I know we are way past the affection-image in our readings, but after watching the Carl Th. Dreyer's The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928), I couldn't help but be reminded of those readings. It helps, that perhaps, the idea of the affection image has impressed itself on me in a greater way than many of Deleuze's other concepts.
On first viewing of the The Passion I was hit by the sheer volume of close-up shots contained within it. It almost feels like the films contains nothing but close-ups and therefor affection-images by Deleuze's definition, "there is no close-up of the face, the face is in itself a close-up, the close-up is by itself face and both are affect, affection image." (88)
Without speech, and even if there where no intertitles, I believe the affect would still make the entire film "felt". The heavy reliance on this particular part of the movement-image makes the affective power of the cinema obvious.
I mentioned once before, that David Lynch, relies heavily on the affection-image in order to create films, that baring a logical narrative, can still draw the viewer along a line – between logic and overt emotionality – of affection. Similarly, a film that carries forward a pretty simple and logical narrative, such as The Passion of Joan of Arc contains within its use of the affection-image the ability to move beyond its narrative into something more powerful and primal. Something that, regardless of interest in the story itself, can carry the entire film.
* Copyrighted material used under Fair Use license.
2 comments:
I just finished writing my paper on Jeanne d’Arc and cannot get rid of the subject of affection-image. (Is it that affective?). You brought a good point that Jeanne d’Arc’s narrative is really simple but, nonetheless, the film is so complex in terms of style that films critics still cannot exhaust the subject. What critics usually underline that watching this film is perceptually challenging. On the one hand, it is clear where the trial of Jeanne takes place (inside the Rouen Castle), but on the other hand, Dreyer breaks this space that we are not able to distinguish between right and left, foreground, mid-ground and background. His editing pattern is indeed very radical for the time. Deliberately breaking the continuity of space – the key element in the classical narrative structure- we are still able to follow the story. To sum up, it just seems very interesting for the film (and the media on a larger scale) that narrative simplicity has something to do with close-ups as an affection device. To me Dreyer somehow pioneered it in Jeanne d’Arc.
Since I am not a film student or a philosopher, my readings of a film such as this will necessarily be limited to a certain extent. I saw a quick link between Dryers use of the close of in this film, Deleuze's concept of the affection-image and some of David Lynch's work. I am sure that there is much more going on in the film than what I gathered on my first run through it.
I would be very interested to hear more of your opinions on this work, since you have obviously gone much deeper into its complexities than I have.
Tatiana, if you feel that any part of your paper would be of interest to me, please feel free to speak to me about it in depth. I find it easier to understand the concepts we cover in class with practical examples in film. I am just not well versed in finding them myself yet.
The one thing that has changed in my perception of cinema now is my ability to recognize the almost limitless conceptual matter inherent in film beyond the simple narrative.
Post a Comment