Page 111 - Darko Štrajn, From Walter Benjamin to the End of Cinema: Identities, Illusion and Signification. Ljubljana: Educational Research Institute, 2017. Digital Library, Dissertationes, 29.
P. 111
the principle of montage and literature
tually, reading of Döblin’s novel could well be described as an activity of a
“distracted perception”, which Benjamin finds in a film viewing: “The au-
dience’s identification with the actor is really identification with the cam-
era. Consequently the audience takes the position of the camera; its ap-
proach is that of testing” (Benjamin, 1969: p. 228-229).
Montage and De-montage
It seems that Benjamin‘s methodological materialism, “hidden” behind his
unique theoretical articulations—a kind of revealing insightful descriptiv-
ism—generated such reading of the novel that transcends aesthetics, but re-
tains it at the same time in a sense of the Hegelian Aufhebung. Benjamin’s
singular attitude is characterized by his inexplicit philosophical discourse.
He actually never really enters problems such as subject-object relations,
transcendentalism, speculations, and so forth in explicit philosophical
terms, but his writing nonetheless addresses these problems. Perhaps Ben-
jamin’s shunning of explicit philosophy prevented him from taking a step
further in defining Döblin‘s novel as a work of montage. Taking into ac-
count the notion of das Subjekt as a fundamental concept could make it
possible for Benjamin to see Döblin’s montage as de-montage4 simultane-
ously reflecting the decentring of subjectivity as an agency and shattering
its “outcomes” in a form of crushed (psychological) subjectivity. However,
the process of de-montage, obvious only as the “hidden” and constitutive
movement in Döblin’s novel, surfaces only much later in Fassbinder‘s adap-
tation of the novel in his 1980 TV series.
Nonetheless, the most relevant aspect in Benjamin‘s reading remains
his elucidatory linking of Döblin‘s novel to the logic of cinematic produc-
tion, including the notion of montage. Comprehension of the text as “di-
rectly” linked to the notion of reality is facilitated by Döblin’s category of
epic fiction. This category obviously forms a link with the Brechtian catego-
ry of epic theatre, in which the famous V-effekt confronts a spectator with
a reality, say, of class exploitation or repressive domination. Döblin’s nar-
ration style transfers Brecht’s idea into the form of a novel and so it gives
even a naive reader the chance to take part in an interplay of identifica-
tion linkages. In this respect, the notion of de-montage would also func-
4 The idea for introducing the term de-montage in this context was suggested to me by
Thomas Elsaesser when we discussed the topics of this chapter before it was finished.
Of course, the elaboration of the term is my own responsibility. I am also indebted
to Elsaesser for numerous other suggestions and thought-provoking remarks.
109
tually, reading of Döblin’s novel could well be described as an activity of a
“distracted perception”, which Benjamin finds in a film viewing: “The au-
dience’s identification with the actor is really identification with the cam-
era. Consequently the audience takes the position of the camera; its ap-
proach is that of testing” (Benjamin, 1969: p. 228-229).
Montage and De-montage
It seems that Benjamin‘s methodological materialism, “hidden” behind his
unique theoretical articulations—a kind of revealing insightful descriptiv-
ism—generated such reading of the novel that transcends aesthetics, but re-
tains it at the same time in a sense of the Hegelian Aufhebung. Benjamin’s
singular attitude is characterized by his inexplicit philosophical discourse.
He actually never really enters problems such as subject-object relations,
transcendentalism, speculations, and so forth in explicit philosophical
terms, but his writing nonetheless addresses these problems. Perhaps Ben-
jamin’s shunning of explicit philosophy prevented him from taking a step
further in defining Döblin‘s novel as a work of montage. Taking into ac-
count the notion of das Subjekt as a fundamental concept could make it
possible for Benjamin to see Döblin’s montage as de-montage4 simultane-
ously reflecting the decentring of subjectivity as an agency and shattering
its “outcomes” in a form of crushed (psychological) subjectivity. However,
the process of de-montage, obvious only as the “hidden” and constitutive
movement in Döblin’s novel, surfaces only much later in Fassbinder‘s adap-
tation of the novel in his 1980 TV series.
Nonetheless, the most relevant aspect in Benjamin‘s reading remains
his elucidatory linking of Döblin‘s novel to the logic of cinematic produc-
tion, including the notion of montage. Comprehension of the text as “di-
rectly” linked to the notion of reality is facilitated by Döblin’s category of
epic fiction. This category obviously forms a link with the Brechtian catego-
ry of epic theatre, in which the famous V-effekt confronts a spectator with
a reality, say, of class exploitation or repressive domination. Döblin’s nar-
ration style transfers Brecht’s idea into the form of a novel and so it gives
even a naive reader the chance to take part in an interplay of identifica-
tion linkages. In this respect, the notion of de-montage would also func-
4 The idea for introducing the term de-montage in this context was suggested to me by
Thomas Elsaesser when we discussed the topics of this chapter before it was finished.
Of course, the elaboration of the term is my own responsibility. I am also indebted
to Elsaesser for numerous other suggestions and thought-provoking remarks.
109
