Masaryk University Faculty of Arts Department of Film Studies and Audiovisual Culture

Maša Hilčišin Dervišević (FF TDDF Theory and History of Theatre, Film and Audio-Visual Culture Studies doctoral combined studies)

Helena Třeštíková’s Long-term Observational Documentary Film: Monitoring the Effect of Authenticity in Representation

(Doctoral dissertation)

Supervisor: PhDr. Jaromír Blažejovský, Ph.D.

Brno 2014

To my parents

Content

Acknowledgments ...... 6

Abstract ...... 8

Chapter One: Introduction

1.0. General orientation and research objective ...... 9 1.1. Practices involved in representation in the documentaries of Helena Třeštíková ...... 13 1.1.1. Expository style in early works ...... 13 1.1.2. Formal techniques and representation(s) in Manželské etudy (1987) ...... 15 1.1.3. Creating dramatic effect in Řekni mi něco o sobě ...... 19 1.1.4. Representations and structuring in the cycle Ženy na přelomu tisíciletí ...... 22 1.1.5. Formal techniques and representation(s) in Manželské etudy (2006) ...... 24 1.2. Case Studies ...... 27 1.2.1. Case Study Marcela (2006) ...... 27 1.2.2. Case Study René (2008) ...... 28 1.2.3. Case Study Katka (2010) ...... 30 1.3. Literature Review ...... 31 1.4. Methodology ...... 34

3

Chapter Two: Observation as a practice

2.1. Observation as a practice: The formal strategies used in the production of meaning ...... 38 2.2. Observation as a practice: Further readings of formal techniques ...... 43 2.3. Observation as a practice: Recurring images and producing dramatic effect ...... 48 2.4. Observation as a practice: Role of the spectator and monitoring the effect of authenticity ...... 53

Chapter Three: Model for monitoring the effect of authenticity in the observational documentary films Marcela, René, and Katka

3.1. Model for monitoring the effect of authenticity in the observational documentary films Marcela, René, and Katka: Analysis of formal techniques ...... 61

Chapter Four: Analysis Marcela 4.1. Analysis Marcela: Structure of Marcela ...... 67 4.2. Analysis Marcela: Spatial representation ...... 71 4.3. Analysis Marcela: Communication ...... 75 4.3.1. Marcela’s narration ...... 80 4.3.2. Interviews ...... 82 4.4. Analysis Marcela: Camera shots ...... 84 4.5. Analysis Marcela: Editing ...... 87

Chapter Five: Analysis René 5.1. Analysis René: Structure of René ...... 91 5.2. Analysis René: Spatial representation ...... 94 5.3. Analysis René: Communication ...... 98 5.3.1. René’s narration ...... 102 5.3.2. Letters ...... 103 5.3.3. Interviews ...... 105 5.3.4. René’s books ...... 107 5.4. Analysis René: Camera shots ...... 108 5.5. Analysis René: Editing ...... 111

4

Chapter Six: Analysis Katka 6.1. Analysis Katka: Structure of Katka ...... 116 6.2. Analysis Katka: Spatial representation ...... 121 6.3. Analysis Katka: Communication ...... 125 6.3.1. Katka’s narration ...... 128 6.3.2. Interviews ...... 130 6.4. Analysis Katka: Camera shots ...... 133 6.5. Analysis Katka: Editing ...... 135

Chapter Seven: Effect of Authenticity in Marcela, René, and Katka 7.0. Effect of authenticity in Marcela, René, and Katka: Introductory note ...... 141 7.1. Effect of authenticity in Marcela, René, and Katka: Usage of formal techniques in representation ...... 146 7.1.1. Structuring the story ...... 146 7.1.2. Space ...... 150 7.1.3. Communication ...... 153 7.1.4. Camera shots ...... 155 7.1.5. Editing ...... 160 7.2. Effect of authenticity in Marcela, René, and Katka: Contractual model of film authenticity between the filmmaker and the spectator ...... 163

Chapter Eight: Concluding note ...... 170

Bibliography ...... 173

Filmography ...... 174

Appendix I [Interview with Helena Třeštíková / 11 November 2008] Appendix II [Interview with Helena Třeštíková / 20 April 2010] Appendix III [Interview with Helena Třeštíková / 6 February, 2012] Appendix IV [Interview with Helena Třeštíková / 30 April, 2013]

5

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My primary thanks goes to my supervisor Dr Jaromír Blažejovský for his advice, mentoring, and for giving me the opportunity to work on this project. I am also grateful to all my colleagues from the Department of Film Studies and Audiovisual Culture for their encouragement, valuable input and furthermore, the inspiration to continue to work on this research. Thanks also to Dr Pavel Skopal, Dr Lucie Česálková, and Mgr Dominika Prejdová for additional academic support, providing the precious literature and their time, and to Mgr Anezka Novak, Mgr Herbert van Lynden, Julie O'Shea, Mgr Molly Radecki, and Ćazim Dervišević for their help with proof-reading. Additionally, I want to thank Ćazim Dervišević for all his assistance with image preparations, tables and diagrams. Thanks to documentary filmmaker Helena Třeštíková for her corpus of work, which inspired this documentary research journey, for being available for meetings and interviews, and for providing me with additional valuable materials. I would also like to thank my family and friends for their support.

6

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently using only the sources listed in the bibliography.

Brno, February 26, 2014 Maša Hilčišin Dervišević

7

ABSTRACT

This study explores the use of formal techniques in the process of representation in the observational documentary films of Helena Třeštíková. In what ways do filmic conventions affect the final image of the social subjects? What kind of strategies, techniques and approaches does Třeštíková use in generating the final image? The analytical scope of the thesis is focused on defining the apparatus for monitoring the effect of authenticity and usage of such apparatus within the complex production analysis. The thesis investigates three long-term observational documentary films and the principles that lead towards the creation of dramatic effect during the representational process. Attention has been paid to a spectrum of different techniques and the way they operate in the production of meaning while covering important theoretical points on observation as a practice, and film analysis. The study concludes that formal techniques play an immense role in monitoring the effect of authenticity in the representation of lived reality. In addition to that, the investigated observational documentary films demonstrate how dramatic effects can be produced with technical means.

8

Chapter One: Introduction

1.0. General orientation and research objective

In one of her lectures, „Časosběrná metoda1 v dokumentárním filmu“ („Time-collecting Method in Documentary Film”) Helena Třeštíková expressed her early inspiration for „collecting moments“ and writing her memories into diaries. She stated:„From the very beginning, I was interested in time and the changes it brings. The origin of this is perhaps the phenomenon of the ,diary' because I kept a diary since I was eleven. At the same time, I eagerly read all the available literature that was written in the form of diaries. I find the particularities of such kind of recording interesting. Each record in the diary is the reality of a particular day. The truth, which was given about the moment, left no room for doubt. It is possible to see the movements, developments and changes of condensation of these truths within a certain period of time. Authentic and unspeculated.”2

Authenticity became a significant element in the work of Třeštíková when approaching social subjects and their lives. One of Třeštíková‘s notional grounds while operating in the observational mode of representation3 was to follow life the way it really was, in its visceral form:„You don’t arrange people or situations, but you actually film life without any additional changes. You don’t

1In a more detailed explanation of what time-collecting (časosběrné natáčení) is, Třeštíková notes in her lecture„Časosběrná metoda v dokumentárním filmu“ the work of Prof. Jan Calábek, who was one of the dedicated followers of such a method in the scientific work known as scientific cinematography, using it to create purely scientific naturalistic films. Calábek followed his older colleague and mentor Vladimír Úlehla who was among the first to introduce scientific cinematography. Film researcher and specialist Lucie Česálková, in the analysis of the work of Úlehla and his project Amicia: zločin a věda, describes the observation that was applied in his scientific films as one that aims to „inform, educate, and edify.” Úlehla observed movements, growth and changes over a period of time providing extraordinary details of life and living plants along with creativity and a certain aesthetic approach, as Česálková emphasizes in the analyses of one of his materials written about the film Ze života zemědělských rostlin. [ČESÁLKOVÁ, Lucie (2005): Filmuji sny. Sny rostliny Amicie! Téma vědecké kinematografie v nerealizovanem scénáři fikčniho filmu Vladimíra Úlehly Amicia: zločin a veda. In: Otázky filmu a audiovizuální kultury cinematographica. Brno: Sborník prací Filozofické fakulty brněnské university, no. 2, p. 182]. In Czech documentary cinematography, Třeštíková was a pioneer in using this time-collecting method in documentary film, only she follows people, their lives, and changes. For Třeštíková, a documentary film shot according to the time-collecting method, gives specific aspects related to social subjects, which means their lives are not only ‘caught’ within certain life circumstances, but also they are followed during a larger time span. 2 „Od mých filmařských prvopočátků mě zajímal čas a změny, které přináší. Původ tohoto zájmu je možná ve fenoménu ,deník'. Od svých jedenácti let jsem si psala deník. Zároveň jsem vždy nadšeně četla veškerou dostupnou deníkovou literaturu.V průběhu doby jsem zjišťovala zajímavá specifika tohoto typu záznamů. Každý zápis do deníku je pravdou toho dne. Pravdou, která je v tu chvíli daná a o níž se nepochybuje. Zhuštěním těchto ,pravd dne' do určitého časového úseku lze pozorovat posun, vývoj a změnu. Autentickou a nevyspekulovanou.“ [TŘEŠTÍKOVÁ, Helena (2008): Časosběrná metoda v dokumentárním filmu, p.1]. 3 The most convenient term which corresponds to the modus operandi of Třeštíková's documentary filmmaking is long– term observational documentary. It is then observation of people and their lives during a longer period of time where Třeštíková uses the method she refers to as the collecting of memory or „time-collecting“. 9

know what is going to happen equally as you don’t know what is going to happen with your own life at some points.”4

The filmmaker's perspective which accommodates her endeavour to represent authenticity evolved through the usage of dynamism of filmic means (formal techniques).5 The impetus and meanings that inhabit this approach can be delineated by the close examination of the complex technical plain that consists of formal techniques used for achieving the effect of authenticity. The highlighting of pertinent connections between formal techniques and (authentic) representation builds sufficient plain for an analysis which digresses from polemical debating and shifts towards analytical exploring of experience created by specifically filmic means. One of Třeštíková's signature traits is her tendency to capture an authentic organic experience from a given situation. Her statement:„Stories in the film are written by themselves, not by the filmmaker, and by filming people in the most authentic way without any additional ,fixing’ or ,coloring’,”6 became one of the cornerstones of Třeštíková’s documentary filmmaking style.

The objective of the thesis is to identify, research, and bring to academic attention the effect of authenticity in the long-term observational documentary films of Helena Třeštíková, and the importance and role of formal techniques in this type of representational process. The thesis identifies a collection of observational documentary films that display significant characteristics, important when analysing and monitoring the effects of authenticity in observational documentary discourse.7

4 Maša Hilčišin interviewing Helena Třeštíková (Prague, 2012). 5 The terminology „formal techniques“ was used by film theoreticians Louise Spence, and Vinicius Navarro in the documentary film study Crafting Truth: Documentary Form and Meaning. They identify the following formal techniques in documentary film: editing, camerawork, profilmic, and sound. Editing involves editing for graphics, tempo, and rhythm, and editing for development, clarification, and montage itself; camera involves lens movement, observing and interpreting, and camera as an expressive tool, and digital technology; profilmic is related to reenactments, lighting, nonfictional performances, interviews and performance; and sound connotes direct and prerecorded sound, speech, and music. [SPENCE, Louise, and NAVARRO, Vinicius (2011): Crafting Truth: Documentary Form and Meaning. Rutgers University Press, p. 161 - 253 ]. Bill Nichols sees those techniques as „cinematic techniques” and identifies them as editing, speech, music, composition, lighting, etc. [NICHOLS, Bill (2010): Introduction to Documentary (2nd Edition). Indiana University Press, 2010, p. 69]. Formal techniques was adopted as terminology that will be used in this thesis due to its covering of the range of elements that corresponds to the units identified within the research portal. 6 Maša Hilčišin Dervišević interviewing Helena Třeštíková (Prague, 2012). 7 Documentary discourse is here defined in a broader sense driven and inspired by the study of Sara Mills, British professor of gender studies who also did extensive research on discourse(s) examining and re-defining discourse from the ideological, structural, cultural, analytical, and other perspectives. One of the definitions she produced within her study relates to Macdonnell’s definition which perceives discourse as something that „whatever signifies or has a meaning can be considered a part of discourse” (Macdonnell, 1986: 4), adding that „whilst this may be seen by some as being too wide a definition of discourse, it does emphasise the fact that discourses are not simple groupings of utterances or 10

The research objective is to offer a preliminary understanding of Třeštíková's films and the way that those observational documentaries operate within the formal techniques. Monitoring and analysing the effect of authenticity in observational documentary film through an in-depth study of the usage of formal techniques in documentary film, and the way those formal techniques function in the process of representation of lived reality, is something that has yet to be taken into academic consideration in Czech documentary cinema.

The purpose of the thesis is not only to provide a theoretical analytical framework in which these documentary films can be examined and analysed, but also to contribute to the overall academic study of observational documentary film within the context of authentication. A number of questions emerged as a result of the complexity in exploring the relationship between the effect of authenticity and formal techniques and their eventual production of a particular effect which can influence, and in an additional light, construct the image: How does the effect of authenticity correlate with the varied spectrum of formal techniques used in long-term observational documentary? How can those practices be explored and monitored while enabling specific evident results? Does the feasibility of the use of particular formal strategies infringe on the basic concepts of observational documentary and its modus operandum based on non-intervention and non-involvement? How to watch and follow the creation and production of the effect of authenticity in the long–term observational documentary films (of Třeštíková)?

In addition to that, an investigation will be undertaken into what kinds of life events were chosen while assembling life stories, what kind of selection was made, what was alerted, and what kind of practices were used in general to produce an effect (authentic/dramatic). The involvement of the element of Třeštíková‘s subjective view-point will also be analyzed and whether such involvement impairs the effect of authenticity and respects the contractual relationship with the spectator. The analysis of Třeštíková’s observational documentary films will be used to demonstrate how the use of formal techniques in the process of representation in those long-term observational documentary films generates the effect of authenticity.

Although the examination of the effect of authenticity and the relationship between the authentic repesentation of the world and the observational mode of representation is not a new one, it

statements, but consist of utterances which have meaning, force and effect within a social context.”[MILLS, Sara (1997): Discourse. London: Routledge, p.13]. In this thesis, documentary discourse relates to a similar defining and accommodating of this term within a social and cultural context. It assimilates documentary discourse to documentary film itself (in this thesis to particular case study films). 11

provides an additional new dimension of further exploration of these concepts in the observational documentary by applying already-offered theoretical models to specifically practical examples. Moreover, it also shifts the analysis of Třeštíková’s work from the polemic field comprising different ideas and concepts to the production side constituting the analysis of formal techniques, and assigned meanings.

The examination and analysis of Třeštíková’s long-term observational documentary filmmaking can make a valuable contribution to the study of documentary cinema. Třeštíková introduced her own style with long–term observational documentary filmmaking, and her overall approach raises, among other questions, the notion of credibility along the line: filmmaker – social subjects (people participating in the film) – spectator. The tendency towards non-arrangement and/or authentic representation of lived reality in Třeštíková’s long-term observational documentary, built on a foundation which consists of the specific usage of formal techniques in the process of representation, provides space for further significant examination and analysis of the effect of authenticity in documentary cinema. Třeštíková’s entry into the observational documentary mode is not only attached to the Czech cinema landscape within historical and anthological parameters of the development of documentary film on the national/international level, but it also represents a certain foundation for the further development of documentary cinema due to the unique approach in the process of documentary representation (large time–spans applied on lived reality and people in it). The technical evolution which she experienced in over three decades of work, and the record of this evolution in her long-term observational documentary projects, created additional major hallmarks, which added to the importance of Třeštíková‘s role in the Czech documentary cinema.8

8 Among the other long–term observational projects was the documentary work by Pavel Koutecký (1956-2006) Hledači pevného bodu (Seekers of a Fixed Point, Pavel Koutecký, Czech Republic, 2001). Another important film to appear was Občan Havel (Citizen Havel, Pavel Koutecký and Miroslav Janek, Czech Republic, 2008), a project which was started by Pavel Koutecký, but finished by Miroslav Janek following Koutecký's death. The film followed 12 years in the life of Václav Havel, starting with his inauguration in 1992 and presents a very personal account of not only his political path to the presidency, but also shows some very dramatic and important moments from his personal life. Olga Sommerová made a documentary about the life of a woman called Máňa, Máňa po deseti letech (Máňa after ten years, Olga Sommerová , Czech Republic, 2003), and her life between minor crimes, correctional institutions and the struggle to live a normal life. Sommerová filmed Máňa in 1992 with Jan Špáta, and then again after ten years she returned to her and continued with filming. 12

1.1. Practices involved in representation in the documentaries of Helena Třeštíková

1.1.1. Expository style in early works

Studying and exploring Třeštíková’s work goes back to the 1970s when she studied documentary film at the Film and TV School of the Academy of Performing Arts in Prague (FAMU), during the period of so-called „normalization.“9 In her early documentary works,10 there was a dominance of patterns and approaches which would later undergo changes and transformations. Those patterns are mainly defined by the filmmaker's approach to the subject supported and surrounded by a thematic paradigm. In both of her early works, Živá voda (Viva Aqua, Helena Třeštíková, Czechoslovakia, 1972) and Zázrak (Miracle, Helena Třeštíková, Czechoslovakia, 1975), the process of representation was built in a more expository mode11 with the use of verbal commentary, sometimes very informatively (especially in Živá voda), with the extensive use of pans, long and medium shots where the filmmaker is usually invisible (no questions can be heard, no physical appearance). This invisibility can sometimes provoke an impression of detachment from the subject in a given situation. However, this is in apparent contrast to the analysis itself as there is also a notable usage of close shots of faces of subjects while talking, which additionally creates a certain closeness (on the relational line of camera to social subject, creating more intimacy with the subjects and their emotions while talking). Subjects were usually positioned looking directly towards the camera during verbal expression however, most of the time no interviews and no dialogues were shown, instead their voices were predominantly used in

9 „Normalization” dominated the country from 1969 to 1987. It was also the period when Gustáv Husák became First Secretary of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia (Komunistická strana Československa - KSČ) in 1969. After 1971, Husák’s title was renamed Secretary-General, the position he held until 1987. From 1975, he also served as the President of Czechoslovakia, till 1989. The political idea of Husák was to ‘normalize’ the political situation in the country and reinforce the connection and commitment of Czechoslovakia within the socialist bloc. In December 1970, KSČ published a document:„The Lessons of the Crisis Development in the Party and Society after the Thirteenth Congress of the KSČ” („Poučení z krizového vývoje ve straně a společnosti po XIII. sjezdu KSČ”) which denounced any attempt for political or economic reform. [FAWN, Rick (2000): Czech Republic: A Nation of Velvet. London: Gordon & Breach Publishing, p. 22 – 27]. 10During that timeTřeštíková was finishing her degree with the documentary film Zázrak (Miracle, 1975), a study of pregnancy and new mother experience where she, for the first time, worked in the observational mode of representation. Another early documentary work was Živá voda (Viva Aqua, 1972), where Třeštíková observed the slow destruction and disappearance of Dolní Kralovice, a village near Želivka River, which started to lose water when the government decided to build bays in the region. 11 Expository mode of representation belongs to one of the modes of representation introduced by Bill Nichols. Expository mode is characterised by speaking directly to the viewer with voice over. In the elaboration of what expository mode is, Nichols emphasizes that „this mode gives a priority to the spoken word to convey the film’s perspective from a single, unifying source.” [NICHOLS, Bill (2010): Introduction to Documentary. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, p.154]. Association to expository mode of representation of early films of Třeštíková was made specifically based on the usage of formal strategies (especially voice – over), even they also follow the pattern of observational mode of representation as they observe particular situation/life event/life episode. 13

narration, and music was also used to an extent. Sometimes it gives the impression of a poetic mode with visual composition of the footage and music along with details that speak directly to the spectator while approaching specific details (a piece of bread, small cups for coffee, personal clothing, photos, a baby's cot). Additionally, there was a certain attention paid to details such as filming villagers while packing and leaving the village and the demolition of the houses of local people in Živá voda, or moments during the preparations for life with a new baby, labor and the delivery of the baby in Zázrak.

A similar approach in the use of formal techniques can be traced in Třeštíková's work during her student days when she cooperated with Jan Špáta, a cameraman and film director who compiled a significant film opus during his lifetime. In all of these films, Třeštíková directed while Špáta operated the camera. They worked together on short documentaries dealing with a wide spectrum of social subjects. Drawing attention to details and the usage of close shots of social subjects and their faces as well as objects is noticeable in most of these films. It can be presumed that it was the decision of the cameraman as no such attention to faces to that extent was found in Třeštíková's previous documentary works. This feature can be seen in Dvě jubilea Jana Zrzavého (Two Jubilees of Jan Zrzavy, Helena Třeštíková, Czechoslovakia, 1976), with the faces of the subjects being shown while talking, and in Dotek světla (Touch of Light, Helena Třeštíková, Czechoslovakia, 1979) recording not only the faces of blind children while getting to know their surroundings but also all the objects they are touching to the very finest detail (letter, flower, branch, petal, water, sculpture etc.).

Dobrý den, můžeme dál? (Good Afternoon, Can We Go Further?,Helena Třeštíková, Czechoslovakia, 1980) which deals with the problems of foster care of children also kept a similar (camera) closeness to the subjects. The use of music in the background was also immanent, while inter-titles were usually used to announce time and/or a particular event („Spouses Štěpánkovi accepted two Roma girls into foster care. Why?“ in Dobrý den, můžeme dál?). The verbal commentary was present in Dotek světla, and Dvě jubilea Jana Zrzavého combined with the narration of social subjects. In general, the verbal commentary in most of the early films was narrated by another person (not the filmmaker herself nor the subjects) and represents a kind of (filmmaker's) reflection on the situation given in the film, articulated from within its own perspective and helping in the revealing of either what lies behind the representation or factographic information. The filmmaker remained invisible most of the time. Early works are noteable for a style that is inclined towards representation which to a great extent relied on verbal 14

commentary that guided the dynamics of the film, most of the time giving an immediate input into the narrative, while the camera and its way of operating additionally described the integral thematic framework. It is perceivable in the depiction of life episodes (expecting a child), or a collective problem (disappearance of a village, foster care), or personal stories (blind/visually impaired children) through the supplemental elements of music, and framing of details where commentary serves to enhance the overall perspective (the filmmaker's perspective of lived experience communicated to the spectator). The pattern that was spotted and followed by the use of formal techniques in Třeštíková's early works proved later to be transformational in leading her towards different directions which re-shaped her role as a filmmaker in relation to the social subject on the one hand, and on the other hand in steering her towards the form of long–term observation.

1.1.2. Formal techniques and representation(s) in Manželské etudy (1987)

Třeštíková started to shoot the first TV series of the long–term observational documentary films Manželské etudy (Marriage Stories, Helena Třeštíková, Czechoslovakia, 1987),12 during the 1980s.13 In Manželské etudy, Třeštíková wanted to not only use a long–term observational method, but also deal with social issues which were significant during that period of time: the lives of young married couples, the battle to find their first flats and jobs, the social re- construction of lives within the family, the (gender-defined) roles of males and females within the family unit, underlining why many young marriages were decayed. Třeštíková found six couples whom she met in the municipal hall, where weddings are held, and filmed them for almost six years following their weddings (all of them got married within about two months). The film production company, Krátký film, decided to support the project and agreed that it could be shot on 16mm black and white material with the possibility to quadruple the filmed material.14

The cycle, Manželské etudy, generated different patterns following the usage of formal techniques and methods utilized during the representation process. Elements used as a certain construct when

12 The documentary film cycle Manželské etudy (Marriage Stories, Helena Třeštíková, Czechoslovakia, 1987) contained six long-term observational documentary films: Ivana and Pavel;Mirka and Antonin; Zuzana and Stanislav; Ivana and Václav; Zuzana and Vladimir; Marcela and Jiří. 13 When Třeštíková started shooting Manželské etudy the communist regime started collapsing in Czechoslovakia. The ending of the regime had one of its peaks in the non-violent revolution known as „Velvet Revolution” (sametová revoluce). An important event that took place right before the „Velvet Revolution” was the fall of the „Berlin Wall” on November 11th, 1989. The „Velvet Revolution” took place in the period from the 17th of November till 29th of December, 1989. [FAWN,Rick (2000): Czech Republic: A Nation of Velvet. London: Gordon & Breach Publishing, p. 26-27] . 14 TŘEŠTÍKOVÁ, Helena (2008): Časosběrná metoda v dokumentárním filmu, p.3. 15

building the structure of each of the films were: the use of inter-titles, the same thematic structure, clear chronological order in the structuring of lived reality, the dominance of medium shots (close shots more rarely used), and the involving of other family members in communication (parents). Inter-titles were organized mainly announcing important dates, or ages to illustrate the over all flow of time [in Marcela and Jiří (1987):„December 12th, 1980, Old Town Hall in Prague 12.15PM”; „Six months after wedding”; in Ivana and Václav (1987):„December 17th, 1980, 11:40AM, The Old Town Square in Prague”; „Ivana lives with her parents”; in Zuzana and Stanislav (1987):„January 1981, two weeks after the wedding”; in Zuzana and Vladimir (1987):„February 1981, two weeks before the wedding“; „February 1982, one year after the wedding“]. The thematic frame followed a similar schematic order: preparations for the wedding, or wedding ceremony – life together – attempts in finding a flat, or job (or finishing studies such as in Ivana and Václav) - conflicts – expecting first child – having first child – existential and other challenges (in the case of Marcela and Jiří separation and divorce, and then attempt at reconciliation). The filmmaker still remains invisible; she does not appear in front of the camera and her questions are very rarely audible, however, this changed during the later long-term observational documentary film cycle which followed after twenty years, Manželské etudy po dvaceti letech (Marriage Stories 20 Years Later, Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2006).

At the same time, Třeštíková intended to involve the parents of the couples more in the communication in the earlier cycle than in the later one, even very briefly: there is communication with both of the parents (mainly his mother and her father) in Marcela and Jiří (1987) during the separation; communication with one of the mothers in Zuzana and Stanislav (1987); communication with one of the fathers in Zuzana and Vladimir (1987); communication with both mothers in Ivana and Pavel (1987). In general, the communication was occupying most of the space primarily through the interviews and narrations of the subjects (except in Ivana and Pavel where the letters which Pavel wrote to Ivana while he served in the army were also used in the film). The same set up of questions guided the interviews in two directions: their everyday existence and the need for a suitable living space, and conflicts between couples. There is a dominance of medium and long shots with precedence given to the shooting of footage in home/domestic settings which corresponds to the main thematic plain of the whole cycle related to marriage and life inside the home.

At the same time this interior setting was communicating the social statuses of subjects, existential struggle and overall life in a given period (problems caused because of living with 16

parents like in Marcela and Jiří; or multiple children in a small flat like in Ivana and Václav; or separated lives like in Zuzana and Stanislav). Home, marriage and existential struggle represented the main base in building the thematic frame. However, social life also appeared sporadically, in fragments (a concert and cultural social life in Zuzana and Stanislav). Close shots of faces which appear randomly during the interviews also create an impression of closeness with the subjects. In general, precedence is given to long takes during the filming and editing process. Long takes occupied most of the space in showing ordinary daily life, cooking, cleaning, taking care of children or a baby. That creates a slower rhythm without an intentional additional speeding up or dramatizing of the tone and atmosphere of the films.

Out of the material filmed during the period of shooting of the cycle Manželské etudy (1987) two long-term documentaries were produced for cinema: Z lásky (Out of Love, Helena Třeštíková, Czechoslovakia, 1988) and Hledání cest (Looking for Ways, Helena Třeštíková, Czechoslovakia, 1988). Z lásky was a venturesome experiment, which followed the couple Marcela and Jiří throughout a period of several years. It is structured very similarly to the version edited for Manželské etudy. It starts with preparations for the wedding, follows with the wedding itself, and then continues with filming life together at Jiří’s parents' place (scenes in the kitchen consisting of cooking and Marcela, Jiří, and his mother talking to each other). The communication mainly encompassed existential questions, the struggle to find a flat, and living in a small space with multiple family members. Some of the scenes were left even longer during the editing process than in the cycle Manželské etudy (cooking, kitchen space, and communication there). Close shots of subjects’ faces were present to a greater extent especially during interviews and during the period of separation. The exchanging of close shots while talking about conflicts and the lack of understanding between each other gives a certain dynamic to the overall structure of the film (communication is exchanged mainly between Marcela, her father, and Jiří and his mother). Most of the film space was at home (Jiří’s parents' place, Marcela’s parents’ place, and later Marcela’s own flat), and a couple of additional scenes took place at Marcela’s work space (in the post office), and Jiří’s work place. Marcela’s home was always tidy unlike in Marcela (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2006) when it is messier but at the same time gives an impression of a more natural surrounding. In the editing process, precedence was given to longer shots [a similar dynamic was followed in Manželské etudy (1987)], especially during conversations and conflicts.

Time determination goes along with life events themselves rather than concrete announcements with inter-titles (which Třeštíková will use much more in later observational documentary films).

17

Z lásky opens and finishes with inter-titles which serve to present the age of the subjects and their current status (at the beginning:„Marcela is 20, breeder of horses“; „Jiří is 20, telephone mechanic“; or at the end:„Marcela is 26, postwoman“; „Jiří is 26, telephone mechanic“). Třeštíková remains more distant during conflicts, but also leaves more film space during conflicts and explanations from both sides (Marcela and Jiří). Their families are also given more space in the film when covering the period of conflict. The exchange of shots creates a certain dynamic in the structure, which leaves more space to the subject where lived reality creates its own drama (drama in real life). No additional exclusion of people or inclusion of more details was used in providing the final image during the representational process. A similar pattern in organizing the thematic framework and the use of formal techniques was presented in the documentary film project Hledání cest, which brings together video fragments filmed and made about six couples [originally targeted for Manželské etudy (1987)]. Close up shots of the couples while talking about existential issues/conflicts/life considerations, and similarly, the dominance of medium shots of home life are utilised.

The thematic plain is structured around weddings, married lives, and financial existence. It also covers a spectrum of different profiles, social backgrounds, and statuses clearly announced in inter-titles which introduce each of the couples („Ivana is 21, architecture student“; „Václav is 21, architecture student“; in Ivana and Václav). Inter-titles were not used particularly to announce events but only to give basic information about the age of the subjects and their professional status in that period of time, or in determining time flow („Year after the wedding“ in Ivana and Václav). During the conversations, short statements were used (or cut during the editing process). Třeštíková is invisible most of the time – her questions are not audible nor does she appear physically in front of the camera. Třeštíková left more space for the events and situations without prior creation of the atmosphere or announcing beforehand certain life events, which might create a definite tone of the film. In later films, this dynamic will be achieved differently and it will steer more towards the support and creation of dramatic effect, and it will integrally influence the way formal techniques are used and their role in the representational process that additionally enforces certain images of the subjects as was the case in the long–term observational documentary cycle Řekni mi něco o sobě (Tell Me Something about Yourself, Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 1997).15 This cycle was filmed within the period of seven years (1989 – 1996).

15 As the state control of cinematography was over with the overthrow of communism in 1989, cinematography and the film industry were going through changes like the rest of society. The Czech film theoretician, and filmmaker, Martin 18

1.1.3. Creating dramatic effect in Řekni mi něco o sobě

Several elements follow the main thematic plains of each of the films and the building of structures in Řekni mi něco o sobě:16 usage of inter-titles to announce events or dramatic episodes in life [in Pavlína (1992), René (1992), and Láďa (1993)]; close up shots of faces during conversations, a more rapid dynamic in the editing of sequences where communication dominates, more inclusion of other people involved in the communication (partners and family members), and music as an additional element in the creation of dramatic effect (in Pavlína, and René).

Inter-titles serve not only to determine the periods, but also to additionally produce the tone of the films while announcing years and events, and the names of the correctional institutions [„Next day Roman and Pavlína left their home and for six months nobody knew about them“ in Pavlína; „Láďa has never seen his child. Immediately after the birth, the delivered baby was given up for adoption“ in Láďa]. Announcements in inter-titles also inform the spectator about the year, or place (the names of correctional institutions in Pavlína, René, and Láďa, or the announcement of the amnesties).17 Communication is mainly built from narrations and interviews (except in René where Třeštíková used letters which René wrote to her; or in Láďa where he is reading the letters received from his girlfriend, Renata. Later, Renata was also reading the letters received from Láďa; in Milan - Zrání zla (1997) a letter was used only once when Milan is reading the letter he wrote to Třeštíková). Only in René, Třeštíková notifies the viewer/audience in the inter-title that the letters used in the film were authentic. There is also a dominance of close shots of faces during conversations [especially in Pavlína, René, Martin – aneb Mít či být (1994)]. Questions during

Štoll, in his book, Hundred Years of Czech Documentary Film (1898-1998) gave this example of transformation and changes that happened within big state enterprises such as Krátký Film or Filmové studio Barrandov which „were transformed into new types of organizations,” stressing that everything was leading to a financial crisis seriously endangering film –„film material became too expensive, documentaries were not shown in cinemas before feature films any longer. It looked to be the end of Czech documentary film.” [ŠTOLL, Martin (2000): Hundred Years of Czech Documentary Film (1898-1998). Prague: Malá Skála, p.31]. 16 The cycle contains five long-feature documentaries Pavlína (1992), René (1992), Láďa (1994), Martin – aneb Mít či být (Martin or to Have or to Be, 1994), and Milan - Zrání zla (The Maturing of Evil, 1997). 17 During the filming of the cycle Řekni mi něco o sobě (Tell Me Something about Yourself, Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 1997) the „Velvet Revolution“ took place as well as the election of Václav Havel as President, and consequently, an extensive amnesty was granted. The amnesty concerned all of the subjects from the cycle and all of them were released early, in 1990. Within a period of 3-5 years, all of them returned to prisons having demonstrated a complete incapability to live in freedom. That was the most suprising dramaturgic aspect of that cycle. („V průběhu našeho natáčení došlo k ,sametové revoluci', zvolení Václava Havla presidentem a následné rozsáhlé amnestii. Všech našich hrdinů se amnestie týkala a byli v roce 1990 předčasně propuštěni. Všichni se v době 3-5 let, kdy jsme je sledovali do vězení opakovaně vraceli a prokazovali totální neschopnost života na svobodě. To byl asi nejpřekvapivější dramaturgický aspekt tohoto cyklu.“) [TŘEŠTÍKOVÁ, Helena (2008): Časosběrná metoda v dokumentárním filmu, p.5].

19

conversations can usually be heard and the filmmaker remains present most of the time in directing conversations with the subjects and the overall main theme of the film [in René (1992) questions are more audible and even more edited than in the later version, René (2008)]. Subjects were usually left to talk for themselves, but at the same time it is perceptible that most of the conversations were initiated by questions asked from the filmmaker's side as there is a certain thematic repetitiveness and most of the subjects encircle their narrations around the following themes: introduction to how they ended up in the correctional institution, family life, what they want from the future, living life in freedom, partners and their emotional relationships, and parenthood. Třeštíková involved parents in the communication to a greater extent than in later documentary films dealing with similar problematics [René (2008), and Katka (2010)]. In Pavlína there is a conversation with the crying mother of Roman (Pavlína's boyfriend) discussing the issues of young people who abuse drugs; in René (1992) there are longer conversations with his mother and she was given more space than in René (2008).

The conversations in René (1992) do not only include his then current state of being in correctional institutions, but also his mother talking about his personality, what he likes and dislikes. Třeštíková was more involved in the communication with René's mother (she was also quite active during the conversations with the parents in other films within the cycle). Additionally, his mother was portrayed showing photos of René from his childhood. In general, there was more of an impression of him having a home than was the case in René (2008); in Láďa there is a conversation with his mother who spoke about Láďa from an early age, problems he had experienced back then and what might have caused his later behaviour; in Milan - Zrání zla there is a similar conversation with his mother who explained the beginnings of his participation in minor crimes, and with his father (the only time within the whole cycle that one father was involved in the communication).

During the editing process, precedence was given to short takes especially during conversations, for example in Pavlína (frames of her face were combined with her voice). In addition to that, music was added during editing to create dramatic effects in Pavlína, and in René it was used most of the time (underlining parts with inter-titles, the posing of subjects). Most of the film shooting took place at homes and correctional institutions (in René more space was given to details from daily life in jails and time spent with other inmates). In addition, Třeštíková also includes life on the streets, showing various cases of homless people (mainly around train stations), their appearance, and their being arrested by the police in Láďa, René, and Martin – 20

aneb Mít či být (this is not necessarily connected to the main thematic plain and the filmmaker remains at rather a distance in these scenes). Likewise the secenes filmed in prisons involve sporadic conversations with prisoners, self-harming, and protests because of poor conditions in prisons (in Láďa, Martin, and Milan). Here the thematic plain was shifted from an individual level to a broader reflection of life in jail, and social life in prisons (in René, Martin, Milan).18

There was an emphasis within the whole cycle on the spatial and temporal integrity of life events. The narrative was built around individuals in the context of particular problems, gravitating towards disillusionment in life (heightened in each of the films), and it offers more interpretative possibilities (for instance, persistent focusing on problems, and/or dramatic events/episodes in lives). It also represents attempts to close social observation attentively rather than critically (as the filmmaker remains distant in most of the scenes which involve groups being arrested on train stations, or during conversations with other prisoners during the periods of protests).

The cycle Řekni mi něco o sobě was Třeštíková's early attempt to develop a certain practice consistent with her understanding of the observation of people and their lives: a practice that may be characterized as a central theme that serves to anchor a series of inter-linked episodes/ characteristics/elements. It suggests approaches that are organized around the filmmaker's principles perceived when assembling the scenes in support of a particular dynamic and rhythm of integral structure, and working with the camera and editing to build up dramatic effect. This can create a feeling of ambiguity in terms of the spectator's experience and a direct explication towards the cognizance that the filmmaker is withholding judgement and communicating about what has been observed. Those principles in conveying the strength of observed moments spread throughout not only a particular event but life as a whole and are detectable in observations that will come later (in the case study films of this thesis). They will be considered as strategies used in creating intensity from both the summation of dramatic life episodes and formal strategies themselves.

18In an additional note, the whole cycle was produced under the Film a sociologie (Film and Sociology Foundation). In 1990, Třeštíková established a foundation with the support of Krátký film which functioned as a venue where filmmakers and sociologists could gather. The Foundation was the result of Třeštíková’s participation in different seminars on sociology toward the end of the 1980s, where she discussed the same subjects she was dealing with in her films. Long–term observational documentary was considered one of the documentary modes that was supported by this Foundation. Later, due to lack of funding, Film a sociologie reduced its activities and in 1994, Třeštíková started a new initiative, Člověk a čas (Man and Time Foundation), which served as one more platform for observational documentaries. 21

1.1.4. Representations and structuring in the cycle Ženy na přelomu tisíciletí

The portrayal of individuals but with quite a different approach in representing the final image of the subject can be seen in the TV cycle, Ženy na přelomu tisíciletí (Women At The Turn of The Millennium, Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2003). The idea for the cycle came out of Třeštíková's enagement in the projects called „Women“ and „Active Citizens“.19 When Třeštíková started to look for protagonists for „Active Citizens“ she brought together the cycle Ženy na přelomu tisíciletí. 20 Most of the films from the cycle were shot within a period of five years (1996 – 2001). Each of the films was structured chronologically with the apparent notation of the years, or ages of the subjects (occasionally), announcements of the places, or episodes in life. In Jsem žena orientovaná na ženy (2003) there was no usual announcement as seen in other films but it rather reflects thoughts or statements expressed by subjects:„Searching“; „Logos“; „I fly with my own force.“ The cycle was not unified thematically in the vein of previous cycles; it was organized somewhat differently within the thematic plain bringing not only various portraits of women coming from different professional and social backgrounds, but also the strategy and approach to making the story was different in each of the films, therefore, this cycle of films has to be observed and analysed as separate cases. For instance, in V pasti (2001) more space was given to the relationship between Katka and her boyfriend Láďa than was the case in the later film, Katka (2010). They talk much more about themselves, why they do drugs, how it affects their emotions and personal life, and what they want from the future. There are also scenes in which they mutually express romantic feelings along with more shots of Katka talking abour her family, particularly about her mother, and later about her fears of living on the streets and providing sexual services for a living. The story is much less structured and organized around inter-titles, which will be changed in Katka (2010). It is similar with the rest of the films from the cycle. In Rozkoš bez rizika 2/2 (2001) inter-titles were used minimally and served more for basic information rather than to achieve a rhythm of structure or to create an additional dramatic effect in the films prior to the upcoming sequences.

A thematic plain was provided throughout the communication with the subjects (several women were followed most of the time throughout the film) as they shared their experience of providing

19 TŘEŠTÍKOVÁ, Helena (2008): Časosběrná metoda v dokumentárním filmu, p.6. 20 The cycle resulted in nine long-feature documentary films: V pasti (Trapped, 2001); Forte a piana (Forte and Piano, 2001); Bára B. (2001); Rozkoš bez rizika1/2 (Ecstasy without Risk ½, 2001); Rozkoš bez rizika 2/2 (Ecstasy without Risk 2/2, 2001); Být Romkou (To Be a Romany Woman, 2001); Zvítězí ten, kdo se nevzdá (A Winner Never Gives Up, 2002); Sestřičky (Nurses, 2003); and Jsem žena orientovaná na ženy (I am a Woman Oriented to Women, 2003). 22

sexual services. Like in V pasti, the spatial settings were created around various locations: streets, premises of the organization „Rozkoš bez rizika“ (which was one of the main lines within the thematic framework), homes, space for theatre rehearsals, and the ambulance (where medical checkups and blood tests were done). In Být Romkou (2001), the spatial representation is also diverse ranging from home, work (radio station), TV, to the faculty (during the final examination). Similarly, in Sestřičky (2003) which has the longest time span of filming, the space settings are diverse because the social subjects were followed to different work places and were filmed at their homes as well. In Jsem žena orientovaná na ženy, women were followed and filmed at their work places, while socializing and at home.

Třeštíková structured the story in Být Romkou without using any inter-titles. The feeling of the time flow (the film was shot over a period of five years) was accentuated by chronicling life events, likewise in Forte a piana (2001), and Bára B. (2001). The indicator of time was not present either in Jsem žena orientovaná na ženy and even though inter-titles were used, they served rather as additional activators of conversations with subjects. The use of inter-titles was more frequent in Sestřičky as the film was shot over a period of 13 years. Inter-titles were used for the purpose of orientation in time announcing only years (not life events). The inter-titles show the time span that the film covers while focusing on the lives of several females from their high school to adult years, and the changes they went through (mainly in their professional efforts and endeavors along with minor fragments from their family lives).

In addition, there are more close up shots during the conversations with subjects in Katka, Sestřičky, Forte a piana, Bára B., and Jsem žena orientovaná na ženy. Třeštíková is also more present and visible in this cycle than in the cycle Řekni mi něco o sobě and her questions during the conversations remained in the final editing process. In contrast, she appears physically in front of the camera only once in Jsem žena orientovaná na ženy during the conversation with the subject at the beginning of the film.

In general, the cycle Ženy na přelomu tisíciletí follows the structure less repetitively than was the case with previous cycles. This cycle is distinctive in bringing individual films which emerged in the course of the long-term observational documentary project, prompted by particular subjects operating as individual units rather than being thematically encircled by the cycle as was the case with previous cycles. It can be highlighted that the changing nature of Třeštíková’s engagement was in providing a variety of thematic plains based on the situation/event/episode. These elements were shaped by a prior definite structure (principal of chronology) and banked into the cycle 23

(unified not thematically, but rather socially in providing a spectrum of steerings towards the realms of personal/social/professional/existential). The spectators are presented with portraits of particular subjects and their daily lives. The structure allows the assembling of events based on small observations that comprise a series of characteristics/feelings/changes/flows of the reality perceived. Crucial to this approach was the reduced usage of announcements or the direct engagement of the spectator with prior claims about the condition, behavior or life episode of the subject. During the work on the cycle, Manželské etudy po dvaceti letech (Marriage Stories 20 Years Later, Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2006), however, Třeštíková took a different approach encompassing again more depictions of particular realities and leaning towards iterative addressing of reality lived (through the juxtaposition of events, prevailing locations of shooting and the general arrangement and selectivness within the process of editorial).

1.1.5. Formal techniques and representation(s) in Manželské etudy (2006)

Manželské etudy po dvaceti letech followed the same couples that Třeštíková filmed during the 1980s after 20 years of marriage and moreover, there is a clear chronological structure of each of the films accompanied by inter-titles. The inter-titles were not only used to illustrate and determine the time flow, but they also aimed to accentuate the positions of some of the subjects and their attitudes regarding the additional filming of their lives:„Jiří Haverland refused to be filmed“; „Marcela 2008, after 12 years“; in Marcela and Jiří (2006);„Stanislav lives in Prague at his girlfriend Jitka's house“; in Zuzana and Stanislav (2005);„Vladimir refused filming of the children and at home“; „Zuzana refused any further filming“; in Zuzana and Vladimir (2006). The different approach is notable when the filmed material was used during the final editing process as well as in the shift of focus from home to a more professional environment and more distant images of some of the subjects.

This is especially visible in the use of communication and prevalent spatial settings in Zuzana and Vladimir (2006) whereby all of the settings were located at Vladimir's studios and descriptive (expositive) inter-titles were used more than in the other films from the cycle, except in the case of Marcela and Jiří (2006) where inter-titles were used to additionally explain the situation of Jiří, who was accused of sexually abusing their daugther Ivana. In general, more space was given to this episode here than in the film focusing on Marcela, Marcela (2006). Zuzana was filmed at home (only one room was used the entire time), however, the home space was not shown in detail as was the case in Marcela and Jiří (2006), Ivana and Václav (2006), Zuzana and Stanislav (2005), Mirka and Antonin (2005), and Ivana and Pavel (2005). Most of the time, the space, 24

which is organized and tidy, creates an impression that it was arranged prior to filming (except perhaps in Marcela and Jiří, and Ivana and Václav where the impression of more natural settings was produced by some of the filming taking place in messy children's rooms). Indoor and outdoor space were both extensively present in Ivana and Václav (2006) almost equally balancing the settings at home and life among the spouses and their five children together with the working environments of both of the parents. The thematic plain in most of the films was built around work; divorces (Marcela and Jiří; Zuzana and Stanislav; Zuzana and Vladimir); family life; relationship between spouses; relationship with children; emotional crisis and depressions (more focussed on the women in Marcela and Jiří; Ivana and Václav); challenges of parenting (Ivana and Václav; Zuzana and Stanislav; Mirka and Antonin). Children play a immense role in the cycle inasmuch as they are involved in the overall thematic plain and communication. Třeštíková organizes dialogues with children mainly to discuss the divorces of their parents (Zuzana and Stanislav; Zuzana and Vladimir), or to perceive how they position themselves in family life (Mirka and Antonin; Ivana and Pavel; Marcela and Jiří). In Marcela and Jiří the involvement of the children is more specific, and possibly even the most dominant within the thematic plain of the film: the mutual search for jobs, extistential struggle, and the death of Marcela's and Jiří's daughter. Třeštíková's presence during the communication is more noticeable (than in the earlier cycle) because her questions to the subjects remain in the film. She appears physically in front of the camera only twice, both of which take place in Ivana and Pavel: during the family photo session21 and during aconversation with Pavel.22 She was also mentioned when Pavel thanked her for making a film about their life.23

The distinctive emotional spectrum of the entire cycle stems from intense relationships of the subjects to their life situations. A feeling of greater distance prevailed in the first version of the same cycle. Manželské etudy became an important model, which functioned as a considerable reflexive focus for Třeštíková's own evolving practice. Locating the cycle mainly within the physical boundaries of work/home and their routines, she not only explores physical and temporal restraints of life, but also assembles them with methods of embedding moments of disengagement whereby subjects whom she portrays come out of their perceived delimitations. This navigates towards further consideration of methods and techniques recognized in exclusion/inclusion of

21 Manželské etudy po dvaceti letech – Ivana a Pavel (Marriage Stories 20 Years Later – Ivana and Pavel, Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2006), 0:05:51 – 0:05:55. 22 Manželské etudy po dvaceti letech – Ivana a Pavel (Marriage Stories 20 Years Later – Ivana and Pavel, Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2006), 0:44:10 – 0:44:30. 23 Manželské etudy po dvaceti letech – Ivana a Pavel (Marriage Stories 20 Years Later – Ivana and Pavel, Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2006), 0:53:50 – 0:54:23. 25

people involved/locations/inside/outside together with a tighter emplacement of subjects within their life restraints. The cycle renders questions of attachment/detachment and visibility/anonymity of the filmmaker and the usage of certain tools (interview style, spatial element) as a particular way of engaging with the comprehended reality.

Monitoring the creation of the effect of authenticity inevitably leads into the analysis of the usage of formal techniques in the process of representation, the reality of the lived world represented in the final image along with the selection of materials chosen whilst creating this final construct of the subjects and their lives. In both of the cycles, Manželské etudy (1987) and Manželské etudy po dvaceti letech (2006), the main thematic plain of the film was faithfully followed and substantial space was given to the processing of social subjects (the spectator could more easily absorb everyday life, conflicts and the daily existential struggles portrayed). The final images of the subjects pursue the image of ordinariness even banality in showing details from daily life, also notable in the cycle Ženy na přelomu tisíciletí.24

The portrayal of particular subjects, however, brings indeed distinctive changes in the construction of a thematical paradigm, the invocation of a structure which was defined in advance, the reliance on dramatic events, and the primacy of narrations and interviews. These techniques stand for a particular approach in operating within the formal strategies with regard to the employment of assigned procedures – procedures that will influence the way the spectator modifies assumption about the intermediary stage25 taking into account how the presence of a camera and the interlacing of other technical elements affect the distribution of information about the subject and the events they appear to record. This way of engagement with the perceived reality is evident in the way in which Třeštíková steers towards the long-term tracking and following of subjects in the case study films identified in this thesis.

24 In 2011, Třeštíková completed a long-term observational documentary called Soukromý vesmír (Private Universe, Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2011) which was based on Zázrak (Miracle, Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 1975) and the family she followed for 37 years, more precisely, since their first baby boy, Honza, was born. Unlike her other observational documentary films, Soukromý vesmír, finished in 2011, differed in terms of the subject and approach. Soukromý vesmír represents puzzles of the Kettner family’s archive materials, television materials, including some of the film shootings which all together cover a couple of decades of one family’s life. One of her latest projects evidenced by this thesis is an observational documentary film called Vojta Lavička: Nahoru a dolů (Vojta Lavička: Up and Down, Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2013). The film has been following and recording sixteen years of the life of a Roma musician, Vojtěch Lavička. Besides his activities in music (especially related to the band Gipsy.cz), the camera was following his activist engagements for Roma rights along with all the other rises and falls in his life ranging from emotional relationships, to finances and work. The long-term observational documentary Život s Kašparem (Life with Jester, Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic 2013) about Jakub Špalek and his theatre „Kašpar” was a life path that Třeštíková followed for almost 24 years. Both of the films were finished in 2013. 25Bill Nichols defines an intermediary stage as one „which occurred in front of the camera.” [NICHOLS, Bill (1991): Representing Reality: Issues and Concepts in Documentary. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, p. 25]. 26

1.2. Case Studies

The films which are under investigation and their analysis in this thesis span approximately three decades: 1980 – 2010. The thesis provides case studies, which offer a solid framework for analysis. As case studies, the following three long–term observational documentary films will be analysed: Marcela (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2006) resulted from both of the cycles Manželské etudy (1987) and Manželské etudy po dvaceti letech (2006); René (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2008), who was part of the documentary cycle Řekni mi něco o sobě (1997); and Katka (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2010), which had its beginning as a part of the cycle Ženy na přelomu tisíciletí (2003). All three case study films are among the longest observational documentary projects, which Třeštíková has made by following the life of one social subject. In addition to that, Třeštíková’s corpus brings significant material for further exploration of the effect of authenticity within the representation of real events due to the usage of the same and/or similar patterns over many years, and implementing those patterns on different social subjects and their lives; the recreation of different stories by the same paradigm.

The documentaries under analysis and research show similarities on the following levels: social issues, marginality of social subjects, dramatic lives driven by life circumstances and a similar pattern used during the filming process (based on the production and post-production components of each of the films) in elevating dramatic effect in the films. The actuality of the events, social subjects, and parts of their lives driven by dramatic events remain central to the films' intention. Aesthetically, the films do not differ to a great extent, but rather they implement similar repetitive patterns. Production (and aesthetic) choices used in each of the documentary films provide a suitable portal for selecting those films as case studies in the monitoring of the effect of authenticity in observational documentary mode.

1.2.1. Case Study Marcela (2006)

Marcela follows a couple of decades of the life of a woman, her marriage and divorce, existential survival, the loss of her daughter, the process of grieving and the struggle to live a normal life. During an informal conversation with Třeštíková in May 2010, the filmmaker mentioned that „after the Marcela documentary was shown on television, the audience started to write, call and send money after learning about the tragic death of her daughter.”26 Marcela evinces a mosaic

26 Maša Hilčišin interviewing Helena Třeštíková (2010, Prague). 27

assembly framed by the contextual locus of dramatic life events. Třeštíková’s mosaic pattern stresses a certain array: a later event does not usually occur because of a previous event, but rather an event occurs because of causalities imposed by the system governed by the impulse produced as a result of dramatic life events which subsequently gives energy and drive to the overall film experience.

Marcela, whose life locus of dramatic events rises towards its peak with a particular event (the death of her daughter), functions on a day-to-day basis within the same system of causalities. The production of this particular dramatic effect in Marcela plays a significant role for the analysis of dramatic effect and how it corresponds to the effect of authenticity during the process of representation of the subject. Třeštíková recorded moments in Marcela’s life, from the beginning of her marriage and her efforts to create a stable financial and social life as a young parent to the emotional crises of her marriage ending, the attempt to build a new life afterwards, to the loss of her daughter, the resulting psychological crisis and struggle to live a normal life. Marcela was admitted to the psychiatric clinic after which she tries to commit suicide. Following that incident, she tries to recover by undergoing the therapy treatment and she slowly starts to rebuild her life again. The film shows her moving to another city with her 11-year-old son. Marcela’s story is built around interviews between Marcela and Třeštíková, as well as Marcela’s own narrative; she is spatially placed predominantly at her home.

Even though Marcela is seen as an ordinary woman, she is beholden to the higher motive of the filmmaker, to which it can be observed she sublimates her own life tragedy and fears inasmuch as that they become the main driving force for the narrative in the film. She stands vulnerable in front of the camera many times. The viewer is led to wonder about her life outside of the film, outside of that total, isolated, environment within which Třeštíková builds the locus of anxiety, which keeps the system of dramatic events functional and operating within the integral thematic plain of the film.

1.2.2. Case Study René (2008)

René covers two decades of life of a social subject from his early teenage days, growing up in correctional institutions and jails to the later stages of his life and the struggle to live and function in the outside world. The dramatic effect in René is created by several elements where the communication and spatial present the strongest driving force for the filmmaker. The final image

28

of the film stands as one of the crucial elements when analysing dramatic effect and its interference with the representation of what is constructed as an effect of authenticity. René is stuctured primarily around the letters exchanged between the filmmaker and the social subject, and spatially placed in jails.

In an interview, Třeštíková stated how René is an interesting and amazing character:„In a way, he is a very good person but at the same time very bitter. Life and certain circumstances made him bitter. I was afraid of him because he was a big part of my life. We spent a lot of time together. He knew where I lived. He knew my address and where my flat was. Sometimes, I was afraid something would happen to me or to my family. But sometimes you are also following your own intuition. I knew in the end that he was a good person, but just some hard things happened to him.”27

René is more self-reflective from the perspective of the filmmaker than Marcela given that the former film involves a certain degree of autonomy in the relationship between the filmmaker and the social subject through different stages of the social subject’s life, and furthermore, elements of this relationship are clearly shown in the film. The subject also confronts the filmmaker about their relationship and parts of his own life he considered as „sold”. In his initial rejection of parental control, animosity towards the system and the values it imposed, René accommodates an almost stereotypical mindset of a teenager but seems at the same time prematurely grown up, bored by reality and an ordinary way of life. As he grows up, this original mindset does not change much over the period of time. Whatever choices René makes, he is continually foiled and dejected by his complete isolation from the outside world and the feeling of incompetency to function within it. Whenever he is engaged in a dialogue with the filmmaker, there is an impression that she tries to steer him towards some compromise and/or desirable solution; this pattern repeats over and over again in the film.

Třeštíková uses all of these methods in setting up the thematic framework of the film. Třeštíková repeatedly includes jails as the spatial representation in most of the sequences, a means by which (along with letters) she affects a totality of the documentary discourse when it comes to the

27 Maša Hilčišin interviewing Helena Třeštíková during a screening of René (2008, Master Class for International Students at FAMU).

29

thematic plain. The inclusion of certain elements presents a compelling strategy whilst the filmmaker builds dramatic effect within the integral life experience of the social subject.

1.2.3. Case Study Katka (2010)

The original goal of this documentary project was to follow an anti-drug therapist, Martina Těmínová, and two of her clients, Katka and Markéta, at a rehabilitation clinic in the south of the Czech Republic. After a couple of film shoots, Katka stopped her rehabilitation, disappeared and apparently went to Prague. Třeštíková started looking for her on the streets of Prague. When she finally found her, Katka agreed to help Třeštíková continue her film project. Třeštíková kept meeting Katka and following her for about fourteen years.

For Třeštíková, Katka was significant because of her indifference and devoutness. Katka is a drug addict for most of her life. The film culminates during the middle part with Katka giving birth to her daughter and giving her up, where the filmmaker demonstrates repetitive behaviors and the main enclosure of the continuos drug abuse. The thematic plain of the film does not offer much hope for the social subject who is spatially placed predominantly in squats and on the streets. The communication framework is built and engaged through conversations between the filmmaker and social subject. Together with the previous two case study films, Katka presents a canonical work. All three case studies comprise a chronological sample of the observational cinema of Třeštíková, certain patterns in keeping dramatic tenability of the narratives (creating dramatic effect), and serve as valuable samples for contemplating, exploring and analyzing the effect of authenticity in the observational documentary film. Třeštíková's style was partially based on the observational documentary tradition of the 1960s28 but also reshaped in different directions allowing more intervention in the production choices of the use of formal techniques. The coming chapters focus directly on the theoretical observations of observational documentary discourse and its function within the analysis of the formal techniques.

28„Cinéma vérité“ and „Direct Cinema“ created a basis for observational documentary cinema and a whole new approach to the shooting of documentary film while observing social subjects: using light-weight cameras, working with a small crew, with minimal interventions made by the director/s. The camera was trying to capture life the way it was while the films usually dealt with social and political subjects that were often hidden or not present in the main-stream media. It was similar to the „cinema-truth“, and especially to the cinematique philosophy introduced, already during the 20s, by Dziga Vertov (Дзига Вертов). [SAUNDERS, Dave (2007): Direct Cinema – Observational Documentary and the Politics of the Sixties. London: Wallflower Press, p. 5-9]. Vertov was distinguishing documentary from feature in the way that documentary is following unperformed subjects within particular realities. Vertov's theory and approach was best known as „life caught unaware.“ For Vertov, this was the main platform when defining documentary. The term Vertov used was known as „zhizn' vrasplok,“' the term used to designate his capturing of the profilmic, his films' pretensions to „ontological authencity.” [HICKS, Jeremy (2007): Dziga Vertov: Defining Documentary Film, London: I.B. Tauris, p.23]. 30

1.3. Literature Review

In general, monitoring the effect of authenticity in the observational mode of representation has received only negligible academic attention in scholarly literature, nor has it been placed into any specific academic framework related to more in-depth study or research. This is partially due to the still relatively young theory of documentary film placed within the larger theoretical framework of the theory of fiction film in general which has a much longer development in the history of film theory. Additionally to that, the observational mode of representation used in a large time-span has not yet been researched and explored sufficiently within the academic theoretical frameworks. However, there has been an increase in scholarly attention devoted to the observational documentary film of Helena Třeštíková among bachelor graduates. This scholarly interest is recognized mainly through dissertations, which explore the same subject from different perspectives and aspects. In 2007, a thesis for the Czech Bachelor of Arts degree was produced under the title Časosběrná metoda v českém dokumentárním filmu by a student of the Academy of Performing Arts in Prague, Šárka Slezáková.29 The main analysis focuses on the time-collecting method from the viewpoint of the etymological and historical aspect. Another BA thesis, Helena Třeštíková a její časosběrný dokument, published a year later by a student of Masaryk University's Faculty of Arts, Lucie Křížková,30 deals with a broader context of time-collecting documentaries and other filmmakers' approaches together with a brief presentation of the cycle Manželské etudy and the documentary film Marcela. The last thesis Je mi 32 a jsem... was published by a student of Masaryk University's Faculty of Social Science, Martina Ševčíková31 in 2010, and has as its focus Czech female documentary filmmakers including a very brief analysis of Třeštíková’s work, and an interview with Třeštíková attached to the end of the thesis. There was no evidence of other theses found until the date of this paper. More personal observation of work with the long–term observational documentaries (časosběrné natáčení), including a brief overview, and stages in the preparation and filming process was given in Třeštíková‘s habilitation paper „Časosběrná metoda v dokumentárním filmu“ („Time-collecting Method in Documentary Film”), at Film and TV School of the Academy of Performing Arts in Prague (FAMU) in 2008.

29 SLEZÁKOVÁ, Šárka (2007): Časosběrná metoda v českém dokumentárním filmu. Prague: Academy of Performing Arts. 30 KŘÍŽKOVÁ , Lucie (2008): Helena Třeštíková a její časosběrný dokument. Brno: Masaryk University – Faculty of Arts. 31 ŠEVČÍKOVÁ, Martina (2010): Je mi 32 a jsem...Brno: Masaryk University - Faculty of Social Science. 31

Further exploration in this thesis of the authentic and/or the effect of authenticity in the observational documentary film refers back to the work of Dziga Vertov, the Soviet film theorist and documentary filmmaker, who to a great extent influenced the observational cinema of the 1960s with the introduction of the concept of total non-intervention in documentary film, along with the concept of ontological authenticity. Vertov’s work was explored by Seth Feldman, a Canadian professor of film studies, through the analysis of particular examples and practices employed in formal experimentation, with specific reference to the experimental documentary film, The Man with a Movie Camera (Dziga Vertov, Soviet Union, 1929). Strategies applied in the reconstruction of camera and editing were studied and discussed and it is believed that his findings have relevance within the context of possible analysis and their applicability to the case study films in this thesis.

A similar journey in deconstructing other elements with more accenting of the space and settings provided in communicating a final image to the spectator was taken throughout the studies of the observational documentary film offered by film historian Jeffrey Ruoff (Professor, Department of Film and Media Studies, Dartmouth College, England) who explored the content of an image along with the camera and editing work, focusing on visual text and its meaning, utilizing the particular example of the television observational film, An American Family (Craig Gilbert, USA,1973). Additionally, visual anthroplogists and documentary theoreticians, Anna Grimshaw and Amanda Ravetz, provided a critical study of the observational documentary film. Their anatomy of space, explicit focus on camera, type of shots and placement of subjects within the setting applied in the analysis of observational documentary film Titicut Follies (Frederick Wiseman, USA, 1967) engages and inspires further thinking in the direction of an analytical framework for the investigation of the case study films, and the way they operate within the formal techniques.

The main core and terminology as used in this thesis, the observational mode of representation, found its place in a broader discussion that was carried out within the context of the historical development of observational documentary film especially in the works of documentary film theoretician Bill Nichols. His corpus of literature brings some major definitions which are used nowadays in contemporary documentary film theory, whereby one of the groundbreaking concepts is the introduction of documentary film as a mode of representation. On the one hand, the representational process played one of the crucial roles and was of major interest in Nichols’

32

scholarly academic theory. On the other hand, the representation was the main plain in monitoring the effect of authenticity in the representational process of the final images of each of the case study films investigated in this thesis.

It was only recently that the importance of the study of observational documentary has been recognized (over the last couple of decades). Those studies brought valuable space to the form, but there was still a question mark over how analysing observational documentary cinema and monitoring the effect of authenticity might be best approached. In the absence of a theoretical framework for the study of observational cinema in terms of in-depth analysis of its structure and production side, theoretical approaches still vary. The observational form is seen more through its historical development and through the set up of major characteristics and concepts but without a clear framework for the analysis of the functions of its formal techniques. Nevertheless, the wider study of the principal theoretical approaches to authenticity, its definitions and various aspects employed in documentary theory provide a significant contribution to an overall understanding of this complexity.

Film theoreticians Louise Spence and Vinicius Navarro offered a framework by providing a significant study of the dramatic/dramatic conventions in documentary film. Inputs they contribute assisted further exploration of both concepts: the effect of authenticity and dramatic effect. Even though they did not operate with major definitions of „dramatic” and what it means in documentary film, their grasp of documentaries that utilize the dramatic (finding drama in life/drama as a real life) broadens the understanding of dramatic effect and the functionality of structures built from a series of causally related events. For Spence and Navarro, the main recognition of authenticity relied on the authenticity markers which were more in favour of focusing creative control that a filmmaker has during the process of representation (camera work and its positions, choosing the angles and types of shots). Spence and Navarro provide interesting theoretical insights pointing out the importance of creative involvement of the filmmaker in the process of re-creation and production of dramatic effect in the representation of a real event.

The particular analytical framework applicable within the analysis of the case study films was established through the parameters based on the theoretical framework of Italian and German documentary film researchers and their studies. German documentary film theoretician Manfred Hattendorf's analysis of production elements is based on an exemplar model of the contract of filmic authenticity, developed by Italian film and media theoretician, Francesco Casetti, which

33

analyzes his reconstruction of discursive documentary strategies. Casetti created his valuable contractual model of filmic authenticity with the starting point of the relationship built between the filmmaker and spectator. Because of the practical applicability of Casetti’s model on the analysis of the effect of authenticity in documentary film, this model will be among the crucial ones in building the analytical framework provided in this thesis. Casetti’s model/diagram will be practically applied on the case studies after the in-depth analysis of formal techniques used in each of the films.

The analysis of the production side of the films has its initial ground in the methodology applied by Hattendorf, who himself explored the notion of authenticity giving the re-construction of the overall structure (along with all the elements of setting, spatial representation, communication, camera work and editing) in the structural analysis of television expository documentary film. Although the term ‘structural analysis’ appears to be problematic due to a lack of more extensive exploration of the use of such terminology in this kind of analysis, it will be further elaborated within the theoretical framework of the thesis.

1.4. Methodology

Methodology in this thesis was conducted in two directions. The first direction was aimed towards secondary sources which contributed significantly to documentary theory, in particular, to the examination of observational documentary film, its historical and theoretical developments, specifics, and influences on the observational mode of representation (books, scripts, manuals). This direction was followed with the intention to critically observe theoretical practices in the constant search for analytical tools for monitoring the effect of authenticity through the complexity of the production process. The author was engaged in the study of practices applied by some of the following documentary film historians and theoreticians: Nichols, Feldman, Rouff, Ravez, Odin, Casetti, Hattendorf et al and the critical observation of their practices in the analysing of formal techniques, constantly aiming towards finding tools for the in-depth analysis of each of the formal units. The majority of these theoreticians use observational documentary films as practical examples for the further exploration and elaboration of filmic conventions. The selection of documentary films made by the above theorists is similar to the thematical plain found in the case study films. Therefore, it can be said these studies provided additional inspiration for this critical, theoretical journey.

34

The second direction in methodology was channeled towards the establishment of a model for analysis and practical exploration into the case study films. The main analytical portal and parameters for analysis have been drawn from two theoretical sources, introduced in advance within the bounds of the literature review. One of the theoretical sources is the analytical approach used in the analysis of expository documentary in questioning authenticity, applied by Manfred Hattendorf. Another theoretical source utilized for the analysis of the case study films belongs to the scholarly research of Francesco Casetti and his dedication to the continuous exploration of the importance of the role of the spectator in the overall process of analyzing documentary discourses and its authentifying strategies. The research threshold of this thesis oscillates between two parallels: firstly, creating a model for analyzing the production complexity which serves to produce meaning, and secondly, the monitoring of the effect of authenticity, whilst concurrently incorporating analysis of the case study films. Following on from the studies of Hattendorf and Casetti, the present research also recognizes multiple influences of formal techniques on each of these parallels arising from the complexity of technical elements and their interconnectedness in producing the overall image on the one hand and the filmmaker’s practices on the other hand. Reflecting this, the variety of sources, theoretical methods and evidence provided in this thesis help in compiling critical angles centred around the presented case study films. The approach that was chosen is that of analytical monitoring, based on Hattendorf’s method of examination of the technical units in film and their function in producing meaning. The case study films incorporate elements in their structural/narrative/visual representation and they were chosen with assumption that understanding on how they function within formal techniques and representational process will lead to a more in-depth understanding of the complexity of production in creating the effect of authenticity. Moreover, this can lead to further theorizing with a larger collection of case study films.

The analytical framework relied on the practice applied by Hattendorf on expository documentary film with the preservation of analytical stages, however, practices were modified within each of the units. Each of the units function individually within the overall analytical scope nevertheless, they all interlace not only in the concluding remarks, but also as indistinguishable elements in reading the final images. Five main units (structure, space, communication, camera, and editing) comprising the research threshold of each of the case study films are analyzed through schematic and diagrammatic demonstrations, which illustrate how they function and operate within the integral thematic plain whilst including a descriptive overview (analysis of the content of the

35

images through predominance/positioning/detailing/focusing). Thus the five units should not be seen as isolated but as interdependent within the complexity of the overall production. Such an approach permits the dissection of elements within each of the units which provides a wider plain for the analysis of practices involved in the creation of dramatic effect and the dynamics of the images on the one hand and, and monitoring the effect of authenticity on the other hand.

Therefore, this schematic approach will serve not only in the mapping of changes of space/communication/camera shots but also in the additional highlighting of those changes and their effect on the production of the final images.

In view of the fact that the analysis in this thesis is applied to observational documentary films (Hattendorf used rather a different mode of representation which also differs in time span and subjects), the model for analysis will be adjusted according to the requirements of the presented case studies, including the adjusting of certain diagrams for camera shots, and spatial representation, along with a different approach in analyzing and exploring communication in the films. The term ‘analysis’ will be used for the investigation and research of case studies, covering all the five units identified in Hattendorf‘s work as key parameters which build the research frame. The five research units (structure, spatial representation, communication, camera and the editing process) link the selected films under investigation. Their further exploration, could have significant implications in the study and analysis of observational documentary film in general, given the importance and complexity of all the units involved in the filming process, and how they correlate with the representational process of lived reality.

The main outlines of methodology based on the theoretical analyses of Casetti's and Hattendorf's approach, and analysis applied in this thesis constitutes the following major tracks:

 monitoring the effect of authenticity through the usage of formal techniques  the application of the contractual model of filmic authenticity between the filmmaker and spectator.

Additional data of this thesis are produced from interviews conducted with Helena Třeštíková over a period of several years. The interviews were conducted in order to cover more fully Třeštíková’s practices; they were centred around the filmmaker’s methodology of long–term observation and critical questions which came out of the analysis of the formal techniques used. The interviews lasted on average between one hour and one hour and a half. Some parts of the 36

interviews are quoted in the thesis as further statement of the filmmaker’s practices. Four interviews were produced in written form, and the last interview was audio recorded. The analysis and monitoring of the effect of authenticity in observational documentary cinema in contemporary documentary film theory has not yet been fully explored. Even though many valuable insights have been contributed, there have been few attempts which have led to a more in-depth analysis. However, there is an absence of a system of provided tools which can be used for the scrutiny of the production side of observational documentary discourse with the purpose of further understanding the effect of authenticity and its correlation with producing a dramatic effect (as perceivable in the specific examples of the case study films) within the observational documentary discourse. This thesis identifies the importance of this formal side (based on the technical aspects) and the challenges that this technical side presents as it influences and affects the effect of authenticity in observational documentary film. Even more challenging is applying and reuniting these two aspects in the analysis of long–term observational documentary films, which were additionally enhanced only by this kind of mode itself, and all the implications it brings.

37

Chapter Two: Observation as a practice

2.1. Observation as a practice: formal strategies used in the production of meaning

The process of defining and analysing the functionality of the elements of an observational documentary film as well as the monitoring of the effects of authenticity has been moving into different directions whereby some of the approaches gave a glimpse of a huge theoretical area, nevertheless they shed additional light on the discussion and attempts to explain the concepts and terms such as the effect of authenticity and dramatic effect, or the analysis of practices and formal techniques. This chapter discusses representative examples of various practices in the observational mode. Those practices and samples are presented to further illustrate how technical elements function thus extending our understanding of the extent to which they (these practices) are engaged in the representational process, and what kind of tools are suitable to further explore and monitor the effects of authenticity in observational documentary discourse. Questions of authenticity/the effect of authenticity are continuously addressed by documentary film theoreticians, however, what this thesis explores is how the effect of authenticity arises from the use of formal techniques, which are involved in the analysis and readings of specific observational documentaries as a particular construction of technical elements.

The three case study films (Marcela, René, and Katka) which are at the heart of the research presented in this thesis are not meant to be the subject of dicussion on whether they meet certain criteria to be classified as observational documentary films. Instead, the analytical scope is directed towards the identification of particular apparatus and action that assist in monitoring the effect of authenticity, specifically through technical means. Such terms as authentic/authenticity/effect of authenticity create certain problems due to their complexity in reading and interpreting, on the one hand, and the complexity of their function within documentary discourse on the other hand. Therefore, the tools of analysis are not ready-made to be used as one single strategy, but they rather present a compilation of different theoretical approaches and require the establishment of certain analytical plains and techniques which are convenient to execute within the framework of a particular analysis. Several documentaries discussed in this chapter belong to the observational documentary discourse whose thematic scheme is guided by the observation of public institutions and family as a social formation. Such thematic engagement and observation correlate with Třeštíková’s fields of interest found in both her earlier and later works. For Třeštíková, the pursuit of the effect of authenticity in the long- 38

term observation of one subject is to be understood in relation to the capacity of this kind of approach to escape the boredom and banality of everyday life and to provide means that help construct a lived reality which belong to certain patterns and series of moves (assembling certain life events, decisions made in the selection of filmed material/life events, the placement of signals) that provoke dramatic effects. This chapter critically investigates how formal strategies operate towards the spectator and how to further explore those practices in concrete samples exemplified in the case study films (exploration in this context means establishing an applicable engine that can be used in the process of analyses and in monitoring the effect of authenticity).

The starting point of the theoretical research in this thesis is articulated in Dziga Vertov's comprehension of observed reality and ontological approach32 in discussing the notion of authentic in documentary film on the one hand, and enabling and using those technical means which can be further analyzed as they produce a final image on the other hand. The concept of total non-intervention33 created the „invisible filmmaker” (role of observer) who does not interrupt, or have any control or intervention over the filmed material. The analysis of Vertov's usage of formal techniques in constructing meaning, especially as put forward by film theoretician Seth Feldman, assists in providing evidence of the diversity in approaches while studying the form and effects, and what that form communicates to the spectator.

Feldman offers more practical consideration in the analyses of camera usage and the final image. In studies of Vertov’s work, Feldman discusses and analyzes Vertov while treating the camera and editing as inseparable elements in controlling the materials in Vertov’s formal experimentation. In the paper „Peace between Man and Machine – Dziga Vertov’s The Man with a Movie Camera” he analyzes one of the sequences from the film The Man with a Movie Camera

32Film historian and theoretician, Jeremy Hicks, points at DzigaVertov’s contemplating documentary in the following statement:„It is documentary, which points to its being genuine, to the authenticity of the accumulated material.” Vertov saw the documentary genre as something which by default has to have prescribed authentic seeing and representation of events. His idea of authenticity was perceived in filming as „unawares“ or “unobserved“ or „caught unawares“ or „hidden camera with no intervention,“ which implies the camera does not intervene into the events at all; it does not change them. Hicks stresses how Vertov undeniably chose the position of complete and total non-intervention by requiring no permission and employing no repetitions or reconstructions of any kind. [HICKS, Jeremy (2007): Dziga Vertov: Defining Documentary Film. London: I. B. Tauris, p. 23-84]. 33The non-interventionist approach of observational mode, Stella Bruzzi, Professor of Film and TV Studies at the University of Warwick, was later to call a „false utopian ideal.“ She elaborates this in a statement:„the notional grail of the non-fiction tradition – that a mode of representation exists that can break down the barrier between reality and illusion” does not go further from utopian ways of perceiving the documentary mode of representation. According to Bruzzi ,,this representation and authentical reproduction of reality is limited by technical (even theoretical) elements and can only represent variable truth.“ Bruzzi’s critique was very much aimed at direct cinema and its observational practice and non-interventionist style. [BRUZZI, Stella (2000): Contemporary Documentary: A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge, p.90]. 39

(Dziga Vertov, Soviet Union, 1929). Feldman points out the isolation and exposition of the subject by the means of the camera work, and also „using the camera as a barometer of social involvement”34 and creating an additional (final) impression during the editing process. Feldman writes that „throughout The Man with a Movie Camera, we are reminded that the images we see are not only taken from real life but they are identified as images, the building blocks of montage.”35 The footage identified in Vertov’s formal experimentation reveals the role of the camera and editing in communicating the final image to the spectator: there are often rapidly cut36 sequences of people, actions, full streets, and particular actions (people filling in wedding papers, or people filling in papers for divorce, people who want to be filmed, or people who hide their faces behind their hands and do not want to be filmed) with the almost constant reminder of a camera in the corner (or in the background) whereby editing plays a pronounced role not only in organizing the filmed material, but also in isolating the subjects. A sequence showing people while filling in forms (focusing on a woman’s face in close-up shots) combined with two parallel pieces of footage simultaneously, a distorted image of the city landscape and a crying woman on a grave who is hiding her face communicates a sense of exposure that isolates the subjects from the outside environment (the environment of the graveyard or empty municipality office).

Feldman briefs all these examples mapping camera movements through physical space during which situations are found and focused on. His analysis offers descriptions of physical space through the camera’s relationship towards subjects on the one hand and the production of recurring visual metaphors as selected by the editor on the other hand. Feldman explains the

34 FELDMAN, Seth (1998): Peace between Man and Machine – Dziga Vertov’s The Man with a Movie Camera. In: Grant, Barry Keith, and Sloniowski, Jeannette (eds.): Documenting the Documentary – Close Readings of Documentary Film and Video. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, p. 48. 35 Ibid., pp.48-49. 36 Spence and Navarro provide various approaches to analyze editing. Their analysis is focused on the selection of the sequences, the sequencing of material, the cutting and arranging of shots within a particular scene as demonstrated in the analysis of the documentary Lunch with Fela (Abraham Ravett, USA, 2005). Likewise, the analysis of employed devices in creating continuity in Titicut Follies (Frederick Wiseman, USA, 1967) where they engage with a shot and the way the shot was edited and intercut in shot-reverse-shot formation. In the further analysis, they operate with terms such as straight cuts, intra-scene editing, fading, and superimposing one image atop the next one for a moment. [SPENCE, Louise, and NAVARRO, Vinicius (2011): Crafting Truth: Documentary Form and Meaning. Rutgers University Press, p. 164 - 167]. They do not operate with definitions and their placement within the theoretical but rather they provide illustrations (such as samples of images), their order and arrangement within a sequence. Bill Nichols in offering the list of notes in writing about documentary film track editing techniques throughout „continuity editing, point-of-view shots, unusual juxtapositions or jumps in time and space” [NICHOLS, Bill (2010): Introduction to Documentary, (2nd Edition). Bloomington: Indiana University Press, p. 254]. Nichols does not go into more defined explainations of what certain elements are (such as „unsual juxtaposition’”). Terminology adopted in this thesis inclines more towards the terms Spence and Navarro operate with. The cutting and arranging of sequences recognized in illustrative samples of the footage that they provide appear applicable and adequate in what can be perceived as a similar approach to terminology in this thesis. 40

process of editing as the arrangement of material within sequences and the presence of the ubiquitous camera. The descriptions of sequences and involved analysis of the content of the images and their repetitiveness in the production of meaning, offered by Feldman, provide an analytical framework in approaching both the work of the camera as well as editing. To apply some of the elements of the analytical approaches offered by Feldman, the elements of editing and camera have to be distinguished from the other elements such as structure or space. According to Feldman, what is crucial is the decoding of the language that the filmmaker ,speaks’ through the camera („life caught unawares”; „cinema used to read the body”; „worker’s love of the workplace”).37

Such descriptions of the images can be applied in approaching the analysis of the case study films (Marcela, René, and Katka) and can also facilitate further searching for the details provided by the focus of the camera, the kind of rhythm it creates, and how sequencing and cutting function in the representation of details. In Třeštíková’s films, the presence of the camera is perceivable. Even in the cycle Manželské etudy (1987) in which the observation generally consists of recording routines of daily lives, during conversations with the subjects, frontal faces are usually depicted along with the filmmaker’s voice asking questions in the background. In later works (Marcela, René, Katka), the camera is even more immanent (additionally there is also framing, cutting, music and sound editing). Třeštíková maintains the attention of the viewer by catching nuances and changes, but at the same time, in her case, the work of the camera comprises a spectrum of approaches that has to be taken into consideration. It can be asked how to approach this in terms of the analysis of particular film units. Feldman orientates his observations towards a better understanding of the function of the camera in relation to the subjects via not only the content of the image captured by the camera, but also through the rhythm that the camera creates. However, he does not direct his analysis towards the more technical aspects of the camera shots present in the film nor does he direct his gaze to the prevalence of specific shots within a given film.

Another crucial unit in Feldman’s analysis is the controlling role of editing. What he recognizes in Vertov’s experimentation with formal techniques is that it is the editor who controls the structure of images and sets the rhythm. The editing, in this case, assists in a more solid utilization of the medium and in supplementing a meaning to the recorded footage (one of the examples that Feldman gives is the editing of a traffic officer in a busy intersection. According to Feldman, it is

37 FELDMAN, Seth (1998), p.50. 41

the editor „who controls the flow of the film images”38). He guides the analysis towards the style of cutting, details cut within sequences, the function of music and editing together, the content of the footage and what the focus of the camera was. This draws additional attention to the control over the material in the editing process where there is notable editorial intervention39 of the filmmaker (from the organization of material, the cutting and arranging of sequences to the total content of the information presented). Feldman operates with the context rather than with the structuring of sequences. He pays attention to the depiction of sequences as well as to providing detailed content in relation to meaning and giving inspiring remarks on a method that can be identified within the range of this analysis.

If Feldman’s approach applies to the analysis of the content of the compiled sequences in these case study films, it can lead to the recognition, for instance, of Třeštíková’s tendency to depict the immutability of the recorded scene. In Manželské etudy (1987) there are prolonged scenes of housework being carried out or prolonged dialogues with the subjects where the filmmaker gives as much space as possible for the full verbal expression. There is no tendency to speed up the rhythm of the sequences and the camera attempts to copy and preserve the rhythm of the lived moment taking place in front of the camera. This offers the possibility to observe more closely the meaning drawn from the content and dynamic of the scene. In case study films, the filmmaker exerts more control over the editing process rather than the camera work.

Nevertheless, it raises questions as to where the other elements are placed and what the process is that leads to the recognition of certain practices applied in the given documentary discourse. What is missing in Feldman’s observation of Vertov’s mutual function of the camera and editing in presenting the final image is the analysis of the structure of sequences, content dominant space and prevailing details in represented images, relationships between sequences and the logic inherent in the structuring of sequences. In approaching the analysis of the case study films all these elements have to be taken into consideration as they perform an enormous and crucial role in forming the subject and assigning meaning in the final representation. For instance, Třeštíková uses a whole spectrum of various elements to create dramatic effect in Řekni mi něco o sobě (1997), and within the case study films this can be seen during the integral visual presentation of the subjects where the indoor environments are even balanced with the correctional

38 FELDMAN, Seth (1998), p.49. 39 Editorial intervention refers to the selection, arrangement, sequencing, cutting, the order in which information is given, ways that shots are joined, and strategies applied in putting shots and sequences together. [SPENCE, Louise, and NAVARRO, Vinicius (2011): Crafting Truth: Documentary Form and Meaning. Rutgers University Press, p. 164 - 165]. 42

institutions/jails/homes/squats, thereby obtruding the dominant atmosphere of the films and sense of isolation of the subjects. This definitive picture is specifically produced by utilizing different techniques which require a more detailed re-construction of each of the elements and demands more specific tools for analysis.

2.2 Observation as a practice: Further readings of formal techniques

The deconstruction of other elements with a greater accentuation on the space, the setting provided and the strategies employed in communicating the final image to the spectator was extensively explored in the documentary film study Observational Cinema – Anthropology, Film, and the Exploration of Social Life by Anna Grimshaw and Amanda Ravetz. The study explores formal techniques and how they function and work with the placement of the filmmaker in the centre of an event whereby the filmmaker builds her/his own relationship to the events/things she/he is seeing, or hearing. Grimshaw and Ravetz investigate practices involved in the observational documentary, Titicut Follies (Frederick Wiseman, USA, 1967), an observation of the State Hospital for the Criminally Insane.

Grimshaw and Ravetz annotate carefully chosen and selected techniques in the representation of the image which demand a reading and an analysis of the way that the film was shot. They note the importance of the investigation of camera work: through its framing and placement questioning „how it frames what it sees, with the manner in which the sound is recorded and used with images, and how, as director Wiseman constructs this through combinations of shots and juxtapositions of scene.”40 In the analysis of Titicut Follies, the position of the camera in the opening sequence is focussed on wherein Grimshaw and Ravetz point the analysis towards the predominant atmosphere of the space and how the impression is produced by the types of shots (close-up shots) that portrays the space creating a type of autonomy, but also diminishing it. They stress the disorientation that is created by the utilization of formal techniques selected and handled by the filmmaker in spatial representation as they elaborate:„extensive use of close-up shots renders an institutional space that is unrelenting in its dreary architecture, its enclosure and anonymity, but also one that is deeply confusing. It is a kaleidoscope of hard surfaces and angular spaces – walls, bars, cells, narrow corridors, tight spaces – that we traverse without ever getting our bearings. Over the course of almost ninety minutes, Wiseman never allows us to know where

40 GRIMSHAW, Anna, and RAVETZ, Amanda (2009): Observational Cinema – Anthroplogy, Film, and the Exploration of Social Life. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, p. 45. 43

we are, how we have gotten from one place to another, or where anything is in relation to anything else.”41

The arrangement of sequences (cutting away to details of body parts and objects) is assigned to editing. When elaborating on the editing, Grimshaw and Ravetz explain the development of the editing by giving an overview of characterization, the assembly of scenes (as „spatial and temporal unity“),42 the attachment to narrative and structure guided by the editing process. In the film they studied (Titicut Follies) and in the analysis of the applied techniques, their characterization and explicit focus is on the camera and how it operates when framing and representing what has to be seen or heard in order to portray the lived reality. The space deconstruction addressed by Grimshaw and Ravetz inspires an approach to the analysis of spatial representation that was elucidated on throughout the overall thematic plain of the case study films (Marcela, René, and Katka). However, what appears as an additional question is how the dynamic of the space can be analyzed in addition to the general atmosphere of closeness/openness/indoors/outdoors/isolation. This question also adresses the kind of spatial settings that were presented in the film and recorded by camera, whereby both the details and what is being focussed on by the camera prevail. (For instance, does the dominance of the inside space in René (2008) isolate the subjects, and if so, how? How does the camera operate in Marcela (2006) when she informs the spectator that her daughter was found dead? There is an evident framing of numerous details, but Marcela’s face (or very fragmented parts of it) is shown the least. Does the camera avoid facing the subject, or does it give more space to the moment and avoid violating the privacy of personal space during mourning?

Grimshaw and Ravetz in their analysis of Titicut Follies also incline towards a rather descriptive explanation of the causes and methods of interconnecting between the sequences, and moreover, the mechanism of how they operate within the overall thematic–communicational plain, extracting the camera movement and editing process is crucial in the analysis of practices applied to the representational process. The exploration of content, within the analysis, is given just brief attention as a way to stimulate the editing process. The deconstruction of the documentation of institutional life does not steer the analysis into any further exploration of the subjects (only fleetingly does the analysis emphasize the patients and their offenses, giving brief insights into the causes of their institutionalization), nor does it engage in the analysis of conversations between

41 Ibid., p. 45. 42Ibid., p.47. 44

the patients and staff (although the analysis underlines and recognizes the everyday reality of Bridgwater Institution as cruel and whose „callousness conveyed as much in innumerable small gestures and everyday humiliations as in the more explicit and horrifying moments of violence”).43 The subjects of the film remain relatively unaddressed in the analysis given by Grimshaw and Ravetz. The violence and overall conditions given in the filmmaker’s critique during the observation of the institutions is alluded to only vaguely in their analysis and moreover, it foregoes an intimate perspective as well as more involvement around the subjects.

Consequently, some of the questions that are raised by the study’s lack of engagement with the subjects are: How are the conversations between patients and staff intertwined into the overall structure of the film? Was the space that the communication occupies one of the central elements in the filmmaker’s intent as regards the delivery of information? How does the editing operate in terms of delivering the communication within the thematic plain of the film? What types of camera shots prevail during the conflicts or heated discussions between the patients and staff? (For instance, in one of the scenes, the camera observes the communication between the doctor and a patient who refuses to take his medicine; there are more close-up shots of the patient and his face while talking, a sudden zoom-out on people involved in the discussion and a sudden zoom-in on the patient’s mouth combined with the hand-held camera create additonal tension and increase the dynamics of the scene. The patient started to talk faster and accordingly, the camera creates an impression of following the same dynamic and rhythm). The absence of a communicational unit in the analysis provided by Grimshaw and Ravetz creates a disparity in attaining the analytical apparatus necessary for the purpose of approaching the analysis of the case study films.

For instance, in all the three case study films (Marcela, René, and Katka), the communication creates a greater dramatic effect than the camera (from the interview strategies and information given to the narrations).44 The communication is ‘glue to the narrative’, and has an integral role in the final selection of life events; it not only directs these selections, but also it directs the whole structure of the film. In general, the communication plays an immense role in Třeštíková’s approach to the subjects and the way in which she assembles various parts of their lives. It guides the narrative and helps in creating the final image (by selected statements, narrations and letters as a very powerful tool in the representation of the subjects because they are narrated by subjects themselves). For instance, there is the distinctive and perceivable usage of René’s voice when he

43Ibid., p.43. 44 The social subjects' voices were used for the narration (in Marcela, René, and Katka). 45

reads his letters throughout the film. It is not only the plain tone of his voice, but the changes in nuance denote his feelings: about Třeštíková, his boredom with prison life, being guilty, being grateful, being desperate, being disinterested…all of these additionally plotted in tenuous voice intonations. However, it is also the questions edited by the filmmaker, conversations (finished/unfinished), and the type of information revealed about the subjects that takes prevalence most of the time. The communication is an indistinguishable element in the production of dramatic effect and one of the crucial elements to analyze. The absence of communication in the analysis provided by Grimshaw and Ravetz (when the communication presents such a vivid element in Titicut Follies), reduces the fullness of the analytical framework offered by the study. Observation as practice presented in the analysis of techniques and combinations that Wiseman uses in constructing images, shots, frames and sound focuses more on the juxtaposition of the scenes, their unfolding and what kind of spatial and temporal integrity they perform. Recapitulating points in the analyses are conveyed by illustrating the dynamics of cutting and editing within the sequences and the kind of information and filmmaker’s statement, which is conveyed by this particular approach to editing. This definite picture is specifically produced with different formal techniques which ask for a more detailed re-construction of each of the elements. How can these practices be further investigated? Certainly, the process shows the complexity of the production but how to work with dissecting elements that function together and yet are mutually pervasive in creating the meaning of what is represented?

Arguably, more insight into the plain of usage of visual text and images pointing at camera work was delivered in the analysis of the structure of one of the episodes of the television observational documentary film, An American Family (Craig Gilbert, USA, 1973), by film historian Jeffrey Ruoff. An American Family consists of twelve episodes following and chronicling the life of one family over a period of seven months. Ruoff queries the usage of the camera and the way it lingers on the isolation of one of the main characters followed by a description of the scene in the following paragraph:„as she reads, pets the dog, and watches her children dance to the Andrews Sisters’ ,Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy’. Continuing the earlier crosscutting paradigm, strictly parallel scenes compare her evening with her husband’s. A close–up on Pat’s face slowly dissovles to a similar shot of Bill dancing with another woman, suggesting the source of Pat’s discontent.”45 Ruoff points towards the use of the camera together with the particular content of

45 RUOFF, Jeffrey K. (1998): A Bastard Union of Several Forms – Style and Narrative in An American Family. In: Grant, Barry Keith, and Sloniowski, Jeannette (eds.): Documenting the Documentary – Close Readings of Documentary Film and Video. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, p. 293. 46

the sequence and their role in creating the isolation providing a descriptive view of not only the scene, but also the position of one of the main subjects.

He explores the dynamics of the usage of different pieces of footage and the length of shots prevalent in constructing the image of the family (even the analysis of the narrative remained in focus, bringing fragments of narrative in a descriptive format: for instance, illustration of a scene during breakfast which contains voice – commentary and annotating absence of one of the family members). Ruoff deconstructs the integral image of the family conveyed by the camera shots in one of the first scenes. He pays attention to the number of camera shots, approximate length of the average shot, and the duration of the scene along with the content adressed by the camera as illustrated in the following statement:„A different shot shows each family member’s ‘entrance’ to the dining room, allowing the viewer to identify each person clearly. In addition, whenever possible, characters exit the frame before the program cuts to another shot, smoothing the transitions. All the action takes place in the kicthen and the dining room. Although some of the images are taken from the same camera angle, the framing varies significantly to allow the scene to flow smoothly.”46

Rouff gives a valuable insight into the scene. The way he formulates the function of different types of shots in representing the scene of the family (as the social formation and thematic unit of the film) could be used in the analysis and mapping of the vivid sequences presented in Marcela, René, and Katka. These insights can also provide more inquiry into the study of the filmmaker– subject relationship (closeness/distance), the parts or details that were in the focus of the camera [Marcela’s hands, ashtray and cigarettes most of the time during conversations with Třeštíková; or the close–up shots of René’s face many time while writing her letter or talking to Třeštíková; or the close-up of Katka’s face during the birth delivery of her baby, or her hands and nails many times while talking to Třeštíková, or the (close-up shots) of the health and social workers], and the image provided with the amount of (close, medium, long) shots given. What appears as an additional thought is the re-construction of the rest of the scenes and how they interlate and function within the structure of the whole episode. What kind of images prevail or take over? How does the camera address the subjects (closeness/distance/details)? What particular part of the footage undergoes the main intervention and why? And where is the element of communication placed (which was not especially significant in the focus of Ruoff’s analysis)?

46 Ibid., p. 296. 47

Ruoff in his analysis of An American Family additionally identifies multiple focuses in the narrative and characters together with the structure of one of the episodes and a representative scene construction. His analyses of the narrative comprises brief descriptions of several single episodes stressing the dominant plot (the crisis in the marriage of the main subjects), but somehow the dominant dramatic plot that involves marital problems does not undergo more re- construction, and does not go further than brief descriptional viewpoints. For example, in one of the conversations between mother and son, there is a dominance of close-up shots of the faces of both the subjects (the camera keeps an even persistent attention on their faces while they have a heated discussion about the son’s future and disllusionment in life - as a general impression given from the conversation). Both of the subjects are positioned so they look at each other all the time while talking. The rhythm of cutting the shots is also notable. Ruoff’s insight into the representation of the image does not further explore the content and communication that guided the whole scene, in other words, what fuels the creation of dramatic effect in the overall representation (apparently it is not only the narrative but also the camera as an inseparable element in assigning the rhythm of the scene along with the conversations between the subjects).

In Ruoff’s investigation, these elements (in supporting the creation of dramatic effect) were not particularly the focus of the analysis of narrative; it was more concerned with the overall scanning of the thematic plot. This also requires more insights into monitoring the camera’s attention to details, framing, sequencing, cutting and how they correspond in generating the meaning. What also has to be taken into consideration is the spatial factor that communicates the setting, and what kind of image (and dramatic effect) is built from that. The question arises as to how a dramatic effect can be monitored in the analysis of the representational process.

2.3. Observation as a practice: Recurring images and producing dramatic effect

In a broader theoretical elaboration of what dramatic is and its placements in and as a part of the representational process, film theoreticians Louise Spence and Vinicius Navarro, in their documentary film study Crafting Truth: Documentary Form and Meaning include the concept of dramatic in documentary film operating with terms such as „dramatic conventions”, and „dramatic narrative.” In the analysis of dramatic stories in documentary film, they do not offer a particular definition of what dramatic means in documentary film discourse, but rather they work with concrete examples they found to be illustrative for further explanation. Their introduction into the analysis of the dramatic in documentary film begins from a general overview of

48

documentaries and their starting point:„from a specific issue that the filmmaker feels the need to investigate or explain”47 focusing on finding a solution to the problem.

This ‚reaching of a final solution’ remains unclear in Spence and Navarro’s elaboration and in further investigation of the final image produced and dramatic narrative (in addition, lack of further explanation and defining what dramatic means in documentary discourse creates even more space for assumptions and embitterment in the effort to acquire a more concrete apparatus applied in analysis). However, they still offer certain insights of how to further investigate the production of dramatic effect. Spence and Navarro offer a solution built into narrative structure but they do not investigate formal techniques that guide the narrative towards the solution. They deliver an additional inquiry into the concepts and ideas of dramatic effect in documentary film emphasizing representation in documentary films, which implies that documentaries are not replicas of lived reality. They are, as noted above, representations. The prefix, „re” in the word „representation” implies an absence, presenting anew that which is no longer present. And whenever something is presented anew, transformation is implied.48

Representation is seen in reaching dramatic effect, constructing a certain image as lived reality, represented and constructed with the support of the usage of formal techniques. Recognizing dramatic narrative they illustrate, for instance, in analyzing the footage, and the meaning and impression conveyed by the structure and the content in the film, The Demolition of a Wall (Démolition d’un mur, Lumière Brothers, France, 1895). The content of the image is pointed out in building dramatic rhythm (as recognized by Spence and Navarro). In the analysis, they recognize dramatic rhythm in expectation of the final solution and causalities of the events (the beginning of the demolishing of the wall till the very end) rather than in the content given in the footage. However, this leads to the question of the usage of other formal techniques. What is their role in the overall process of analyzing what is represented? For instance, in The Demolition of a Wall, there is also space as a deserted plain with half–demolished constructions; nothing else appears in the shot besides the wall and a couple of people.

The causality of events in creating dramatic effect offered in the analysis of Spence and Navarro could be inspiring for the analysis and identification of casually connected events that help create dramatic effect in case study films. Spence and Navarro, however, do not offer a specific

47 SPENCE, Louise, and NAVARRO, Vinicius (2011): Crafting Truth: Documentary Form and Meaning, p.135. 48 Ibid., p. 13-14. 49

apparatus which can facilitate a more in-depth analysis of the structure, interaction and interconnection of the events, but also the positoning of the subjects and the setting provided (as Bill Nichols indicated in the analysis of repetitiveness of the spatial environment). Thus an analysis cannot only involve taking events for themselves, however, they certainly play an enormous role in the representation of the overall image of the subjects (for instance, if the mapping of the dominant thematic plain is carried out in Marcela, it certainly can give a vivid presentation of the creation of dramatic effect, or similarly in Pavlína, Láďa, René, Katka etc).

In a further elaboration, Spence and Navarro gave examples of retaining appeal by creating dramatic effect while building an atmosphere of suspense and approaching the tragic conclusion of the story. They gave an initial structure of the dramatic effect in documentary film more related to the narrative structure itself:„Early on, we find a general characterization of the individual, the obstacles he or she is likely to face, and the situation that serves as the basis for the narrative. What follows is, normally, a development of the initial conflicts, with the action pushing us further and further toward a conclusion. Along the way, there are frequently insights and sometimes revelations. And in the climactic moments, increasing dramatic tension and a great sense of urgency dominate, culminating with the resolution of the conflicts outlined earlier.”49 But what if there is no solution built into the narrative structure? Dramatic effect in this way relies more on the structure along with the usage of formal techniques in a certain way.

Bill Nichols, for instance, puts more accent on building situations that tend to strengthen the tone of the film and the analysis of locations given to the integral context of the film. Even though he notes that the observational documentary50 goes along with reality, than any additional technical

49 Ibid., p.138. 50According to Nichols, documentary films are usually grouped in various modes of representations originating from genre study, which considers a variety of the characteristics of different documentary films, grouping them into specific categories. He identifies six modes of representation that function something like sub-genres of the documentary film genre itself: poetic, expository, participatory, observational, reflexive, and performative. For Nichols, the modes of representation are created by several elements: the filmmaker's position, approach, style, and statement. Each of these modes has its own particular characteristics: the poetic mode involves rather sporadical unequal diagram illustrated in „temporal rhythms and spatial juxtapositions“; the expository mode connects to the viewer directly, where the narrative is presented in a direct manner using means such as titles or voie-over which „propose a perspective, advance an argument, or recount history“; the participatory mode involves the social study or research of a specific group usually characterized by active participation in the field whereby the documentary filmmakers „live among others and speak about or represent what they experience“; the observational mode, observing with a tendency of non-operation by the filmmaker, in other words „what happens in front of the camera without overt intervention“; the reflexive mode not only engages the filmmaker directly with the spectators but also echoes reality and its effects on society in more of an advocacy and representational role which involves „speaking not only about the historical world but about the problems and issues of representing it as well“; the performative mode often represents a larger issue or historical political reality through the mirroring of personal intimate experience: it has a tendency to demonstrate „how embodied knowledge 50

element or effect we used to have (blurred image, processed shot, editing style) and putting the sounds and images in first place as elements recorded at the moment of filming other than the usage of voice-commentary, and a reluctance to use more images than needed (a reluctance to use rapid cutting and editing) put focus on individuals within specific environments and formations (such as family). Nichols advocates a stricter approach (in Representing Reality, Nichols stated that what is captured by camera „remains identical to the actual event that we could have ourselves witnessed in the historical world.”)51 and theorizes about the unobtrusive role of the factors of „placement, rhythm, camera position, sound quality, and intimations”52 along with the presence of the filmmaker in the film. He notes John Grierson’s definition of documentary film as „the creative treatment of actuality”, as a definition which according to Nichols, „undercuts the very claim to truth and authenticity on which the documentary depends.”53 However, he stresses the meaning created by recurring images or situations in a film and their tendency in strengthening the overall effect of an observational film.

One of the examples Nichols gives is an observational documentary, A Married Couple (Allan King, Canada, 1969), where there is evident „centrality of specific locations.”54 In A Married Couple there is a perceptible tendency of accentuation of space representation and the dominance of the home, which form a repetitive structure across the overall film theme (the film was shot within a period of 10 weeks following the life of a family). For Nichols these refrains build the plain of „dramatic engagement.“55 What Nichols observed here is the influence and engagement of the spatial in the overall constructed image. He emphasizes the operating of particular objects within the spatial arrangement and their association with characters: the association with their identities, their sense of self, and the interaction of characters with others.

The identifying of the creation of dramatic effect through repetitiveness in structure, offered in Nichols’ observation of A Married Couple, can facilitate the analysis of spatial representation in the case study films examined in this thesis. Repeatitive elements and the dominance of certain locations (home in Manželské etudy, or jails in René, or squats in Katka) participate in creating that dramatic engagement. Nichols offers significant insight into determining dramatic

provides entry into an understanding of the more general processes at work in society.“[NICHOLS, Bill (2001): Introduction to Documentary. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, p. 102-131]. 51 NICHOLS, Bill (1991): Representing Reality: Issues and Concepts in Documentary, p. 25. 52 Ibid., p. 41. 53 NICHOLS, Bill (2001): Introduction to Documentary, p. 17-18. 54 NICHOLS, Bill (1991): p. 41. 55 Ibid., p. 41. 51

engagement within the repetitiveness of particular elements in the structure of the film (A Married Couple). But he does not engage in the dissecting of spatial representation through a more schematic structure or view, creation of rhythm, nor does he involve detailing in his analysis (For example, the type of furniture or colors in A Married Couple; What kind of details were in the focus of the camera? What was the position of the subjects within the spatial environment? What kind of photos, posters, and/or books do the subjects have and how do they decorate their space? Or other details that help in further illuminating the subjects).

The spatial environment, however, in the long-term observations of Třeštíková demands detailing in the analysis of everything that is present in the focus of camera. Is detailed detecting of space and its settings sufficient in explaining the process, or does it also require factographic recording of what has been perceived as dominant/less dominant/inside/outside/tidy/ruined space/presence/absence of home? How to monitor all of these within an analysis? How to follow the process of building the dramatic effect by dissecting the element of the spatial? Tracking these details and the exploration of dominant settings that surrounds the subject play a substantial role in monitoring the effect of authenticity in Třeštíková’s following of one subject over a couple of decades (spatial environments chosen as dominant not only communicate vivid images of the subjects, but also help create dramatic engagement).

Not only do the chosen topics and subjects of the case study films already imply a certain life drama56 by themselves, but also the filmmaker uses certain strategies to intensify the whole experience of the film and determine the course, rhythm and tone of the documentary. The further investigation of productional units, how they exactly function in relation to the other elements in creating dramatic effect and how they communicate to the spectator, remains one of the analytical challenges of this thesis as does the process of monitoring the effect of authenticity, and to what extent the effect was achieved in the representational process. Visualizing the understanding of film response and identifying the particular stages of the process that interact between the filmmaker and spectator was one of the focuses of the analysis provided by Italian film and media

56 Term drama in this context relates to drama as a life, or drama found in real life. As it was summarized by Spence and Navarro „in this case, the notion of ,discovered drama' replaces the concept of dramatic artifice, and the aesthetic treatment of the narrative events follows a pattern already defined in real life.“ [SPENCE, Louise, and NAVARRO, Vinicius (2011): Crafting Truth: Documentary Form and Meaning, Rutgers University Press p.139]. Even from their elaboration there is no clear definition of dramatic itself, there are certain concepts not explained clearly when it comes to documentary film such as dramatic film, or drama used as a genre in theatre (The theatre practitioner Lope de Vega stated that „drama is two human beings, a passion and a platform”, [SANGER, Keith (2000): Language of Drama. London: Routledge, p.6], or literature. Bill Nichols in Representing Reality (p. 38) rather used term dramatic (as „dramatic involvement”) when explaining expository mode of representation. 52

theoretician, Francesco Casetti. He uses the understanding of film response in further approaching the effect of authenticity in documentary film through the exact stages and instances. Engaging the spectator as a part of the analysis, placing the spectator on the same (parallel) instance as a filmmaker within the process of argumentation, registering the film response and its achievement of the authenticity effect; all these were the most powerfully presented in Casetti‘s schematic diagram.

2.4. Observation as a practice: Role of the spectator and monitoring the effect of authenticity

The importance of the spectator’s role to the overall film response on the one hand, and as an indistinguishable element in the analysis of the effect and authenticity and final image perceived on the other side played a great role in the contractual model of film authenticity introduced by Francesco Casetti. His model was based on a schematic demonstration of the relationship created by the filmmaker, between the filmmaker and the spectator. In his study of communicative situations, Casetti identifies a „pact or communicative contract that underlines the symbolic interaction between the subjects.”57 He engages in the recognizing and appointing of interlocutors as the parties which facilitate a relationship between the subjects: towards understanding and common goals, emphasizing that „there is not always definitive consensus, most of the time, the pact is defined or is transformed during communication (simple chit-chat may turn into secret – confiding and then into an argument).”58 One of the crucial points is establishing a „contractual relationship”59 between the subjects identifying „bilateral” and „unilateral” pacts which differ in rights and responsibilities distributed between the parties (subjects), reciprocity, or asymmetrical positions and lack of space for intervening for one of the subjects. Casetti’s diagram of a contractual model in the film discourse allocates a contractual relationship placed and agreed on between the filmmaker and spectator. He notes that „it is a look that adds itself to the other looks constituting and residing in the world that gives itself to be seen.”60 However, in the study of the spectator Face to Face, Casetti examines fiction case study films and the way their subjects address the spectator in an analysis of the opening sequences in the films, addressing camera work along with speeches of the subjects directed to camera (emphasizing the placement of the subject

57 CASETTI, Francesco (1994): The Communicative Pact. In: Jürgen E. Müller (Ed.), Towards a pragmatics of the audiovisual: Theory and history. Münster: Nodus, p.22. 58 Ibid., p.24. 59 Ibid., p.29. 60 CASETTI, Francesco (1995): Face to Face. In: Buckland, Warren (Ed.), The Film Spectator: From Sign to Mind. Amsterdam University Press, p. 118. 53

who is placed looking towards the spectator). For Casetti, these all relate in further identifying how a filmmaker addresses and approaches the spectator, which produces another term: pragmatic.

Pragmatic in this context sees the meaning as something which is determined by external factors, and to define a meaning relies on de-coding and placing the meaning in correlation with other external influences. The positioning of the spectator in the process of authentification was one of the crucial points in Casetti’s studies: the spectator that in this context serves as this external factor and helps in additionally re-defining the meaning. Warren Buckland, film researcher from the Oxford Brookes University, summarizes the main formulas of shots/looks that Casetti establishes:„(1) So-called objective shots: I (enunciator) and YOU (addressee), we watch IT (the utterance, character, film); (2) Interpellations: I and HE, we watch YOU; (3) So-called subjective shots: YOU and HE see what I show YOU; (4) Unreal objective shots: As if YOU were I.”61 In an additional elaboration to the pragmatic approach to film, it is important to remember that pragmatics have their focus on the role of the spectator (Jan Simons, film teacher, in the introduction to pragmatics, gives a broader definition which identifies pragmatic as an approaches which are „primarily interested in the way the ,environment’ of a film affects the way a film as a ,signifying object’ is comprehended or is intended to be comprehended by its spectators”).62 In other words, the role of the spectator becomes a crucial one in participating in and understanding the signifying process, and the meanings produced by a film. The role of the spectator (recipient) therefore stands as one of the most significant in the schematic contract model of filmic authenticity and imposes itself here as an important element of analysis.

This is very much related to the pragmatic63 of Roger Odin, who was known for semio-pragmatic film theory which centered around the role of the spectator as well as for his research of the spectator’s role and its competence in the process of film analysis. Odin defines spectator as a „constructed entity, an actant”,64 adding that „seeing from this angle, the production of meaning is entirely based on external determinations.”65 According to Odin these „external determinations”

61 Buckland, Warren (2000): Cognitive Semiotics of Film. Cambridge University Press, p. 114. 62 Ibid., p. 209. 63„The most promising [definitions of pragmatics] are the definitions that equate pragmatics with ,meaning minus semantics’, or with a theory of language understanding that takes context into account, in order to complement the contribution that semantics makes to meaning. (Stephen Levinson)” [BUCKLAND, Warren (2000): Cognitive Semiotics of Film. Cambridge University Press, p. 77]. 64 ODIN, Roger (1995): For a Semio-pragmatics of Film. In: Buckland, Warren (Ed.), The Film Spectator: From Sign to Mind. Amsterdam University Press, p. 215. 65 Ibid., p.215. 54

help filmic communication to be operational. He, however, reads documentary film in line with ideologies that as he says „strive to give us a view of the things of the world as if there were no intermediaries, as if the world were there in front of us instead of on the screen”, adding that „only the operation of fictivization is radically incompatible with the documentary. To make or read a film in a documentary perspective is always to construct an Enunciator who functions as a real origin.”66 He does not engage in a regime of communication that involves both the filmmaker and spectator but instead he parallels different operations67 as constitutes of fictionalization comparing those operations to the regime of communication concerning documentary film. Odin involves also one more role which is that of Enunciator68 whose position and placement help in giving one of the roots and starting points in identifying something as documentary discourse. In addition to that, Odin operates with the term „meaning” exploring mechanisms involved in the production of meaning. He recognizes two modalities in the production of meaning within the process of filmic communication. One of them relates to the spectator who „proposes a meaning, and puts it to the test in the structure of the image.”69 Another one is formed from the propositions and if they seem „compatible with the constraints of the image, meaning is then produced.”70 What appears as a question are the stages of such operations and elements that generate the operation(s) and its meaning. What are the stages which lead towards that final stage and the representation provided by the filmmaker? How can the role of the spectator be employed in the analysis, and how can the analysis of producing the final image and its meaning proceed towards more perceivable results? Where is the spectator positioned on the line of spectator – Třeštíkova – social subject? How to guide further reading of the final image(s) of single characters provided?

Casetti introduces the importance of the relations on the line between filmmaker – spectator as

66 ODIN, Roger (1995): A Semio-pragmatic Approach to Documentary Film. In: Buckland, Warren (Ed.), The Film Spectator: From Sign to Mind. Amsterdam University Press, p. 229. 67Odin identifies five operations within the process of fictionalization: Construction of a diegesis (production of a world); Narrativization (production of a story); Mise en phase (alignment of the filmic relations to the diegetic relations in such a way that the spectator is made to 'resonate' to the ryhthm of the events told; Construction of an absent Enunciator (the presence of the Enunciator is both indicated and effaced in such a way that the spectator, although knowing very well that an Enunciator does exist may, however, believe that the world and events that are shown to him exist in themselves); Fictivization (the absent Enunciator functions as a fictive origin). [ODIN, Roger (1995): A Semio-pragmatic Approach to Documentary Film. In: Buckland, Warren (Ed.), The Film Spectator: From Sign to Mind. Amsterdam University Press, p.228]. 68 Francesco Casetti defines filmic enunciation as a „conversion of a language system [langue] into discourse; that is to say, the passage from a set of simple virtual units to a concrete and localised object. In other words, enunciation is the fact of using the expressive possibilities offered by cinema to give body and substance to a film.” [CASETTI, Francesco (1995): Face to Face. In: Buckland, Warren (Ed.), The Film Spectator: From Sign to Mind. Amsterdam University Press, p.120]. 69Ibid., p.214. 70 Ibid., p.214. 55

illustrated in the model of contractual authenticity between the filmmaker and the spectator in the following diagram:71

Proving and demonstrating film authenticity, according to Casetti, is based on exploring the relationship between a documentary’s subject discourses and its recipient (the spectator). The analysis should explore and prove if those strategies and signals were achieved. After an analysis of the production process, it can be determined whether the contractual agreements (between the filmmaker and spectator) were upheld or breached and violated.

71 HATTENDORF, Manfred (1994): A Pragmatic Approach Towards the Study of Documentary Films Ironic Discourse in Schützenfest in Bahnhofsnähe: Beobachtungen auf dem Dorfe (1961) In: Towards a pragmatics of the audiovisual: Theory and history. 1. Ed. by Jürgen E. Müller. Münster: Nodus 1994, p. 117. 56

Even Casetti operates with more definite instances (and terminology) of the authentic/non- authentic schematic demonstration of the filmmaker – spectator line and the stages it takes to reach the final instance (the conclusive instance if authenticity was achieved or not) introduced by Casetti provide valuable insights into the overall process of understanding the reception of film. What appears as a question is the demand for more enquiry into the process itself. The contractual model of film authenticity can be applied to certain documentary discourse, but only after specific items and/or exemplars are given as the observability of what has been analyzed (for instance, the approach that Třeštíkova practises in structuring and/or representing the information provided to the spectator). What kind of apparatus can be used in measuring devices associated with the represented image? In essence, the filmmaker, when choosing how to apply formal techniques, decides how the film’s subjects will be represented. To what extent can both dramatic effect and the subjective viewpoint be used without violating the contractual ,agreement’ between the filmmaker and spectator?

This becomes even more challenging when analyzing the case study films. Not only that each of these films falls under the contractual model between the filmmaker and spectator, but in Třeštikova's72 case, her subjective involvement during the filming, that is: interfering in the story, choosing what narrations and interviews to use in certain parts of the communication and the

72It is relevant to mention the elementary initial steps Třeštíková takes during the filming process. They demonstrate Třeštíková’s tendency to intervene as a filmmaker and her involvement in directing and developing the story. Třeštíková listed several fundamental steps she takes during the filming process:„1/Collect materials for time-collecting as much as possible; 2/ Be well-prepared and plant the “seeds” about different topics at the beginning. Never, however, talk with the protagonists about these topics before the start of filming; rather, present these topics to them for the first time in front of the camera. If the director has to find out something before the filming starts, use a researcher to gather the important details.;3/Ask questions while the story is happening, while the camera is running, for example, during unexpected situations. Ask your question in such a way that you will be able to use the question and its answer during the editing process.;4/Do not wait for people to tell you something about themselves; be active, look for different types of questions, and different ways to achieve answers.;5/After a while, repeat the same questions. Protagonists usually don’t remember what they said earlier and changes in their answers can help advance and develop the topic.; 6/When in the middle of the project phase, take time to consider dramaturgical frameworks, prevailing motives and the end of the film. Synchronize the material immediately after each shoot and prepare the script and transcript for review. Under no circumstances should any of the material be cut because its value (significance) will come out sometime during the final cutting.” [TŘEŠTÍKOVÁ, Helena (2008): Časosběrná metoda v dokumentárním filmu, p.3:] („1/ vyžadovat pro sběrné natáčení co nejvíce materiálu a pokud to půjde netočit na 35 mm kvůli malým násobkům a topornosti techniky 2/ dobře se připravit na výpovědi protagonistů a udělat si „zárodky“ různých témat už od začátku, ale nikdy s nimi neprobírat témata před natáčením, ptát se poprvé až před kamerou, pokud potřebuji něco zjistit předem, použít rešeršéra, který zjistí vše důležité 3/ klást otázky v průběhu děje, kdy už běží kamera, třeba i v nečekaných situacích a klást je pokud možno tak, abychom se jich pak ve střižně mohli zbavit 4/ nečekat co mi lidé před kamerou sami o sobě řeknou, být aktivní, hledat různé typy otázek, různé cesty k odpovědi 5/ po čase opakovat stejné otázky (aktéři si většinou nepamatují, co řekli před nějakou dobou a v měnících se odpovědích na stejné otázky se dá dobře pozorovat posun a vývoj tématu) 6/ zhruba od chvíle, kdy je natáčecí čas v polovině uvažovat o dramaturgické stavbě, o nosných motivech a o zakončení filmu 7/ Natočený materiál synchronizovat hned po natáčení a dělat jeho skript a transkript pro přehlednost, ale rozhodně ho nijak nestříhat, protože jeho hodnota se definitivně vyjeví až ve chvíli konečného střihu.“) 57

overall structuring of the film along with the spatial representation, communication, intervening, and involvement (of the filmmaker herself), definitely open significant space for the further investigation of the image, the kind of content which was created with formal techniques during the representational process and finally the filmmaker - spectator relationship. Here is where the production side and the analysis of film strategies collide.

Casetti’s diagram was practically applied by German film theoretician and documentary filmmaker, Manfred Hattendorf, who applied his diagram of contractual authenticity in the analysis of the element of irony and whether the effect of authenticity was achieved or not in the expository documentary film. He stated that such a composition is an „important role [...] in the process of authentication.”73 What is important is the effect of authenticity on the relationship between the filmmaker and the spectator, in addition to the comprehensive analysis of the documentary production process (structure, composition, spatial representation, camera shots, editing and communication).

Hattendorf offered a complex analysis of the overall production process applying particular diagrams for almost each of the elements scoped out by analysis. He pays distinct attention to studying the anatomy of documentary film elements, and how formal techniques function individually and altogether. His analysis includes both the content as well as the technical parts (the juxtaposition of shots, guiding of communication and editing sytle) of the integral structure. For the analyses of formal techniques and the role they play in the representational process, Hattendorf investigated the element of irony produced by formal techniques in the expository television documentary, Schützenfest in Bahnhofsnähe: Beobachtungen auf dem Dorfe74(Shooting-Match Near the Station. Observations in the Countryside, Dieter Ertel and Georg Friedel, Germany, 1961). The documentary was motivated by the celebration of the 75th anniversary of a rifle association in a small German town called Kreiensen. According to

73 HATTENDORF, Michael (1994): p.116. 74 “Schützenfest in Bahnhofsnähe: Beobachtungen auf dem Dorfe”(Shooting-Match Near the Station. Observations in the Countryside) is a 30-minute television documentary directed by Dieter Ertel and Georg Friedel for the Süddeutsche Rundfunk (SDR) in 1961 (date of first transmission: 1.9.1961.). It is part of a highly acclaimed topical program series, Zeichen der Zeit (Signs of the Times), which ran from 1957 to 1973. As a result of the recent growth of historiographic interest in the so-called Stuttgart School, the series has been continued since 1990. Originally, Zeichen der Zeit had been a successful topical radio series. However Dieter Ertel presented an original concept for an innovative television series with his feature on a regional boxing event, Ein Groskampftag (A Capital Fight Day), in 1957 and subsequently became series editor”. [...] “The innovative impulse which came from the documentary programs of the Zeichen der Zeit series was closely linked to the editors’ determination to shift the focus from official news to the observation of smaller everyday events”. [HATTENDORF, Manfred (1994): p. 118]. 58

Hattendorf, the „film manifests itself as a portrait of German provincialism”.75

In regard to the pragmatic approach to documentary filmmaking, Hattendorf observes that the perception of authenticity is changing as it falls under the film structures of „inner pragmatic” film structure.76 His analysis that was based on the inner pragmatic (rhetorical and narratological analysis) dissected the structure of expository documentary film following not only the basic idea of Casetti’s contractual model of film authenticity, but also using the expository mode of representation as a practical example. Spectator relations are an important element in this structure. The relationship between the filmmaker and spectator becomes part of the inner- pragmatic study and analysis, which deals with discursive strategies and how these strategies are used in the film. To apply such a model, it is necessary to involve the production side of the film or analyze more deeply the use of its formal techniques.

In the introduction to his analysis, Hattendorf uses the term „structural analysis“ which according to him can help „reconstruct the specific argument which lies at the base of the filmic discourse.”77 However, there is a deficiency in the clear explanation offered in Hattendorf’s analysis of what structural analysis78 is and that is concerning the analytical structure approached in Schützenfest in Bahnhofsnähe: Beobachtungen auf dem Dorfe. Therefore, the term „analyses“ will rather be used in approaching and analysing the case study films in this thesis. The examination of the effect of authenticity in documentary films is based on the approach of analysis, which, according to Hattendorf „cannot be regarded as the ,natural’ consequence of authentic events or documents represented in documentary film.”79 The analytical framework in this thesis will be guided more towards monitoring the effect of authenticity rather than to the definite final instance of Casetti’s model of breaching/not-breaching the contract although it will be shown how the model practically works when applied to the case study films. The analysis will be aimed more towards the exploration of the complex side of the production and representational process, and the role it performs in producing the final content provided by the filmmaker, which

75 Ibid., p.119. 76 Ibid., p.116. 77 Ibid., p.119. 78 In a broader explanation, Katherine Thomson studies the structural within the framework of the structuralist approach and influence so that she sees „auteur as a critical construct“. Her elaboration relates to fiction film, and the re- structuring of cinematic codes and their construction as a part of the film interpretation process. ,Structural’ being one of the reasons for placing a film in a certain category (the other two are intentional reasons and contextual reasons), Thomson sees structural as „characteristic features“ of certain subgenres, dialogues, interviews, actors... [THOMSON, Katherine (2008): Continuum Aesthetics: Aesthetics and Film. London: Continuum International Publishing, p.42 - 97]. 79HATTENDORF, Manfred (1994): p.116. 59

is then communicated to the spectator. Both of the theoretical and analytical approaches (offered by Casetti and Hattendorf) assist in providing the means for further exploration of formal techniques by establishing a research framework for the investigation and monitoring of the effect of authenticity in the observational documentary discourse of Helena Třeštíková.

60

Chapter Three: Model for monitoring the effect of authenticity in the observational documentary films Marcela, René, and Katka

3.1. The Model for monitoring the effect of authenticity in the observational documentary films Marcela, René, and Katka: Analysis of formal techniques

The analysis is based on the same pattern used to analyze expository documentary by Manfred Hattendorf whose attempt was to show how Casetti’s model of contractual authenticity was applied in documentary film. Hattendorf’s analysis tends to investigate the elements of irony present in the film, how irony was produced by filmic means (formal techniques) and to what extent it affects an authentic picture. His analysis encircles several units such as structure, space, communication and camera shots. Even though the focus of his analysis is irony, the model he uses presents a concrete instrument in the analysis of certain effects (Hattendorf/irony/Třeštíková/dramatic effect) conveyed and produced by formal techniques and how it responds to the effect of authenticity. The analysis applied by Hattendorf offers a detailed inspection of the production side of the film, which assists in the examination of the usage of formal techniques and moreover, it can be used as a sample in the analyses of other documentary modes of representations.

Hattendorf divides the whole process of the analysis of Schützenfest in Bahnhofsnähe: Beobachtungen auf dem Dorfe (Shooting-Match Near the Station. Observations in the Countryside, Dieter Ertel and Georg Friedel, Germany, 1961) into four units: spatial representation, interview strategies, camera-shots, and montage. While analyzing the spatial representation, he deals with the most dominant presentations in the film (contrasts, interiors and exteriors). The spatial representation serves mainly to describe events happening there as well as imparting the importance of contrast between certain scenes. He uses the following diagram to show the dominance, division and structure of spatial representation:80

80 HATTENDORF, Michael (1994): p.120.

61

In the analyses of Marcela, René, and Katka, a different diagram and schematic presentation of space will be used because of the length of all three films and the involvement of intensity and rhythm in the overall spatial representations in the films. The platform of meanings, dominance and contrasts shown in Hattendorf’s case will be used as a starting point in approaching the spatial representation. In addition to that, the setting will be considered as being given prevalence by the placement of the subjects, the way in which they are portrayed in images(objects/details/close- ups/places), moreover, how the setting operates as a generator of mood and how that contributes to the predominant tone of the film. Diagrams in these case studies will be used to show timelines and durations of the integral space, and the actual time space they occupy in the overall duration of each of the films. They will be also subdivided into three parts according to the three parts of the film unit. The schematic display of spaces and space changes will also serve to illustrate rhythm and the dynamic of exchanges between dominant/less dominant/inside/outside space. A schematic demonstration of all the spaces immanent in the films will be provided at the end.

The interview strategies for Hattendorf’s analysis present a central part of the argumentation in the film. He gives the exact timing and durations of interviews and speeches showing how much of the film space is occupied by the communication. The interview strategies are a major part of his analysis (much more than the spatial representation) which he illustrates with four diagrams. The first diagram gives a macro-structure of the communication, dividing the film into three parts (exposition, middle part and end):81

81 HATTENDORF, Michael (1994): p.121.

62

In the first diagram, Hattendorf shows the dominance of the space together with interviews in each part of the film. He tries to illustrate the important parts of the interviews (not by exposing the interviews themselves) rather with his own understanding of the significant moments: when the ‘moment of truth’ happens, when the film reaches its climax and later using commentary. The distribution of speeches and interviews is shown in the following diagram:82

82 HATTENDORF, Michael (1994): p.122.

63

The distribution of communication is shown through the number of shots and their duration. He wanted to show the climax of the middle part of the film. Hattendorf uses the longest diagram to show the functions of the commentary. This diagram/table contains three columns: question core, answer core, and commentary. In each of them, he places just the hints of questions or their topics as well as responses. The commentaries were positioned in all the sentences corresponding to the questions and answers. In the last given table, he analyzes each of the commentaries according to their function in the film. However, it is not very clear from the analyses how the valuation tendency, which is scaled from weak to strong, operates and if it means that the strongest functions relate to the pointing/judging commentary and the weakest to the linking commentary. It is not evident if the linking commentary has the least influence on the element of irony unlike the pointing/judging (commentary), which has the highest effect on the ironic representation in the film:83

The interview strategies in Marcela, René, and Katka will be analyzed from a broader perspective, coming under communication in general due to the usage of different forms of communication in all three films: interviews, narrations, letters, and inter-titles. Owing to the importance of communication in the representation of each of the subjects, some parts of the interviews, letters, and narrations will be presented entirely as this will assist the overall analysis. One diagram/table will be used to show the macro structure of the communication in each of the films. The diagram will be subdivided into three parts (according to the three parts of the film, which is divided in chapters that correlate with the structure). The division is also made according to the time and thematic parts. Such communication can be illustrated in a larger table because of the length of the films and the sizeable time span. Attention will also be paid to the content of communication,

83 HATTENDORF, Michael (1994): p.124.

64

interview styles (types of questions and their repetition), and the position of the subjects while speaking (and/or having conflicts).

The third part of Hattendorf’s analysis is related to the in-depth investigation of camera shots: contrasts between short and long lengths and why it is important for filmic discourse, what typeshots are dominant in the film, how they represent the interviewed people, the visual composition of shots, what is dominant in the shot, camera movement and perspective, what it focuses on and from which angle. The scale of shots and their lengths were shown in the following diagram:84

The analysis of camera-shots in Marcela, René, and Katka will also convey the exact length of shots, the dominance of certain shots and the way they were composed and spread throughout the films. The diagram will show intensity and changes of shots of the main characters (social subjects), and shots of the surrounding in general and other people in the film (close, medium and long shots). Such a diagram also demonstrates more applicability in analyzing the relationship between the camera (cameraman and/or filmmaker) and the social subject (closeness/distance). All of the shots and their intensity will be shown through diagrams, which help in selecting and

84 HATTENDORF, Michael (1994): p.129.

65

following the rhythm by showing if there is a majority of close, medium or long shots. The diagrams will subdivide the film into three parts (the same applies for the communicational diagram and the structure of the film).

The last part of the analysis will deal with editing. Editing itself does not follow any diagram in Hattendorf’s presentation, but different styles of editing are examined: descriptive editing, associative editing and framing editing based on the theoretical annotation of German film lecturer and theoretician, Heller Heinz. The editing85 aspects of Marcela, René, and Katka will be based on a similar analysis of different stylistic concepts and the way they determine the rhythm and the tone of the film. It will be more focused on the style of the sequencing, the placing of sequences next to each other and into the whole structure of the film. Additionally, the analysis will comprehend the structure of each of the case study films, the functioning of the inter-titles within the integral thematic plain of the film, the composition of dynamic images in support of the dramatic effect and the process of selection of dramatic events in order to draw up the final reflection of the subjects and their lives.

The analytical framework is structured around the following units:

 presentation of the structure of the film  spatial representation  communication  camera shots  editing

85 There is no clear classification of different types of editing, but rather it goes with studying the individual filmmaker's style and how all pieces of the story were put together. At the macro level, Spence and Navarro define the „overall structure of the documentary, the arrangement of information in order to make an argument, forge a dramatic story, or sensuously experiment with form to explore a topic or category.“ Editing for them represents a micro level:„the placement of one shot or one sequence next to another“, adding that „editing also reshapes and manipulates the material. And when the material is non-fiction, editing can redefine sociohistorical reality.“ [SPENCE, Louise - NAVARRO, Vinicius (2011): Crafting Truth : Documentary Form and Meaning, p.161]. Input they provide in regard to terminology (cutting, arranging of sequences and intra-scene editing) will be used in an additional approach of the analysis of editing in the case study films. 66

Chapter Four: Analysis Marcela

4.1. Analysis Marcela: Structure of Marcela

The narration of Marcela is in the background, covering the opening sequence on the train:„It’s like being in a vacuum. I felt as if I stopped breathing, I didn’t want anyone to help me. I felt as if I was in a kind of tunnel, being dragged along … dragged out of the real world. Until there’s nothing left, just a sort of emptiness. Then I saw my whole life flashing by, like in a film. Absolutely everything, from my earliest childhood memories.”86 After this sequence, the film flashes back to the past – Marcela’s wedding day. The rest of the film is structured chronologically: starting with Marcela’s and Jiří’s wedding on 12 December 1980, having their first child – daughter Ivana, life at Jiří’s parents place, and finding their first jobs. Most of the scenes during the first part of the film (on occasion between 1980 to 1987) were shot in black- and-white due to the available equipment at that time. The first part of the film culminates in the separation of Marcela and Jiří.

The second part of the film, which continues in chronological order within the structure of the film itself, continues after a 12-year break. Its beginning focuses on Marcela’s relationship with a man with whom she has a newborn son – Tomáš, searching for a job, and a new place to live. The action mainly takes place at Marcela’s home, but there are also shots that take place outside, notably those scenes that show Marcela and her daughter, Ivana, looking for jobs. This part, which determines the tone for the rest of the film, culminates with the death of Marcela’s daughter, who was hit by a train.

The last part of the film is more of an epitaph to the post-traumatic events built around spaces: home and hospitals. Marcela is trying to cope with her daughter’s death and find a way to continue her life somewhere else.

In general, Marcela was structured around the following units87 (all of them are divided according to the timeline, context, and theme); some of the units are structured into the film itself whereas

86 Marcela (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2006), 0:20 – 0:01:08. 87 Dividing each of the films according to the units was important in order to give an insight into the thematic units and the rhythm of the film. Most of the units are already defined in the film (by Treštikova), some of them were added according to the themes and periods. Each of the case study films was divided into three parts by the author of the thesis. The division was driven thematically and temporally. Such division served in facilitating the organization of the analytical framework in the thesis. 67

the others are indicated in the process of analysis of this case study film. However, the majority of them are already woven into the film structure by the filmmaker:

Part I (shots: 0.02 - 27.33; 1980-1987)

12th December 1980 Marcela and Jiří are married in Prague Old Town Hall.

July 1981 Marcela and Jiří are expecting a baby.

Marcela and Jiří are struggling to find a flat (they are living with Jiří’s parents).

November 1981 Shortly after the birth of her daughter, Marcela leaves Jiří and goes back to her parents.

Marcela and Jiří divorce. (1982)

1983 After a three-years wait, Marcela is finally allocated an apartment.

1985 Marcela has a long hospital stay

1986 Marcela starts to work at the Post Office.

1987 Jiří moves back in with Marcela. Two years later they split up for good.

Part II (shots: 27.34 - 57.57; 1999-2005)

12 years later…

1999 Marcela has a second child. She does not live with his father.

2000 Marcela has had an operation.

Marcela and Ivana are trying to find jobs.

2002 Tomaš starts school, where he has some problems.

2003 Marcela and Ivana have both found work.

2004 Marcela’s landlord offers her another flat in Česky Brod. Marcela and Ivana commute to work in Prague.

17th November 2005 Ivana does not return home from work.

14th December 2005

After a one-month investigation, Ivana was found dead.

68

Part III (shots: 57.58 - 80.49; 2006-2007)

February 2006 Marcela’s story is shown on Czech TV. Viewers start phoning, writing and sending her money.

May 2006 Marcela is admitted to a psychiatric clinic.

August 2006 Marcela attempts suicide.

February 2007 Marcela and Tomaš move to Prague.

The duration of the first part of the film is around 27 minutes and it covers seven years of Marcela’s life. Most of this part was shot at the home of Jiří’s parents, where he lived with Marcela. Třeštíková includes conversations with Jiří’s mother and Marcela’s father in addition to conversations and conflicts of the couple. The communication does not have a linear direction, but rather it was built in a sporadicpattern, using a number of conversations, or more precisely, the communication was built and its rhythm created alongside Jiří’s and Marcela’s responses:

The second part of the film, following a chronological structure, continues after a 12-year break and focuses on Marcela’s family life, involving both of her children and her attempts to overcome existential problems in life. This part covers six years of Marcela’s life and lasts around 30 minutes. Most of the conversations are with Marcela and Ivana and later, after Ivana dies, with Marcela’s son, Tomáš. The majority of scenes were shot sequentially over a few days, (sometimes even during a couple of days as it can be recognized by the same room setting and the characters‘ visual representation), while it is clear from other scenes that there were breaks in between shots.

69

The last part of the film deals mostly with post-traumatic events. It covers the two years following the death of Marcela’s daughter. This part lasts approximately 23 minutes and is structured around Marcela’s home and the hospitals where Marcela received treatment during her crisis. Most of the communication in this part is with Marcela with some comments included from her son, Tomáš.

The overall structure of the film is comprised of the organizational plan of Marcela’s life. It also presents the organization of time, the selection and organization of the events in and connected to Marcela’s life that provide narrative and continuity. The organization of sequences determined with exact time gives an additional impression of expositional continuity and the filmmaker’s intention to perpetuate the large time-span covered in the film.

This kind of structural framework also subdivides parts of Marcela’s life into units – events. On the one hand, it presents a certain actuality that was lived in front of the camera. On the other hand, it is structured as an imported value to the representation of Marcela’s life in the image enforced by the causalities of the events and the dramatic effect they have on the overall image of the subject: wedding → financial struggle → separation → life together → divorce → life together → separation → financial struggle → death → mourning. The image of Marcela’s life was structured not only through the exact time frame, but also through the exact events which, in a structural sense, present the choice made by the filmmaker. The whole account was structured around the actual situations and was built around life circumstances along the line: marriage – existence - motherhood – divorce – motherhood – existence. However, this appears as rather a simplified version of the much bigger time span covered in the film, but it still presents the main thematic forum, which the filmmaker used to structure the overall image(s) of Marcela’s life. It is not only based on the selection of certain life events over others, but it also determines the integrity of the whole experience of Marcela’s character from the perspective of the spectator.

The structure built around the exact designated themes (life events) inscribes the overall impression of a subject’s character and life. The question remains as to what extent Marcela’s life was captured, and to what extent the image of her life was constructed by the filmmaker. Lack of insight into the overall material captured in almost three decades of Marcela’s life leave no space for discussing the process of selection of the complete materials captured by the camera. However, the selected materials still offer a solid forum for analysis. This selectiveness conveys a certain image of the social subject’s life and her character (impacted and shaped over the years by

70

life circumstances and events) and the prevalence of determinate emotions, impressions, and experiences (dominated by depression, suicidal moments and family tragedy). It shows the filmmaker’s attempt to create a particular image with clearly structured and selected events, which constitute the foundation of the narrative of the whole film.

4.2. Analysis Marcela: Spatial representation

The first space experience in the opening sequence is the train and there are also train shots in the last part of the film. In addition, there is another train shot (similar to the opening sequence) which breaks the first and the second part of the film. There are around 6 scenes shot on the train in the film. Marcela was usually shot in profile. Other settings which dominated the film include the home of Jiří’s parents, Marcela’s home and a couple of outside shots. Interior shots (Jiří’s parents home is the setting for three sequences, while Marcela’s home is the setting for about 25 sequences) are more dominant in the film than exterior shots which are usually established by camera pans of the city and country landscapes. The less dominant spatial representation is provided by the images captured in the horse barn, Marcela’s and Jiří’s workplaces, hospitals and during courtroom proceedings. Diagram according to the intensity of space organization of the most dominant spaces:

12

10

8

Train inside 6 Jiri's parents home Marcela's home 4

2

0 I part II part III part

I part of the film: Train inside (1 sequence), Jiri’s parents place (3 sequences), Marcela’s home (11 sequences) II part of the film: Train inside (2 sequence), Marcela’s home (8 sequences) III part of the film: Train inside (3 sequences), Marcela’s home (6 sequences). Estimation is calculated as the approximate number of sequences produced. 71

The highest intensity of the space in respect to rhythm and changes is present during the first part of the film. During the film’s later stages, this intensity and frequency decreases. The last part of the film almost entirely takes place inside Marcela’s home. Třeštíková shows a preference for interior shots, especially homes. This might also be related to the film cycle Manželské etudy (Marriage Stories, Helena Třeštíková, Czechoslovakia, 1987), which spurred the idea for Marcela and was mainly shot in home settings, municipalities (during wedding ceremonies) and courtrooms (during divorce procedures). The train settings help break up the film and provide a reference throughout the whole film as the film begins and ends with a train setting. The film starts and almost finishes with the shots in the train, including the second part of the film (after 12 years) which also starts in the train.

The shots in the train are usually blurry and stress the film’s monotonous and depressive atmosphere. There are not many colors either (the bland, non-colorful, monotonous interior of the train corresponds to Marcela's narration). At the very beginning of the film, the only sound heard is that of the train and rails. Marcela is captured from the side in a close-up shot; outside the window there is a blurry image of the passing landscape. The dominant colors are gray and dark green. The moment Marcela starts to talk (her first thoughts in the film), her profile is no longer particularly visible; it is almost completely hidden in shadow. The shading of Marcela's face and the whole interior around her corresponds to Marcela's narration and words, „vacuum” and „tunnel.” The setting seems to align with Marcela's mental state. The train interior is combined with blurry images of rails („dragged out of the real world”). This kind of setting also creates a feeling of isolation (the space outside is de-personalized) especially since there are no other people on the train (inside). The setting does not give any impression of the outside world, just an image dominated by the monotonous sound of the train and Marcela's narration. This is followed by a sharp switch 20 years back to Marcela's wedding day. The same train setting was used a couple more times through the film. Třeštíková uses the train to help split up the film’s timeline, however, it is hard to gauge the period when each of these scenes were shot.

The train is also connected with the death of Marcela's daughter Ivana, who was hit by a train. Třeštíková gives a meaning to the train and its spatial representation. The train can be a representation of „tunnel” and „death.” It can also show the almost complete exclusion of Marcela from the outside world. She is distancing her experience from the rest of daily life: on the train there are no other sounds besides Marcela’s barely audible, bird-like narration mixed together with the sharp sounds of the train tracks. This setting corresponds with Marcela’s take on reality 72

whose tone is set at the very beginning of the film. Even though the film continues with Marcela and Jiří's wedding ceremony, Marcela’s tone in that first train scene dominates the atmosphere of the whole film. Beginning the film with Marcela on a train in a „vacuum” is something that has to be justified in the scenes that follow. Starting the way she did, not only did she introduce a dramatic tone right away, but she also presented a lot of questions that help make the film engaging. Marcela's despairing feelings of „drowning” indisputably raise more questions for the spectator than just a wedding ceremony.

It remains unclear, for instance, where Marcela is going on the train. Is she traveling to work or going home or visiting a friend? It is hard even to estimate what time of day it is. The train scenes also reflect other scenes, but there is no apparent logical or thematic way for these scenes to blend with the others. These scenes are accompanied with Marcela’s narration. The train brings a “neurosis” element to the film, Marcela’s weak and quiet narration is often combined with the harsh sound of the train’s motor and squeals.

Marcela’s home is a modest place, used to depict her social status. It is simply furnished with a couple of small sofas and it contains a bathroom/toilet. The room, where the filming takes place, is dominated by beige and light-yellow tones; there are not many objects or paraphernalia on the shelves; the windows are covered with white crocheted curtains; on the wall there is a framed painting. The children’s room is similarly furnished. In the middle of the children’s room, there is a rope attached from one wall to another, which is used for drying clothes. The flat is usually messy, which gives the film a more natural setting.

The home of Jiří's parents, even though it is only dominant during the first part of the film, presents a significant spatial reconstruction in Jiří and Marcela's life and their marriage. This is the setting for various random conversations not only between Marcela and Jiří, but also with other members of the family including Jiří's mother; these usually take place in the kitchen, which has a basic setup. The camera captures the dialogue between Jiří's mother and Marcela about cooking; Jiří's mother is giving Marcela instructions. Jiří's mother dominates the conversation here, sometimes even answering for Jiří or Marcela. The conversation is mainly centered around children and being a parent.

Most of the scenes were shot in the dining room and kitchen area, which is the same area at the home of Jiří’s parents. Some other parts of the flat were shown (i.e. the bedroom) in order to show

73

the lack of space for such a large family and the need for a new flat. Marcela and Jiří's room was captured by a pan, showing the curtains on the windows and simple shelves where porcelain cups and small porcelain figures were displayed. In the corner of the room, there is an iron furnace. The walls are white and empty (there are no photos or paintings), except for an old massive clock. It is hard to estimate the real size since it was either shown in a pan or close-up shot; there is no wide shot of the space. At one point, Marcela says: „None of this stuff is ours. Except the glass in the cabinet.”88 In many of the shots, Marcela and Jiří are standing in front of the camera somewhere in the middle of the room.

Marcela's home dominates the whole film, whether it is her parents' home or her own flat or the move from one flat to another. Almost all the conversations with Marcela take place in her home. Not many details were shown, but it was clear that Marcela was living in poor conditions and lacked enough space. Most of the scenes (during later stages of the film) were shot in the living room, kitchen and balcony with Marcela smoking or hanging out washing to dry. For the most part, Marcela was not especially often shown engaged in ordinary domestic activities (only sporadically when cooking or washing the dishes, and mainly during the first part of the film). Later (during the rest of the film), she is mostly shot sitting at the table, smoking or drinking coffee (there was a notable practice of exclusion in showing Marcela involved in daily activities in the later stages of the film. Most of the attention is directed towards the repetitive, almost static, inside placement of Marcela).

The schematic demonstration of spatial structure can be seen in the following diagram: Train inside – outside landscape shot from the train – train inside – outside landscape shot from the train – landscape – train inside – Marcela’s home – municipality (wedding ceremony) – in front of the municipality – in the restaurant (wedding celebration) – the home of Jiří’s parents – Jiří’s workplace (factory) – the home of Jiří’s parents – Marcela’s home (at her parents’ place) – court – the home of Marcela’s parents – court - the home of Marcela’s parents – court – horse barn – summer café bar – Marcela’s new flat – children’s playground – hospital – Jiří’s workplace - Marcela’s flat – post office where Marcela works – Marcela’s flat – in the train – Marcela’s flat – bar – market – in the tram – market – city (the square) – hospital – Marcela’s flat – street – Marcela at work (shop and fast food outlet) – Ivana’s work (supermarket) – Marcela’s flat – Marcela’s work – street – Marcela’s flat – horse barn – in the train – landscape of settlement – Marcela’s flat – street – Marcela’s flat – in the train – Marcela’s flat – streets, city landscape – in the church – psychiatric clinic – horse barn - psychiatric clinic – in front of the hospital – settlement – Marcela’s flat and balcony – settlement – in the train – Marcela’s flat – in the train – in the luna park – in the truck (Marcela is moving to Prague) – settlement – Marcela in her new flat in Prague

88 Marcela (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2006), 0:03:50 – 0:03:56. 74

The schematic demonstration encompasses the overall spatial representation present in the whole film, covering all the space changes and the rhythm of those changes. It can be seen that spatially the film was structured with the domination of the most frequent spaces (home and train) organized according to the approximate ratio 1:2 or 1:3 (especially towards the end of the film). The most dominant spaces usually appear after every second or third time in the film (for instance: Marcela’s home – Marcela’s work – Marcela’s home – horse barn – in the train…).89 The rhythm of those exchanges is mostly equable and it also shows the filmmaker’s persistence in keeping the direction and in preserving the dominant theme(s) of the film as both of the core places (home and train) are a constant reminder of the dominant life events of the main subject justified not only by the structure of the film itself, but also by the filmmaker’s intention in representing a certain image and reality of Marcela’s life.

4.3. Analysis Marcela: Communication

Communication in Marcela is built around Marcela’s narration and interviews. Apart from the interviews Třeštíková conducts with Marcela, the filmmaker also speaks with Jiří, his mother and Marcela’s father (during the first part of the film), Marcela’s daughter Ivana (during the second part of the film), and Marcela’s son Tomáš (during the last part of the film). Messages left on an answering machine are also played during the last part of the film; the messages were left by Peter who was persecuting Marcela after the film was screened on TV.

Marcela’s narration occupies a total of 18 minutes90 of the film. The total length of the film is 80.50 minutes. The interviews between Třeštíková and Marcela occupy around 12 minutes of the film. Conversations between Marcela and Jiří (during the first part of the film) occupy around five minutes of the film and conversations between Marcela and her daughter Ivana take around three minutes of the film. Třeštíková directly involves the spectator with inter-titles: each sentence announces in advance what is going to happen:„1985 – Marcela has a long hospital stay”; „1987 – Jiří moves back in with Marcela. Two years later they split up for good”; „2002 – Tomaš starts

89 In Manželské etudy po dvaceti letech (Marriage Stories 20 Years Later, Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2006) spatial representation gives an impression of a more balanced inside/outside perspective. More space is given to showing Marcela’s social life (a celebration and New Year’s Eve 1999). This external perspective also leans towards Marcela and Ivana while they are looking for jobs (phone calls to different agencies, searching through various job advertisements). Třeštíková gives more space to conversations with Ivana (job/future/marriage/having a baby/relationships/divorce/her father). By contrast, more selectivity can be perceived as well as the reduction of the inside/outside perspective of Marcela (throughout social/parenthood/space) in Marcela. 90 Estimations are calculated as an approximate number of minutes that occupy the total length of the film. 75

school, where he has some problems”. Most of the people involved in conversations during the film are directly attached to Marcela. Interviews with Marcela are spread throughout the whole film. Třeštíková’s questions are usually very short, however, some interviews leave the impression that they are not finished or that more questions could be asked on the subject under discussion. For instance, after the court announced the divorce of Marcela and Jiří, there was a short conversation between Marcela and Třeštíková about divorce, and why she decided to divorce Jiří. The conversation was finished very quickly (in the final cut) and at the end, some of the information was still missing.91 The same can be said when Marcela is talking about her partner (with whom she has a son) and their separation; it leaves the impression that some information is still missing. Most of those conversations leave an impression that they were just started and finished without a clearly structured, communicational completeness. They provide certain information about divorce/marriage/the relationship, but without involving more in-depth reasons which caused, in the end, that kind of situation or emotion in Marcela’s life.

For instance, during Marcela’s narration on how she wanted to commit suicide when Ivana was still a small girl, there was no continuation of this conversation: Why did she want to kill herself at that time? What was happening in her life? Why was this sentence just left to ‘hang’ in the air? All of the conversations in the film are with Marcela and around her closest family (especially during the first part of the film). This family circle gets even more narrow during the second and the third part of the film (communication here involves only Marcela’s children, and also very sporadically). There are no other members of the family or other people involved in communication (for example, Marcela’s mother or her sister, Ivana’s boyfriend or friends, health or social workers).

During the first part of the film, the main conversations took place between Marcela, and Jiří, Marcela and her mother-in-law, and Marcela’s father; they all included the participation of the filmmaker. Most of the conversations dealt with the difficulties of finding a flat, about life in a small space with Jiří’s parents, conflicts between Marcela and Jiří, and about expecting their first baby. These conversations also include two Court procedures shown in the film, one of them

91In Manželské etudy - Marcela a Jiří (Marriage Stories - Marcela and Jiří, Helena Třeštíková, Czechoslovakia, 1987), both of the spouses were given more space to explain themselves and talk about their misunderstandings and differences. This also includes more conversations with Jiří’s mother and both of Marcela’s parents. This will change in Marcela where Jiří appears only once (very briefly) in the whole film; Jiří’s mother and Marcela’s father appear only very briefly too. Most of the communication with Marcela’s mother and other conversations related to the crisis in their marriage, which were involved and presented within the communication in Manželské etudy - Marcela a Jiří (1987), were excluded in Marcela. 76

during the divorce, and the other one when the court grants Jiří access rights to see his daughter, according to an agreement that stipulated visits must be at priory scheduled times.

In the second part of the film, Třeštíková is mainly focused on the conversations with Marcela, and some shorter conversations with Ivana. Later, conversations with Marcela and Ivana are more related to questions about their dreams and what they want from life. Ivana’s narration expresses how she would love to have a daughter and son, a dog and cat, her own small house and enjoy life. Television footage shown during this part is mostly associated with larger, more important events such as the opening of the Olympic Games or the Czech Republic entering the European Union. There is also a moderate amount of conversation during Marcela and Ivana’s search for employment. This was not presented in the form of interviews, but rather the director was following them with the camera, randomly shooting scenes in phone-booths, streets or their home. This section finishes with an inter-title stating that Ivana did not return home from work.

The information about Ivana’s death was communicated during Marcela’s telephone conversation with one of her friends. Marcela is recounting how the police informed her about the whole accident; she is crying; there is another scene of Marcela talking about Ivana (who was considered missing at that time) in which she proceeds to give information about the investigation and what happened to Ivana the moment she left her work on the evening of her disappearance. The dominant element is one of suspense; the spectator still does not know what really happened and Třeštíková really sustains this feeling of suspense. Following that, there is a fade-out and then Marcela is shown talking on the phone: „Misha, hi. It’s Marcela. Yes, hello...Listen Michael...Ivana is dead. Yes. Just so that you know. Yesterday the police were here. She was found by the railway line...so she probably got hit by a train.”92 Marcela is captured in this instance with a close shot, her face and tears clearly visible while she is talking. The camera continues to keep a close focus on Marcela’s face and hands (going back and forth between them).93

During the scene in the church with the urn containing Ivana’s ashes, Marcela passes out while placing the urn in a special repository. The scene starts with a close shot of Ivana’s urn (focusing

92 Marcela (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2006), 0:53:28 – 0:53:46. 93 In Manželské etudy po dvaceti letech (Marriage Stories 20 Years Later, Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2006), there is a notable usage of close-up shots of Marcela’s face while talking about Ivana’s death andmore close–ups of her face while crying (56.54 – 57.02, 60.13 – 60.20, 60.24 – 60.52). In contrast, more distance remains in Marcela (2006) during these moments (less close-up shots of her face and more cutting within the sequence combined with details other than Marcela’s face). 77

on her name and the years of her birth and death), then another close shot of Ivana’s framed photo, followed by Marcela putting the photo in the repository next to the urn. The whole place is dark and some parts are visible only in sporadical fragments. While Marcela lights the candle, she faints, falling to the ground.94 After around 10 seconds, there is a sharp cut to the next scene, where Třeštíková is in front of the camera helping Marcela to stand up from the concrete floor of the chapel on which she is lying. This was the first (and the only) time during the whole film that Třeštíková exposed herself in front of the camera. Clearly, this was one of the climax scenes in the film (apart from the scene which announces Ivana’s death).

Subsequent to this scene, Marcela was hospitalized in a psychiatric clinic, but conversations with her in this setting are usually short and do not develop further. During her stay in the clinic it was not clear what the diagnosis was nor the treatment she received there. Moreover, there were no conversations with any medical professionals connected to the psychiatric clinic. Towards the very end of the film, a voice from an answering phone was used several times. The voice is identified as belonging to Peter, the man who was persecuting Marcela after watching the film about her. Later, the tone of his voice and the words become more aggressive as he accuses Marcela of being relieved to get rid of her daughter.

Macro structure of the communication in the film, and the intensity in distribution of narration, interviews, and inter-titles:

I part of the film II part of the film III part of the film shots: 0.02 - 27.33, 1980 – 1987 shots: 27.34 – 57.57, 1999 – 2005 shots: 57.58 – 80.49, 2006 – 2007

February 2006 – Marcela’s story is shown on television. Viewers start calling, writing, and sending her Marcela’s narration 12 years later money.

1999 – Marcela has a second child. Marcela is talking She does not live with his father Marcela’s narration

12th December 1980 – Marcela and Jiří are married in Prague Old Town Hall Marcela is talking Marcela’s narration

Minister's voice during the wedding ceremony Marcela is talking Tomáš is talking

One of the guests gives a toast during May 2006 – Marcela is admitted to the wedding celebration Marcela’s narration a psychiatric clinic

94 Marcela (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2006), 0:62:08 - 0:62:47. 78

Short conversation between Marcela and Jiří when they are breaking a plate (during the wedding ceremony). Marcela’s narration Marcela is talking

Conversation between Marcela and Jiří Marcela and Ivana are talking Voice from the phone (Peter)

2000 – Marcela has had an Jiří’s mother is talking operation Marcela is talking

July 1981 – Marcela and Jirka are expecting a baby Marcela is talking Voice from the phone (Peter)

Conversation between Marcela and Conversation with Marcela and her mother-in-law Ivana Marcela is talking

Treštikova briefly interviews Jiří, Ivana is calling different ads and Marcela and Jiří’s mother looking for a job Voice from the phone (Peter)

Marcela and Jiří are talking Marcela is talking Marcela is talking

Ivana is calling different ads and Short interview between Conflict between Marcela and Jiří looking for a job Treštikova and Marcela

November 1981 – Shortly after the birth of her daughter, Marcela leaves 2002 – Tomáš starts school, where Jiří and goes back to her parents he has some problems Marcela is talking Marcela is talking Marcela is talking Voice from the phone (Peter)

Marcela’s father is talking Marcela and Ivana are talking Marcela is talking

2003 – Marcela and Ivana have August 2006 – Marcela attempts Marcela is talking both found work suicide

Marcela’s father is talking Marcela is talking Marcela is talking

The court grants Marcela and Jiří divorce Ivana’s narration Marcela’s narration

February 2007 – Marcela and Marcela is talking TV footage (CZ entering the EU) Tomaš move to Prague Jiří is talking Marcela’s narration Marcela is talking

Marcela is reading ad she wrote, Conversation between Marcela Conflict between Marcela and Jiří where she looks for some man and handy-man

The judge is reading the final Court verdict Ivana is talking TV footage/radio voice Jiří’s mother is talking Marcela is talking

Marcela is talking Marcela’a narration

79

Conversation between Marcela and worker from social institution Ivana is talking

Marcela is talking Ivana’s narration Jiří is talking Marcela’s narration

2004: Marcela’s landlord offers her another flat in Česky Brod. Marcela The judge is reading the final Court and Ivana commute to work in verdict Prague. Marcela is talking Marcela’s narration

Marcela is reading ad she wrote, 17th November 2005 – Ivana does where she looks for some man not return home from work Marcela is talking

1983 – After three years’ wait, Marcela is finally allocated an apartment Marcela’s narration Marcela is talking 14th December 2005

Footage from TV (Olympic Games) Marcela is talking on the phone Marcela is talking Marcela is talking

Footage from TV (Olympic games) Interview with Marcela Marcela is talking

1985 – Marcela has a long hospital stay Jiří is talking TV footage

1986 – Marcela starts to work at the Post Office Marcela’s narration

Conversation between Jiří and Marcela

1987 – Jiří moves back in with Marcela. Two years later, they split up for good

Some major parts of the narration and interviews will be presented here.

4.3.1. Marcela’s narration

The film starts with Marcela’s narration:„It’s like being in a vacuum. I felt as if I’d stopped breathing. I didn’t want anyone to help me. I felt as if I was in a kind of tunnel, being dragged along…dragged out of the real world. Until there’s nothing left, just a sort of emptiness. Then I saw my whole life flashing by, like in a film. Absolutely everything, from my earliest childhood 80

memories.”95 This is the very beginning of the film; this was Marcela’s first thought presented in the film. It is difficult to relate it to anything specific; it does not represent a concrete situation nor does it relate to a concrete experience, but rather, it introduces the spectator to Marcela’s emotional state at that period of time and additionally, it certainly announces the drama that was going to unfold. The opening was strategically executed by Třeštíková to set the tone and create interest in the story. Marcela is not talking directly to the camera, but instead her narration is used with the scene placed in the train.

Some narrations, especially the ones where Marcela talks about what she thinks or feels, give the impression of being incomplete as if there were more to say on the subject. Why did Třeštíková use these particular parts of narrations in the film, but never follow up on what was said? One can easily see Marcela as an unhappy person, who wants to end her life:„I mean, why are we here? What’s the point in living? Life must have some purpose… maybe to simply bring up a child…I often think it might be better to take a bit of rope and end it all. Sometimes I think about it. But I’d never do it, for Ivana’s sake.”96 „Around 1985, when Ivana was little and I was ill, I used to often think:,To hell with everything. I’m going to jump in front of a train.’ Well I didn’t, of course. I’ve grown out of all that now.”97 Was she ever happy about expecting a baby or motherhood or finding a new flat or job? These questions are never fully explored. Or was a certain depressive side of her character used to consistently generate dramatic effect in the film? Why does she think the way she thinks? Why does she not feel content in the end?

The narration is thematically organized around emotional states such as happiness/unhappiness, thoughts about life/thoughts about death as well as feedback from television viewers as an additional engine to show the filmmaker’s role in the subject’s life. For example, when Marcela reacts to the attention her story gets from the public after the screening of the film about her life on television and she receives a number of letters from viewers:„I keep getting letters, support. … People have been wonderful. Everyone wishes me good luck, which is a nice feeling. But right now I can’t cope with it.”98

Třeštíková considered these responses important; she clearly announced in the film that after Marcela was screened on television, viewers started calling, writing and sending Marcela money,

95 Marcela (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2006), 0:20 - 0:01:09. 96 Marcela (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2006), 0:24:30 – 0:24:58. 97 Marcela (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2006), 0:33:16 – 0:33:30. 98 Marcela (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2006), 0:58:07 – 0:58:23. 81

which enabled her to move to another flat. However, none of these letters were presented in the film; the only representation from a television viewer made its appearance in the form of an answering machine on which were left messages by a man named Peter, who at one moment, started to verbally abuse, and then obsessively stalk Marcela. Around six of his phone messages were revealed in the film:„I love you. So don’t give me the fucking answering machine. Talk to me in person. Wouldn’t that be better? You’ve screwed everything up. Why? Because you’re selfish. And your son has to pay the price. When I see Mrs. Sehnal, I’ll send her over to carry out a spot check. You never mourned Ivana. You never shed a single tear for her. I believe you were glad to be rid of her. I can’t imagine you jumping out the window or bashing your brains out. What a stupid bloody charade! The only one you love is yourself. Now at least have the guts to call me back, damn you.”99 It is not made clear why such an amount of space is given to Peter’s messages in the film.

The narration in the film is performed by Marcela’s voice and it functions to: impart a predetermination as to the dominant tone in the film, mark the passing of time and reflect on personal constraints caused by particular life events. Additionally, it implicates a flow of events in the film, pertinent for justifying the main thematic plain. Moreover, it offers space in which the spectator can perceive thoughts, emotions and behavior and subsequently assign meaning to them. The content of the narration and the usage of Marcela’s voice in the background are attached to the main thematical structuring. She never talks about themes other than divorce, separation and financial struggle. The fullness of these thematic lines sustained almost to the point of exhaustion serves as a propeller for preserving the dynamics and tone of the film as a whole.

4.3.2. Interviews

The majority of conversations between Marcela and her husband Jiří deal with minor and, at times, more serious conflicts between the couple. During these conversations they barely look at each other, but rather, they look directly into the camera. It is, however, notable that conversations between the spouses could be provoked by questions asked by the filmmaker: Marcela:„I can’t stand the way he comes in, changes out of his work clothes, then leaves his stuff lying around. He always chucks it down there.” Jiří:„I left an envelope on the fridge.” Marcela:„I tell him to tidy, put it away, and he says, ‘It’s fine where it is.’ And I say, ‘You won’t

99 Marcela (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2006), 1:08:09 – 1:08:53. 82

let me put my bag there, so put it away.’ He doesn’t let me put my things there either.” Jiří:„I have to take that envelope to work tomorrow.” Marcela:„Then put it with the rest of your stuff. Put it in your wallet.” Jiří:„You couldn’t even see the envelope there.” Marcela:„But if I leave anything there, that bothers you, right?” Jiří:„Not anything. Your bag.” Marcela:„And my keys?” Jiří:„There are hooks over there.”100

During their period of separation, there are no conversations with Jiří about what happened between him and Marcela. Some of the questions Třeštíková asked in Marcela will also be asked in René and Katka. As a filmmaker, she has a tendency to use similar setup questions: Marcela:„My greatest wish? A flat. Just a little place to live. And a nice guy to go out with . Someone kind, who’d love us.”101 Třeštíková:„What do you dream about?” Marcela:„Me? A new flat. The Landlord keeps saying he’ll find me one. This place is a disaster. He promised to find one before summer.”102

Among the first conversations in the second part of the film (after a 12-year break): Třeštíková:„Why does Ivana never see Jiří?” Marcela:„I … I’d rather not talk about it. He hurt her. … She doesn’t want to.” Třeštíková:„Can’t you tell me why?” Marcela:„We never really found out. Let’s say it was sexual abuse. She was quite young at the time, staying at their summer cottage. We never really found out what happened. … He was never charged. Ivana’s had problems ever since. Lots of problems.”103 Investigation of this issue was never extended beyond this short interaction in the film.104 This conversation is never revisited

100 Marcela (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2006), 0:07:10 – 0:07:56. 101 Marcela (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2006), 0:16:32 – 0:16:47. 102 Marcela (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2006), 0:48:49 – 0:49:02. 103 Marcela (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2006), 0:28:14 – 0:28:54. 104 In Manželské etudy po dvaceti letech (Marriage Stories 20 Years Later, Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2006) at the beginning of the film which opens with a conversation between Marcela and Třeštíková about Marcela’s life after being separated from the father of her son, Tomáš, conversations divert towards Marcela’s opening about Ivana and why she never sees Jiří revealing her suspicions that Ivana was sexually abused by her father. The conversation never continues again in the film but in the rolling title Třeštíková provides additional information about the case: „Advocate of Jiří Haverland provided this information to the Czech Television in July, 2008: SNB, department of investigation VB Prague 9, resolved from 10.11.1989 prosecution against Jiří Haverland investigator according to the law § 172 a) 83

during the rest of the film. Even though interviews additionally animate the interaction between Marcela and Třeštíková, they raise questions regarding the distribution of information and the ambiguity in the relationship between the filmmaker and social subject. How is the conversation about sexual abuse handled? Why was this conversation preserved in the film when the issue was not further explored?

There is a predominant use of the present tense in most of the interviews (except in the conversation about sexual abuse because it also relates to an event that happened in the past, but at the same time is strongly connected to the current emotional state of the subject). The conversation about sexual abuse is interlaced with conversations about Marcela's separation from her partner, the father of her son Tomáš). The distribution of information through interviews (even conversations between the subjects Marcela and Jiří, Marcela and Ivana are more present than interviews between the filmmaker and subject) serves to unfold not only life events, but also particular sides of Marcela’s character, dominated by the thematic plain of the film.

4.4. Analysis Marcela: Camera shots

Marcela is shown primarily in medium and close-up shots; she is present in about 200 shots105 in the film altogether. Most of these shots show Marcela with other people, usually members of her family (Jiří, and her children). Out of these shots, 151 are medium shots of Marcela: on the train, at her wedding ceremony, with her baby, with other members of her family, on the balcony, or cleaning her flat. The close-up shots of Marcela are presented in about 125 scenes; the camera usually focuses on her face, hands, legs or her cigarettes. In most of the scenes, it is clear the camera is hand-held; this can be deduced from the small shakes in the footage. Long shots of Marcela constitute the type of shot that is least used in the film with a total of just 29 of this type of shot. The long shots are generally reserved for group scenes: during the wedding ceremony, in front of the municipality building, in the kitchen at the home of Jiří’s parents, in court and on the

criminal procedure stopped because act did not happen. Investigator SNB after extensive evaluation of evidence concluded that undoubtedly act did not happen for which prosecution leads”(„Právní zástupce Jiřího Haverlanda česke televizi v červenci 2008 poskytl tyto informace: SNB, oddělení vyšetřováni VB Praha 9, usnesenim z 10.11.1989 trestni stíhání proti Jiřímu Haverlandovi vyšetrovatelem dle ustanoveni § 172 odst. 1 pism. a) trestniho řádu zastavila s tim, ž ke skutku nedošlo. Vyšetrovatel SNB po zhodnocení obsáhlého dokazovaní dospel k záveru, že je nepochybně, že se nestal skutek, pro který se trestní stíhání vede” 2.23 – 3.43). Additionally, in Manželské etudy po dvaceti letech (Marriage Stories 20 Years Later, 2006) Marcela talks more about this as well as about that period of Ivana’s life, about the time she went to the psychologist, and similar. In Marcela (2006), there is no such information provided, conversations about sexual abuse were given a little space and cut very briefly. However, this question and the whole subject around it remain hang ing in the air for the rest of the film. 105 Estimations are calculated as an approximate number of shots. 84

streets.

Třeštíková also uses a large number of close-up shots of other people including: the minister during the wedding ceremony, Jiří, baby Ivana, Marcela’s father, Marcela’s son Tomáš, Marcela’s daughter Ivana, the urn containing Ivana’s ashes. A total of around 80 - 85 close-up shots are used to show faces of other people. Medium shots are used during similar scenes namely: the wedding ceremony, Jiří’s mother in the kitchen, horse racing, horses neighing, the hospital and at a country music festival. Long shots are again the least used (about 29 shots), typically utilized in revealing outside surroundings: natural landscapes, city landscapes, and suburbs.

The camera sometimes serves to isolate the subject from the outside world (i.e. blurry images of the outside surroundings captured from the train window). The more the film progresses towards the end/closing stages/ the more the sense of isolation is notable (especially after the death of Marcela’s daughter). A growing sense of isolation dominates both the inside and outside space. Not only does the camera separate Marcela from the outside world by placing her alone (inside/outside), thus increasing the sense of her loneliness, but in some way the whole setting engages in fulfilling the impression that there is only Marcela and the cameraman in the outside surroundings and even inside as can be seen below: slow pan of long line of a block of flats, deserted city landscape, interior/exterior of the psychiatric clinic.

The following charts present the intensity and rhythm of the most dominant shots and the exchange and rotation of them throughout each part of the film:

85

Close-up and medium shots dominate the film; they almost equally rotate with close-up shots dominating the last part of the film.

According to the charts, the first part of the film is dominated by medium shots of Marcela, while close shots rarely appear. In this part of the film, Marcela’s life was predominantly structured around her wedding and marriage, involving conflicts, but also other members of the family in the communicational circle. The filmmaker allows more distance during the first part of the film as other dramatic life events occupy the film space (existential struggle, separation and divorce). During the second part of the film, the camera’s attention is aimed mainly towards Marcela with close shots of her which dominate the screen, followed by close shots and other-sized shots of the environment and people (mostly children) around her. Here the distance between the filmmaker and the social subject has diminished compared to the first part. This second part, as the climax of the film, is structured around more intensely dramatic events and the filmmaker reacts by moving closer to the subject, approaching more of Marcela’s face or other details as well as parts of her body. Obviously, the camera wanted to absorb most of the emotional experience happening in the subject’s life but also to proceed hand-in-hand to the culmination of the overall story: there are no complex setups which involve rapid changes of the camera angles. Furthermore, the sense of isolation of the social subject from the outside world is presented most accurately in this part of the film. In the third and last part of the film, close and medium shots of Marcela alternate almost equally. The presence of the filmmaker leaves a rather neutral impression conveying a certain detachment compared to the previous (second) part. Even though the communication between the filmmaker and the social subject is still present, the camera is rather endeavoring to bring a balance to the portrayal of the post-tragedy period.

86

4.5. Analysis Marcela: Editing

In structuring the story and sequences, Třeštíková usually chooses to start with the sequence which was shot not only at that present moment in time, but also that which in the film relates to some of the climactic moments. Marcela starts with a black background (the name of the filmmaker and the film title are announced during that time) followed by the sound of the train in motion. Soon after that, there is a quick shot of landscape (shot from the train) and finally Marcela, sitting on the train, captured in profile. Marcela's narration is mixed with train tracks, then blurry landscape again, and next returns to Marcela. The changes of shots gives a certain dynamic to the whole sequence), and are usually short (the approximate duration of one shot used in editing is 2-4 seconds). The whole opening sequence refers to the period when Marcela grieves after the death of her daughter. After the first sequence, the film continues with Marcela's life, however, chronologically it travels back to the past starting from the very beginning of the film story, her wedding day.

The sequencing of material in Marcela generally proceeds in a linear direction: there are no jumps from one part of her life to another or going back to a previous part of her life; everything is edited in chronological order until the very end. Chronological in this context means the chronological following of life events. However, sequences are structured differently, usually cut and inter-edited, for example, the sequence of the wedding ceremony is inter-edited with Marcela talking directly to the camera, communicating how she feels about getting married, the relationship and marriage in general.

With graphics, namely inter-titles, Třeštíková breaks Marcela into thematic and chronological parts; the sequencing is determined by time and narrative (thematic) units. In general, editorial interventions are present in most of the film and on the whole, this is made evident by the cutting and arranging of shots within particular sequences. For instance, the approach to editing during conversations between the couple can be illustrated with the sequence, which shows a conversation between Marcela and Jiří at his parents’ home. The sequence is cut throughout with details of their room: the window, tv, shelves, parts of furniture and similar items along with conversation of Marcela and Jiří (they are both in the same shot looking directly to the front of the camera):

87

Scenes at home also went under intra-scene editing combined with outside shots, for example, Marcela with a horse, then back home to the the same scene. The sequence with the court scene during the divorce procedure alternates with: short conversations with Marcela and Jiří, the court building shot from the outside, life at home, then the court again (reading of the final veridict), close shots of both – Marcela and Jiří, court again and so on. The scene, which includes Marcela's

88

narration in the background during the time when Ivana did not return home after work, shows Marcela going somewhere but it is not clear where she is going or if she is just walking around, or if the shot was just used to cover Marcela's narration.106 During the conflict scenes between Marcela and Jiří,107 closer shots moving from one person to another are used. Those scenes are intra-edited with details such as hands, cigarette, ashtray etc. Closer shots and details selected when editing present one of the ways to create a stronger connection between the characters and the spectator.

Some of the longest scenes, left in the film almost without any cutting, or very little intra-editing within sequences, are: Marcela with a horse;108 close shot of Marcela when revealing her suspicion that Ivana, her daughter, was sexually abused by her father (it can be noticed that Marcela is nervous during this conversation, she keeps touching her ear nervously);109 when Marcela is talking on the phone informing friends that Ivana has been found dead;110 while Tomáš is recounting the dream he had about Ivana;111 when Marcela fainted in the chapel (even though it is perceivable intra-scene editing combined with Ivana's photo, and the urn, it still presents one of the longest sequences where minimal cutting was done); when Marcela attempts suicide (announced in the inter-title), the sequence is cut with close shots of her hand and cigarette, her legs and the dog under the table.112

The editing pattern repeats during the film in the sequencing of material: conflicts are usually combined with closer shots of the face or items in the room, or other indoor or outdoor scenes (home scenes during cooking or with the baby combined with items in the bedroom). The first part of the film is shot using black-and-white techniques, the second and third part in color, due to the large time-span over which the film was made. In the second part of the documentary, Třeštíková allows her voice to remain in the film (her voice appears for the first time); she can be heard asking questions:„Why does Ivana never see Jiří? Can't you tell me why?”113 Apparently, Třeštíková wanted to emphasize this situation even though she never returns to this conversation until the end of the film. Most of the time the hand-held camera gives an impression of constant

106 Marcela (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2006), 0:52:50 - 0:53:21. 107 Marcela (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2006), 0:07.10 – 0:08.10. 108 Marcela (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2006), 0:04:48 – 0:05:13. 109 Marcela (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2006), 0:28:15 – 0:28:53. 110 Marcela (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2006), 0:53:28 – 0:53:52. 111 Marcela (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2006), 0:59:29 – 1:09:00. 112 Marcela (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2006), 1:10:15 – 1:11:03. 113 Marcela (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2006), 0:28:14 – 0:28:27. 89

movement within the scene. Třeštíková's closes the final sequence with a similar shot as in the opening scene at the beginning of the film. In the train, this time Marcela is with her son. The sequence is intra-edited with details: train tracks, Marcela's eyes, and the landscape. It is hard to anticipate the time when the shot was taken in the chronology of the film, which is the case in most of the sequences which were cut and alternated with other scenes.

Editorial intervention is present during the editing process, and in those sequences where the filmmaker wanted to intensify dramatic effect, the scenes were intervened with by cutting or more rapid editing in order to stress certain emotions and/or conditions. Likewise, the less intervened scenes during the editing proces (arranged with a smaller number of details) overtake the communication. Those sequences were left to the specator to grasp them fully. It is evident that the filmmaker wanted to share the overall dramatic effect as much as possible and that any additional editorial intervention could divert the attention of the spectator: this can be seen particularly in the longer conversation concerning sexual abuse, or the scene in the chapel, or other similar scenes left almost uncut.

90

Chapter Five: Analysis René

5.1. Analysis René: Structure of René

The film’s opening shot is a close-up of René’s hand, which is writing a letter. A close-up shot of the letter shows the words, „Milá Heleno ...” Following that, there is a close-up shot of René’s face, which disrupted with a shot of jail bars. The next shot is of a railway station in the city of Jičin; René is smoking while waiting for the train and he does not speak in this shot. Shortly afterwards, music is introduced and it mixes with the sound of an oncoming train. The camera is mostly focused on René’s face.114

The period of time showing René in correctional institutions and prisons is enhanced with news inserts from television. They include headlines such as:„President Gustav Husak today met the Mongolian Foreign Minister.”115 There are also excerpts from the speeches of Václav Havel:„Up until August 21 this year, I was saying the time was not yet ripe for putting all our hearts and souls into the struggle. Today I believe that time has come.”116 „I solemnly swear to be loyal to the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic.”117

René is structured in chronological order, starting from the early days the subject spent in correctional institutions to his efforts to recover and make a stable life for himself. The film documents his return to different prisons for minor criminal acts. Třeštíková builds the story around letters exchanged between her and René as well as sporadic interviews with René. The communication between Třeštíková and René flows towards the spectator in the following way:

114 René was arrested for the first time for a minor robbery in 1987. He was sentenced to two-and-a-half years in a correctional institution in České Budějovice. He was 16 years old. This is the very beginning of the film. For the next 20 years Třeštíková will follow his life. 115 René (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2008), 0:03:19 – 0:03:23. 116 René (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2008), 0:05:56 – 0:06:18. 117 René (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2008), 0:07:31 – 0:07:41. 91

The interviews, letters and René’s narration dominate the communication of the whole film. René responds to letters written by Třeštíková, which are integrated into the film’s narrative. The letters exchanged between René and Třeštíková lay out the chronological order of the story.

In general, René was structured around the following units (all of them are sub-divided according to the timeline, context and theme):

Part I (shots: 0.01 – 30.02; 1989 -1993)

September 1989 Libkovice Juvenile Detention Centre

October 1989 Bory Prison, Pilsen

May 1990

June 1990

March 1991

April 1991 Horni Slavkov Prison

August 1992 René is released from prison

Autumn 1992 René robs several flats, one of them is Helena Třeštíková’s

Part II (shots: 30.03 – 55.03, 1993 – 2002)

January 1993

February 1993 Valdice Prison

December 1995

January 1998

October 1998 René’s first book comes out

January 2000 René’s mother has remarried and moved to Germany. His brother Daniel is a security guard at Temelin Nuclear Power Station.

August 2000 René has trouble with his eyes and is sent to Pankrac Military Hospital, Prague

September 2001

April 2002 René’s girlfriend Eva dies

92

Part III (shots: 55.04. – 82.20, 2002 – 2008)

September 2002

October 2002

March 2003

December 2004 René starts a business

March 2005

December 2006

April 2007 René becomes President

June 2007

July 2007 René is due to hand over the film he has shot and return the handycam

René never returned the camera or handed over the film he’d shot.

March 2008 René sends Helena a message saying he no longer has the handycam and only used it to make porn movies.

The structure of René presents the pathos of his life organised with inter-titles announcing exact time frames and sometimes heralding events in René’s life. The events presented were part of the selection process made by the filmmaker who chooses them in order to create not only a certain narrative order, but also to establish continuity and the overall tone of the film. Time continuity given by the exactly organized units demonstrates the large time-span in the film.

Each of the thematic units presented in the film (and subdivided by inter-titles) assists in organizing the events throughout the twenty years of the subject’s life. These events represent a lived reality integrated into the film structure as the process of representation generating and producing the image of the subject’s life. The image of René’s life therefore is organized along accurately structured and defined frames, based on the time-line and events.

The filmmaker makes this selection a part of the process of repesentation. It can be easily perecived that the overall image of the subject’s life is woven around the following events: prison – freedom – existence – prison – freedom. There is not much space for experiencing other circumstances in such a given schematical structure. The selection of certain events, and the persistence in representing them, determines the overall experience of René’s life and his

93

character. The whole schematic structure of the film represents the main thematic plain, which creates and builds the image of the subject; the spectator’s experience of the subject is built upon on this plain.

The question remains regarding the constructed image of the subject’s life by the filmmaker: What kind of René does the filmmaker want to represent through this final image? And who is the real René, in the real lived world, outside of that represented film image, untarnished by any representational process? Certainly, the image created by the filmmaker is the dominant experience given to the spectator, shaped by the subject’s life events, his character formed owing to those life circumstances.

In such a given and offered thematic structure dominated by life experiences around prisons and existential struggle, very little room was left to experience different emotions or a different perception of the social subject than those noted previously.

This way of imaging creates a clear pathway not only of the existential struggle, but also a repetitive cycle of the events, which, in the end, convey and import dominant impressions and emotions provided by such structural engagement used in the film: apathy, dejection and the nearly complete isolation of the social subject from the outside world.

5.2. Analysis René: Spatial representation

The settings which dominate the film include correctional institutions and prisons, railway stations and various scenes shot outside the prison walls. A total of 60 scenes118 in the prison were included in the final cut, while 9 scenes took place at railway stations and a total of 34 scenes were shot outside of prison (those scenes were structured in different spatial environments that were dominated by city landscapes and close-up shots of René’s face).

Apart from that, of less dominance is the spatial representation at René’s family home; structured around a total of seven scenes, all of them were shown during the first half of the film.

118Estimation is calculated as an approximate number of scenes taken. 94

Diagram showing the intensity of space organization:

Spatial dominance

prison outside of prison family home

The space organization is illustrated here by the most frequent spatial representations in the film. The setting is organized to show his social status at the time. Třeštíková gives precedence to the shots from the jail. Correctional institutions and prisons show the social context of René’s everyday life; these shots also present claustrophobic, grey surroundings. Most of the jail shots are combined with René’s narrations, where he either talks about his life or reads his letters. The footage also captures various landscapes and shifts in different political periods. Music underlines subdivisions and inter-titles, which announce the units in the film (there is one music line which repeats in the film). The prisons give a more interior perspective than any other setting in the film; the shots include the organization of rooms inside the prison, a common room for prisoners, various courtyards, food, TV, ashtrays and other items. The settings in prison also serve as the location for staged actions as an amplification of the relationship between René and Třeštíková (most of the scenes are repetitive in manner showing René while writing letters to Třeštíková or while working on fragments of his book, in the presence of Třeštíková):

The family home has more light than other spatial representations. It is more lightened in the

95

background with several moments between René and his mother (during the conversation between the mother and the filmmaker), but not much is revealed about René’s life here. All the footage was either shot in the kitchen or the living room; conversations with René’s mother were shot in the kitchen. During conversations, René’s mother usually sits at the table. At the back of the room, where she usually sits, there is a messy working table, which gives the kitchen a natural setting. In one of the scenes, she talks while in the middle of cooking.

René’s (alternative) home, on the other hand, leaves a completely different impression. The camera focuses on details: dirty, broken shelves, empty packages and cans, dirty, empty pots, old pieces of bread. The footage is sometimes dark, and it is hard to recognize all of the objects in the flat. During conversations, René stands in front of the camera. Behind his back is a window, but without a window sill, and the walls are also fairly damaged. On the opposite side of the room, there is a frowsy bed covered with lumpy blankets. Above the bed, there is a wall covered with paper cartoons. Near the bed is a table covered with a tablecloth; two pieces of bread are sitting on the table. The scene outside the window is of a snowy, gray and cold landscape. The whole setting gives a feeling of isolation. There are no other houses seen outside the window. The isolation is also amplified by the film’s main theme music.

There is not much intimacy shown in René’s family home. René does not have a room there (or the room was excluded from the spatial representation), nor are there books or music he likes. The filmmaker pays more attention to René’s alternative home, a ruined house he is supposed to fix once he gets money. The camera focuses on such items as a broken window and dirty sofa. The home is a complete mess. Třeštíková makes sure to stress his poor living environment. She exposes the family home in just a few shots, but much more attention is given to the cold deserted place where René escaped to from his mother’s home.

The footage of railway stations is used to break up the film in several places. Almost each time René is released from prison, Třeštíková uses the same setting: she places René in a railway station. It gives the impression that Třeštíková dramatizes the scenario in advance with a predictive repetitiveness of the same settings, which could create an impression that René cannot be reformed. Even when he is outside, there is not much interaction between René and other people. Inter-titles inform the spectator of the passing years. There is no other indication that life is moving forward either for René or the outside world (apart from several shots from television shows and news), shown more sporadically, and very often with just the voice-over of the

96

television commentator in the background. Had years and certain dates not been represented by inter-titles, there would be no impression of the outside world nor that anything else is happening, any other reality, besides the one lived within the walls of prisons.

The railway stations represent a certain state of impotence on the part of the subject, that he can neither escape reality or significantly change his life; he is always moving, but invariably he keeps back-tracking. Sometimes it is difficult to ascertain if René is just posing in the railway stations or if he is actually waiting for a train: it presents the possibility of a staged action), especially as he is usually there without any luggage. There are also very few people seen milling around the stations. Was this setting created intentionally to emphasize René’s loner character or was it used to contribute to René’s feeling of being disconnected from the rest of the world? The scenes shot at the train stations also sometimes give the impression that they do not follow a story pattern (former and coming sequences), but they rather serve as staged actions.

The schematic demonstration of the spatial structure is represented in the following diagram:

Railway – prison (České Budějovice, 1987) – army school – prison (Libkovice, 1989) - city landscape – prison (Plzeň–Bory, 1989) - city landscape – family home - René’s new (borrowed) decrepit small house – city landscape – municipality police - René’s new (borrowed) decrepit small house - family home - prison (České Budějovice, 1990) – family home - prison (České Budějovice, 1990) – family home - prison (České Budějovice, 1990) – municipality police – court – family home – court – René is leaving prison in Ceske Budejovice – prison (Horni Slavkov, 1991) – prison (Horni Slavkov, 1991) – city landscape – prison (Valdice, 1993) – landscape shot from the train - prison (Valdice, 1993) - prison (Valdice, 1993) - René is leaving Valdice prison – René in cafe with Helena – city landscape – René in the hospital – prison (Pankrác, 2002) – city landscape – railway station – René in cafe with his girlfriend Katarína - city landscape – prison (Pankrác, 2003) – prison (Pankrác, 2003) – court – prison (Pankrác, 2003) – city landscape – prison (2005) –photo shoot of René – Railway Station, Jičin – riding on the train – landscapes combined with René watching from the train – René in a bar (conflict with Helena)

Inside space Outside space Prison Railway station Family home City landscape Abandoned, ruined house Nature landscape Court and Municipality police

97

The film’s inside space is structured around police station apparatus, prisons and ruined homes. The outside space is shown in glances and always accompanied by the same music and René’s narrations.

The schematic demonstration of the space illustrates the overall representation of the space throughout the whole film. Spatially, the film was structured around the most dominant lanes (prisons, and outside of prison with the dominance of railway stations, and partially of city landscapes), and those areas alternate at an approximate ratio of 1:2, or very rarely 1:3, sometimes even 1:4/5. On the scale of appearances, the prison comprises almost every second time-period in the film. The spatial representation in the film suffocates any sense of freedom of the social subject. Such spatial rhythm usually changes together with the periods outside the prison, but the filmmaker still keeps a tight grip on the rhythm in that the dominant spatial representation does not lead elsewhere (Prison Pankrác 2002 – city landscape – railway station – René in cafe with his girlfriend Katarína - city landscape – Prison Pankrác 2003).

5.3. Analysis René: Communication

Communication in René is organized around:

 René’s narration  letters read by René, which are also part of Rene’s narrations  interviews carried out by Třeštíková.

The other less dominant means of communication are extracts of texts from René’s books, Deník zapomenutého (Diary of a Forgotten Man) and Běžec na trati K… (Runner on the Track to...) as well as conversations with other people from René’s life: his mother, social workers, local policemen, René’s brother and René’s girlfriend, Katarína.

René’s commentary, letters, and interviews represent the central part of not only the communication, but they are one of the main elements used to show the subject in the film and convey the story. Around 50 minutes119 of the film is taken up by the reading of letters, René’s commentary and interviews; the total length of the film is 83 minutes. Třeštíková uses the letters and René’s narration to distance her involvement as a filmmaker and to build a story that is “made by René” not “by the filmmaker.”

119 Estimations are calculated as an approximate number of minutes that occupy the total length of the film. 98

René’s narration, letters and interviews are spread throughout the whole film, but in a certain way and rhythm. Třeštíková breaks up different parts of the film with segments from René’s books (which also helped in subdividing the film into three parts for the analysis). Some parts of the communication are mixed with speeches from television footage; there is repeated footage of, for example, the inaugural speeches and pledges of Presidents Václav Havel and Václav Klaus, which Třeštíková uses to show the passage of time. Třeštíková also breaks the film up according to chronological inter-titles, listing the names of the detention centers and prisons and other events in René’s life. Furthermore, Třeštíková emphasizes certain events which help to additionally create dramatic effect in the film:„René robs several flats, one of them is Třeštíková’s”; „René has troubles with his eyes”; „René’s girlfriend Eva dies.” The narration that follows sometimes does not correspond with the inter-title it accompanies, but rather, it leads to the next interview or narration.

Inter-titles are also used to help the spectator predict the coming scene. The spectator might anticipate that another dramatic episode in the life of the subject is about to come. Even when the film moves from the prisons and the gloomy atmosphere of courtrooms and local police stations, it is hard to completely shift away from the dominant tone of the film (underlined music also helps to a great extent to maintain the tone of such an atmosphere throughout the film).

In the first part of the film, Třeštíková uses interviews with René as well as with other people such as René’s mother, brother or social workers. The first part introduces an atmosphere which the spectator assumes will dominate the rest of the film. The monotonous, very quiet voice of René, his mother and social workers who do not express any hope for his case or life and René’s own disillusioned perception of life are all incorporated in the first part of the film. The reality represented here does not make any promises to René. Why didn’t the filmmaker speak with more social workers during the film (or conversations between René and social workers)? Why are no more details given about René’s mother in the later stages of the film, except that she remarried?120 Does René have any friends?

120 In the cycle Řekni mi něco o sobě – René (Tell Me Something about Yourself - René, Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 1997) structures more communication with René’s mother into the thematic plain in the film than in René (2008). His mother also talks more about René in general, his character, his childhood, showing also his photos when he was a baby. Třeštíková creates more feeling of home. She also pays more attention in depicting other parts of René’s character while he is showing his drawings, there is an almost equally balanced spatial representation of home and jail. 99

In the second part of the film, Třeštíková focuses more on the short interviews she did with René. She rarely appears physically in the footage (two times during the film): while René is saying the last words at the end of the second part of the film;121 and at the beginning of the third part of the film when Třeštíková is taking photos of René,122 more often her voice remains during the film. Her questions are usually very short, and they touch on the same subjects most of the time: What are you afraid of? What are you thinking about? What are your plans? She repeats the same set of questions in both parts (first and second) of the film. The questions and their answers give the spectator a perspective of René and how he thought back then and what he thinks now. Letters are also very dominant in the second part, and they often overlap with René’s narration. The letters also contain and reveal details about the relationship between the filmmaker and subject.

The third part of the film is the shortest and it is a combination of all the communication links. The letters are dominant in this part. René is in a way finishing the film (the role of social subject = role of the filmmaker). He also questions his relationship with the filmmaker and wonders if she only saw him as “an object of observation.” The last inter-title in the film is a message from René saying that he never gave the handy-cam back. Třeštíková read the letter sent by René and left the question about the relationship between her and René open. The whole final part of the film is about how René stole her camera to shoot porn films with it.

Macro structure of communication in the film, and the intensity of distribution of narrations, letters and interviews:

I part II part III part

(shot 0.01 – 30.02, 1989 – 1993) (shot 30.03 – 55.03, 1993 - 2002) (shot 55.04 – 82.20 , 2002 – 2008)

René’s book (All convention is useless. Even literary convention...) René’s narration Court procedure René’s narration Short interview René’s narration

Libkovice Juvenile Detention Centre (September 1989) January 1998 Short interview Short interview Letter Letter

This all is reduced in representation in René (2008), other people involved in the communication are reduced almost to a minimum (his mother appears briefly during the first part of the film, and then later his girlfriend Katarína ) [In addition, some of the footage that appears in Řekni mi něco o sobě – Martin – aneb Mít či být (1994) such as shots from correctional institutions while watching television in the common room, inserts and news from television, marching in the army school also appear in René (2008)]. 121 René (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2008), 0:54:32 – 0:54:34. 122 René (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2008), 0:55:06 – 0:55:11. 100

René’s narration Short interview René starts business (December 2004) Letter Short interview Short interview Short interview Letter Letter Short interview Interview with Rene in the bar Letter René’s narration René’s narration Short interview

Bory Prison, Pilsen (October 1989) Rene’s first book comes out. (October 1998) Letter Letter Letter René becomes President. (April 2007) conversation with Rene’s mother Letter René’s narration

Rene’s mother has remarried and moved to conversation with social worker Germany. (January 2000) Letter conversation with Rene’s mother Letter Interview René’s narration Letter René’s book (Fuck of free. Fuck freedom). conversation with local policeman Short interview Letter

René’s narration René has trouble with his eyes. (August 2000) Letter

Conversation with René’s mother combined with conversations with René and local policeman Interview in the hospital Conflict between René and Treštikova

Česke Bujedovice, Detention Centre (June 1990) Rene’s girlfriend Eva dies. (April 2002) Letter read by Treštikova

René sends Helena a message saying he no longer has the handycam, and only used it to Letter Interview in prison (finishing the first film) make porn movies. (March 2008)

Conversation with René’s mother and brother René’s narration Letter October 2002

Interview with René and his girlfriend René’s narration Katarína

Conversation with René’s mother and René’s voice (after robbery), on Helena’s brother answering phone Social worker Letter

Letter René’s book (The last girl really did love me)

Horni Slavkov Prison (April 1991) Short interview René’s narration Letter

René robs several flats. One of them is Helena’s. (Autumn 1992)

101

Helena reads René’s letter (after her flat was robbed) Letter Letter Valdice prison (February 1993)

René’s book (Today, I’m feeling philosophical, chasing all these crazy thoughts...)

Here will be presented some major parts from the overall communicational cycle used in the film (narrations, interviews, letters, and books).

5.3.1. René’s narration

Třeštíková introduces René at the very beginning of the film. He says:„Well, I was born, like all of us. I got through primary school OK. Then I went to a secondary school run by the army. My father is a musician in the South Bohemian Theatre. I don’t know what my mother does. They got divorced when I was 7. Dad remarried, got divorced again. Then married a ballet dancer. They wanted me to stay at home, but I couldn’t stand the dancer. So I went to army school, just to get away from home.”123

Immediately after he briefly presents himself, the spectator is told about his first minor criminal offences. (This all happens during the second minute of the film.) He describes his first crime and arrest this way:„At first I just did it for a lark. Not because I needed money. What use was money to me at army school? None. As a minor, I got two-and-a-half years. Because of 17,000 crowns; 17,000 crowns worth of stuff. Why two-and- a-half years? Because in that court there were 50 people in uniform, all determined to make an example of me. My own stupid fault. I should’ve picked a different organization, not an army school.”124

The narration in René is composed of certain details and parts of the letters which the subject wrote to the filmmaker as well as of the elements from the interviews; the narration is communicated by René’s voice. It offers an almost imposed tone as a perspective which arises from the subject’s life while concurrently the tone relies on creating the impression that specific dramatic events and tonalities surrounding those events emerge from the subject’s life itself. These strategies of narrative are used to endorse themselves in calling up the main tone, which

123 René (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2008), 0:01:11 – 0:01:45. 124 René (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2008), 0:01:56 – 0:02:28. 102

resides in the film.

The musical line in the film always repeats, its theme adding to the dominant atmosphere of the film and its environment. Třeštíková uses her social subject to knit the story together with his narrations, which are scattered throughout the film from the beginning until the end. The spectator is always expecting to see a fresh, new beginning after René is released from prison. However, in the following sequence, the spectator invariably sees him getting arrested again and thrown back into prison. After seeing this scene repeat itself again and again, it can be supposed that it becomes predictable for the spectator.

5.3.2. Letters

The first letter introduced in the film is one exchanged with the filmmaker during René’s stay in prison in Libkovice in 1989 (September 1989, Libkovice – věznice pro mladistvé, Juvenile Detention Center). René writes:„Dear Helena, Thank you for the parcel which I got recently. You have no idea how pleased I was. I am looking forward to your visit. Tell me when it’ll be, so time will pass quicker. It is good to have something to look forward to, something nice. You’re the only thing like that I have here. Best wishes, René”125 Similarly written letters will then repeat in the film more than 20 times (around 20 letters were used in the final cut of the film). In the early letters, René wrote mainly about daily life in prison and also requested minor favours from Helena. On June 1991, Horní Slavkov, René writes: „Dear Helena, it’s bearable here. Could you possibly bring me a few packets of wine yeast? It won’t cost much, and at least it’ll jolly things up a bit. Don’t worry, no one will know who bought it. Regards, René”126

One of the two letters read aloud by Třeštíková in the film was when her flat was robbed; this also denotes the end of the first part of the film. These letters build one of the main aspects of the thematic plain of the film: the importance and role of the filmmaker (Třeštíková ) in the life of the social subject (René). The following parts of the letters used in the film present an illustration of that relationship, which was strategically used in empowering the narrative (In the autumn of 1992, René robbed several flats, including Třeštíková’s). One of the letters from René read aloud in the documentary by Třeštíková:„Dear Helena, I’m sure I’m the last person you want a letter from. … You’ll get most of it back. Except the video, cassette players, a camera and maybe some other stuff. The whole lot came to 300,000, so no doubt I’ll get at least 10 years. I spent the lot on

125 René (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2008), 0:02:35 – 0:02:57. 126 René (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2008), 0:26:10 -0:26:35. 103

booze and whores, so I reckon it was worth it.”127 Třeštíková met him again in 1993. In another of his letters, René writes:„I keep wondering why I did it. I still don’t know why I confessed. Maybe it was a calculated move to stop you from losing interest in me.”128

Subsequent letters chosen for the film gave more insights into the relationship between the filmmaker and social subject. Several times throughout the letters, the director’s involvement in the subject’s life was stressed as well as the impact on him as a result of sharing his life in the film as illustrated by the following example:„August 16, 1999. Dear Helena, Greetings! It’s been ages since I wrote. Nothing much has happened, and anyway I know you’re very busy. You know I quite envy you, always working on something you enjoy. I read in the paper:,Documentary Hero Back on Crime Spree!’ They reckon I took 790,000’s worth. But I doubt they can prove it. The local press ran a front-page story on me, followed by a three-quarter page spread inside:,Writer’s Brief Taste of Freedom’. So here I am again. I’ve signed a contract for my second book, ‘Gods, Inc.’ It’s due out in November. PS. I’m an incorrigible crook and fool.”129

In one of his last letters to Třeštíková, René writes:„You made me feel my life wasn’t completely without purpose.”130 In another letter, he questions his relationship with the filmmaker:„Dear Helena, I’ve had a long hard think about the relationship between a documentary director and her subject. Have you ever considered what effect you have on your subjects’ lives? You’re a professional, I suppose, so it’s not your problem. You pay them money, and bit by bit, they sell you scraps of their lives. Plášil is beginning to look like a whore who’ll steal anything just because he needs the cash and has no other option.”131 (This letter was read out by Třeštíková)

Třeštíková collected letters over a certain period of time and afterwards placed them in during the editing phase of the film. René’s way of thinking and aspects of the relationship between the filmmaker and subject are demonstrated most effectively in the letters.132

127 René (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2008), 0:29:26 – 0:29:58. 128 René (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2008), 0:30:20 – 0:30:34. 129 René (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2008), 0:42:44 – 0:43:36. 130 René (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2008), 1:12:03 – 1:12:07. 131 René (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2008), 1:21:23 - 1:21:57. 132 In 2009 , a book was published, which comprised a selection of the letters that René sent to Třeštíková over the period 1989 - 2007. Material provided in the book, René – Narrative of the film – Letters from Penitentiaries (René – příběh filmu - dopisy z vězení) constitutes the letters along with paragraphs and brief information about René’s life and episodes he experienced during his periods of freedom. For instance, the episode in spring 1992 when René befriended photographer Michael Jablonsky and through him gained access to a circle of interesting people (René – Narrative of the film – Letters from Penitetiaries, p. 31); or the time when he wrote a letter to President Václav Havel (in March 1999) asking for amnesty 104

5.3.3. Interviews

The first interview in the film is very short as is the case with most of the interviews; there is a shot of a city landscape. René:„I wanted to prove to my father that I didn’t need him, so I started earning my own money. Of course, it was all shady deals. Anyway I ended up inside.” Třeštíková:„Why did you want to prove that to your father?” René:„He said without him I was nothing. Maybe he was right. I wanted to be on my own. I just set about it the wrong way.” Třeštíková:„Why didn’t you stay with your mum?” René:„No one asked me that when they got divorced. I was only 6. I stayed with Dad. I didn’t care much who I stayed with. I don’t think I felt any strong emotional bonds. I don’t think I was afraid.”133

In most of the interviews, Třeštíková is already prepared for the answers thanks to the letters and previous conversations, but she uses them to stress certain emotions and situations. René:„Anxious? And depressed. There’s plenty to be depressed about: Not enough to eat, not enough material to meet our work quotas. There’s always something.” Třeštíková:„What do you think about?” René:„I don’t think much. Except maybe about the future, about what I’ll do when I get out and trying to be optimistic, trying to imagine it’ll be better than it really will be. It’s fun just to chat to someone about it, makes you feel better. At least for a while. … The main thing is to get out soon. That’s what I think about.”134

A shorter conversation was held with René’s family members, in particular his mother, in the very first part of the film: René's mother:„It's terrible. But he won't change. Of course he won't.” (The conversation is

stating that he had finally found the ‘meaning of life’; or at the very beginning of the book where a story about René’s life is presented along with a few photos from his early childhood (p. 9 & 13). The story about René’s life provided in the book along with letters and extracts from his books gives more of an outside perspective, more insights into his life during periods of freedom, and more of his life during childhood which is opposite to the dominant inside perspective of penitentiary institutions and the image of René provided within the overall thematical plain of the film René (2008). In the material provided in the book, there are more than 110 letters which René wrote to Třeštíková, selected by Třeštíková and sociologist and publicist, Marie Homolová. The compilation of René’s letters presents an additional valuable insight into the relationship between the filmmaker and social subject . 133 René (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2008), 0:03:46 – 0:04:41. 134 René (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2008), 0:06:21 – 0:07:15. 105

interrupted with the sound of a typewriting machine in a municipal police station.) „When the police were here, they said he'd be better off in jail. Then maybe his brother would come home, and we could stop worrying.”135 During these conversations with René's mother, Třeštíková does not intervene with questions.

Some of the conversations show the filmmaker’s involvement in the life of the subject: René:„So why keep trying? Writing is a way of escaping the reality of jail. When I write, I can even escape from other realities, all reality. I don't like reality one little bit. If someone called Mrs. Treštikova hadn't come along and filmed me, I'd still be a persistent offender with nothing to show for himself. As it is, I am now in the papers, I write books, I get published. I could never have achieved any of that on my own.” Třeštíková:„But you did achieve it on your own.” René:„You really believe that? I don't.”136

In April 2002, René’s girlfriend Eva dies, and René is diagnosed with sclerosis multiplex. Třeštíková finished her first cut of René with his “last words”. At that time, she didn’t know if she was going to continue shooting: René:„My last words.” Třeštíková:„Maybe the last of the whole film if I can’t raise any more money.” René:„I don’t know what to say. There’s so much I want to tell you. So much we could tell each other. Maybe we can keep it for another time. Over coffee outside. It’s your film, not mine.” Třeštíková:„You provide all the input.” René:„I provide input? Only by answering your questions. Do you think we’ll meet again? Now you’ve finished filming? It’s up to you. I won’t come looking for you. I’d feel a bit … awkward. What do you think? Remember those letters I used to write in that careful handwriting? I suppose I was in love with you. I’ve forgotten, not that it matters. Can I ask this on camera? I asked if you saw me as an object of study or whether I meant anything more to you than just the subject of a film. Can you give me a straight answer?” Třeštíková:„What did I say?” René: „I don’t remember.” Třeštíková:„Nobody is just an object of study.”137

135 René (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2008), 0:15:41 – 0:16:02. 136 René (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2008), 0:49:43 – 0:50:24. 137 René (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2009), 0:52:00 – 0:54:08. 106

The interviews present the stance of the filmmaker; the way in which she occupies space in the film, weaving the narrative on the one hand and representing her own presence in the film on the other hand. The interaction with René through conversations (and letters as well) serve to acknowledge the presence of the filmmaker in the film and in the subject’s life. It can be considered as an observed engagement of Třeštíková, which renders the filmmaker as a disembodied navigator of the narrative as well as depicting her physical presence in the scene. In this case, the filmmaker is incorporated into both the image and sound tracks, which interlace throughout the film.

5.3.4. René’s books

Some of the excerpts from the books that were used in the film communicate more of René’s emotional state than they present fragments from his life, or ordinary daily situations, moments while growing as an adolescent, or other episodes from life [as written in some parts of the book B ěžec na trati k… (Runner on the Track to…)].

The words which open the film are from the following written statement, extracted from René’s book, Deník zapomenutého (Diary of a Forgotten Man):„All conventions are useless. Even literary convention. And morality? Forget it. I want the hard, naked truth. Hypocrites love the word morality. I don’t give a shit about them. Like they don’t give a shit about me. Why has every bit of my fucking life turned out badly? Nobody knows…”138 An additional paragraph selected from the book engages with not only the further elaboration of René’s ruminations about his place outside (in society), but also gravitates towards an added sense of isolation of the subject:„Today I’m feeling philosophical, chasing all these crazy thoughts. Right now I’m thinking about my place in society. I’m labeled a social outcast and looked on with contempt. When I was 16, they put me away for two-and-a-half years … unconditionally. If that judge realized where he was sending me, he was a mean bastard. Fucking swine. He knew he was sending me to a place where instead of reforming me, they’d only teach me to hate society. In doing so, he mapped out the path of my whole life.” (Rene Plášil, Běžec na trati k …, Runner on the Track to…)139

In general, paragraphs used from Rene‘s books are straightforward in relaying more information about the subject than he reveals about himself at certain moments. The degree of this element

138 René (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2009), 0:01:04 – 0:01:08. 139 René (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2008), 0:32:03 – 0:32:10. 107

used in the film fluctuates as the story unfolds, but the predominant tone remains. Alignment with the inside perspective of the subject in regards to people and life, hesitations, suspense, uncertainty all contribute toward the intensity produced by the creating of dramatic effect, which was sustained from the beginning through to the end of the film. These elements concerning the degree of revealed information about the subject’s inside perspective suggests the important stances a filmmaker can select in relation to the subject, to his own argument and to the process by which it allows this inside perspective to be known. The selection of these elements operates in a distinctive way in the sense of placing the information in order to endorse a particular vewpoint about René and his life.

5.4. Analysis René: Camera – shots

The length of each shot in René depends on the context of the scene. Generally speaking, Třeštíková favors close-up shots rather than long shots. René is almost always shot in close-up. His face is in focus most of the time, especially during conversations. He is present in more than 208 shots140, of which 128 are close-ups of his face and hands. The rest of the shots of René are medium (around 50) and long (around 60). Medium and long shots are usually of René in jail surroundings, train stations or from inside a train. Long shots are used during conversations with other people, to show jail surroundings and city landscapes (a total of 64 wide shots). In addition, close-up shots were mainly used during conversations with René’s mother or to point out certain details in or outside the jail buildings, whether they are windows, bars, food, cigarettes or the hands of prison workers.

These charts present the dynamics of shots and their frequency of exchange during each part of the film:

140 Estimations are calculated as an approximate number of shots.

108

According to the presented charts, the first part of the film is equally dominated by close and medium shots of René. In this part of the film, his life was organized and structured around correctional institutions (following his teenage years) and his family (through conversations with his mother and René commenting in general about his unstable family life). At this stage, the filmmaker also involved other people in the communicational circle (René's mother, brother, social worker) which additionally balanced the overall alterations and positions of the shots. During the second part of the film, the situation changes and preference was given to close shots of René thus significantly outnumbering all other shots in this part of the film. The events presented in the second part of the film are structured around René's health problems, the loss of his girlfriend Eva who died, along with episodes of both shorter and longer stays in different prisons. The communicational circle gets much narrower during the second part of the film without the presence of any other people in the social subject’s life. It is difficult to anticipate the climax of the film as relatively the same rhythm of events is maintained throughout the whole film. The surrounding in general was not particularly in focus during this part of the film, which also inflates the sense of isolation of the subject. At the same time, it appears that the filmmaker becomes closer to the social subject concerning the camera work, approaching his face, hands, cigarettes and directing the attention to the movements of the subject.

This additionally creates a certain closeness between the social subject and the spectator, and it demonstrates the attempt of the filmmaker to approach the emotions of the social subject, and his overall condition as much as possible through the closer camera examination of the details, gestures, and movements. Here it can be said that the camera also intended to absorb most of the emotional experience happening in the subject's life. However, René stays emotionally closed and 109

reserved for most of the film; he very rarely shares emotions in front of the camera. Even during communication when he talks about some troublesome life events and experiences, he does not leave the impression of a character who shares emotions easily in front of a camera. In terms of camera angles, there are no rapid exchanges of during most of the shots.

During the third part of the film, again, close and medium shots of René are equally exchanged. This part of the film is structured around the events shifting from prisons to existential struggle. Nevertheless, the filmmaker seems more distanced from the social subject compared to the second part of the film.

The average length of the longest shots in the film is between 35 to 45 seconds. The shortest shots are usually close-up shots of hands or photos of René. Pans are used in a handful of cases, the footage showing blurry city landscapes and political slogans. The use of hand-held cameras is dominant throughout the film.

One of the shots that assists in the creating of dramatic effect is a shot of a dog behind bars inside České Budějovice Prison in 1990: the camera is hand-held and it moves through empty cells, showing the bars on the tops of the cells, before focusing on René as he enters the prison’s court yard. The camera uses a medium shot to capture René.141 During most of the close-up shots of René, the contours of his face are clearly visible even though sometimes his face was captured from behind the bars of his cell. Close-ups of his face sometimes occupy most of the space. The close-up shots of René are often taken when he is silent while the medium shots are used when he is talking.

Depersonalization of people and spaces occurs as a result of the following shots: shooting the floor and people’s legs, walking around, blurry shots, filming people from behind;142 (René is reading letters to Třeštíková, his name is in the newspapers);143 (When René got caught by police again, with Katarina).144

Close-up shots of René when writing a letter give the impression that some scenes in the film were staged actions. It seems as if, judging from the camera style of the shots, the domination of close-up shots and the subject’s portraits, Třeštíková was closest to René during the middle phase

141 René (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2008), 0:20:28 – 0:20:54. 142 René (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2008), 0:28:24 - 0:29:19. 143 René (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2008), 0:42:33 – 0:43:21. 144 René (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2008), 0:59:49 – 1:00:27. 110

of the film, which spans from 1993 to 2003. This period covers, among other things, the publishing of René’s first book, his stay in hospital, the death of his girlfriend Eva, and finding love again with Katarina. The biggest distance between the filmmaker and the subject was in the third part of the film, which spans from 2003 to 2008. During this period, René starts a business which fails very quickly and the conflict between René and Třeštíková occurs after he failed to return her camera at the very end of the film.

5.5. Analysis René: Editing

The opening sequence of René takes place in prison, his hand is in a close shot while writing a letter; he is captured sitting behind bars. The spectator sees the beginning of a letter and the written words:„Milá Heleno …” Following that, there is a black background, then a close shot of René (again behind bars), next there is a black background announcing the film title. What follows is a scene of René captured outside at the train station; close shots of René’s face alternate with long shots of the surroundings. It continues with inter-titles, which show a paragraph from René’s book, Diary of a Forgotten Man. After that, the film goes back to the past, to the very beginning of the filming of René’s life.

The sequencing was structured in a way similar to the other two films: chronologically and linearly. The chronology is mainly indicated by the inter-titles, which break certain sequences, thus showing the chronology of René’s life, whereas the sequences within the film are cut, in which case it is exceedingly difficult to anticipate the actual time when certain shots took place as the sequences have been inter-edited. This is especially the case in those sequences where the filmmaker wants to additionally intensify a certain situation or condition.

In general, there are no long takes used in the film during the editing process. The arrangement of shots within the sequences usually follows a similar rhythm in most of the sequenced materials. One of the samples, which can serve to illustrate the editing style is during the conversation with René’s mother: the conversation with the mother starts with a shot in a bar where René is drinking beer; the next scene goes to René’s home and his mother is talking, the sequence is also intra- edited with a conversation with the social worker; then returns to René’s home where he is

111

watching TV; back to the kitchen where the conversation with René’s mother continues cut together with a shot of René in the bar:145

145 René (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2009), 0:09:17 – 0:11:48. 112

Television news plays a role in the narrative and editing process as borne out by the following example: the time when Třeštíková was nominated as Minister of Culture146 was shown in the film in one of the jail scenes. René is watching television in a jail room when the television news announces the nomination; the scene continues with René’s voice reading a letter he wrote to Třeštíková and saying that this might be the last letter of their corresponedence due to her obligations now as Minister; he expresses how she made him feel that his life wasn't completely without purpose.147 This whole sequence was inter-edited (it looks like a staged action). It undeniably intensifies the relationship between the filmmaker and the social subject.

Particular parts of the film interlace with television news inserted during the editing process. These items of television news are interwoven throughout the whole film. On the one hand, they demonstrate the passing of time, and on the other hand, they contribute to a certain representation mixing both sound and images tracks. In one of the sequences, the shot shows parole „Our country needs people with ability. K. Gottwald”148 with music in the background. It does not leave an immediate impression that music was used from television until the next scene which shows a close shot of a television followed by a long shot of prisoners (taken from behind). The voice from the television can be heard in the background. In another sequence which starts with a long shot of prisoners taken from the front, there is a voice in the background (more like a jungle

146 In 2007, Třeštíková was nominated as the Czech Minister of Culture to the cabinet of Prime Minister, Miroslav Topolánek, Civic Democrat, however, she resigned after 16 days because of the pressure by the Prime Minister, who wanted to appoint a minister of his choosing. 147 René (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2008), 1:11:19 – 1:12:10. 148 René (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2008), 0:03:08. 113

or noise) which is difficult to recognize, but it leaves the impression of a football match, or protests (there is a delay which maintains the anticipation). The shot takes a couple of seconds and then cuts to a close up of the television, which broadcasts a speech of the President, Václav Havel. The sequence is intra-edited again going back to a group of prisoners while they are watching television. This rhythm of cuts continues back and forth till the next sequence. Similarly constructed is the next sequence in which the voice of from the television news dominates the background of a shot of René, who is placed in the prison courtyard; from here it cuts to the room in the prison, where René is positioned right in front of the television, which broadcasts the news of the resignation of President Václav Havel of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic). Television news combined with other shots are exchanged the most frequently during the first part of the film.

Třeštíková keeps certain intimate moments in the course of editing: during the end of the first part of the film, during the conversation with René when he asks if they are going to meet again, and when he recalls the time that he thought he might be in love with her. The spectator can also hear her voice in the background answering René’s questions;149 during the sequence where René’s voice, recorded on Třeštíková’s answering machine when he asks her for help, can be heard. However, it is not clear what really happened as the scene is covered with blurry images of the train station.150 The next sequence shows René in jail, his voice in the background reading a letter he wrote to Třeštíková.

Generally, Třeštíková appears in front of the camera in René much more frequently compared to the other two films (Marcela and Katka). The same can be said of her voice; questions she asks the subject are usually audible to the spectator. Třeštíková uses her voice already at the beginning of the film when she asked René why he wanted to prove something to his father.151 The film closes with Třeštíková reading René’s letter written to her in which he is asking questions about the relationship between the filmmaker and himself, as a social subject in the film.152

Most of the scenes in the jails are followed by René’s voice reading his letters written to Třeštíková, or with René’s narrative (but the readings of letters are dominant). Clearly, the letters were sent prior to filming, however, they determine (in the editing process) where the next scene

149 René (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2008), 0:52:49 – 0:54:09. 150 René (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2008), 0:59:50 – 1:00:27. 151 René (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2008), 0:03:47 – 0:04:17. 152 René (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2008), 1:21:24 – 1:22:07. 114

will take place as well as creating the rhythm and sequencing during the most part of the film. Třeštíková in a certain way uses the letters for keeping time continuity in the film.

René follows an editing pattern, which is repeated throughout the whole film; the sequencing of material produces a similar shape, whereby scenes in the jails are usually covered by René’s narration while reading the letters, or cut with René while writing the letters, followed by details of his hands, cigarettes or some details from the prison (usually long shots of the halls, and his room). It is certainly not difficult to anticipate this rhythm or the occurrence of transitions during the film due to the repetitiveness of the editing style.

The filmmaker applies editorial intervention during the final editing process, and in fact, this intervention is present throughout the whole film. It is especially noticeable during the arrangement of materials within sequences and the cutting (during some of the conversations, narrations, along with images of René portrayed during the first part of the film, and then later as the end of the film draws near). The cutting during most of the sequences does not intensify the dramatic effect, but rather it gives a certain rhythm and dynamic to the whole sequence. Dramatic effects are more present in the overall structuring of the story carried out during the editing process, whereby the events have been selected and underlined with images and music.

115

Chapter Six: Analysis Katka

6.1. Analysis Katka: Structure of Katka

Katka, like Marcela and René, starts with a dramatic life event. The sequence opens with a blurry hospital shot; Katka is waiting in a maternity delivery room; the camera focuses on her head; the footage is black-and-white and ends with a fade-out. When the image returns, it is 1996. The scene is of a session at the rehabilitation center, SANANIM (Terapeutická komunita SANANIM Němčice). Katka is 19 years old, and she is reading her story:„A fairy tale about how Katka became a woman and all the other things she has yet to do. Once in a little kingdom, a little girl was born. She had her world and her imagination. Before long she became aware of a different world. She heard people closest to her quarreling, shouting and crying: her mother and sisters crying, her stepfather shouting at them.”153 Katka’s story is mixed together with her narration where she shares a story about her drug addiction and how it began. The beginning of the film reveals that Katka has three sisters and a stepfather whom she was terrified of. Her mother later divorces him. „A friend told me he’d taken some Pervitin, so I asked him for some. In the end, I didn’t get it from him, but from my sister’s ex-boyfriend. My sister was on it as well. I wanted to be different. I didn’t want to live a straight, conventional life. Maybe it’s not why I started taking drugs, but that’s how I ended up.”154

Třeštíková structures Katka chronologically. The film is subdivided with inter-titles into the following narrative and time-line parts:

Part I (0.10 – 27.35, 1996 – 2002)

Autumn 1996 Therapeutic Community Sananim, Němčice

Katka is 19

Spring 1997 – Katka quits the community and goes to Prague

Spring 1998 Katka is 21

Autumn 1999 Katka is 22

Spring 2000 Katka is 23

153 Katka (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2010), 0:00:32 – 0:00:50. 154 Katka (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2010), 0:0:51 – 0:01:10.

116

Summer 2000 Katka and Ladya have split up

Autumn 2000

Spring 2001 Czech TV screens a film about Katka

Autumn 2002 Katka is 25

Part II (27.36 – 59.04, 2007 - 2008)

Spring 2007

Katka is 30

Summer 2007

Ladya is serving a 13-year sentence for attempted murder

Autumn 2007

December 2007

2nd January 2008

17 January 2008 - Roman leaves for a rehab clinic in Červený Dvůr

21 January 2008 - Katka leaves Teresa at the infant care centre

Part III (59.05 – 91.25, 2008 - 2009)

1 February 2008 Katka is visited by a social worker

7 February 2008 – Katka leaves for Plzeň for a month's rehab

17 February 2008

March 2008 Katka is 31

July 2008

February 2009

Katka is 32

117

Each part of the film is divided according to the themes. The first part of the film focuses on Katka’s history of drug abuse and her attempts at rehabilitation (it is around 27 minutes long). The story scheme is linear: rehab. → street life → rehab. → street life → rehab. → pregnancy

This part of the film covers a period of six years of Katka’s life. In the final cut, the first part of the film has the longest breaks between certain periods. For example, Katka’s breaking-up of the relationship with her boyfriend Láďa, whom she is with from 1997 until 2000 is just mentioned by the filmmaker in the inter-title. There is another break between 2002, when Katka is in a rehabilitation center and 2007, when she is pregnant with her daughter. There is not much information about what her life was like during the interval of those years. The conversations in the first part involve two subjects and the filmmaker:

There are sporadic discussions with some of the social workers (during the later parts of the film), however, they are not presented as structured conversations, but rather as random, passing comments.

The second part of the film, which is among the longest and thematically dominates the rest of the film, is approximately 32 minutes long. It covers about ten months of Katka’s life and particularly centers around her pregnancy and the delivery of her baby. Many parts here are divided according to the seasons, as this section of the film has a more consistent story line. There are no big breaks

118

as can be seen in the first part. This part of the film has a certain rhythm and follows four different themes, the dominant one being Katka’s pregnancy and the delivery of her baby daughter, which develops and impacts on other themes:

Katka’s pregnancy and deliverying the baby

Abuse of drugs and lifestyle determined by Rehab. centres Social and health drugs institutions

Nevertheless, all these themes are dependent on each other. Sometimes they even give the impression that they are chaotically structured since they are so intertwined with each other and shot over a relatively short period of time (about year and a half). However, the whole film spans fourteen years. Another reason this film has such a complex thematic structure is because of the number of subjects involved. Conversations not only involve Katka and her boyfriend Roman, but they also involve social and health workers, street friends, policemen, Katka’s ex-boyfriend Láďa and Třeštíková herself.

The third part of the film, also running at around 32 minutes long, draws on the events of the second part and covers one year of Katka’s life; she has delivered her baby daughter and is back living on the streets; she goes back and forth between rehab. centers and social services. This part returns to a more linear scheme based around rehab. centers and street life. There are conversations with Katka and Roman, some of which also involve social and health workers, policemen and Třeštíková.

The overall structure of the film presents the cumulative organization of Katka's life, arranged around accurately-announced time frames followed by dramatic life events. The temporal and thematic elements perform the main parameters in uniting the whole structure, and also in providing continuity of the entire story of lived events in front of the camera. Resembling the previous case study films, continuity determined by such a structure also provides better exposure and visibility of the large time span covered in the film. 119

The structural framework (temporal and thematic) subdivides the whole of Katka's life determined by dramatic events (each of the events and/or period is seen as a unit within the structure of the film). This is one of the crucial elements adding substance to a certain part of the social subject's life, together with the main attributes of the characters shaped by their various life events and circumstances on the one hand, and the bestowal of an overall value of the image of Katka's life in the representational process on the other hand. This particular image is represented and constructed by the filmmaker's selection process which gives precedence to some materials and life events over others.

The filmmaker conspicuously presents an exact thematic path, which follows the entire thematic and structural plain of the film: rehabilitation - drug abuse – rehabilitation - drug abuse - drug abuse etc. The existential struggle is also, in a way, part of this thematic modus, but it was placed more in the background. Added focus was given to the thematic units mentioned in the structural block, constructed and exchanged between the episodes of rehabilitation and drug abuse: these are the main thematic forums in the film which maintain the entire structure of the film. They also determine the time frame when each of the units was shot. By means of this type of thematic structuring, the overall experience is determined not only by the social subject’s life, but also by the nature of her character (marked by street life and long-term drug abuse).

There is not much space left for alternation as all given elements of the thematic plain lead out towards the portrayal of a very defined image and experience of Katka's life (there are no other images of the subject that could offer a balance to the the dominant image).

Exact events placed within an exact time frame determine the overall impression of the social subject's life. The structure is mainly character-driven, which along with the selected events fulfills its purpose in structuring the whole story.

The story chronicles the path of the social subject, who is knitting together a main thematic plain of life struggle with drug abuse. Following this path from one attempt at rehabilitation to another constitutes dramatic effect and its requirement and need for the structural arrangement given by the filmmaker, which implies organizing the whole social subject's life around temporal and thematic units where each of them corresponds to the justification of this dramatic inquiry.

120

The first part of the film identifies the problem, the second part presents obstacles and further 'sinking', and the third part following the climax, reveals the worsened condition of the social subject.

The structural approach employed in Katka draws attention towards the controlled immediacy of documentary. The focus is on the dramatic moment of the lived event not only during the moment of shooting, but even more so during the final structuring of the overall material.

The result displayed is the image of the social subject's life where the representation developed by the filmmaker relies on a persistence to sustain dramatic effect throughout the whole film. The structure is just one of the fundamentals, which preserves that dramatic effect dominant in the overall experience of the film.

As for the previous case study films, here also remains one of the questions of defining the subject's life, and representing this image by the filmmaker, which is a part of the process of representation.

6.2. Analysis Katka: Spatial representation

There are three dominant spaces in the film: hospital, the street and different squats, which Katka stays in. The film starts in a hospital and finishes in a squat. The final cut contains about 10 sequences in the hospital/health centres, 13 on the streets and 12 in the squats. Other settings in the film include a metro station, train station and jail.

During the first part of the film, most of the sequences took place on the street (a total of eight sequences), followed by sequences in hospitals (including rehabilitation centers; a total of one sequence was taken at the community rehab. centre). Hospitals constitute a dominant feature during the second part of the film (a total of eight sequences taken during the second part). Squats dominate during the third part, taking up around six scenes.

121

The diagram shows the intensity of the spatial organization of the most dominant spaces:

I part of the film = hospitals (1), squats (2), streets (8) II part of the film = hospitals (8), squats (4), streets (2) III part of the film = hospitals (1), squats (6), street (3) *Estimation is calculated as an approximate number of sequences taken.

Katka’s life in the film is predominantly organized around streets, hospitals and squats. The streets and squats represent her “home”, (Katka is usually there with one of her partners talking or dreaming about having a real home and normal life), while hospitals represent anxiety, a place where Katka is surrounded by health and social workers but feeling uncared for. She ends up fighting with one of these health and/or social workers. Preference was given to shots which depict Katka’s life on the streets and in the squats as well as her time in hospitals. Most of the scenes representing Katka’s home (rundown buildings, flats or cottages) show Katka either under the influence of heroin or preparing to inject drugs. Her first home is a small flat with decent furniture that seems clean. The scene was shot inside the flat, but shows something of the outside environment including heavy rain. The sound of rain can be heard in the scene when Katka is preparing to inject the drug. There is not much focus on the other details in flat. Most of the scenes shot inside Katka’s home are dark with only a couple of candles as lighting; there is no proper electricity or light. Katka’s homes become progressively worse as the film proceeds: completely rundown flats with no windows and full of junk.

122

The camera picks up more details in these squats focusing on garbage and other waste:155

Katka was rarely shown fully conscious in these inside settings. She was always under the influence of drugs. These scenes also communicate an inner reflection more than any other setting in the film. One of the first squat settings shown in the film is a humbly furnished flat.156 The sequence takes place in the kitchen: Katka is sitting at the table, preparing to inject the drug, the camera focuses on a spoon, a plastic bottle of lemon sauce, an ashtray and cigarette and two syringes on the table. One wall in the kitchen is completely covered by a wooden chest of drawers. There are no dishes or any other objects usually seen in a kitchen. There is just a plastic bottle of water and a plastic bag of chips on the kitchen table. Near the door is another smaller wooden cabinet full of empty glasses, ashtrays and food. The camera does not particularly focus on the details in the room apart from the equipment and accessories for drug usage on the table. The setting gives the impression of a sterile, empty space, an isolated environment; it looks as if nobody really lives there; the rain captured outside the window adds to the desolation of the scene. The whole setting speaks not only of the social status of the subject, but also expresses her isolated reality barred from the outside world. The next scene is shot in the same space, but practically in complete darkness with only a couple of candles providing illumination; there is obviously no electricity.

Another home setting was shot in one of the squats in a rundown building; there are no windows; the floor is littered with various things: pieces of concrete, clothing, empty cans and food packages; there is a hall that leads to the rest of the house; the other rooms of the house are full of broken furniture, garbage and other waste. The camera focuses on the garbage and then moves into a close-up of Katka who is injecting drugs into the neck of her boyfriend, Roman.

The spatial settings get progressively worse throughout the film, from a room in the rehabilitation community and small modest apartments to basements, squats and rundown cabins near the

155 Katka (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2010), 0:28:30, 0:28:37, 0:38:10, 0:50:10, 1:17:36, 1:17:58. 156 In the film, it is not clear where the scene takes place and if the place was squatted or if it was someone’s home. However, in the cycle, Ženy na přelomu tisíciletí– V pasti (Women At the Turn of the Millennium - Trapped, Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic 2001), inter-titles inform the spectator that the scene takes place at Láďa'sgrandfather’s house. In Katka (2010) within this sequence, inter-titles announce only Katka’s age.

123

railroad tracks. At the end of the film, Katka lives in one of those rundown cabins: the scene is shot in almost complete darkness, it is very hard to recognize any of the objects in the space besides a broken-down sofa, there is no electricity, just a couple of candles.

This space is usually coupled with conversations with Katka’s boyfriend who begs for money or tries to find other ways to get money. She observes:„I got caught shoplifting five times in one week. Getting money’s not so easy now. We’ve been stealing a long time so the shop assistants know us, and we don’t have many shops left. We’re not making anything.”157 Streets and people are depersonalized in the film (just fragments, or blurry footage and/or blurry backgrounds).

The scene of Katka walking around the streets, completely devastated by drugs158 has the same depersonalizing effect. Streets, as an additional spatial representation, are there to represent Katka’s second home and show that she spends most of her time wandering the streets. Streets in the city areas are shown mainly during the first half of the film, while the street settings become more focused on suburbs and railway tracks in the second half. Katka’s outside home is also represented in the scenes with her showering in fountains or rivers.159

Hospitals, in certain ways, represent a balance between Katka’s rundown places for living and healthcare institutions. Most of the conversations organized around this setting are between Katka and health workers. One of the first hospital scenes involved Katka’s announcement to doctors that she was both pregnant and addicted to drugs.160 This is especially emphasized during one of Katka’s fights with the health worker161 and during another heated conversation with a social worker.162

Katka is sitting in her jacket (conveying the impression that she has to leave any second) and the social worker, who is talking with her, is sitting on one of the chairs; the space looks more like a storage room than an office.

157 Katka (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2010), 0:10:52 – 0:11:12. 158 Katka (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2010), 0:25:54 – 0:26:18. 159 Katka (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2010), 0:14:48 – 0:40:28. 160 Katka (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2010), 0:29:31 – 0:30:55. 161 Katka (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2010), 0:33:09 – 0:36:12. 162 Katka (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2010), 0:42:44 – 0:45:05. 124

Schematic demonstration of spatial structure is shown in the following diagram:

Hospital – Rehabilitation center Sananim (Němčice) – street – squat – street – street – street (in front of the church, wedding ceremony) – street – street (Katka and Láďa are injecting drugs) – railway station – street (Katka is taking a bath with her boyfriend in a park fountain) – street (Katka with her girlfriend) and doing drugs – Katka near Narodni divadlo (as a sexual worker) – street – street – in the room (TV footage of Katka's film) – street – rehab center – street –– rundown attic – squat – hospital/health centre – hospital/health centre – hospital/health centre – street – hospital/health centre – squat – Katka near river, washing – hospital/health centre – hospital/health centre – Katka sitting in the park, it is raining – prison – hospital/health centre – squat – hospital – train station – train station (Roman beating a woman) – hospital/health centre – train station and Roman leaving for rehab. – train station – metro station – train station – squat – bus station (Katka leaves for rehab.) – squat - Child Care Department, Prague 8 – street – squat – street – squat – squat – squat – squat

The schematic demonstration of the space presents the overall spatial representation throughout the entire film. The most dominant areas, which structure the main spatial representation (concentrated around squats, streets and hospitals), are exchanged with other places according to an approximate ratio 1:2, sometimes this ratio is 1:4, 1:5. The most frequent exchanges are usually between the most dominant ones (street – rehab center - rehab center – street – street).163 Those sequences where the ratio is higher are mainly present in the first part of the film (hospital – rehabilitation center – street - squat – in the metro – on the roof – in front of the church – city – street). As the film moves towards the end, this ratio is lower, meaning less (or almost no) other spatial representations than the dominant one.

6.3. Analysis Katka: Communication

The communication in the film consists of:

 Katka’s narration (10 minutes)

 interviews between Katka and Treštikova (13 minutes)

 conversations between Katka and Láďa (2 minutes)

 conversations between Katka and Roman (8 minutes)

163 In the cycle, Ženy na přelomu tisíciletí – V pasti (Women At the Turn of the Millennium - Trapped, Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic 2001), Třeštíková uses photos of Katka taken while she was staying in one of the rehabilitation centers (detox center), and photos taken at the hospital where Katka stayed because of problems with her liver. The space representation varies in Katka (2010), where no information is given about her stay in the hospital nor is there any illustration from one of the rehabilitation centers except at the very beginning of the film. Space in Katka (2010) is more compressed, fixed and immovable between the settings that clearly unfold one dominant image of Katka. 125

 conversations between Katka and health/social workers (18 minutes).164

The remaining conversations are organized around communication between Třeštíková and Roman, then Roman and the health worker, and between Třeštíková, Roman, and the police. The film opens with Katka reading one of her stories during her rehabilitation days:„One day a mighty ruler visited the kingdom: King Heroin. The little girl went in search of him. He told her wonderful stories about his kingdom, where people felt good, had beautiful dreams and were independent and free.”165 A large amount of communication takes place between Katka and various social and health workers. Třeštíková does not participate in any of these conversations.

Třeštíková does, however, participate in conversations between Katka and her boyfriends Láďa and then Roman166. The spectator can hear her questions in the background. She usually also initiates dialogues. The subjects usually speak directly to the camera. In a communicational chart spread throughout the film, there is a complete absence of any member of Katka’s family. The only interlocutors involved in the communication are Katka’s two boyfriends, and several health and social workers. The communication is one of the dominant formal techniques in the film and occupies more than 50 minutes of space (the total length of the film is 90 minutes).

164 Estimations are calculated as an approximate number of minutes that occupy the total length of the film. 165 Katka (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2010), 0:01:12 – 0:01:25. 166 In the cycle, Ženy na přelomu tisíciletí – V pasti (Women At the Turn of the Millennium - Trapped, Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic 2001), there are more conversations between Katka and Láďa about topics that surround their daily lives (money they spend on drugs/how they make a living/why they do drugs etc. This also involves a scene of Láďa crying because of his sometimes bad behavior towards Katka when he is under the influence of drugs). Katka opens up and talks about drug abuse while injecting the drug („Now I feel just great. It’s sort of…I could think of a problem but it wouldn’t throw me off balance like it would if I weren’t high.” 8.34 – 8.46). Katka also talks more about her stepfather, her mother and the rest of her family. These conversations that involve talking about family and the kind of relationship she has with her mother are reduced to a minimum in Katka (2010). Only once, at the beginning of the film, Katka talks about her mother and family. Several conversations with Katka and Láďa in Katka (2010) discuss mainly their experiences of taking drugs, but without activating other parts of the discussion that provides a deeper insight into the daily operating of the subjects (eating, sleeping, finding food, finding money) as it was broadened and thematized in Ženy na přelomu tisíciletí – V pasti. The image that was given in Katka (2010) remains on the surface of daily life (there are only moments of being under the influence of drugs or during preparations to inject drugs). This operating on a daily basis will be slightly changed in later stages of the film (during the second and third parts) but still some of the issues will remain untouched within the integral thematic plain of the film. 126

Macro structure of communication in the film and the intensity of distribution of interviews:

I part (shot 0.10 – 27.35, 1996 – II part (shot 27.36 – 59.04, 2007 - III part (shot 59.05 – 91.25, 2008 - 2002) 2008) 2009)

Katka is on the phone with Roman Katka is reading her story Spring 2007 who is in rehab. clinic

Katka is talking about getting out of Katka’s narration Katka’s narration care center

Conversation between Roman and Katka is reading her story Katka is 30 Katka

Conversation with workers in hospital/health centre, Katka is 1 February 2008 – Katka is visited by Katka’s narration telling them she is pregnant social worker

Conversation between Katka and Short interview Short interview with Katka social worker

Roman is calling the centre to find Katka’s narration Summer 2007 out how Teresa is doing

Conversation with worker in Conversation between Katka and Katka is 19 hospital/health centre social worker Katka is leaving hospital/health centre and talking crying to her 7 February 2008 – Katka leaves for Katka’s narration boyfriend Pilsen for a month’s rehab Katka is reading her story Katka’s narration Katka is talking

Spring 1997 – Katka quits the Conversation with doctor in community and goes to Prague hospital/health centre Roman is talking

Interview with Katka and her Conversation with doctor in boyfriend hospital/health centre 17 February 2008

Conversation between Katka and a worker from the Child Care Katka is reading a letter received Department, Prague 8 (Katka left Spring 1998 – Katka is 21 from Láďa in jail rehab centre in Plzen)

Katka in squat (injecting drugs) combined with rain outside through Ladya is serving a 13 year sentence the windows for attempted murder March 2008 – Katka is 31

Katka is talking how Roman is beating her

Short interview between Treštikova Katka and Roman on the phone, Katka’s narration and Láďa in prison trying to find out how Teresa is doing

Conversation between Katka and Katka’s boyfriend Láďa is talking Autumn 2007 Roman

Short conversation with doctor, Katka’s narration Katka is diagnosed with hepatitis C July 2008

Conversation between Treštikova Katka's boyfriend Láďa is talking December 2007 and Katka

Katka’s narration about having Autumn 1999 – Katka is 22 Christmas February 2009 – Katka is 32

Conversation between Katka and Katka’s narration 2nd January 2008 Treštikova

Interview with Katka and her Conversation between Roman and boyfriend Láďa hospital (Katka is giving birth) Katka

127

Katka’s narration, combined with 17 January – Roman leaves for a Conversation between Katka and communication with Láďa rehab clinic in Červený Dvůr Treštikova

Katka’s narration, combined with communication with Láďa (they Conflict between Roman and want to go to rehab clinic) woman at the train station

Conversation between policeman Spring 2000 – Katka is 23 and Treštikova

Roman on the phone receives news Summer 2000 – Katka and Ladya that Katka is getting out of the have split up hospital

21 January 2008 – Katka leaves Katka is talking Teresa at the infant care centre Short interview Katka is talking Autumn 2000 Katka’s narration

Spring 2001 – Czech TV screens a film about Katka Katka’s narration Autumn 2002 – Katka is 25 Katka is talking

Very short conversation between Katka and social worker (Katka was on Methadone therapy) Katka’s narration

Very short conversation between Katka and social worker (Katka was on Methadone therapy)

In the following sub-chapters some of the major parts from each of the communicational units will be presented.

6.3.1. Katka’s narration

Katka’s narration is a constant in the film from the very beginning until the end. Some parts of Katka’s interviews are also used in the final cut as narration, which gives the impression that Katka is telling the story spontaneously. At the beginning of the film, when she is talking about how she started using drugs, it is detectable that this narration was an answer to an interview question:„Mum didn’t know what to do with me so she sent me to a clinic and I promised to stop taking drugs and stuff. But I didn’t stop. I’d been lying to myself. I just kept on taking them. Before that, when I was 16, my mum had chucked me out. Out of the flat, I mean. Now I understand why. Now I see things differently, but at the time, I hated her for it. It felt like she was

128

rejecting me even though I knew why she did it. But I didn’t feel the way I do now. Now I understand her.”167

Katka’s narration at the very beginning is combined with a story she wrote after spending some time in the rehabilitation community. The story is used as a narration: for covering certain scenes in the Community: “In the kingdom, there was one little house where she didn’t feel alone. There she heard other stories, stories that seemed familiar to her. She learned how to live differently. The king still kept pursuing her, but not into the House of the Sun. That would have killed him.”168

For Třeštíková (as in the previous two case study films), it was important to show what kind of impact the film about Katka had on the spectator, namely, the public response to her story. All three of Třeštíková’s subjects, Marcela, René and Katka, were responsive to the attention the films received. This also emphasizes the filmmaker’s behavior within the film, as a helper. Katka, after the screening of her film in 2001, remarked:„Terrible. At least now I can see the result, the effect drugs have on me. What they do to me. The way I speak, everything.”169 „I didn’t even know it had been on TV. Then one day I’m sitting on a bench and these people come along, a girl and two blokes, and start shouting, ‘We’re rooting for you!’ And so on. Various people I know said: ‘Hey, we saw you on TV!’ I hadn’t expected so many people would see it, or be so supportive.”170

The narration is told by Katka’s voice. It operates as an almost immediate explanation of the film’s central theme. It represents an attempt of Třeštíková to offer a certain reflection from within the subject. However, this also seemed to draw attention to the personal constraints imposed by subject choices and life defeats (without revealing much beyond the surface). Moreover, some of the narrations (especially those used in a repetitive manner) seemed unanchored and displaced within the sequences. Katka’s narration remains embedded within the process of sharing her life story as one of the integral parts in structuring the film, whereby her narration arises from both conversations enhanced by the filmmaker and from the core of Katka’s own life.

167 Katka (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2010), 0:01:33 – 0:02:04. 168 Katka (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2010), 0:02:39 – 0:02:51. 169 Katka (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2010), 0:22:00 – 0:22:16. 170 Katka (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2010), 0:22:20 – 0:22:53. 129

6.3.2. Interviews

In the film, most of the interviews conducted by Třeštíková start with very short questions. One of the first short conversations between the filmmaker and the subject happens at the beginning of the film, during Katka’s days in the rehabilitation community. She talks about her family and her life with her mother and sisters.

Třeštíková prefers to let her subjects talk for themselves during critical moments, or guide them and advise them what to do when there is a space for that. After Katka splits up with Láďa: Katka:„I’m frightened.” Třeštíková:„What are you frightened of?” Katka:„Of accepting this as normal, of never being able to kick drugs. I don’t have any motivation to. I don’t have a goal. Nothing. I don’t know what I want. When you are on drugs there’s hardly anything to live for. Just a few basic things. Getting money for drugs...shooting up. Then tripping...and the same thing all over again. And that’s it. That’s all you ever do. Nothing else interests you. I’ll go and get a fix. It calms me down, heroin.”171

When Katka has the first medical checkup after finding out she was pregnant: Třeštíková:„Now for the first time you have to consider someone else’s needs.” Katka:„Yes, sure. I realize that. It makes me sad, that’s all.”172

During most of the conflict scenes, Třeštíková remains invisible, sometimes giving the impression that she is not even there as in the conversation/conflict between Katka and a health worker: Worker:„Now I’m going to have to ask you a few simple questions. Do you know what day of the month it is?” Katka: „The 23rd.” Worker:„Fine. Do you know what season it is?” Katka:„Summer.” Worker:„Right. Do you know what this place is called?” Katka:„Yes.” Worker:„When did you last take heroin?” Katka:„A week ago”. Worker:„Right. Have you thought of going to a community for mothers with babies?”

171 Katka (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2010), 0:16:35 – 0:17:38. 172 Katka (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2010), 0:32:30 – 0:32:52. 130

Katka:„Not really.” Worker:„Why not?” Katka:„I don’t see any reason to.” Worker:„What reasons might mothers have for going into a community like that?” Katka:„I don’t know what reasons they have. I’m not interested.” Worker:„Are you interested in whether your child is healthy or not? Or whether you’ll look after it?” Katka:„Yes, obviously.” Worker:„Or whether you’ll be able to?” Katka:„Well I hope so.” Worker:„And what if the child has to be put into care even against your will?” Katka:„I’d agree, of course.” Worker:„Do you think that might happen?” Katka:„It could happen. Maybe. But it doesn’t have to, does it?” Worker:„I’m pretty sure that, given your present lifestyle, the chances of that happening are virtually 99.5%.” Katka:„Today maybe.” Worker:„These things take time to sort out. You don’t have that much time. Have you talked about what you might call it?” Katka:„Not yet, no.” Worker:„Have you thought of a name you’d like to give it?” Katka:„No. I will when it’s born.” Worker:„Not before then?” Katka:„When it’s born. Or afterwards. Whatever.” Worker:„That’s not possible. There are some things …” Katka:„Not possible?” Worker:„It is possible, but it’s not ideal, because two weeks before the birth, the maternity hospital needs to fill in a form with names…”173

In the scene where Roman is beating another woman, Třeštíková also remains invisible almost till the very end: Woman:„Can’t you see they are filming us? What have I done Roman? What the hell’s going on?

173 Katka (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2010), 0:33:09 – 0:35:00. 131

That’s my bag.” (Roman is throwing away stuff from her bag and slapping her in the face and kicking her with his leg.) Roman:„Fuck off!” Woman:„Why are you filming us?” Roman:„They’re filming me. Keep out of this, or you’ll regret it. Thanks to this bitch, I’ve got to go on a fucking cure like I was some dossier, some bloody profiteer. I have a two-week-old daughter. Now piss off, you cow.”174 A police officer separates them in the end.

The whole scene shows the conflict between Roman and the woman at the train station, and at the very end a conversation between Třeštíková and a policeman. In terms of the content, the scene does not seem to connect with any other part in the film. The woman is talking directly to the cameraman during the conflict asking why it is being filmed. Another element of this scene concerns the complete distance of the filmmaker. It would appear to have made better sense if she had kept her distance throughout the film, but instead she was very selective in the conflicts and conversations she chose to take part in. It is not clear from the film why this particular scene was kept in the final cut of the film.

The last conversations in the film between Katka and Třeštíková about Katka’s daughter Teresa: Třeštíková:„So how’s Teresa doing, Katka?” Katka:„Teresa’s still in the care center.” Třeštíková:„You really must do something, or they’ll say you can’t look after her and take her away from you.” Katka:„They’d only do that if I didn’t go and see her for two months. They do that if you don’t show any interest in the child for two months. So I make sure I do.” Třeštíková:„I know. But Teresa needs you every day, not once every two months.” Katka:„Yes, I know.” Třeštíková:„I still don’t understand what’s stopping you.” Katka:„Roman’s stopping me.” Třeštíková:„Don’t you miss her?” Katka:„Yes, I miss her. But right now the problem is my ID card. I’ve lost my ID card.” Třeštíková:„Remember what you said? You said you’d be with her from day one. How old is she now?” Katka:„Six months.”

174 Katka (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2010), 0:54:52 – 0:55:32. 132

Třeštíková:„Promise me that tomorrow you’ll start getting organized.” Katka:„Yeah, tomorrow. Monday.”175

Interviews serve as one of the engines to engage the spectator with the film and Katka’s story. Katka was introduced directly by this device with straightforward language, which offers a particular understanding of the subject’s life. Such understanding could not offer some new experience of lived reality: the more the film was progressing towards the end the less the chance was of experiencing other parts of Katka’s life. It also seemed as if additional questions could have been raised about her family and childhood besides the constant emphasizing of conditions of her displacement in life and from the outside world.

6.4. Analysis Katka: Camera shots

Třeštíková showed Katka most of the time in close-up shots. Katka is present in more than 150 shots176 of which 90 shots are close-up shots that are usually focused on her face, its contours, profile, wrinkles and acne (this is especially true during the later parts of the film). The camera also focuses on her hands and marks from drug needles in her veins. The lighting was usually natural. There was sporadic use of additional flash-lights. Třeštíková also used a lot of zoom-ins and pans when showing Katka’s body from her legs to her hands and face.

The camera also used medium shots (around 32) and long shots (around 28) of Katka. Treštikova used medium shots when showing, for instance, Katka and her boyfriends Láďa, and Roman cooking and preparing injections of heroin or bathing in the fountain. Long shots were used to show bigger groups of people as in the rehabilitation community environment or at a busy metro station or the scenes where Katka was working on the street as a sexual worker.177 In these scenes, the camera shows the wider surroundings, usually of empty streets.

Around 30 close-up and medium shots show Katka taking drugs. Medium shots were also used in scenes that do not include Katka (there are around 31 of these). These scenes focus on conversations with health and social workers as well as Ladya in prison. There are also long-shot scenes in the train station. About 20 long shots were used to show rehabilitation groups, different

175 Katka (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2010), 1:21:50 – 1:23:20. 176 Estimations are calculated as an approximate number of shots. 177 The same scene was shown in the cycle, Ženy na přelomu tisíciletí – V pasti (Women At the Turn of the Millennium - Trapped, Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2001), just with shorter dialogue between Katka and random passers by. On the other hand, Katka talks more about having fears while working in the streets. This was excluded from the scene shown in Katka (2010). 133

squats and the river. Around 30 close-up shots focused on different parts of people’s faces and hands (i.e. Láďa, social worker and hospital workers).

These charts present the dynamics of shots and their exchange during each part of the film:

The average length of the longest shots is between 25 and 30 seconds. The use of a hand-held camera is dominant throughout the whole film. Close-up shots are used more in Katka (and René) than in Marcela. The camera shows all the contours, marks and blemishes of Katka’s face, which is sometimes sharply lit.

According to the charts, the first part of the film is almost equally balanced with a slight dominance of close shots over the medium shots of Katka. The first part of the film structures Katka's life mostly around rehabilitation, emotional relationships, and drug abuse. Her boyfriend is also involved in the communication. Apart from them, there are no other interlocutors. The camera is equally close to the social subjects, especially when filming takes place during the episodes of drug abuse, or when the social subject talks under the influence of drugs.

During the second part of the film, the medium shots overtake in dominance. In this part of the film which is the driving narrative force for the rest of the film and also the certain climax of the overall story, attention is divided between the social subjects and other people involved either in communication and/or certain actions around the main subject (mainly the partner and

134

health/social workers). The main thematic plain of the second part, namely, Katka's pregnancy, delivering the baby and permanently removing the child from her care by social services, involves not only more people in the overall communication, but also more details about the social subject's life and the places where she lives. Spatially, the direction steers towards streets and squats, where the camera pays much more attention to details in showing the terrible living conditions of the social subject. Therefore, there are many close shots of the space that are also present in this part of the film. The filmmaker wanted to direct attention to those circumstances that play an additional role in the overall climax of the story.

During the third part of the film, the medium shots of Katka are the most dominant. Structurally, events here are similarly related (as during the second part of the film) to life on the streets and in different squats, along with sporadic attempts at treatments in rehabilitation centers, and culminating with the termination of Katka's parental rights. There are some closer shots of Katka, but the camera is rather more focusing again on her living conditions, along with several scenes of conflict between the subjects. The presence of the filmmaker is rather shifting throughout the whole film, and is depending on conflict scenes and people involved in those scenes. The filmmaker steps forward in front of the camera once (during the conflict with the police); for the rest of the film she is present with her voice when doing some of the interviews with the social subject, or she remains completely 'invisible' for the rest of the scenes. The sense of isolation of the social subject from the outside world is primarily present in the third part of the film.

6.5. Analysis Katka: Editing

The opening sequence in Katka is a shortened version of a scene from the second part. It takes place in the hospital, with Katka captured in profile wearing a hospital gown, next is a black background, then Katka again alternates with the background, which announces the filmmaker and the film title. Immediately after that, the story goes back to the past, to the very beginning of the filming process, when Katka was in the rehabilitation community. Changes of shots at the very beginning happen quickly. For some spectators, it may not even be clear enough if Katka is in hospital or somewhere else. The approximate duration of one shot after editing is short and lasts only 2-5 seconds. The whole opening sequence is related to the period which will later be the climax of the film: Katka's pregnancy and the birth of her baby daughter, Teresa.

The sequencing of the material in Katka proceeds in a linear direction; there are no jumps back

135

and forth or showing parts of Katka’s life in different periods. After the opening scene, the film is structured chronologically showing Katka’s life. However, sequences are arranged and cut together with various shots, giving additional dynamics to the scenes. Conversations with Katka and her boyfriend Láďa are edited with close-up shots of their faces, and there is sporadic intra- scene editing with details such as their hands or cigarettes.

During the conversation between Katka and a health worker, when she comes to announce her pregnancy, shots of Katka alternate with those of the health worker. The sequence is also cut by images of Katka’s hands, nails, then it returns to the health worker.178Another conversation, which involves a conflict between Katka and the health worker is combined with medium and close shots of both the characters, there is no cutting to other details:179

178 Katka (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2010), 0:30:02 – 0:30:04. 179 Katka (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2010), 0:33:10 - 0:36:07. 136

137

Most of the time, conflict scenes are edited in a similar style, without much cutting and only showing the presence of the characters in the film: between Katka and the health worker, between Katka’s boyfriend Roman and the health worker, between Roman and the woman at the train station, between Katka and Roman etc. The conflict (communication) is dominant and there is almost no cutting together with other details. Apparently, Třeštíková wanted to leave the space undisturbed with other details and to give precedence to the intensity of the conflicts, which all together imparts one of the main tones of the film.

With graphics, namely inter-titles, Třeštíková breaks Katka into thematic and chronological parts, 138

and what is more, she usually breaks time periods according to Katka's age (unlike in Marcela, and René, where time periods are mostly marked by announcing the exact month and year via inter-titles). Editorial intervention is mainly presented by using and placing certain sequences next to each other. That draws questions of the unjustified usage of certain sequences in the film and their displacement in the overall structure (of the film) and within the order of other sequences: conflict scenes between Roman and the health worker where he is cursing and swearing in front of the camera180; or the scene in the elevator of the hospital with a disabled boy in a wheelchair, where the camera is focusing on the child and his mumbling.181Also, the sound in this scene is more intense than in the rest of the film. The next scene is Katka in the squat. It is not clear why these scenes were left during editing, and what kind of connection they have with the previous sequence, or with the sequence that comes next; or during the conflict at the train station when Roman is beating a woman (who remains anonymous to the spectator).182 The sequence is not very connected with the sequences which precede and follow it. It is followed by Katka in the hospital, then goes back to Roman, who is supposed to leave for the rehabilitation center from the train station. The editing style during most of the film is more associated with the cutting and arranging of sequences. Certain editing pattern repeats during the film in the sequencing of material: conflicts usually without additional cutting, just minor details, which are usually shown entirely without cutting and exposing other details. Třeštíková is 'invisible' during most of the film except during the third part when the spectator can hear her conversation with Katka as she attempts to advise her that she has to take responsibility and care for her daughter.183 She, physically, appears once in front of the camera during the conflict with police.184

Třeštíková closes Katka with a shot taken near the railway lines while Katka and Roman walk and try to find a place to stay. In the editing process, she adds the final scene of Katka (right after the screening of the film) asking her if there is anything she wants to tell Teresa. The editing pattern in Katka has similar dynamics and rhythm throughout the whole film: intra-editing of sequences, cutting during conversations, and/or conflict scenes as well as leaving the majority of sequences uncut usually when showing the details of places for living. Those scenes are usually covered by Katka's narration. There are no rapid cuts in any of the scenes and the filmmaker prefers to keep a

180 Katka (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2010), 0:37:00 – 0:37:41. 181 Katka (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2010), 0:49:05 – 0:49:39. 182 Katka (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2010), 0:54:36 - 0:56:17. 183 Katka (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2010), 1:21:50 – 1:23:20. 184 Katka (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2010), 1:24:46 – 1:24:48.

139

similar rhythm rather than making sudden jumps. The rhythm and dynamic are more determined by the dramatic events themselves. In order to produce most of the dramatic effect, more precedence is given to the camera rather than to continual editorial intervention (the delivery of the baby in a hospital operating room, the affray on the train station, various conflicts). Editorial intervention in Katka is more present in the sequencing of the overall material, and in arranging the scenes next to each other while compiling the entire final image of the subject.

140

Chapter Seven: Effect of Authenticity in Marcela, René, and Katka 7.0. Effect of authenticity in Marcela, René, and Katka: Introductory note

The results of the analysis of Třeštíková's long-term observational documentaries will be outlined in the following points: the usage of formal techniques and the application of the contractual model of filmic authenticity between the filmmaker and spectator.

Analysis of the extent to which the effect of authenticity was achieved in these documentary films relies on the approach applied by Manfred Hattendorf, whose approach enables analysis at all levels of the production (the way formal techniques were used in the film). In other words, questioning and analyzing the means (formal techniques) used in the documentary as well as the discursive strategies which were applied in the representation of the social subjects and their lives assess in the re-construction of all the three films – Marcela (2006), René (2008), and Katka (2010), and analyzes how formal techniques were used in the act of re-creation. How did Třeštíková use formal techniques in the representation of social subjects and their lives? How does this relate to the contractual model of filmic authenticity between the filmmaker and spectator?

Třeštíková uses formal techniques which are determined by her style and creative choices as a filmmaker. In all of the three long-term observational documentaries (the case study films in this thesis), Třeštíková follows a certain approach (an almost consistent structural pattern) in order to intensify the dramatic effect of the overall atmosphere in the films and to justify the settings. She does not only intercede in the events recorded by camera and intervene in the editing process, but she also creates a particular claim regarding the social subjects, their characters and lives. The intervention in the representational process is implied in this consistent pattern and the filmmaker’s particular approach as perceived in all the three films: opening sequences; announcements of dramatic events (edits of graphic inter-titles during the films before each of the dramatic events or sequences) and the way they are structured; the domination of certain spatial environments (squats, jails, hospitals etc.); the communication style (dominated by narrations voiced by the social subjects) and the directing of interviews; editing interventions (cutting within and between sequences); and the camera work (framing within the sequences such as the train rails in Marcela, the jail bars and the scenes of writing in René, the details of squat life in Katka.) as well as the rhythm/dynamics of the edited shots in the overall structure of the film. This implies the inclusion or exclusion of certain moments in the film; or the domination of certain spatial 141

representations over others; or the way the communication was used in the film: the choice of settings, camera shots; and finally, the sequencing of the story in the final editing process. These factors all contribute in re-constructing each of the units and demonstrates how they entirely correspond to the effect of authenticity within the process of representation.

Certainly, it is difficult to judge authenticity with an „objective category in mind”,185 as was noted by Hattendorf, however, analysis of the production side of the film and the usage of its formal techniques can assist in determining how certain representations can be produced with „specifically filmic means.”186 Moreover, it also helps in the reconstruction of „specific argument which lies at the base of the filmic discourse.”187 This implies that any set of life events can be arranged and approached by the filmmaker in many ways. Both of them: the setting of the lived reality which takes place in front of the camera and the delivering of recorded reality to the spectator with the usage of formal techniques throughout the process of representation do assign a certain understanding of that reality as well as of its performers (social subjects). This comprehension can have a tremendous impact on how we see the processed reality. This appreciation assigned to the social subjects, while experiencing and/or exploring some of their characteristics along with their lives lived in front of the camera, can re-create a distorted image of people and events represented in the film. The setting was used to inscribe a particular awareness during the process of its representation, so this setting implies techniques which helps the owner of the discourse (in this case the filmmaker) to represent what was seen and captured by the camera. While using the setup of those techniques, the filmmaker slowly re-creates the captured reality and constructs their way of seeing that lived moment.

Various strategies (in this case formal techniques) can be used in arranging events and recorded materials. Choices made by a filmmaker on how to use formal techniques in representing reality may contribute to bringing to the fore/conveying opinions she/he has about the world/people they represent. Strategies are then used to justify this argument and representation. The adoption of specific strategies, which was also the case with Marcela, René, and Katka, cannot be absolutely neutral and results in certain implications. These implications affect the overall image the spectator receives of the social subjects in the final representation. If the overall image was substantially different, or if different strategies were applied than those experienced, would the

185 HATTENDORF, Manfred (1994): p. 119. 186 Ibid., p. 119. 187 Ibid., p. 119.

142

characters be less attractive or less desirable for the spectator? Would any of the social subjects be less interesting if dramatic events were balanced with other daily (or banal) routines? What if different sides of the characters were shown than those which dominate the periods of disillusionment and depression? It is not possible to have all representations and then compare them, and such possible arrangements of the events in the films, different than those already produced, can only be discussed hypothetically. However, in a more concrete and practical manner, it is more useful to experience what we already have with the existing arrangement and setup of Marcela, René and Katka’s lives. Strategies in this case mean applying formal techniques and patterns in a certain way in all the three films, and considering what type of argument and image they put forward. The starting point here is that the documentary discourse was used to justify representation of life drama, and to intensify the overall dramatic effect in all the three films. ‘To intensify’ in this case means to additionally empower the atmosphere of the film in representing the life drama of social subjects. The events in the film are ordered by a system of causalities, and the films are intertwined and entirely dependent on those causalities.

Třeštíková’s interest in filming Marcela’s life came out of the thematic scope which was constructed around life events from the wedding day and entering the marriage, life while married, divorce, and the loss of her daughter (if Marcela’s life was a series of less dramatic events, perhaps the film would have never ended up as a long-term observation which covered almost three decades of her life. Obviously, the dramatic continuation of life events was one of the driving forces for the filmmaker). The atmosphere of dramatic events is intensified in Marcela, with her never-ending struggle with finances and the search for a decent place to live, emotional relationships and their breakdowns, and her struggle to live after her daughter’s death. During almost thirty years of Marcela’s life, the spectator becomes acquainted with Marcela’s character predominantly through those dramatic events (thoughts about suicide, attempts at suicide, depressive episodes). Any possible encouraging or favorable moment (except perhaps when Marcela finally moved into a new flat) was not really in focus while structuring the story and building the thematic scope of the film: (i) the whole life experience of delivering the baby and becoming a mother is missing (besides the period which deals with the separation between Marcela and Jiří); (ii) the period when Ivana, Marcela’s daughter, starts school or graduates; (iii) Marcela’s life during the relationship with the father of her son, Tomáš; (iv) Marcela’s friends and gathering with them (except two patchily-shown events in the first and second part of the film). The whole spectrum of ordinary life events is missing in such a long time span. A similar pattern

143

can be recognized in René.

The interest in filming René came out of Třeštíková’s interest in engaging in youth delinquency; during the early period of film shooting, René was already part of that milieu together with a couple of other young people. His life continued to follow the same path of incarceration and that marks the whole film; more than twenty years of René’s life, where time and space were compressed from one imprisonment to another. Clearly, the film witnesses one part of life crucial for the whole film and everything else surrounding it. Every other element serves the same purpose to justify René’s character, his disappointments and apathy towards people and life in general. Other experiences were not in particular focus of the film: (i) any longer period in freedom (besides brief representations of his struggle to find a job and not having a place to live) even though there were breaks of one or even two years between two imprisonments; (ii) the whole of his social life is missing (except a short episode shown with his girlfriend Katarína), there are no other friends in his life; (iii) any part of his life during the relationships with Eva and Katarína, when he felt fullfilled and happy [as he notes in his book, Deník zapomenutého (Diary of a Forgotten Man)]; (iv) the period when René’s book was published, was there any public book review or book promotion (except the brief shot of the article from the local newspaper). The entire representation of more than twenty years of his life was dominated by the isolated atmosphere of jails, and everything else served to validate that including the total exclusion of other events during the filming and editing process.

Třeštíková’s interest in filming Katka arose out of Katka‘s struggle with a heroin addiction during her teenage years when she was still part of the other film cycle, Ženy na přelomu tisíciletí (Women at the Turn of the Millenium, Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2003), and then it continued after Katka stopped with her treatment at the rehabilitation centre. The major part of the film is concerned with Katka’s struggle to quit taking drugs, which culminates with her giving birth to her daughter Teresa and her subsequent inability to look after her. Except at the very beginning of the film, when there still appeared to be some hope that Katka might overcome her addiction problems, the rest of the film shapes a clear path of dramatic events lurching from one squat to another and from one problematic relationship to another. The experience of Katka’s character is similar to the previous two characters. The focus of the film was predominantly on those events that additionally intensify and support the overall subject of the film, which covers almost fifteen years of Katka’s life. There are no other experiences: (i) the whole of Katka’s family, her sisters and mother, were not shown in the film (the only people around Katka are 144

problematic partners, and health and social workers); (ii) it is difficult to foreseeanticipate what was happening in Katka’s life during the break of five years, between rehabilitation treatments and pregnancy; (iii) there are no episodes from any of the periods in rehabilitation clinics, or investigation of the kind of treatments she had there, and why she decided each time to leave rehab. (except a small episode at the very beginning of the film); (iv) her social life is missing, no friends at all are portrayed (except when doing drugs); (v) meeting/s with her daughter Teresa are missing (except brief explanations during her conversations with Třeštíková).

Various strategies were used as part of the intervention, ranging from arranging the structure, the inclusion/exclusion of people (who are close to the subjects), styles and techniques used while doing the interviews, to the sequencing and arranging of the filmed material during the editorial process. Those strategies chosen by the filmmaker not only re-create a lived reality but may also affect the spectator’s perception of the social subjects and their represented lives. These possible shifts in perception are part of the process of representation that communicate the final (represented) image to the spectator. Even though the tendency of observational documentary is that a spectator receives an authentic experience as a result of the representation on the screen and moreover, perceives the filmmaker as an observer, in this case a significant filming and editorial control over the representational process was imposed upon the image of the subjects.

In the editorial framework, the social subjects were usually excluded from any decisions once the selection and cutting of materials started. Within the overall production framework, the responsibility for sharing any privacy was firmly placed on the social subject. However, the production involvement and practices in the process of representation tended to undermine the boundaries of privacy of the social subjects while delivering and re-creating the final image as the irrevocable result of filtering, selecting, and structuring all the materials that were recorded over a longer period of time. Therefore, all the elements, which support the entire production framework play an enormous role in de-constructing and analysing this (final) image of the social subjects in all three case study films, and the context and understanding that was offered to the spectator within such a representational plain.

145

7.1. Effect of authenticity in Marcela, René, and Katka: Usage of formal techniques in representation

7.1.1. Structuring the story

The structure of the story in each of the films follows the same pattern. They start in the dramatic (almost climactic) moment in the lives of the social subjects: Marcela is sharing her thoughts on the train, René is in the jail writing a letter to Helena (filmed from behind bars), and Katka is in the hospital during the time when she is delivering the baby. After the initial opening scenes, the films always go back to the past and continue chronologically until the end of the film. Chronology is used in each of the films, following the lives of the social subjects, which was also indicated in the inter-titles provided by the filmmaker. The life drama of each of the characters (social subjects) is always announced at the very beginning of the films, which sets the tone for the rest of the film. In less than five minutes, the spectator becomes aware of a drama unfolding around the lives of the subjects. Třeštíková imparts the tension of the scene that is emblematic for the overall film and she engages the spectator by foreshadowing that there is something important to share and that a crisis is about to come.

The subjects chosen for these long-term observational films already display a dramatic pathos, which would not be likely to change over the course of the film. These characteristics were presented at the beginning of each film. For example, the spectator is introduced to Marcela’s barely audible voice as she rides a train after the death of her daughter. The spectator cannot anticipate already at the beginning of the film that Marcela’s daughter is going to tragically die during the film, but it can be sensed from the tone that Marcela is at some kind of dramatic turning point in her life, as she clearly states how she feels at that moment. Even though the film, after the first sequence, goes back to her wedding day, the opening sequence very much determines the tone of the entire film. This first sign of drama that is present in the opening scene on the train is the driving force for the rest of the film. In René case, he is introduced in a jail setting while writing a letter to Třeštíková. He is captured by the camera from behind the bars of his cell. Shortly after that, the film goes years and years back to his past when he was a teenager. As a teenager, he is introduced to the spectator during one of his first stays in a juvenile detention center. René’s path from jail to jail was momentously presented at the very beginning, during the first couple of sequences. Katka, meanwhile, is in a blurry hospital environment during the period when she was giving birth to her daughter. It is not clear from the shot if it was immediately

146

before or after giving birth. After that sequence, the film returns to Katka’s past when she was nineteen years old and undergoing treatment in a rehabilitation centre. The opening scene of Katka offers more hope than the other two stories of Marcela and René although it is hard to anticipate if the opening sequence shows Katka’s positive change in her life, or the continuation of drama; it could be either. She does not talk nor is she involved in any particular action so the sequence can be read and anticipated from the both of the above-mentioned, possible experiences. Each of these sequences leaves an impression that the subjects are already in very particular situations in their lives and that their states of mind that are not likely to change. Even though the films go back to the past (childhood/wedding/adolescence), the tones that were established at the very beginning continue to dominate the later scenes.

Events are usually enhanced with inter-titles, most of them announcing dramatic situations (events) to be witnessed/observed/seen in the coming scenes. In Marcela, the ratio of dramatic versus other events being announced is 11/8, that means there were eleven dramatic events while another eight inter-titles announced brighter episodes in the subject’s life (expecting a baby, finding a job, and getting a new flat). Two inter-titles had more neutral announcements, without relating to a specific life event but rather announcing time, and/or the month and year in the subject’s life. In René, the ratio is 9/5 (there are 13 more neutral inter-titles used to announce months and years without additional details about events, but they are all related to the periods when René was in different jails, or struggling with life outside). Out of 27 inter-titles, 9 announce dramatic events in his life, while five in total announced events when the spectator might expect that there is a new beginning for René (when he started his own business or published his books). In Katka, the ratio of dramatic vs. not-dramatic event announcements is 4/5, that means four dramatic events and five of the events related to the episodes which might turn her life into a different direction (when going to rehabilitation clinics or starting different treatments). A total of 17 announcements in Katka can be identified as neutral as they only announce months and years along with Katka’s age at different periods of time. However, all of these neutral announcements are enhanced with video footage (in this case video serves more as a tool in producing dramatic effect) which communicates with the rest of the final image of the subject. Those videos along with the announcements of Katka’s age and/or month and year clearly indicate her position in life during certain moments or during certain periods of time:„Spring 1998 Katka is 21” (video showing Katka in the squat preparing to inject drugs); „Autumn 2000” (video is showing Katka on the street while working as a sexual worker); „Katka is 30” (video is showing Katka in a squat

147

at the beginning of her pregnancy); „December 2007” (video is showing Katka in the squat); „March 2008 Katka is 31” (video is showing Katka during the interview where she admits that Roman is beating her); „Katka is 32” (video is showing Katka in the squat).

There is certain, rather thematic dynamics in all the inter-titles/announcements of the events used in the three films, which is organized around the sequences or periods/events in the subject’s life. This dynamic is more thematic than time-related since, in some cases, there were huge time gaps between the periods of filming. As indicated in earlier chapters of the analysis of the case study films, all the three films were structured to contain three main parts. The second part of the films is usually the longest one and represents the culmination of the events: in Marcela that is the death of her daughter and all the events which followed (major, dramatic events); the culmination in René is also placed during the second part of the film with the death of his girlfriend, publishing of his book, and robbery of Třeštíková's flat; in Katka the culmination during the second part of the film is connected to her pregnancy along with all the issues and struggles with drug abuse throughout the pregnancy. The dramatic intensity in the films emerged from the summation and recapitulation of events.

The pattern of using inter-titles and announcing dramatic events in each of the films suggests the social subjects and their lives represented, and they function not only as a time compass helping in chronological orientation amongst different events, but they also present a driving force within the story. The films would look completely different if those structured inter-titles were not used, and the spectator would probably experience the films in a different way. Structuring the story mostly around dramatic events is not only about intervening in the overall appearance of the final product, but it is also about assigning a certain understanding of the events and of people’s lives in the socio-historical world (for Marcela - the structure is assigned around the marriage, motherhood, separations; for René - life in the jail rather than freedom; for Katka - heroin addiction). The entire structure operates to justify those understandings. Most of the periods which were announced in the inter-titles deal only with particular parts of the subjects’ lives, therefore other people, friends or family members, or other events are either completely excluded from the overall picture or marginalized. At the same time, some of the questions raised drive the story forward – will the social subjects overcome their problems (jails, drug addictions, psychological crisis)? Will they be able to participate normally in society again?

There is a dramatic treatment of the events which basically remains the same throughout all the

148

three films. Dramatic events guide the narrative. Drama, as it exists in real life, is expected to fit into such a structure. Třeštíková follows an almost classical dramatic structure that organizes events in three acts: main conflict, culmination, and resolution. In Třeštíková’s case, the third act is more of a suspense and possible continuation of the film (relates to long-term observation), everything relies on individual determination which serves as an engine for the film. In all three films, there is a clear promise of dramatic events and culminations but without an apparent intention for possible resolutions. Each of the characters stays in more or less similar (even worse) conditions at the end of the film (except perhaps Marcela who moved to a new flat, but that occurs at the very end of the film so it is difficult to anticipate a further development of the events).

This given pattern of dramatic events appears to serve as a guide in the selection and organization of all the material in the final editing process as well as presenting the method of arranging the story information. It also provides a structural principle for all the three documentaries. Overall structural strategy applied in all the three films bestows a dramatic image of the social subjects and their lives. It serves as a certain engine in the additional composition of moments of recorded reality, and conveys the final image into the representation of that reality. The represented social subjects were almost never seen (or represented) as being happy. The lived experiences that could be determined or perceived as happy were excluded from the overall framework. It can be deemed problematical to judge if happiness was ever a part of the subjects’ lives, or to have an objective and clear overview of another spectrum of emotions or characteristics than those which were transmitted while creating the final images of the films. It can also be presumed that the overall lived reality was actually a dramatic plain lived and experienced over a number of years, however, these conjectures all remains in the area of assumptions. While the structural arrangement helps by giving at least some insights that might produce and contribute other experiences and tones to the overall experience of the films, within the structural framework they were not apportioned much space unlike some other events which support the cumulative constitution of the thematic plain.

There is a dramatic effect in each of the case study films which not only faithfully conserves and retains the hardship, burden and narrowness of the entire thematic plots, but it also stands as the main scale in re-creating personalities and characters (as their main characteristics) of the social subjects. What was seen and experienced in the threading of the main characteristics of the social subjects throughout the film can stem from depression, apathy, sadness, sluggishness, emptiness and loneliness. Any sign of bright moments is un-echoed by the imposed, prevailing, thematic 149

plain. The vivid image which was produced through such a structural diagram displays that represented individual, who was surrounded by nothing but drama and tragedy for most of the subject’s life. Certainly, the structure plays an important role in the selection of some materials over others, and in the overall structuring of the subjects' lives. When such an image is represented and broadened over a large time span, it becomes even more forceful in depicting the repetitiveness of dramatic effects and events.

7.1.2. Space

The domination of the jail setting in René provides an important input of spatial representation and information about the subject’s social life. It defines the mode and the tone of the whole film. The spectator becomes quickly drawn into this “inside” world, making it easy to forget about what lies beyond the film’s setting. The spectator becomes aware of the almost complete absence of the outside world, which has an isolating effect and rules out the possibility of witnessing René’s life in other representations. Such absorption allows the spectator to fully concentrate on the subject’s circumstances. In René, shots of the outside world were used as sporadic moments in an effort to create a deep sense of isolation. All the main conversations and dramatic moments that happen in the film take place within the walls of a prison. A similar spatial representation dominates in Katka. The main settings in that film were built around squats and hospitals. Life outside these settings, for example, spatial representation of her real family home, does not exist. From the spectator’s perspective, Katka was homeless for most of her life. This is the reality which exists for most of the film. The spatial representation in René and Katka was also used as a tool to additionally depict the social subjects in a particular manner. René, surrounded by bars with a hardly audible voice, is represented as a skeptical, bitter character. He is disappointed and depressed and alone, lacking motivation to fit into life in the outside world. Each scene in this film uses the space and action to better portray the subject. Katka, on the other hand, can provoke different emotions: the scene in the hospital when delivering her daughter, for example, and then being told that she cannot keep her child because she lives on the street and has a problem with drug addiction. Comparable to in René, the scenes in Katka also help portray the subject’s life and character. The space visually symbolizes the realities that dominate in the films. In Marcela, the dominant space is home, which Marcela wants to escape from and is constantly looking for a new space to move to. The setting in Marcela’s space is usually modest, and there is no camera attention to the details such as books, objects, or other content on the shelves which could perhaps help to shed additional light onto the character. Most of the conversations with Marcela were set

150

up in the kitchen or living room.

The highest intensity concerning dynamics and space changes is usually during the first part of the films. In Marcela, the spectator becomes acquainted with not only her home (the home of Jiří’s parents), but also her parents’ home, Jiří’s workplace and later the courtroom. This intensity in terms of changes decreases as the setting for Marcela shifts mainly to her home and onto the streets, during sporadic actions. The train was an additional setting used in Marcela, which was used not only in the opening and closing sequences, but it also breaks the film between the first and the second part, providing the spatial setting which encircled the death of Marcela’s daughter along with Marcela’s suicidal thoughts. The train is used to boost not only this side of Marcela’s character, but the overall atmosphere. Třeštíková brings this setting over and over again into the film as a reminder of the whole tragedy which happened in Marcela’s life.

In René, the first part of the film also brings such dynamics and change, however, that is actually the only time René has a home during the whole film (his mother’s place where a couple of scenes were shot and a small shabby house where he lived for some time, it is not clear from the film for how long). Later, during the second and third parts of the film, the space was set up mostly around jails. In René, the train station also appears many times over different periods. René was never seen entering any of those trains but rather as if he were posing, or just hanging around. It is not clear if the train settings in both of the films were staged locations, as in René’s case, he was never seen with any luggage either. The same can be said of Marcela, in that it is never clear where she travelled by train, and if the train setting was just used as an additional setting to heighten her evident condition and state, and whether the train scenes could have been reduced during the editing process. Also, she is always alone there (except in the last scene when the shot includes her son Tomáš as well); there are no other people nearby which may additionally suggest a staged action.

Staged actions present an illustration of the filmmaker’s intervention in the lived reality. In the case of Marcela and René, staged actions do not serve as a substitute for the real, actual events, as there was no need to substitute reality which was already lived in front of the camera for a couple of decades of someone’s life. They were rather used as an onset in the process of representation, to reflect a different way of interpretation of what was represented. They in a certain way add the filmmaker’s voice to the experiences of the social subjects represented in the films, and her role as mediator between the spectator and social subjects’ lives. In this case, more reinforcement of

151

particular emotions or states guides the spectator towards a specific interpretation. If, for instance, Marcela had started with the wedding ceremony or some similar event, different from the scene the filmmaker used, that would generate a completely different momentum in the opening of the film. Or if the train setting was used only once or not used at all during the film (along with the close shots of the train rails used during Marcela’s narration), then perhaps the interpretation of the overall period surrounded by the death of Marcela’s daughter would bring different impressions or at least there would be no constant reminder of the tragedy. It would not be less tragic for the spectator, but it would leave the possibility for other interpretations. In both of those films, possible staged actions rather served the purpose of further representation of the characters, than to correlate with other scenes and/or events during the film. In Katka, it is a similar case in connection with the rhythm of the space changes, which is at its most dynamic during the first part of the film (including Katka’s room, however, it is not clear if the room where Katka was filmed was located at her family home or at the rehabilitation centre, no other details were captured in Katka’s room to help in the further experiencing of the character, only the long shot of a modestly furnished place). As the film progresses towards the second (culminating) and the third part, the space is worsening and Katka is homeless for most of the film. There is also a great deal of attention directed at details in the places where she used to stay such as squats, which intensifies the sense of the unbearable living conditions.

There are no other spatial representations in the films except those related to their dominant atmospheres. The high intensity of the space changes during the first parts helped in the additional contouring of the characters, which relates to the creating of dramatic effect in the films. Later, when the culmination already started to develop (during the second part), the space changes were sometimes reduced to a minimum (up to a maximum of 2 spaces) as the drama of the subject’s life was enough to steer the narrative of the film. There was not much necessity to additionally enforce the dramatic atmosphere as was the case during the first parts when the life drama was still at the initial stage.

The interior spaces were predominant, which created a certain sense of isolation of the social subjects not only spatially, but also concerning their isolation from close family members and friends. There is a clear association of the settings and the social subjects, and the settings were used to indicate certain characteristics, lifestyles, backgrounds, social status and social subjects’ personalities. There was also a clear highlighting of the relationship between the social subjects and the locations as well as between the filmmaker and the settings. 152

The settings represent the way the social subjects were perceived by the filmmaker and what her own interpretation and understanding of their characters and lives was. The use of locations is very personal, giving the general impression of isolation, solitude, and disconnection from the rest of the world. The interiors communicate a similar sense of detachment from the outside world as there is no attention paid to details, which would additionally portray the characters. This distance that the filmmaker made from the outside world does not seem accidental. It reinforces the overall impression of the displacement in life and of being excluded from real life (especially in the case of René, and Katka). Even in Marcela, this displacement is recognizable especially after the loss of her daughter. Every setting placed at home, on the street, or on the train presents a personification of the characters’ separation from the real world as well as reinforcing the overall impression of the social subjects and their emotional states. If more attachment to the outside world had been shown, then undoubtedly it would have created more balance between the different impressions and meanings. Certainly, there would have been more chance to experience the social subjects in a different light. The settings do not only represent physical space, but they also fulfill the clear task of assigning an understanding as a part of the representational process of the characters, an understanding which can be used from the spectator’s side to experience and interpret the subjects’ lives: for instance, an understanding of the escape from home, and/or understanding of the complete absence of home.

7.1.3. Communication

The communication presents one of the most living forces as a tool in Třeštíková’s deliberate effort to present her social subjects in a way that matches and supports the drama in their lives. Třeštíková chooses communication as a tool in the producing of dramatic effect by placing the sequences which sometimes are either not connected to the story line, explained thoroughly or elaborated on. This happened in Marcela during one of the conversations where Marcela reveals her suspicions that her daughter was sexually abused by her father.188 The whole conversation was very short, and the spectator never finds out what happened as the subject was never discussed again during the film. But it was enough to use it as a dramatization effect. This technique was also used in Katka during the conflict between Katka’s boyfriend Roman and the anonymous woman at the train station.189 The conflict, which ended with the beating of the woman (who remained anonymous in the film), was left not only unfinished (without any connection to the rest

188 Marcela (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2006), 0:28:14 – 0:28:54. 189 Katka (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2010), 0:54:35 – 0:56:20. 153

of the narrative), but also without inter-connection between the prior and upcoming sequences. This scene is also critical because of the violence that is happening right in front of the camera. It raises the question of how far a filmmaker can go before intervening.

In the end, however, Třeštíková succeeded in intensifying the whole atmosphere of the film with this scene as the scene itself is very dramatic and disturbing. It leaves an undeniable impression that the filmmaker is not even there, at the same time this really represents a true observation of the event happening in front of the camera as there are no interventions or any interruptions by the filmmaker, except at the very end of the scene when the police came. That is also the moment when Třeštíková reacts (she does not appear physically in front of the camera, but she keeps her voice in the background) trying to explain to the police that she is making a film about Roman and that Roman is about to leave for the rehabilitation centre. Třeštíková keeps her distance during the whole conflict except in this instance. The same distance repeats in the scene during which there is conflict between Katka and a health worker, or Roman and the health worker. Sometimes the spectator may have the impression that the filmmaker is not even there, which is different from the conversations where Třeštíková involves herself (usually where she assumes the role of helper, and/or counselor). Why did she choose to remain distant in most of these conflicts? Did the filmmaker choose to remain distant in order to keep the dramatic momentum going until the very end of the conflict?

People involved in the communication or interviewing processes are all directly attached to the main subjects: their partners, or their children (in the case of Marcela). There is no communication with other members of the family (or only very sporadically). There is also no communication with their friends or social and health workers (especially in the cases of Marcela and René). The communication is mainly built around interviews and narrations. In René, it also includes the letters exchanged with Třeštíková: the letters represent one of the main driving forces and give a great insight into the relationship between the filmmaker and the social subject. However, it is challenging to define this particular relationship as it develops through various stages over the twenty years of René’s life portrayed in the film. Additionally, the filmmaker leaves an impression that she gives a certain voice to the subject as René reads all the letters during the film (the selection of letters used in the film was made by Třeštíková), except the two letters read by Třeštíková herself (one of those letters René wrote to her after he robbed her flat and the second letter, which questioned the relationship between the subject and filmmaker, was presented at the very end of the film). 154

The highest intensity of people involved in the communication is usually during the first part of the films (where the spectator has the opportunity to meet some other family members); as the films progress towards the end, the number of interlocutors is reduced.

Most of the interviews carried out by Třeštíková start with very short questions. The director also has a tendency of not speaking directly into the sound system (microphone) so her questions are sometimes barely audible. The communication in all the three films and within the circle of people involved around them play a substantial role in the exclusion of certain elements, which could help in further experiencing and offering different interpretative choices. The overall space for any additional experience of the subjects in this case is limited due to the narrowing of the circle of people involved in the communication. The final image of the social subjects is to a great extent influenced by this circle (which also occupies most of the space in the production framework) and the people involved in those circles (either problematic partners, or very sporadic moments with family members, and/or the complete absence of other family members or friends). This exclusion created by narrowing the communication circle, created an effective sense of isolation of each of the characters from the outside world.

7.1.4. Camera shots

The camera gives the impression that there is a distance between the filmmaker and the social subjects. Very rarely is Marcela's face captured in a close-up shot (mostly during the first part of the film), usually the camera just focuses on either her hands or a cigarette. Even when she finds out about her daughter's death, (Marcela is calling her friends to let her know that Ivana, her daughter, was found dead), the camera does not really focus that much on her face, but rather takes in other details such as cigarettes, hands, ashtray. It mostly captures Marcela with medium shots. Was this distance intentional to protect Marcela’s privacy (even though her privacy is already interrupted with a camera filming her), or does this communicate a more distant and ambivalent relationship between Marcela and Třeštíková? Marcela was presented as an ordinary woman (wedding ceremony, working, finding a flat, raising two children), yet she remains distant even mystified for the outside world. It was never revealed what exactly happened after her suicide attempt and what kind of treatment, help or support she received. How long did she stay in the hospital after the incident and what did it mean to her? The only information given comes from a couple of sporadic moments when Marcela spoke to the camera about how she felt that she

155

had disappointed everyone (from the conversation between Marcela and Třeštíková).190 The camera is hand-held most of the time. There is also a transition from black-and-white pictures to color in Marcela191 and René due to the usage of different equipment and the large time span covered by the films.

Close-up shots are dominant in René and Katka. The camera usually distances itself during the first and the third part of the films. It is closest to the subject during the middle part of the films. The camera (close shots) is usually the closest to the subject during the periods of the dramatic events. The position of the filmmaker is sometimes ambivalent in relation to the subject. In certain scenes, Třeštíková preserves a complete distance (in Marcela's case, or in the conflict situations in all the three films), which leaves an impression of almost not being there at all (usually during the conflict scenes) whereas in other scenes the filmmaker puts herself directly in front of the camera. This is also very much in correlation to the subjective involvement and the defining of her own role in each of the films.

Close shots also prevail in filming the space; more attention is paid to details in the spatial representation of squats and rundown flats (Katka, and René), additionally representing the social status and the lifestyle (no close-shot details were represented in René’s family home, or Katka’s room in the rehabilitation clinic, even though they were the only spaces, which could be perceived as ‘normal spaces for living’ represented in the film, but there were no details, only medium and long shots). Unlike in these, in other ruined flats and squats much more attention was given to details and close shots. Třeštíková was more in favor of close-shots in René and Katka, and especially their faces were captured from the front as well as details from shabby places, and/or squats where they used to live. Unlike in Marcela where medium and long shots dominate (there are several close shots of Marcela’s face during the first part of the film). The camera was used not only to reinforce the sense of isolation and disconnection from the outside world (with blurry images of nature and city landscapes, unrecognizable and blurry faces of people on the streets), but also to show the closeness and the distance between the filmmaker and the social subjects. The camera is, generally, closer during the first part of the film, and becomes more and more distant as the film progresses towards the end. The subjects in the films are approached in the

190 Marcela (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2006), 1:02:56 – 1:03:25 191 The following camera operators were listed on the final credits of Marcela (2006): Jan Malíř, Miroslav Souček, and Vlastimil Hamerník. In René (2008) there were six camera operators: Martin Kubala, Petr Pešek, Stano Slušný, Marek Dvořák, Ondřej Belica, Miroslav Souček and Vlastimil Hamerník. In Katka (2010), the camera operator was Vlastimil Hamerník. 156

fullness of their faces and facial expressions dissected into series (mainly hands, bottom part of legs, eyes) of parts of the body and details of objects (ashtray, pen, cigarette). Pointing up the sensibility of the characters and dramatic effect is perceivable in the tendency to use close-up shots of social subjects during scenes of an enhanced emotional state or fragility. This enables greater exposure of the subjects and their emotions. Examples of those shots include Marcela crying shortly after she found out her daughter was dead; or René while he was in hospital because of problems with his eyes as he discusses with Třeštíková how life in both prison and freedom is unbearable, showing his personal disappointment and lack of energy to change anything; or of Katka in hospital during the birth of her daughter delivered by Caesarean section:

The social subjects and objects move into a position of focus to emphasize dramatic effect in the films, along with particular framing within the film (framing of the opening sequence in Marcela, of train rails combined with the sound of the train and Marcela’s narration; or framing of René in jail while writing a letter to Třeštíková, which was also a clearly staged action; or framing of Katka while injecting herself). This also relates to how the cameraperson perceives the subjects, and framing and representing them with the camera also contributes to how the spectator perceives the subjects. The camera operator decides what is relevant and what is not, and what should be included or excluded from the shot, it gives a certain representation of reality as the spectator can also see what was captured and chosen by the camera at that very moment, and the aspects of reality emphasized at that particular moment.

The camera also suggests familiarity with the subject, as well as curiosity to show certain details, to isolate the subjects, and to assign importance to certain situations, or characteristics. This is demonstrated, for instance, in Katka with this isolation of details, including certain close shots which give dramatic effect to the overall situation: when Katka is taking drugs shots, or close shots of her hands, or her face which indicates how seriously her body has been damaged due to the long–term abuse of drugs; those close shots make the spectator not only more familiar with Katka’s dramatic life and her condition, but also they provide a certain effect on how we see Katka for most of the film. A similar effect was achieved during the delivery of her baby (which 157

was shown in its entirety in the film), the camera was focusing on Katka’s awry, agonized face combined with the act of delivery; those shots can barely be forgotten in the overall impression of the film. Other close shots in the focus of the camera were details captured in squats or similar places where Katka lived. The camera does not present any other impression of Katka. For the spectator, these scenes can be disturbing/ to watch (the scene was shot during night hours with additional artificial light), especially for a longer period of time. The close-ups of Katka’s face (under the influence of drugs) when she is on the street and in an attic are also challenging to watch. At the same time, there is a camera preference for medium and long shots of more ordinary situations, for example, during Katka’s stay in rehabilitation centres, or Katka’s room during the first part of the film (the only place which can be assigned as home throughout the whole film). In René, close shots are dominant when showing his face, or his tattoos or writing letters, or details from his shabby home. Details at his family home or any other surroundings besides the jails (nature or city landscape) were much less in focus. In Marcela, close shots are more dominant during the first part of the film. All the dramatic moments presented later in the film show Marcela more in medium shots, or close shots which sometimes focus on her face, or hands (especially during the period of her daughter’s death). Such dynamics and the delivery of close shots leaves an impression that the camera wanted to isolate and depict reality, consequently, it could appear more dramatic to the spectator: –a version of reality which is not so very close to ordinary life or an ordinary way of living. Everything else that was related to more ordinary scenes was not shown in close-shots, but rather as wide, open shots and with pans. Sometimes extreme close shots (as used in showing the delivery of the baby, or injecting drugs or faces which occupy most of the space) can be an exceptional tool of communication.

During the filming of interviews, close shots were also dominant in the case of Katka and René. In Marcela, the spectator is not taken so close to the subject even though Marcela is filmed at her home, but rather the camera flows along with other details (Marcela’s son playing around, the dog under the table, the ashtray and cigarettes on the table). However, it is still possible to notice significant facial expressions when Marcela’s is crying, for instance. In René, such facial expressions remain almost the same throughout the film even with the marked dominance of close shots. He rarely smiled into the camera during the conversations, but most of the time he remains serious with no significant expression at all. On the other hand, a range of expressions can be noticed in Katka, in almost all the close shots she either barely looks directly into the camera, or is under the influence of drugs, or is intensively crying. Close shots of Katka’s clothes are also more

158

dominant than in the other films. The usage of close shots also accentuates personal implications of all the three subjects, and their lives.

The closeness between the social subjects and the camera (moments in prisons in René, the injecting of drugs in Katka, or phone calls regarding the death of Marcela’s daughter in Marcela) make it hard to believe that the social subjects were not directly engaged in the film process, therefore, the tendency of the filmmaker to observe the social subjects unnoticed and leaving those subjects to live their lives can be questioned. Moreover, sometimes their behaviors make the spectators wonder if they might have been inspired by the presence of the camera. In one statement, René even said that he robbed Třeštíková’s flat to keep her attention.

Choosing a certain angle is also used to make a particular point, offering not only a certain perspective of reality represented to the spectator, but also to emulate the viewing experience. For instance, close shots of dramatic situations and conversations in René and Katka reinforce the overall dramatic effect of the characters and their lives. In Marcela, close shots are also sometimes present during the crying scenes but they are not as frequent as in the other two films since Marcela was more concerned with matters that the spectator would tend to experience as ordinary life (marriage, divorce, motherhood) until the moment when her daughter dies which presents a momentous turning point in the film. Observation crafted by the camera also presents the establishment of some form of relationship with the spectator.

During the interviewing process, one cameraman was usually present. There is not much directing from the filmmaker’s side concerning the camera work. The filmmaker usually positioned herself right next to the cameraman so she could direct the view of the social subjects towards the camera.192 In regard to the case study films, the lived world was altered to meet the needs of the film, however, in terms of the camera work that was not present to such an extent, as the camera was trying to maintain a subdued role during the filming process, but this alternation is more notable during the editing process. Even though the camera is choosing what to include and what to exclude from the shot and a certain approach was followed in the films (focusing on dramatic scenes which in close shots can produce an even more shocking effect and impression on the spectator), during the editing process final decisions were made as to how to structure the dynamics and rhythm of shots in each particular scene. Most of the shots structured in the editing

192 Maša Hilčišin interviewing Helena Třeštíková (Prague, 2013). 159

process are rather shorter than lengthy; there are no prolonged scenes. All these choices involve the interpretation of the lives documented.

7.1.5. Editing

The filmmaker determines the length and the nature of the shots during the editing process. In general, there is a certain pattern followed in each of the films which includes the opening sequences with one of the current, usually critical episodes in the subjects’ lives. Visible also is the preference to use short takes rather than long ones (except in some of the communications with the subjects when the communication itself is heated enough so there was no need for additional arranging), and intra – scene editing. There is also additional arranging when using narrations during certain sequences (in the case of René it leaves the impression of staged action during the scene when he is writing a letter to Třeštíková simultaneously with his voice in the background reading a letter to Třeštíková. These possible staged actions repeat several times in the film mostly through editing and the usage of television news combined with shots of René in prison).

Equally to other elements, techniques of editing were to a great extent used to establish the rhythm and dynamic of the films. The framework for the editing of single sequences is one that forms particular thematical fragments guided by the overall thematical plain. Cutting of material within the sequences (intra-editing rather than the usage of extended sequences is favored) keeps the dynamic of the films moving and also creates space for constant excitement from one inter- title to another. Třeštíkova seems to find scenes during the editing process that either contain a crisis or announce a crisis, following the main structure of the film as a whole. She rather arranges sequences with cutting and details than threading extended shots; details and cuts are intended to offer a scale of interpretative possibilities.

Documented material creates a specific meaning during the editing process and it is the editing, which determines the way that sequences are placed. It also presents a selection of dozens of hours of documented material (for each of the films usually 15 times more material was documented and stored, than was used in the final editing process).193 The rhythm of the exchange between the sequences in all the three films creates a certain dynamic and there is not much space left for longer observations; in the final process everything was compressed. The dynamics of the

193 Maša Hilčišin interviewing Helena Třeštíková (Prague, 2013). 160

exchange of sequences was rather fast. These dynamics of sequences, their structuring within the film, and the arrangement within the sequences creates new values for understanding, and a tool to accentuate certain moments or states: this can be seen in Marcela during the opening sequences, which is all cut with shots of the train rails and covered by the sound of Marcela’s narration; or in René during the sequence which shows the television news announcing Třeštíková’s nomination as the Minister of Culture. The whole scene took place in jail while René was watching television and then his voice is heard in the background reading a letter he wrote to Třeštíková about her nomination asking if she was going to still have time to continue filming him. It was reunited by editing in the sound of René’s narration combined with the sound from the television news over the image of René in jail; the filmmaker is suggesting to the spectator to imagine what this relationship means to the character of the film. It is not accidental that a large amount of images of René in the jail were edited with the sound of his narration reading letters he wrote to Třeštíková. Certainly, this editorial intervention was applied not only to empower the tone of the whole sequence but also to accentuate the importance of the filmmaker’s role in the subject’s life, to determine the mental or social condition of the social subject and his emotional state.

The duration of shots in the films is sometimes more determined by the rhythm which supports the dramatic effect rather than the amount of information given. Additionally, this can be said of the music (especially in René where it also structured the rhythm of editing and is repetitively used during the inter-titles which announce certain periods or events). In Marcela and Katka there was no music structured in this way, but instead, precedence was given to natural sounds recorded by the camera. All the three films were plotted in a linear and chronological manner and this sense of chronology is shown by the clear notification of coming periods with the depiction of months, or years, or age of the social subject.

The structuring of sequences together affects the dramatic effect of the films. The placement of certain sequences was also used as a tool in this editorial intervention, which leaves an impression of completely misplaced scenes in terms of structure, but they apparently deliberately served to support the effect of dramatic. One of those scenes is the physical fight between Roman and an unknown woman at the train station. A similar situation arises in the scene with Katka and Roman in a hospital elevator. A child with a disability was also in the elevator. Katka and Roman were

161

not talking.194 This sequence also seems to stand alone in the film, not connecting with any sequence that came before or after. A similar pattern can be paralleled with unfinished conversations with Marcela (about sexual abuse, or attempts at committing suicide), all of them unfinished, but chosen and left during the final editorial selection.

Cooperation between the filmmaker and the editor usually proceeds linearly and actively with a mutual exchange of comments and thoughts. For each of the case study films, the editing process started at the very end (there was no in-between editing during the filming process). The editing process195 lasted about the same length of time for all the three films (around 30 days of editing Marcela, and 40 - 50 days of editing René and Katka). The final material used in editing in each of the films according to the material which was shot over the filming period of time has a ratio of: 1: 15.196

The understanding of most of the sequences must be deduced by the spectator by their recapitulations and conclusions, however, they are guided by editing. The arrangement of material, certainties of presented events, and the consolidation of certain types of the characteristics and personalities of the social subjects by selecting the documented materials and structuring their lives into the film with the application of editorial intervention can lead the spectator to certain conclusions based on the predefined process and the representation enforced by the filmmaker. Plots share the spectator’s standards of propriety, and undeniably the filmmaker is critical of certain behaviors of the social subjects (which is clearly expressed during some of the conversations with them). But more than that, the voice of the text (voice of the film) points out the misery of the subject’s life by first letting the spectator to share the scenes which could cause the spectator to become critical of what comes next (in René that is one of the scenes during the first part of the film when his mother was crying, in the next scene he was in jail again; or when he robbed Třeštíková’s flat, continuing again with the sequence in jail, or when he stole the camera at the very end where the filmmaker concluded the film with René’s own words from one of his letters about how he would sell anything just to make some cash; in Katka that is the conflicted conversation with the health worker which led to another conflict between Roman and the health worker followed by insulting words; or after the delivery of her baby, soon after that is the sequence of Katka at the train station while her baby was left at an infant care centre). The

194 Katka (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2010), 0:49:07 – 0:49:43. 195 Marcela (2006) was edited by the following editors: Alois Fišárek, Lenka Polesná, Zdenek Patočka and Jakub Hejna. In René (2008) and Katka (2010), editing was done by Jakub Hejna. 196 Maša Hilčišin interviewing Helena Třeštíková (Prague, 2013). 162

voice of the filmmaker is apparent even if we do not physically see her (or very rarely) or we seldom hear Třeštíková during the film. Nevertheless it is the controlling voice that conveys to the spectator the images of the main characters in the films and their lives (or more precisely parts of their lives selected by the filmmaker). These formal techniques and the way they were assembled in the overall creating process of these case study films assists in facilitating a better understanding of the functioning of the contractual model of filmic authenticity.

7.2. Effect of authenticity in Marcela, René, and Katka: Contractual model of filmic authenticity between the filmmaker and spectator

The model of contractual authenticity concerns itself with the relationship between the filmmaker and the spectator (see original diagram presented in Chapter 2.4) was introduced and initiated by Francesco Casetti. The presented diagram of contractual authenticity contains stages of examination of the strategies of authentification applied in a film leading to its final stage of analyzing the documentary discourse, endorsing the authenticity through the different levels of the contractual model, and whether the authenticity was achieved or not in the analyzed documentary discourse. Casetti’s gravitation towards a definite and final instance of breaching the contract alludes to a more definitive actualization into the term itself. Authentic is therefore seen as the final interpretation of the given discourse. In terms of the analysis of formal techniques, it rather seems more applicable to the process of reception itself offered by Casetti’s diagram than a definitive decisive instance. The same can be said of leaving the analysis just based on the contractual model in that it would not help in the detailed dissecting of productional units, especially as the scope of the analysis in this thesis was directed more towards the monitoring of the effect of authenticity within the complex side of the production framework. It is, however, an additional engagement to ascertain how Casetti’s contractual model works in practice with results imparted from the analysis of formal techniques.

Casetti's contractual model of film authenticity, which is the process of appreciation during the reception of a documentary film, is built around several levels, visualized in the diagram within the following stages: regulating instance, context, strategies, contract agreement and the final level which leads to breaking, or not breaking of the contract agreement. The regulating factor in this model starts with the documentary discourse, which is equal to the position of the filmmaker within the documentary discourse (observer). According to Casetti, the promise for authenticity, offered in the diagram, is equal to the authentication signals as a promise of authenticity alludes to

163

the employment of authentication signals in the documentary discourse, and respecting and applying authentication signals during the filming process (Casetti does not offer definitions of authentication and/or authentifying signals, but rather he operates within the instances of the diagram. Therefore, the usage of each of the instances in the diagram applied to particular results driven from the analysis of the case study films was applied rather intuitively by the author of the thesis). The first level, which according to the contractual model refers to the authenticity along with the authentication signals, could be related to the case study films in line with the following instances and steps (one case study film relates to one documentary discourse):

- the starting idea of using a large time span197 - the use of the observational documentary mode - authentic experience of someone’s life (no additional arranging or coloring of events, situations, and/or characters in the film) set up as one of the corner-stones of the filmmaker’s work in the observational mode

- the choice of long-term observation (instead of short observation)198 - the diary format of some scenes (sometimes randomly following life, capturing daily activities and thoughts) relates to the intimate life of the social subjects

- the lack of certainty.199

The spectator is expected to have some background knowledge, experience (or empathy), genre expectations (in this case for the documentary film classified as observational mode) and possibly interest in social issues and the filmmaker’s work in general. These create the foundation for the first level (the establishment of relationship and contact) of the relationship between the

197 Maša Hilčišin interviewing Helena Třeštíková (Prague,2012): „Because, when using such a method, time-lapse or time-collecting, you are following life the way it really is, you don’t arrange people or situations, but you are actually filming life without any additional changes. You don’t know what is going to happen in that same way as you don’t know what is going to happen sometimes with your own life.” 198 Maša Hilčišin interviewing Helena Třeštíková (Prague, 2010):„With the long-term observation approach, it is good because when you film someone for a long period of time, people in the film get used to so much of your presence that they start forgetting about the camera, which gives you an opportunity to present them in the most authentic way, without any additional “fixing” or “colouring”. I was also always trying to create a relaxed and friendly atmosphere so they feel when we are talking as if there is no camera or filming, like we are just having a coffee and a relaxed chat. That helps them to relax.… But of course, it takes time, and this is a long process.” 199 Maša Hilčišin interviewing Helena Třeštíková (Prague, 2012):„One of the biggest problems of the time-lapse method happens at the beginning. The beginnings of filmings are very hard because it always seems that nothing is happening and it is especially hard to have a clear vision about how something is going to be developed and what it is going to look like as the final product. You don’t know what is going to happen. At the beginning, there is nothing there. You have some story in your head that you want to talk about, but still that is just the beginning and everything is pretty blurry. Also, you don’t know if that is going to be interesting for viewers. You have a lot of dubiousness and unpredictability. It is also very hard as you don’t know how that story is going to evolve. You feel instability and you are not sure if that is the right subject, or if it is going to happen completely differently during the filming process..” 164

filmmaker and the spectator. According to Casetti’s diagram, the spectator also then decides and gives his consent as to whether the authentic strategies apply and if a contract agreement can be established or not. The contract agreement relies on the loyalty and confidence of the filmmaker in regards to film authenticity. This confidence (from the filmmaker's viewpoint) can also be built on the filmmaker’s experience using this observational mode, empathy for the social subjects, and interest in doing observational documentary projects within a large time span. Authentication strategies in this case rely to a great extent on the foundation of values built and promoted by the filmmaker, and those are evident in some of the basic steps used in the observational documentary discourse referring to this mode itself. For Třeštíková, this can be driven from some of the fundamental steps she uses during the filming process: long-term observation of social subjects, preparation for the topic, the strategy of communication with social subjects (avoidance of talking about topics before the real shooting starts, but rather starting the conversation once the camera is present repeating the same questions after a certain period of time, and in general, commitment to the observational mode of representation.200

After the foundation is built and set based on the filmmaker’s strategies, and the spectator gives consent, the next stage is either experiencing the authenticity or breaching the contract, according to the diagram.

In the case study films Marcela, René, and Katka, when analyzing the filmmaker’s process of the representation of the social subjects, in evidence is the filmmaker’s tendency of using formal techniques in achieving dramatic effect in representing the social subjects, their personalities and characters are shed in a particular light through the domination of life dramatic events, and all the setting and structuring are used to constitute, support and sustain that intensity. An additional tool, which is employed, is the subjective involvement of the filmmaker recognized in certain, usually repetitive, behaviors towards the social subjects. The subjective viewpoint of the filmmaker appears in the case study films at different levels. Attention has been drawn to the filmmaker’s involvement, which has been seen and recognized during a number of conflict scenes between the social subjects and other interlocutors or during other behaviors that were demonstrated between the social subjects and the filmmaker herself. This becomes problematic because it leaves the impression that the filmmaker consciously chose to participate and be involved in certain conflict scenes, but on the hand, remains completely distanced in others. Why did Třeštíková not involve

200 TŘEŠTÍKOVÁ, Helena (2008): p.2-3. 165

herself in any of the conflict scenes between Jiří and Marcela or between René and his mother or between Katka and her boyfriends or health workers? Did she restrain her involvement in order to dramatize the film or to enhance the effect of authenticity? She does, however, involve herself in the scenes which clearly show her role as a helper in the lives of the social subjects.

The roles that Třeštíková selects during the filming process are more identified as subjective involvement in direct relationship with the social subjects and their lives, and here they are identified in two principal, mostly recognizable types of behavior: helping the social subjects or advising them. Both of these behaviors are intertwined throughout the films. Třeštíková edits these roles and renders them conspicuous for the spectator who can usually hear her questions in the background, giving an impression of a dialogue flow [when Marcela thanked all the spectators for helping her and sending her money;201 or when René published his first book, along with numerous narrations of René’s, where he clearly mentioned in the film the importance of the relationship he had with Třeštíková;202 or in Katka during conversations about Katka’s daughter Teresa].203

Another aspect of subjective involvement are the filmmaker’s physical appearances in front of the camera during critical situations (when Marcela passed out in the chapel; or when she spoke to the police in Katka, to help Katka and Roman). There are almost no physical appearances of the filmmaker in René (or just instantly), but the overall presence and involvement of the filmmaker is to a large degree noticeable in the letters exchanged between the filmmaker and the subject. What also characterised René is the question of possible staged actions; staged actions are seen in the sequences when René was watching the news about the filmmaker being nominated as the Minister of Culture, and suddenly the camera was there capturing the news from the television and alternating it with shots of René who was sitting on his bed with sporadic viewing of the television, or when he was writting letters to the filmmaker (the camera was there focusing on the letters‚ Dear Helena....‘), or during the photo shoot (close to the end of the film). Those scenes are very distinguishable in the overall experience of the film.

Nevertheless, these performances do not highlight the question of artificiality, which is undoubtedly the subject when discussing observational documentaries. However, the question always remains as to how these interventions correspond to the effect of authenticity in

201 Marcela (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2006), 1:07:02 – 1:07:07. 202 René (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2008), 0:50:01- 0:50:23, 0:53:15 – 0:53:49, 1:11:40 – 1:12:09. 203 Katka (Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2010), 1:21:52 – 1:23:20. 166

documentary film, and if these boostings create a certain image of the relationship between the filmmaker and the character, an image which is more filmic, possibly more attractive,, but definitely more intimidating for the spectator.

Diagram of Casetti’s contract model of filmic authenticity employed in the documentary discourses of Marcela, René, and Katka:

167

In the final stage and elaboration of the contract model, more corresponding to the preserving of contractual loyality, are the identifying instances that relate to the building of the first relationship between the filmmaker and spectator (rather than to use the already defined term as an authentic given that the analysis itself aimed more towards monitoring rather than to the argumentation and proof of the definite status of achieved/or not achieved of the authentic). To summarize the final instance of Casetti's diagram, the identifications of authentic/non authentic are adjusted according to the terminology adopted within the analysis of the case study films:

Authentic=Casetti; Monitoring the effect of Non-authentic = Casetti; Monitoring the effect of authentic authentic=case studies = case study films

Using the formal techniques in intensifying dramatic effect in the film: structure, spatial representation, communication, Social subjects camera, and editing process The topic Intensifying drama and overall tone of the film: Documentary discourse the filmmaker’s involvement Representation of the social subjects, detaching them from the outside world: space, isolated, abrasive Representation of the social subjects, detaching them from the outside world: lack of interviews with close family members, or health or social workers or friends

Representation of the social subjects: unfinished interviews

Both of the above sides, which identify different practices, have been validated throughout the analysis of the production frameworks of each of the case study films. Showing the repetitiveness and certain patterns applied in the documentary discourses on the one hand, and the tendency to intensify the atmosphere and dramatic effect on the other hand opens further the forum for discussion about the problem of consistency between possible given promises in the basic foundation of the work itself and the strategies of producing the effect of authenticity respected and followed in the concrete film process.

168

Marcela René Katka

years of filming: 1989 – years of filming: 1980 -2006 2008 years of filming: 1996 – 2009 structured chronologically structured chronologically structured chronologically

starting with the present starting with the present starting with the present (medium shot in the train) (close shot in the jail) (medium shot in the hospital) usage of inter-titles: Marcela usage of inter-titles: Summer and Jiri are married in usage of inter-titles: René 2000 - Katka and Ladya have Prague Old Town Hall robs several flats split up

dominant spatial dominant spatial representation: train and dominant spatial representation: hospitals and home representation: prison squats

dominant inside space dominant inside space inside and outside space

Marcela's narration combined René's narration combined Katka's narration combined with interviews with letters and interviews with interviews

Třeštíková's questions very Třeštíková's questions very short (usually even hard to short (usually even hard to Třeštíková's questions very hear), some interviews hear), some interviews short (usually even hard to remained unfinished as they remained unfinished as hear), some interviews don't develop further in the they don't develop further remained unfinished as they film in the film don't develop further in the film

other people involved in other people involved in the the communication (only communication (only from other people involved in the from René's direct life): Katka's direct life: her communication (only from René's mother, brother and boyfriends and sporadic Marcela's direct life): her girlfriend (all of them in a conversations with health and husband, daughter and son very small amount) social workers)

Třeštíková is behind the Třeštíková is behind the camera (except in the camera (except the scene scene when she was Třeštíková is behind the camera when she was helping helping René to get (except the scene when she was Marcela to stand up after she published,or after finishing with Katka and Roman in front fainted) the film in 1993) of the policeman) similar set of questions: What similar set of questions: similar set of questions: What do you wish or what do you What are you afraid of? are you scared of? What do you dream about? What are your plans? want?

Třeštíková's involvement in Třeštíková's involvement in helping Marcela visible in the Třeštíková's involvement helping Katka visible in the film (Marcela was receiving in helping René visible in film (supporting Katka in going money, and support from the the film (publishing of to rehabs, and advising her to viewers, including a new flat) René 's book) take care of her daughter) close and medium shots close and medium shots close and medium shots dominant dominant dominant camera closest to René camera closest to Marcela during the second part of camera closest to Katka during during the last part of the the film (publishing of his the second part of the film film (death and after the first book, death of his (pregnancy and delivering of death of her daughter) girlfriend Eva) baby)

169

Chapter Eight: Concluding note

The structural framework, space, camera work, communication and editorial process are for Helena Třeštíková not only devices for the organization of the structure and narrative, but also a suitable tool for building the spectator’s relationship to the lived world of her social subjects and to represent their characteristics, personalities, and lives in a certain way, to build an image which presents what could be perceived as a kind of aspiration for keeping a particular momentum of not only the dramatic events in their lives, but also the overall tone of the film and its images. The research and analysis of formal techniques applied in Třeštíková’s documentary tradition have demonstrated the applicability of those reflections in the concrete analysis which was aimed at exploring, monitoring and studying the effect of authenticity in documentary discourse (here recognized as a long-term observational documentary). It is also a way of highlighting the fragile nature of the representations of reality whereby the filmmaker, while using formal techniques, retains the possibility of the practical demonstration of a constructed, represented reality. Bringing together sequences and other materials documented by the camera along with the complex usage of communicational means can enable the spectator to witness those realities in an entirely new and altered way.

The Canadian researcher on documentary film, Thomas Waugh, notes that „dramatization is clearly a useful means of fleshing out the gaps left by the interview format, gaps of a technical or ideological nature, or gaps simply due to uncontrollable factors and tactics...[...]”204 Dramatic events can be shot without prior planning; this was usually the situation in regards to the case study films since dramatic events are sometimes difficult to predict. For example, Marcela's claim that her daughter was sexually abused by her father or when René robbed Třeštíková's flat or Roman leaving for a rehabilitation center and then suddenly beating a woman. Indubitably, most of these scenes could not have been planned in advance, but they can function as tools for the creating of dramatic effect in order to additionally intensify the dramatic tone of the film and the subjects’ lives. It is not a problem to leave them the way they are in the film structure, but for the consistency in following the narrative framework they (these scenes) become problematic as they are neither connected with the former sequences nor with the sequences which follow. Therefore, it creates a hindrance by using them for dramatic effect but then leaving the spectator in a state of suspense until the very end of the film. The spectator never receives more information about the

204 WAUGH, Thomas (2011): Visible Evidence: Right to Play Oneself: Looking Back on Documentary Film, University of Minnesota Press, p. 85. 170

sexual abuse claim made by Marcela nor in Katka is anything further revealed about the woman who was beaten by Roman. In theoretical constellation „observational filmmakers try not to interfere in what they see. They play the role of onlooker or bystander, rather than the part of provocateur or participant in the pro-filmic situation.”205 Třeštíková’s method represents a rather different approach, not only by using large time spans in the observational process, but also, as this thesis has argued, there is conflict with this definition in regards to the filmmaker’s involvement and approaches in using various devices in the representational process.

An immediate response to this is generated by the representational experiences provided in images as well as the settings of the long-term observational documentary film studies of Marcela, René, and Katka. While reconstructing Třeštíková’s work, every stage of the production process has to be carefully examined while remaining focused on this initial notion, namely, the effect of authenticity is the vital component of the overall analysis. It has been suggested that the observational documentary tradition of Třeštíková over the past three decades preserves and supports what is called an authentically documented lived reality of represented subjects, and additionally earning specific status for the persistence in the long-term documenting process. However, this study and thesis suggest that the complexity of the production process has to be taken into consideration as well, and that it can have a prevailing influence in perceiving the effect of authenticity during the representational process. Once again, documentary cinema by virtue of always recording real events is still subjected to the representational process, therefore, those real events always undergo certain transformations until the final stage (which is when the spectator sees the film on the screen). It presents an instrument for the presentation of reality in the sense that owing to devices (formal techniques) it has the ability to show variations of the representational process of the lived world. In the course of this thesis, Třeštíková’s ideas about the long-term observational documentary form were traced as well as her steps in the observational process and her ideas of the observational documentary as a form which does not intervene or color someone’s life, but rather is privileged to preserve an authentic view of a represented subject.

These ideas were investigated together with the parallel exploration of key documentary film theoreticians ranging from Nichols, Feldman, Grimshaw, Bruzzi, to Odin, Casetti, and Hattendorf. Třeštíková in a different way explored similar problems and influenced observational

205 Spence, Louise - Navarro, Vinicius (2011): Crafting Truth:Documentary Form and Meaning, p.194. 171

documentary cinema, taking a serious documentary journey, which raised questions in regards to the filmmaker achieving the effect of authenticity in her work, and the ways in which she applies the observational mode and its cinematic conventions206 in the process of representation. This has been explored through examining the structuring of images and sequences, the overall relationship between the filmmaker and the social subjects, and the overall approach of the filmmaker to the spectator.

Třeštíková uses formal techniques to empower the story and stresses certain personal characteristics of her social subjects. This method of representation in Třeštíková’s films is realized through the general composition, camera work, communication and editorial process (in the final stage), which is the most powerful force in the overall production of the films in terms of the filmmaker’s intervention. Nevertheless, a detailed analysis of the formal techniques used in film is required in order to demonstrate how the use of formal techniques and approaches endangers and influences the effect of authenticity (especially when operating in the observational mode of representation). Třeštíková favors using certain formal techniques to intensify the tone and create dramatic effect of the film as exemplified in Marcela when Marcela faints in front of the camera, or in Katka during various conflicts between Katka and Roman, and between Roman and other people. Such a structure does not allow the spectator enough time to become acquainted with other parts of Katka’s life as everything is compressed, spatially and communicationally. All the material presented in the film works to illustrate repeatedly Katka’s lifestyle as a drug addict. All film elements were structured to fulfill this point, from the representation of the space and the camera angles to the composition of the scenes and the communication, which comprise the most dominant aspects of the films when it comes to controlling and intensifying the dramatic momentum.

The films of Třeštíková, which are always alive and unfinished, have, in their own way, pursued this debate about the effect of authenticity and applying strategies of authentification in the representation of lived reality. This method of filmmaking, which is additionally open and unpredictable in its own foundation, has a significant role to play in further exploration of the observational mode and how filmmakers deal with the question of authenticity.

206 Under cinematic conventions here it implies to formal techniques. 172

Bibliography:

BRUZZI, Stella (2000): Contemporary Documentary: A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge. BUCKLAND, Warren (2000): Cognitive Semiotics of Film. Cambridge University Press. CASETTI, Francesco (1994): The Communicative Pact. In: Jürgen E. Müller (Ed.), Towards a pragmatics of the audiovisual: Theory and history. Münster: Nodus. CASETTI, Francesco (1995): Face to Face. In: Buckland, Warren (Ed.), The Film Spectator: From Sign to Mind. Amsterdam University Press. ČESÁLKOVÁ, Lucie (2005): Filmuji sny. Sny rostliny Amicie! Téma vědecké kinematografie v nerealizovanem scénáři fikčniho filmu Vladimíra Úlehly Amicia: zločin a věda. In: Otázky filmu a audiovizuální kultury cinematographica. Brno: Sborník prací Filozofické fakulty brněnské university, no. 2. FAWN, Rick (2000): Czech Republic: A Nation of Velvet. Gordon & Breach Publishing Group. FELDMAN, Seth (1998): Peace between Man and Machine – Dziga Vertov’s The Man with a Movie Camera. In: Grant, Barry Keith, and Sloniowski, Jeannette (eds.): Documenting the Documentary – Close Readings of Documentary Film and Video. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. GRIMSHAW, ANNA, and RAVETZ, AMANDA (2009): Observational Cinema – Anthroplogy, Film, and the Exploration of Social Life. Indiana University Press. HATTENDORF, Manfred. A Pragmatic Approach Towards the Study of Documentary Films Ironic discourse in Schützenfest in Bahnhofsnähe. Beobachtungen auf dem Dorfe (1961) In: Towards a pragmatics of the audiovisual: Theory and history. 1. Ed. by Jürgen E. Müller. Münster: Nodus 1994. HICKS, Jeremy (2007): Dziga Vertov: Defining Documentary Film. London: I. B. Tauris & Company, Limited. KŘÍŽKOVÁ, Lucie (2008): Helena Třeštíková a její časosběrný dokument, Brno: Masaryk University – Faculty of Arts. MILLS, Sara (1997): Discourse. London: Routledge. NICHOLS, Bill (1992): Representing Reality: Issues and Concepts in Documentary. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. NICHOLS, Bill (2001): Introduction to Documentary. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. ODIN, Roger (1995): A Semio-pragmatic Approach to Documentary Film. In: Buckland, Warren (Ed.), The Film Spectator: From Sign to Mind. Amsterdam University Press. ODIN, Roger (1995): For a Semio-pragmatics of Film. In: Buckland, Warren (Ed.), The Film Spectator: From Sign to Mind. Amsterdam University Press. RUOFF, Jeffrey K. (1998): A Bastard Union of Several Forms – Style and Narrative in An Americal Family. In: Grant, Barry Keith, and Sloniowski, Jeannette (eds.): Documenting the Documentary – Close Readings of Documentary Film and Video. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. SANGER, KEITH (2000): Language of Drama. London: Routledge. SAUNDERS, Dave (2007): Direct Cinema: Observational Documentary and the Politics of the Sixties. London: Wallflower Press.

173

SLEZÁKOVÁ, Šárka (2007): Časosběrná metoda v českém dokumentárním filmu, Prague: Academy of Performing Arts.

SPENCE, Louise, and NAVARRO, Vinicius (2011): Crafting Truth: Documentary Form and Meaning. Rutgers University Press. ŠEVČÍKOVÁ, Martina (2010): Je mi 32 a jsem..., Brno: Masaryk University - Faculty of Social Science. ŠTOLL, Martin (2000): Hundred years of Czech documentary film (1989-1989). Prague: Malá Skála. THOMSON, Katherine (2008): Continuum Aesthetics: Aesthetics and Film. London: Continuum International Publishing. WAUGH, Thomas (2011): Visible Evidence: Right to Play Oneself: Looking Back on Documentary Film. University of Minnesota Press.

Lectures:

TŘEŠTÍKOVÁ, Helena (2008): Časosběrná metoda v dokumentárním filmu

Filmography:

A Married Couple (Allan King, Canada, 1969) An American Family (Craig Gilbert, USA,1973) Carmen story; Určitý způsob štěstí (Explicit Manner of Happiness, Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic,1999) Человек с киноаппаратом (The Man with a Movie Camera, Dziga Vertov, Soviet Union,1929) Démolition d’un mur (The Demolition of a Wall, Lumière Brothers’, France, 1895) Dvě jubilea Jana Zrzavého (Two Jubilees of Jan Zrzavy, Helena Třeštíková, Czechoslovakia, 1976) Dobrý den, můžeme dál? (Good afternoon, Can We go Further?, Helena Třeštíková, Czechoslovakia, 1980) Dotek světla (Touch of Light, Helena Třeštíková, Czechoslovakia, 1979) Hitler, Stalin a já (Hitler, Stalin, and Me, Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2001) Hledači pevného bodu (Seekers of a Fixed Point, Pavel Koutecký, Czech Republic, 2001) Hledání cest (Looking for Ways, Helena Třeštíková, Czechoslovakia, 1988) Lidé, mám vás rád! (People, I Love You, Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 1998) Lunch with Fela (Abraham Ravett, USA, 2005) Máňa po deseti letech (Máňa after ten years, Olga Sommerová, Czech Republic, 2003) Manželské etudy - Ivana a Pavel (Marriage Stories - Ivana and Pavel, Helena Třeštíková, Czechoslovakia, 1987) Manželské etudy - Mirka a Antonin (Marriage Stories - Mirka and Antonin, Helena Třeštíková, Czechoslovakia, 1987) Manželské etudy - Zuzana a Stanislav (Marriage Stories - Zuzana and Stanislav, Helena Třeštíková, Czechoslovakia, 1987) Manželské etudy - Ivana a Václav (Marriage Stories - Ivana and Václav, Helena Třeštíková, Czechoslovakia, 1987) Manželské etudy - Zuzana a Vladimir (Marriage Stories - Zuzana and Vladimir, Helena Třeštíková, Czechoslovakia, 1987)

174

Manželské etudy - Marcela a Jiří (Marriage Stories - Marcela and Jiří, Helena Třeštíková, Czechoslovakia, 1987) Manželské etudy po dvaceti letech - Ivana a Pavel (Marriage Stories 20 Years Later - Ivana and Pavel, Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2005) Manželské etudy po dvaceti letech - Mirka a Antonin (Marriage Stories 20 Years Later - Mirka and Antonin, Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2005) Manželské etudy po dvaceti letech - Zuzana a Stanislav (Marriage Stories 20 Years Later - Zuzana and Stanislav, Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2005) Manželské etudy po dvaceti letech - Ivana a Václav (Marriage Stories 20 Years Later - Ivana and Vaclav, Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2006) Manželské etudy po dvaceti letech - Zuzana a Vladimir (Marriage Stories 20 Years Later - Zuzana and Vladimir, Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2006) Manželské etudy po dvaceti letech - Marcela a Jiří (Marriage Stories 20 Years Later - Marcela and Jiří, Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2006) Občan Havel (Citizen Havel, Pavel Koutecký and Miroslav Janek, Czech Republic, 2008) Podoby dětství (Appearances of Children, Helena Třeštíková, Czechoslovakia, 1979) Řekni mi něco o sobě – Pavlína (Tell Me Something about Yourself – Pavlína, Helena Třeštíková, Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, 1992) Řekni mi něco o sobě – René (Tell Me Something about Yourself – René, Helena Třeštíková, Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, 1992) Řekni mi něco o sobě – Láďa (Tell Me Something about Yourself – Láďa, Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 1993) Řekni mi něco o sobě – Martin – aneb Mít či být (Tell Me Something about Yourself – Martin, Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 1994) Řekni mi něco o sobě – Milan - Zrání zla (Tell Me Something about Yourself – Milan, Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 1997) Schützenfest in Bahnhofsnähe: Beobachtungen auf dem Dorfe (Shooting-Match Near the Station. Observations in the Countryside, Dieter Ertel and Georg Friedel, Germany, 1961) Sladké století (Sweet Century, Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 1997) Soukromý vesmír (Private Universe, Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2011) The Children of Golzow (Die Kinder von Golzow, Barbara Junge and Wilfried Junge, Germany, 2008) Titicut Follies (Frederick Wiseman, USA, 1967) Vojta Lavička: Nahoru a dolů (Vojta Lavička: Up and Down, Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2013) Z lásky (Out of Love, Helena Třeštíková, Czechoslovakia, 1988) Zázrak (Miracle, Helena Třeštíková, Czechoslovakia, 1975) Ženy na přelomu tisíciletí - V pasti (Women At the Turn of the Millennium - Trapped, Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2001) Ženy na přelomu tisíciletí - Forte a piana (Women At the Turn of the Millennium - Forte and Piano, Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2001) Ženy na přelomu tisíciletí - Bára B. (Women At the Turn of the Millennium - Bára B., Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2001) Ženy na přelomu tisíciletí - Rozkoš bez rizika 1/2 (Women At the Turn of the Millennium - Ecstasy without Risk 1/2, Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2001) Ženy na přelomu tisíciletí - Rozkoš bez rizika 2/2 (Women At the Turn of the Millennium - Ecstasy without Risk 2/2, Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2001)

175

Ženy na přelomu tisíciletí - Být Romkou (Women At the Turn of the Millennium - To Be a Romany Woman, Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2001) Ženy na přelomu tisíciletí - Zvítězí ten, kdo se nevzdá (Women At the Turn of the Millennium - A Winner Never Gives Up, Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2002) Ženy na přelomu tisíciletí – Sestřičky (Women At the Turn of the Millennium - Nurses, Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2003) Ženy na přelomu tisíciletí – Jsem žena orientovaná na ženy (Women At the Turn of the Millennium - I am Women Oriented Women, Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2003) Živá voda (Viva Aqua, Helena Třeštíková, Czechoslovakia, 1972) Život s Kašparem (Life with Jester, Helena Třeštíková, Czech Republic, 2013)

Case studies:

Marcela (Czech Republic, 2006) Director: Helena Třeštíková. Original idea: Helena Třeštíková. Scenario: Helena Třeštíková. Camera: Jan Malíř, Miroslav Souček, Vlastimil Hamerník. Editing: Alois Fišárek, Lenka Polesná, Zdenek Patočka, Jakub Hejna. Producers: Máša Charouzdová, Ivana Průšová, Robert Riedl, Dagmar Juráková, Roman Blaas. Sound: Zbyněk Mikulík, Petr Provaznik, Jan Valouch, Vladimir Nahodil, Jan Čeněk, Daniel Němec, Štěpán Mamula, Jiří Melcher. Cooperated: Hana Procházková, Janka Vičkova, Mirko Veselý, Petr Ostrouchov, Martina Reková, Tomáš Třeštík, Marie Prokešová, Robert Russel, Tomáš Machek, František Heusler, Tomáš Hejduk, Dana Havelková, Irena Machová. Production: Negativ, Czech Television - Centre for Current Affairs, Documentaries and Education. Image post-production: Avion Film. Producers Negativ: Kateřina Černá, Pavel Strnad. Technical supervisor: Jiří Šindelář. Archive materials: Krátký Film Praha a.s.; Czech Television. Dramaturgist: Michael Třeštík. Distribution in Czech Republic: Aerofilms. World sales: Taskovski Films. Format: 35 mm, 1:1,66, black and white/colour, Czech, 82 min. Film premiere: 8 March 2007 (28 January, Pre-premiere at Jeden svět/One World Festival, Prague). Location: Czech Republic. Festivals and awards: 2007: Seville Film Festival - Best European Documentary; 2007: Ismailia International Film Festival - Best Documentary; 2007: Lubuskie Film Summer - Honorable Mention Award; 2007: Plzen Film Festival - Best Czech Documentary; 2008: CRONOGRAF Film Festival, Moldova - Grand Prize; 1981: Houston International Film Festival – Velká cena (Best Film); and others. Used version: DVD, Dolby Digital, Czech with English subtitles, 82 min.

René (Czech Republic, 2008) Director: Helena Třeštíková. Original idea: Helena Třeštíková. Scenario: Helena Třeštíková. Camera: Martin Kubala, Petr Pešek, Stano Slušný, Marek Dvořák, Ondřej Belica, Václav Smolík, Miroslav Souček, Vlastimil Hamerník. Photography: Michal Jablonský, Tomáš Třeštík. Music: Tadeáš Věrčák. Used composition: Bedřich Smetana, Leona Machálková, Pavel Cmíral. Editing: Jakub Hejna. Producers: Jiří Vaněk, Robert Riedl, Ivana Průšová, Kateřina Černá, Pavel Strnad. Sound: Vladimir Nahodil, Pavel Sádek, Jan Valouch, Václav Hejduk, Miroslav Šimčík. Cooperated: PhDr. Josef Alan, JUDr. Helena Válková, JUDr. Doubravka Řehoušková, Jana Jaklová, Zuzana Červenková, Martin Steklý, Jan Petras, JUDr. Petr Ostrouchov, Martina Reková, Jiří Gold, Alena Müllerová, Jana Sklenářová, Jarmila Poláková, Hana Procházková, Robert Russel, Jakub Konopásek, ing. Jan Kacián, Petr Bíma, František Heusler, Tomáš Hejduk, Dana Havelková, Irena Machová. Production: Negativ, Helena Třeštíková, Czech Television - Centre for Current Affairs, Documentaries and Education. Image post-production: Avion Film. Sound post-production: Daniel Němec, Audio Atelier Mars. Sound mix: Štěpán Mamula. Technical supervisor: Jiří Šindelář. Archive materials: Film and Sociology Foundation; Czech 176

Television. Dramaturgists: Michael Třeštík, Jan Gogola, Martin Štoll, Darja Macáková. Distribution in Czech Republic: Aerofilms. World sales: Taskovski Films. Format: 35 mm, 1:1,66, black and white/colour, Czech, 83 min. Film premiere: 24 July 2008 Location: Czech Republic. Festivals and awards: 2008: European Film Academy Award - Prix Arte; 2008: DOK Leipzig - GOLDEN DOVE for the Best International Documentary; 2008: DOK Leipzig - MDR Film Award for Excellent Eastern European Documentary; 2008: IFF Jihlava - Audience Award; 2008: Doc Film Festival Milan - Best Film; 2008: Festival dei Popoli, Italy - Ente dello Spettacolo Award, and others. Used version: DVD, Dolby Digital, Czech with English subtitles, 83 min.

Katka (Czech Republic, 2010) Director: Helena Třeštíková. Original idea: Helena Třeštíková. Scenario: Helena Třeštíková. Camera: Vlastimil Hamerník, Kristián Hynek, Martin Kubala, Ferdinand Mazurek, Braňo Pažitka, Miroslav Souček, Tomáš Třeštík. Photography: Tomáš Třeštík. Music: Tadeáš Věrčák. Editing: Jakub Hejna. Producers: Bashka, Roman Blaas, Marie Malinová, Kateřina Černá, Pavel Strnad. Sound: Václav Hejduk, Stanislav Hruška, Jaroslav Jedlička, Jiří Kubíček, Lukáš Moudrý, Richard Müller, Vladimír Nahodil, Miroslav Šimčík, Jan Valouch. Cooperated: Martin Slunečko, Anna Becková, SANANIM – PhDr. Martina Těmínová, PhDr. Ilona Preslová; Středisko Drop in o.p.s. – Alice Holečková, MUDr. Jiří Presl; Toxi ambulance Apolinář - MUDr. Vladimíra Zenáhlíková, Vladimíra Kotounová; Gynekologicko-porodnická klinika FN Motol – doc. MUDr. Tomáš Binder CSc, Bc. Libuše Hofmannová, MUDr. Martin Čihař, MUDr. Jiří Horák, MUDr. Barbora Fišárková, Lenka Turková; Úřad práce hl. m. Prahy, pobočka v Praze 8 – Ivanka Hořánková; Věznice Valdice – plk. JUDr. Karel Kocourek, Bc. Josef Witschel; Vazební věznice Praha Ruzyně – plk. Ivan Horák; Sociální odbor MČ Prahy 8, odd. sociálně-právní ochrany dětí - Eva Horvatovičova; Petr Bíma, Zuzana Červenková, Lucie Svobodová, Tomáš Hejduk, František Heusler, Milan Jakl, Milan Jílek, Miloš Krejcar, Irena Machová, Petr Ostrouchov, Zdenek Patočka, Hana Procházková, Ivana Průšová, Martina Reková, Robert Riedl, Robert Russel, Lenka Pospíchalová. Production: Negativ, Czech Television - Centre for Current Affairs, Documentaries and Education, RWE. Image post-production: Avion Film. Sound design: Daniel Němec, Audio Atelier Mars. Sound mix: Daniel Němec, Štěpán Mamula. Music mix: Michal Vaniš – Studio Sono Records. Archive materials: NIKÉ TV production, Czech Television. Dramaturgists: Michael Třeštík, Jan Gogola. Distribution in Czech Republic: Aerofilms. Format: 35 mm, DVD, 1.66:1, colour, Czech, 90 min. Film premiere: 25 February 2010 Location: Czech Republic. Festivals and awards: 2010: RIDM - Rencontres internationales du documentaire de Montréal - Doctape Award; 2011: Pilsen Film Festival - Best Czech Doc; 2011: Open City London Documentary Festival - Grand Jury Special Mention; 2011: MakeDox - Onion Award Best Film, and others. Used version: DVD, Dolby Digital, Czech with English subtitles, 90 min.

177

Appendix I

Interview with Helena Třeštíková:

(11 November 2008)

During a screening of René (Master class for international students, FAMU)

1. You are always dealing with interesting life stories. How do you find and how do you choose your subjects for the films?

It is hard to define the time-collecting method as there is not that much written about it. I choose my social subjects accidentally and that is one of the risks of such a method as you never know what is going to happen next. At the same time, I was always very interested in life itself and the changes that it brings. I wanted to record those changes with a camera. The main feeling, but also driving force, is that uncertainty. The stories in the film were written by themselves, not by me.

2. What was your experience with René, as you had known him for such a long period of time, since he was 15 years old?

René is an interesting and amazing character. In a way, he is a very good person, but at the same time, very bitter. Life and certain circumstances made him bitter. I was afraid of him because he was a big part of my life. We spent a lot of time together. He knew where I was living. He knew my address and my flat. Sometimes I was afraid that something would happen to me or to my family. But you are also sometimes following your own intuition. I knew, in the end, that he was a good person, but just some hard things happened to him.

3. What are the major problems or obstacles in using the long-term observational method?

Definitely it is uncertainty. You don’t know what is next and you don’t know what your story is going to look like. But, also the lack of an ending of the film. These are also some of the challenges as you actually never end your film, you can always come back and continue to follow someone's life and the changes it brings. One of the advantages of this method is that you have more chances to build this space for trust, which you cannot build during a shorter period of time.

178

Appendix II

Interview with Helena Třeštíková:

(Prague, 20 April 2010)

1. Beginning with your first long-term observational documentary film cycle Manželske etudy...

In the beginning, Czech Television (ČTV) was not giving support for these kinds of films as they were so unpredictable. You couldn’t enable some concrete script, and financially, they were very risky projects. To make film in general was very expensive during the 1970s and 80s because of expensive technology, lack of materials; documentaries were shot on film tape. For that time, Manželske etudy was an atypical project.

2. How did you choose your subjects during the 1970s and 1980s?

I never wanted to do anything which is related to politics. I was always interested in intimate life stories of ordinary people and how they change over a certain period of time. Especially during the '70s and '80s, I was avoiding anything which had something to do with politics because everything was propaganda. I was more interested in private lives, social topics, maternity, intimate moments.

3. Tell me more about the process of your work?

With the long-term observation approach, it is good because when you film someone for a long period of time, people in the film get used to so much of your presence that they start forgetting about the camera, which gives you an opportunity to present them in the most authentic way, without any additional “fixing” or “colouring”. I was also always trying to create a relaxed and friendly atmosphere so they feel when we are talking as if there is no camera or filming, like we are just having a coffee and a relaxed chat. That helps them to relax.… But of course, it takes time, and this is a long process.

179

4. Do you think that you in some way changed the lives of the people in your films and how?

I think that my films have some effects on their lives but not from the material side. It is more the change where you can see reflections of yourself, your own attitudes, feelings, the way you have been changing. Sometimes this can give a good personal retrospective of our own being, who we are, who we want to become etc.

Appendix III

Interview with Helena Třeštíková:

(Prague, 6 February, 2012)

1. What are the biggest problems and weaknesses of the time-collecting method?

One of the biggest problems of the time-lapse method happens at the beginning. The beginnings of filmings are very hard because it always seems that nothing is happening and it is especially hard to have a clear vision about how something is going to be developed and what it is going to look like as the final product. You don’t know what is going to happen. At the beginning, there is nothing there. You have some story in your head that you want to talk about, but still that is just the beginning and everything is pretty blurry. Also, you don’t know if that is going to be interesting for viewers. You have a lot of dubiousness and unpredictability. It is also very hard as you don’t know how that story is going to evolve. You feel instability and you are not sure if that is the right subject, or if it is going to happen completely differently during the filming process. Because, when using such a method, time-lapse or time-collecting, you are following life the way it really is, you don’t arrange people or situations, but you are actually filming life without any additional changes. You don’t know what is going to happen in that same way as you don’t know what is going to happen sometimes with your own life. It just turns into a different direction, and you have to follow it. And this searching for meaning of your own story is actually searching over and over again through material you filmed, looking for what is functional from everything that you recorded during shooting. It is also hard to make in advance some design or script because, as I said, you don’t know what is going to happen. Everything is complex in this process.

180

2. Among debates around long-term observational documentaries and documentaries which apply different methods than this one, there is a view that the long-term observational method is uttermost in documentary film-making as it allows such a long period to follow someone's life. How do you see this method in relation to other forms of documentaries?

I think that other documentaries, which apply shorter periods of shooting, open more space for manipulation because the period of shooting lasts a shorter time, and it is easier from the side of the social subject to “act” or to pretend to be someone else then when you follow the same person for a longer period of time.

3. When you mention manipulation, I think manipulation is always possible no matter how long we follow someone’s life. How do you recognise these situations? Did you have this kind of experience with your social subjects? And how do you handle these situations? Katka and René seem like they are characters who could also be manipulative considering their past and their lives in general...

I had these situations, but I think in that case, these people (social subjects) were manipulating themselves more than me. If they tell you something which is not true, that usually happens not because they want to manipulate, but because they want to present themselves in the way they want to see themselves. But, of course, it is possible that the filmmaker can be manipulated. But I think that in long-term filming, when you are following someone for such a long time, there is less space for manipulation because it lasts so long. Even when it happens that they share something in front of the camera which might not be true, after a while when you meet them again for filming they usually forget what they said before or they say something completely different, and that’s how you “catch” them and how you recognise this kind of manipulation. One of the advantages of long-term observation is that it really allows you to get know someone, the way you can never do during short-term documentary projects.

4. Who had the biggest influence on your work during your studies at FAMU?

That was Jan Špata. He had a big influence on me while I was a student during the '70s. During the '60s, Czech film was very strong and forceful. After 1968, when normalisation came, many people, including many incredible filmmakers left the country. Most of those filmmakers who stayed here tried to do neutral subjects, outside of political topics. And one of the rare filmmakers who stayed here and still managed to make interesting documentaries was Jan Špáta [Respice 181

Finem (Jan Špáta, Czechoslovakia, 1967); Země sv. Patrika (Jan Špáta, Czechoslovakia, 1967); Poslední dějství (Jan Špáta, Czechoslovakia, 1970)...] He proved that it was possible to make documentaries even during such outrageously hard times. I liked his humanism very much. But after some period of time, he had a tendency to incline towards a different style, and it seems some works were intended to please others. Other filmmakers which I admire nowadays are Hana Jemelíková and Jiří Lehovec. They had a big influence on me while I was a student. Today, among them are Pavel Koutecký, Miroslav Janek, and Věra Chytilová.

5. Prevailing theories of documentary at the time you studied and Czech theories of documentary film-making, what analogies can be found abroad?

Antonin Navratil was very important during my studies as a theoretician and lecturer. He was writing a lot about Czech and world films. During our studies, we also had screenings of different classical films. Among them were Triumph of the Will and Three Songs to Lenin. At that time, I liked Joris Ivens and his films very much. Each film was different, and had a different expression. Also Dziga Vertov and Alain Rene and his film Night and Fog.

6. What were the conditions for making documentaries back in the 1970s and 1980s?

When comparing these two periods, before and after the revolution, one of the huge differences was in terms of technology. During the 1970s and 80s, it was very hard to get material as everything was limited. In those days, there was a use ratio of one in three or one in four. Today that is one in 15. That means today you have much more chance to make authentic video material. Also, thematically, during that time, censorship was big and it was completely clear that some subjects you simply could not film, and there were certain topics you couldn’t deal with in your films. One of the situations I had was when I was filming a wedding ceremony in the church for Manželske etudy, was that I was almost forbidden to use that sequence in my film. I didn’t want to listen and left it in my film, but we did have a lot of arguing about it. And that was such a benign scene. It had nothing to do with politics. I mean, my scene in the church was a pure scene of a wedding. It didn’t have any ideological contexts. But dramaturges were usually working on behalf of the censors.

I was always inclining toward intimate subjects and so that lack of freedom during the '70s and '80s wasn’t that fatal for me like for some other filmmakers. Topics that were political were very hard to deal with, almost impossible. I remember I was always following Václav Havel's theatre 182

plays, but it was absurd to imagine you could make a film about Havel at that period of time. After the revolution, all ideological taboos fell down and it was easier to deal with ideology in films and its consequences. These are all marked changes.

Today, it is also easier in terms of technological changes, because equipment is more movable. You can work with a smaller team of people. You have your own camera and you can film as much as you want. During my first projects (in the 1970s and 1980s), due to these limitations, I had to arrange interviews in advance in a sense to navigate people to concentrate on my concrete questions. There was no fluidity like I have today, which again gives me more chance for authenticity. In the past, I had also to record images and sounds separately.

7. Can you explain the process of your work, filming, and editing?

I always do a transcript after every shooting and a description of the images. Then I read all materials from the paper and try to make a selection. After the first version of film is done, I consult with a dramaturge and then an editor. I work most of the time with Jan Gogola and Michal Treštik. For documentary film there is a very important freedom, where you can totally express yourself the way you want without ideological borders.207

Appendix IV

Interview with Helena Třeštíková:

(Prague, 30 April, 2013)

1. In each of the films, Marcela, René, and Katka (that I used as case study films for analysis in this thesis) you employed inter-titles which determine the exact time and periods of the subjects' lives along with life events related to those periods. Why did you decid to use such graphic techniques during the editing process – to give to the spectator the comprehension of time and its continuity or to stress events in the subjects' lives?

We need to have determined time in order to show in during which period events took place. Also when certain situations are announced or said by headlines (inter-titles) then it is very concise, clear and outspoken. If I have to look for that kind of information in some testimonies of Marcela

207 Maša Hilčišin in interview with Helena Třeštíková (Prague, 2012). 183

or Jiří then it would be very complicated thus one simple inter-title actually saves time, and at the same time, I don't want to use commentary. The same reason why we employed inter-titles is used for the other two films - not any commentary, and fast concise information.

2. In Marcela, spatial representation is mainly set up around Marcela's home. Was it planned like that because of the space or did you also want to show her private life, social status, lifestyle? Also, there is a repetitiveness of scenes shot in the train. Was the train used practically while Marcela was travelling somewhere (to her work or home), or was it used more symbollically as a constant reminder of Ivana's death and to additionally express the tone of the parts of the film which relate to that event?

It is always best for shooting to choose intimate ambients when the subject is at home. Thus it is logicaly that it was best to film Marcela at her home, not in some cafe. Simply in the space where she lives, where the objects are that she uses. Naturally, that also illustrates characteristics of that person, the way she lives, in what kind of space and ambience, which kind of decorations she has and so on. I am always trying and striving to film subjects in their flats. That was not the case in René and Katka.

The train in Marcela is certainly a symbol which symbolizes the life path of Marcela. For Marcela, the train is also a symbol of death. But simultaneously, that can be the path to a new life. When Marcela moved from Prague to Český Brod, that train was part of her life thus that was not something that we staged but she was travelling by that train ordinarily. Thus all these three motives have been enlinked into one.

3. During the film there is a conversation with Marcela where she is mentioning that she suspects that her daughter was sexually abused by her father (Jiří). Why was this conversation never continued further in the film, and why was there no more investigation on this subject shown in the film?

The problem with that part of the film which deals with sexual abuse is that the father Jiří didn't want to step out in the film. I was trying toconvince him to, and I was talking to him, at one moment it looked like he would agree to talk about that in the film, but then his mother talked him out of it. So he couldn't say his own version because he claimed that itwas not true, and that it did not happen. And Marcela was claiming that the doctor told her that was certainly true because when a child is that small she would never make up these kind of things if they were not true and 184

if they did not happen. But because there was argument against argument, it was placed aside in the film. It was investigated, but it was put aside. I actually used that in the film because Marcela and Ivana did not have any contact with Jiří and everyone would ask 'why', and that reason is very serious and weighty.

4. In Marcela, there is also a sequence that was shot in the church when Marcela was putting Ivana's urn on the shelf and faintinged while doing it. That is also the only time that you show up in front of the camera during the whole film. Why did you decide to leave this scene in the film?

That was the scene which caused most of the discussions during editing if we should leave that scene in the film or not. But then we decided to leave that scene partly because we wanted to show in what kind of situation Marcela was and how she is living through that experience, how horrific it can be...And that part when I am helping her is there because I am not some part of wood who just observes situations which are happening and doesn't intervene, but actually I intervene. There are people which like that sequence in the film on the one hand, but also there are big critics of that sequence on the other hand. It is not unambiguous.

5. Marcela in the film has almost never been shown happy. Was she happy when Ivana was born, or when her children started school, or when she got a new job...? How did you want to show Marcela, and how do you see Marcela in the film, and in real life?

Marcela is very authentic in front of the camerasthus what you see in the film is Marcela. She is a worthy, simple woman, she is also very emotional, but sometimes unluckiness glues itself to her. Otherwise she is happy for a while when she goes to country music or when she is with her friends. She is very social and friendly. And she loves country music very much, and that's her life. She lives very intensively through everything that she is experiencing and that is realized in life. Those ordinary things (expecting a baby, having a new job...) she demonstrates joy, but most of the time that doesn't keep her very long because usually there are some problems (in her life) .

6. Why in Marcela are there no more familly members involved in the communication circle (except at the beginning of the film)? The same is with Marcela's friends. There is not that much communication with other people except with Marcela, and sporadically with her children...

185

That familly operated very much at the beginning of the film while Marcela was living with them, and those parents in that period of time were very reflective and chatty. But when Marcela moved out, certainly, they saw each other from time to time, but it was not that intensive any more. A friend of Marcela's is there when they go dancing together (during the first part of the film – author's note)...But I have that feeling that I don't want to do situations where someone would make up something about Marcela, when some friends would say who Marcela is, a lovely girl, etc. That same friend (who was with Marcela at the dancing) is also with Marcela when Ivana dies, helping Marcela in her flat and calling the funeral service...That is the same person.

7. Which parts of Marcela went under the biggest editorial interventions during the editing process?

The first part of the film was shot on 16mm, and there were realatively less materials shot in that period of time. But when we started to shoot on video thus those materials that we shot were more and the selection was bigger (from the moment when the film started to be in color).

8. The spatial representation in René is mainly organized around prisons (except the family home very briefly at the beginning of the film). Was there any possibility to capture René and his life in other places than prisons, his home for instance?

René has never had his own flat. In his mother's home, he was more often on a visit than really living there. And after that, he never had his own home, he always had some casual and accidental places where he stayed over, at someone's place where it was not possible to film, or he had something rented...Simply whenever he was living in freedom and outside of prison, it was never possible to film him in the space and ambience that was his. But that is also one of the characteristics of René shown in the film in that he is actually an unsettled man, without assurance, without his own home, without space within which he could denote himself. He is the kind of man who is moving around in the world and he is nowhere at home.

186

9. When comes to the communicational circle, there are not that many people involved in it (except his mother and brother at the very beginning of the film, and Katarina later). Did René have any friends?

René doesn't have many friends. Those women (Katarina and Eva) appear and some other women. He doesn't have friends, and I think he doesn't search for them either. He is rather a lone wolf.

10. One of the main means of communication in René are the letters that he has been exchanging with you over a long period of time. How did you make the final selection of letters and how did you decide which parts to put in the film? What were the main parameters used in such a selection?

I hid all those letters, and then I retyped them in the computer. Then I was choosing passages and paragraphs which I found important. René then read those paragraphs, and evidently we did not use everything that René read in the film, but we used a big part of that which was already my own selection. René was very active in sending those letters, he is a man who likes to write so I usually received one letter a week.

11. There are also a lot of scenes in the film shot on the train station. Sometimes it is not certain if René was going somewhere or if it was just staged action for the film...

He was travelling all the time. That is also his adriftness. He was always somewhere and then he changes his mind and wants to go somewhere else. He usually travelled by train, and that train is the exact symbol of most of the people who don't have a home; they moved around train stations. So the train station is also a visually interesting element. For that reason, we employed train stations in the spatial representation repeatedly in the film.

12. What was important for you to show to the spectator in the final representation of René during the editing process? What kind of character and how do you see René? Was he every happy?

René is ambiguous. He is the kind of man who can be good and bad, he can be sweet and empathic, but simultaneously he can be unbearable... When he robbed me, that was a demonstration of the bizarre agression that he performed. Simultaneously with that, in our

187

communication he was calculating that I could help him, in sending packages, whatever he needed while he was in prison. That is very important about his character, that he is very ambiguous. It is not black, it is not white, and all the time these two sides are baffling I think he had moments when he felt happy, for example, during the period while he was with Katarina. I think those were happy moments and he loved Katarina. But when it comes to happiness, René is also a very unsatisfied man, when he is in the prison he is displeased, and when he is outside of prison he says that it is terrible and that in prison it was better. But he never says it is good, it is always terrible, when he moves somewhere tean it is even worse.

13. In Katka, the spatial representation is dominated by streets and outside life. Katka was never filmed at her home even at her parents home. Was it possible to shoot any of the scenes in a real home?

Never. First of all, we shot Katka in the rehabilitation therapeutic community, but when she left those communities she was always living on the street. All that time. Her mother never let me film her or their home. She said she didsn't want to have anything to do with a film/camera, but Katka actually never even stayed at her mother's home. Neither did her sisters want to talk in front of the camera. It is interesting when we shot that scene in the attic, that is the attic above the flat where her mother lives. But Katka didn't want anybody to know about it. So she never had her own flat.

14. Did her familly have any contact with Katka during the period of filming?

Yes, they had contact with Katka, but they didn't want to be filmed.

15. In Katka, there is a sequence when Roman (Katka's boyfriend) is beating an unknown woman at the train station. Why did you decide to leave that scene in the film as it was not particularly linked to the former and upcoming sequences?

That is the exact characteristic of the life of a junkie. Partly it is that agression, partly he claimed that the woman had robbed him... in fact, in that kind of street life that is part of their lives because thay live in various squats. So in the squats they have their stuff, some of that stuff they always take with themselves, but also sometimes some of the stuff they leave at squat,s someone else steals. And they always have some idea who would do that. So Roman had a feeling that those women stole his stuff. So that scene was a demonstration of the permanent conflict on the street, and the aggression produced by that kind of lifestyle. At the very beginning of that scene, I

188

had no clue what was going on because we came to the train station to film Roman on his way to České Budějovice...I had no idea what was going on, then he explained what happened. But it seemed to me that it was a very typical situation for their life.

16. There is also similar (verbal) agression expressed during the conflict between Roman and a health worker. That was the same scene which happened right after the conflict between Katka and the same health worker. How do you decide if you want to intervene in those kind of conflict scenes or not?

I am an observer. And that is conflict where I have nothing to do with it. The cameraman knows that he has to film everything and so he films everything.

17. Later in the film, there was a similar conflict situation but with the police, but you intervened. That was the only time in Katka where you show up physically in front of the camera. How do you decide when you want to intervene?

I intervened a little bit in that scene because I was afraid that the policeman could be agressive towards them. So I intervened a little bit there...But during the conflict with the health worker, I had nothing to resolve.

18. Did you think that Katka was going to change due to the pregnancy and after having her first child?

I thought she was going to change and we all really hoped for that. That it was going to be the impulse which would make her quit drugs.

19. During the editing process of Katka, what kind of representation of Katka did you want to deliver and how do you see Katka? From the film, there is a dominant impression of Katka that she has almost never been happy for most of her life.

Katka is clever, she is not a primitive person, but she is terribly addicted to drugs. For me, the theme of that film was to show how drugs can be so powerful and strong, even though she knows everything, she knows how bad it is , she wants to have a child, and she loves her child, but that addiction to drugs is more powerful than all of this. For me, that was the image of the power of drugs, and the weakness of man. But I also always believed that there was going to be some change, or some impulse would happen, and because none of these things happened, for me that 189

was really hard. If she was ever happy I really don't know. During the moments when she has drugs she feels good, and she seems satisfied, but at the same time that doesn't last long. That is the problem because she knows that those moments are limited and they won't last long. And if she wants to renew those 'happy' moments, she has to find drugs somewhere. And she knows that.

20. During the shooting of each of these films (Marcela, René, and Katka), when you shot interviews, how was your cooperation with the cameraman, is there always only one cameraman present or more than one during shooting? Also ,when it comes to the details, do you direct the cameraman how to shoot the subject(s) and what kind of details to capture or does everything rely on the approach and selection made by the cameraman himself?

There is always only one cameraman during interviews. That endeavor is to create an atmosphere which will at least look like a film shooting, but rather like a friendly chat and gathering. The cameraman rather chooses how to film by himself because there has usually been long-term cooperation between us so the strategy is clear: to be as discreet and unobtrusive as possible, to film as many details as possible and to aim to capture most of the situations. I always sit very close to the cameraman so the eyeview of the subject is directed utmost towards camera, and the cameraman has to be capable to react when needed because it is impossible to talk in the middle of the process and situation. Naturally, sometimes I say please film that situation and also that situation...when needed to direct the camera, but certainly he has to be capable to react by himself.

21. How does your work and cooperation look with the editor? You do editing at the very end of or in different stages of the filming process? How long did the t editing of each of those films take?

With Marcela, the editing was different as I was cooperating with other editors. During René and Katka, I was working with the same editor. He is a very creative man and that is the kind of cooperation which is very active. We always do it together and it is a splendid and extraordinary cooperation. I spent around 30 days on the editing of Marcela. Editing René and Katka took longer – 40 to 50 days. When it comes to materials used in the films there is usually around 15 times more materials which was shot than we used in the final editing process.

190

22. After the final phase of editing of each of these films, what kind of process did you have? Did Marcela, René and Katka have a chance to see the films before the public screening? Did it ever happen that they didn't like something in the film?

They all saw the films. Generally, they didn't have any remarks, or something they were against. The whole process is like that, that those materials we stored during shooting and only at the end, I start with editing. But now, I have an approach to start sooner and to make a break between those periods of editing so I can have distance. That means we do editing and let's say we have a two-hour long version and then we have a month's break and get back to the material with a new, refreshed view and do changes and additional filming in case we have to.

23. Do you still have contact with Marcela, René and Katka, and do you know what is going on currently in their lives?

Katka's life is still pretty much the same, she has contact with Tereza, there were no major changes in her life in the meantime. René is now living in freedom and he is running some bar in České Budějovice. Marcela lives the same, sometimes she has a psychological crisis, and she undergoes treatment. Her son Tomaš finished a school for cooking and he is already working in some school kitchen. I saw him a week ago. And René doesn't write any more, but he now has a mobile so we are in touch over the phone.

24. Are you continuing with filming with each of them?

Yes, we are shooting and we already have a lot of new material.

25. Which of all of these experiences with Marcela, René and Katka was the hardest for you to shoot emotionally?

That is for sure Katka. To observe that and to give hope that something is going to change, and that actually never happened...That means you are not only unhappy as a filmmaker, but also as a person and human being. It is very depressing to observe all of that.

191

192