Avant Ghosts of
Travelogues
are films made by tourists. They are defined by their creators' decision to
remain on unfamiliar terms with unfamiliar surroundings. These are not
documentaries, which presume or strive for some unmediated relation to their
subjects. Unless they can demonstrate that they are provisional and selective,
documentaries are prone to be mistaken for the truth. Unless they can
demonstrate that they are art, travelogues are largely the product of hobbyists
who can afford vacations. Travelogues may affirm their artfulness by appealing
to an aesthetic derived from the lyrical avant-garde, or, more frequently, by
adopting the discursive strategies of fiction films. Somewhere Between Jalostotitlan and Encarnacion takes the latter route, all the way to
a Mexican crossroads of the Real and the Imaginary.
The fictive
convention relied upon by Somewhere
Between establishes an artificial contiguity between the film's two
discrete components: intertitles alternating with images
(of
That the
film's apparent coherence of text and image is a construction of cinematic
artifice should be obvious, but the film condescends to underline the point.
The soundtrack, a plaintive sax solo, twice jars incongruously with footage of
musicians playing visibly different tunes, prompting suspicion of any facile
congruence between events and their remains in the picture world. And in a
sequence quite exceeding the credulity that associative editing might sustain,
a funeral procession plods down conspicuously non-Mexican (i.e. Toronto's)
streets, a near-parodic intrusion that must be
rationalized as a metaphorical digression on the universality of death, or some
such thing. All these contrivances and retractions cumulate in a film whose
reliability as documentation is severely undermined by its imperative to
simulate fiction. Somewhere Between
thus exploits a special tension inherent to the travelogue as a genre.
Conventions that would affirm the continuity of narrative films, or the
veracity of documentaries, are here destabilized, indeterminate, somewhere
between... where, exactly?
Clearly not
the poles of a debate concerning the film's ethics, which it
suffered
when it was first exhibited in 1984. Its supporters regarded the omission of
the child's death as a noble refusal of spectacular and exploitative
documentary practices. Its detractors, conventional 'journalistic' documentarians, considered the film irredeemably deprived
of the potential impact conferred by such a powerful image.
Both these
arguments assume the film's images support the text, signifying only the
conclusive absence it describes. But the latter position does implicitly
contain a more incisive interpretation: footage of the accident or its
aftermath would confirm that it actually happened. This shopworn raison d'etre of the journalistic documentary finds application
here; an appeal to evidence validates the skepticism this film seems designed
to provoke. Its issues aren't ethical but ontological. Did the dead youth
exist, or did Hoffman invent him? Given the film's lack of positive evidence,
coupled with its protracted insistence that it be acknowledged as a synthetic
construction, the question remains. There are two plausible answers. In the
first instance, Hoffman sifts through a large amount of Mexican vacation
footage to find a few shots that, by chance, contain imagery similar to details
he recalled of the accident and to the text he wrote to describe it. Or he
returned from
Occam's
razor might suggest the second option, but that's not the rub. As film critic
Rita Gonzālez writes "...international
filmmakers have been drawn to the notion of
1. In 'The Mexperimental Cinema," catalogue essay published by
the