Page 185 - Darko Štrajn, From Walter Benjamin to the End of Cinema: Identities, Illusion and Signification. Ljubljana: Educational Research Institute, 2017. Digital Library, Dissertationes, 29.
P. 185
immediacy as an attribute of cinema as art
Its Shadow) of his book Aisthesis he comes up with the notion of immedia-
cy linked to the notion of cinema: “Immediacy is what the art of projected
moving shadows demands. Since this art is deprived of living flesh, of the
stage’s depth and theatre’s words, its instant performance must be identi-
fied with the tracing of a writing of forms” (20134). Rancière discovers “im-
mediacy” when he is trying to point out how cinema organises within its
capacities a “distribution of the sensible” and he takes Chaplin not just as
an example, but also as a decisive figure in the time, when film was becom-
ing art form and defining itself as such. Of course, as a philosopher, who
cannot but draw on texts – in this instance on Shklovsky, Meyerhold and,
maybe more prominently, on Jean Epstein, Rancière did not miss the ques-
tion of language in cinema. Therefore, it looks like as if there is an inherent
link between thinking through cinema and his notion of immediacy.
Let me go back to Rachel Moore‘s stance on “film as more primitive
form of language than words”. Of course, her discourse is already imbued
by postcolonial anthropology and the “notion” of “primitive” derived from
Epstein has more or less just a “technical meaning”. Therefore, I am risking
a hypotheses that – although both authors do not cite each other – her con-
ception corresponds to Rancière‘s reflection on a reciprocal relationship be-
tween language and cinema in his book Intervals of Cinema: “It is a prac-
tice of language that also carries a particular idea of ’imageness’ (imagéité)
and of mobility. It invented for itself a sort of cinematographism” (Rancière,
2014, ch. 2). Although Epstein-Moore’s concept of “primitive language”
cannot just be simply equated to the notion of immediacy, I think that it is
inscribed into it. As such, it touches upon Rancière’s original and far-reach-
ing conception of the distribution of the sensual.
Immediacy, which becomes apparent as a suitable answer to the de-
mand of the art of “projected moving shadows”, in the case of Chaplin it
has to do with movement; what Charlot does, makes him and his art not
only just comprehensible through Meyerhold’s formula of theatrical art,
but it makes him part of the same aesthetic process that generates art and
its inventions of “glitches” in the work of machine. This Chaplin’s involve-
ment of pantomime along with the fairground theatre (théâtre de la foire)
in his films is what instigates Epstein‘s partial repudiation of Chaplin’s cin-
ema as an art. However, one should take into account that this was actual-
4 The accessibility of texts in different formats sometimes causes problems with quot-
ing. The English translations of some of Rancière‘s books, which I received as the
Kindle editions, do not have pagination corresponding to the printed edition. There-
fore, my quotes are marked with the number of the chapter, where they can be found.
183
Its Shadow) of his book Aisthesis he comes up with the notion of immedia-
cy linked to the notion of cinema: “Immediacy is what the art of projected
moving shadows demands. Since this art is deprived of living flesh, of the
stage’s depth and theatre’s words, its instant performance must be identi-
fied with the tracing of a writing of forms” (20134). Rancière discovers “im-
mediacy” when he is trying to point out how cinema organises within its
capacities a “distribution of the sensible” and he takes Chaplin not just as
an example, but also as a decisive figure in the time, when film was becom-
ing art form and defining itself as such. Of course, as a philosopher, who
cannot but draw on texts – in this instance on Shklovsky, Meyerhold and,
maybe more prominently, on Jean Epstein, Rancière did not miss the ques-
tion of language in cinema. Therefore, it looks like as if there is an inherent
link between thinking through cinema and his notion of immediacy.
Let me go back to Rachel Moore‘s stance on “film as more primitive
form of language than words”. Of course, her discourse is already imbued
by postcolonial anthropology and the “notion” of “primitive” derived from
Epstein has more or less just a “technical meaning”. Therefore, I am risking
a hypotheses that – although both authors do not cite each other – her con-
ception corresponds to Rancière‘s reflection on a reciprocal relationship be-
tween language and cinema in his book Intervals of Cinema: “It is a prac-
tice of language that also carries a particular idea of ’imageness’ (imagéité)
and of mobility. It invented for itself a sort of cinematographism” (Rancière,
2014, ch. 2). Although Epstein-Moore’s concept of “primitive language”
cannot just be simply equated to the notion of immediacy, I think that it is
inscribed into it. As such, it touches upon Rancière’s original and far-reach-
ing conception of the distribution of the sensual.
Immediacy, which becomes apparent as a suitable answer to the de-
mand of the art of “projected moving shadows”, in the case of Chaplin it
has to do with movement; what Charlot does, makes him and his art not
only just comprehensible through Meyerhold’s formula of theatrical art,
but it makes him part of the same aesthetic process that generates art and
its inventions of “glitches” in the work of machine. This Chaplin’s involve-
ment of pantomime along with the fairground theatre (théâtre de la foire)
in his films is what instigates Epstein‘s partial repudiation of Chaplin’s cin-
ema as an art. However, one should take into account that this was actual-
4 The accessibility of texts in different formats sometimes causes problems with quot-
ing. The English translations of some of Rancière‘s books, which I received as the
Kindle editions, do not have pagination corresponding to the printed edition. There-
fore, my quotes are marked with the number of the chapter, where they can be found.
183
