In Michael Powell's Peeping Tom, Mark Lewis is obsessed with voyeurism and capturing true fear on film for the "documentary" he is making. He works as a focus puller on a movie lot and a pornographic photographer so he is familiar with a film industry.
In the first scene we watch him solicit and kill a prostitute. The entire sequence is shown through the lens of his 16mm film camera. This just doesn't make us an accomplice in the murder; it makes us a participant! (Whether we are willing or not, the film could care less.) During this scene we are certain that these events are occurring in the present because the shot though the viewfinder is in color and there is sound. Later we see Mark play the film back in black and white, without sound, knowing that he is reliving the kill in the past which was recorded on film. The cross-hairs of the viewfinder are like the cross-hairs of a rifle's scope. We find out later that is it indeed the camera that is being used as a murder weapon. Mark's camera has an interesting duel-purpose: it is used to end lives but at the same time it is use to preserve life on film. The document record that he creates keeps the victims alive, in a sense, after they have been snuffed.
The above two stills are from the first and last shots of the film, respectively. That eye belongs to our protagonist Mark. It signifies that this film is going to be about 'watching', specifically through Mark's eyes. But in a more general sense, it is about watching films. Mark creates films to observe people and capture their worse fears. Similarly we continue to watch this films (and all other films) because we have a fascination to observe others' most intimate moments and learn how they function to compare and contrast it to our own lives.
As for that second image, it represents the film and Mark's life coming to an end. The projector has run out of footage, so it is not just the end of the life of Mark but it is also the end of all the characters lives in the film. Outside that film world those character do not exist. Sure they can be replayed but they will always be repeating the same actions. This is true for all film characters fiction or documentary.
Sherlock Jr. by Buster Keaton is an earlier example of metacinema. Keaton plays a film character who can become a character in the films within the film (albeit though dreaming). He directly interacts with the cuts in the film, calling attention to that aspect of filmmaking. A cut to him is interpreted as an instant set change, which is played up for comical effect. Through his comedy he still provokes thoughts about how the simple cut functions and how they guide our viewership of the film. These thoughts elevate our thinking to how film is constructed, turning our thoughts 'meta.'
As for that second image, it represents the film and Mark's life coming to an end. The projector has run out of footage, so it is not just the end of the life of Mark but it is also the end of all the characters lives in the film. Outside that film world those character do not exist. Sure they can be replayed but they will always be repeating the same actions. This is true for all film characters fiction or documentary.
Sherlock Jr. by Buster Keaton is an earlier example of metacinema. Keaton plays a film character who can become a character in the films within the film (albeit though dreaming). He directly interacts with the cuts in the film, calling attention to that aspect of filmmaking. A cut to him is interpreted as an instant set change, which is played up for comical effect. Through his comedy he still provokes thoughts about how the simple cut functions and how they guide our viewership of the film. These thoughts elevate our thinking to how film is constructed, turning our thoughts 'meta.'
First off, if you are going to relegate your response to one film to a cursory overview of the film (your last paragraph) then I would leave it out. Instead, expand your argument about the first film.
ReplyDeleteYour second paragraph is definitely your strongest because you enumerate the metaphor of the camera viewfinder's likeness to a gun. I think you could expand on that idea, considering the notion of the gaze and vision that are implicit in cinema and are perhaps implicated in violence in a more general sense.
The end of your third paragraph wanes into the type of generalization that I want you to try to avoid: "As for that second image, it represents the film and Mark's life coming to an end. The projector has run out of footage, so it is not just the end of the life of Mark but it is also the end of all the characters lives in the film. Outside that film world those character do not exist. Sure they can be replayed but they will always be repeating the same actions. This is true for all film characters fiction or documentary."
I think you can be more clever about the metaphor of the film running out. How might it relate to violence, film, and ambivalence? I think ambivalence (as it relates to cinema, recording, documentary) is a concept you should spend more time thinking about...