Response 2

The Eternal Frame harshly and brilliantly used the spectacle of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy to create a film that explored the corruption society has with images. From the reading by Guy Debord he states “The spectacle is not a collection of images; rather it is a social relationship between people that is mediated by images (Debord, 5).  This relates to the JFK assignation and The Eternal Frame because the viewers who saw it on TV and in the reenactment were captivated by the scene, but that’s not why it was a spectacle it was a spectacle because he was the president of the United States and Jackie O was beautiful and Texas was powerful; these media crafted persona's for these moving images of the people and place where it happened changed the dynamic of the situation and the social relationship society had with the images, thus creating spectacle. The Eternal Frame used metacinema devices like having the actors being questioned in and out of character about the film and the final outcome by the crew working on the film. By doing this it further elaborated how convoluted society is in terms of how it handles images on screens and in person. Was it really beautiful or was it someone dying? Why did those who witnessed the event feel socially inclined next to those who may have not seen it? Most of all, by reenacting such a spectacle did it further procreate how wrongly violence is handled in society? 

Man Bites Dag

“The man controls the film phantasy and also emerges as the representative of power in a further sense: as the bearer of the look of the spectator, transferring it behind the screen to neutralize the extra-dietetic tendencies represented by woman as spectacle. This is made possible through the processes set in motion by structuring the film around a main controlling figure with whom the spectator can identify. As this spectator identifies with the main male protagonist, he projects his look on to that of his like, his screen surrogate, so that the power of the male protagonist as he controls events coincides with the active power of the erotic look, both giving a satisfying sense of omnipotence (Mulvey, 5).”

I know this is a big quote from Laura Mulvey’s article “Visual Pleasure & Narrative Cinema”, and I wont count it towards my 500 word minimum, but I find it pertinent to Man Bite’s Dog and how Ben interacted with the Andre from the film crew and also how he seemed to escape this villain persona you would think he would have a hard time forgoing. He was oddly likeable and cultured. His female long time friend also gave Ben power in the film because she was submissive to him. Andre became his film surrogate through the use of metacinema, and so did the audience in a way. When Ben spoke to Andre he more or less was speaking directly to the camera, this I believe shifted out perception of who this horrible character was. He was cunning and evil when he shot a man at the dinner table but his long time female friend sat there slain with blood unable to acknowledge how wrong the action was. The psychoanalysis of Mulvey explains that the female character and her behavior at that moment was most likely sought after to help Ben control this far off fantasy of living as a murder recording a documentary on his life and the economics involved. How else could they pull off a character like this without using a submissive female character to neutralize his omnipotence in a way that the viewer could handle and believe?