in and out of each other throughout the film: (I) a woman
diving into a swimming pool and a man running down a road; (2) a narrative
section in which a husband and wife are having breakfast; (3) a collection of
personal images, home-movie footage, and memories, most of which are optically
printed and most directly evocative of Sternberg's emotions visa-vis the
themes of the film.
Each of these elements
constitutive of the whole is always separate and distinct, yet always resisting
separation. As if the active voice of the film maker was everywhere trying to
assert its presence amidst the roar of emotion which has already denied the
voice these easy delusions ...the absences joined together by a fiction
situated outside of presence representing loss... two movements—one always
moving inward toward some unity of expression, an offering from film maker to
viewer; the other a visual and aural representation of the coming apart... the
recognition of hole in whole; the parting of mother and son. The opening shots
record these very movements. A woman poised at the edge of a swimming pool
hesitates to dive into the water. A man runs down a country road, his panting
breaths are broken by occasional remarks about water, sinking, love, and
giving. A breakfast scene depicts the habitual ritual reducing emotion to empty
gesture: a kiss, a spoken good-bye, while "World Report" talks about
disaster at sea. And throughout the film a mother and her young son are
together or moving apart, at beaches, in or near the water. As images race by
and emotion comes to a pitch, the now submerged swimmer from the beginning of
the film breaks the surface as the loud cry of a new-born baby and the
subsequent cutting of the umbilical cord mark the re-presentation of the first
significant separation.
As the boy is always running or moving away from his
mother, so in the end does the running man keep running. But the camera no
longer stays close to him. It stops to watch the man disappear in the distance,
then it returns to the woman poised at the edge of the pool to capture her dive
expressing its affinity with her, situating itself in the water with her.
A Trilogy begins unveiling itself at the title so that 'title'
is passed from the film maker to the viewer and from the film maker to the son
by means of the film. The two movements then (moving together and coming apart)
both unite and separate film maker and viewer, and mother and son. As the film
maker passes the title to the audience she also passes it to her son—title as a
form of recognition, title as film—the emotion into which both must plunge.
Originally
published in New Directions Catalogue (ed. Richard Kerr)
?O,
ZOO! (The Making of a Fiction Film), a film by Philip Hoffman, and
A
Trilogy, a film by Barbara Sternberg