From the Camera Obscura to Video Assist Author(S): Jean-Pierre Geuens Source: Film Quarterly, Vol
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Through the Looking Glasses: From the Camera Obscura to Video Assist Author(s): Jean-Pierre Geuens Source: Film Quarterly, Vol. 49, No. 3 (Spring, 1996), pp. 16-26 Published by: University of California Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1213467 . Accessed: 15/06/2011 09:08 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. University of California Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Film Quarterly. http://www.jstor.org Through Jean-Pierre Geuens the Looking Glasses From the Camera Obscura to Video Assist The oriiginal video assist apparatus put tog;ether by Bruce Hill in 1970 The studio is finally quiet. The actors are the actual use of the device. In his still restless. The crew is ready. "Sound." "Camera." The seminal essay "The Question Concern- slate is taken. A voice calls "Action." A voice? Is this ing Technology,"2 Martin Heidegger 1 really the director, "with his back to the actors," look- warned us that "technology is no mere ing at the scene on a little video monitor? Isn't the means," 3 that the adoption of a new method of produc- director, at least the solid Hollywood professional of tion often expresses more than the simple substitution old, supposed to sit just next to the camera, facing the of one tool by another. In Andrew Feenberg's words, action? What's happening here? "modern technology is no more neutral than medieval Following the trajectory that led from the old- cathedrals or the Great Wall of China; it embodies the fashioned parallax viewfinders to the contemporary values of a particular civilization. ... "4 Herbert use of video-assist technology, I will argue that "look- Marcuse is even more radical. For him, "specific pur- ing through the camera" is never a transparent activ- poses and interests of domination are not foisted upon ity, that each configuration has distinctive features technology 'subsequently' and from the outside; they whose design and implementation resonate beyond enter the very construction of the technical apparatus. 16 Technology is always a historical social project: in it is danger signals."7 These brave men behind the camera, projected what a society and its ruling interests intend despite their vigilance, thus stood in a hermeneutic to do with men and things."5 Thus, as far as the camera relation to their instrument. The otherness of the ma- is concerned, the very appearance of a novel gizmo chine remained unassailed, its viewing apparatus a could itself be significant of cultural or economic numinous, hermetic object standing as a third party changes that have taken place in the film industry prior between the operator and the world. The best one to the use of the new technology and, in turn, the actual could do was stand next to the thing, maybe control- practice of the supplemental device may help shape a ling its mishaps or its surges, but, throughout, ac- different kind of cinema. knowledging the actual film process as a thorough enigma. In the first years of cinema, getting access to the image that was to be recorded on film was no The situation changed in 1936, when the easy matter. The early cameras could never provide Arnold and Richter Company of Germany introduced such necessary information. Indeed, not only the pio- continuous reflex viewing with its new Arriflex neer cameras of the 1890s and the 1900s but also the 35mm camera. The solution was truly elegant: by mir- first truly professional cameras used by Hollywood- roring the side of the shutter that was facing the lens the Bell and Howell 2709 and the Mitchell Standard and tilting it at a 45-degree angle, the light that was not Model-had to resort to peeping holes, miscellaneous used by the film when the latter was intermittently finders, magnifying tubes, swinging lens systems, and moving inside the camera was now made available to rack-over camera bodies to give any information at all the operator for viewing purposes. Suddenly, the defi- about the image produced by the lens.6 At best, the ciencies that had marred the early camera systems were operators allowed to survey the scene before or were eliminated as operators, looking through the lens after actually shooting it. Crucially missing from their during the filming, gained maximum control over the arsenal was the capability to check on exact framing, images they were shooting. In fact, the smoothness of of focusing, lighting, depth field, and perspective the Arriflex solution hid a paradox. Even though the while a lens could filming. Although be precisely fo- operator may believe he or she sees what the film gets, cused on an actor's position ahead of time, what hap- technically speaking one never actually witnesses the pened during the shot, especially if there was any same instant of time that is recorded on film because movement, remained a mystery. The operators, in ef- of the fluctuating movement of the shutter-when the fect, were shooting blind. As they watched through the operator gets the light, the film does not, and vice parallax viewfinder on the side of the camera, a device versa. More importantly, this means that the access to that but a produced pallid, lifeless, uninviting substi- the lens is punctuated by the blinking presence/ab- tute for the real thing peeked at seconds earlier, they sence of the mirrored shutter. In my view, this flicker- remained outsiders to what was truly going on inside ing implies more than a simple technical chink; it the In a the of what apparatus. way, mystery happened radically transforms the linkage between the operator, inside the camera the acted as a during shooting synec- the camera, and the world by literally embodying the doche for the further that magic would be worked on eye within the technology of the apparatus itself. the film in the where it was lab, to be chemically Indeed, if we go back to the early years of still treated and its content at last to exposed view. Only at photography for a moment, there was always a sense the of the dailies could one know for screening sure of awe when the operator's head finally disappeared whether the scene was or needed to be good reshot. under a large black cloth in order to take the picture. Such a situtation daunting therefore required steady "What do you have there: a girlfriend?" a model asked this is how the professional types and, indeed, "opera- of Michael Powell's protagonist in Peeping Tom tive cameramen" were described their in by peers the (1960), a comment that clearly exposes the prurience American of must Society Cinematographers: "They of the act. In a similar fashion, on the motion picture be ever on the watch that no or unexpected unplanned set, the view through the reflex viewfinder quickly action by the or from the players background changes became fetishized, the actual practice exceeding the movement and originally planned lighting on the set, useful aspect of checking on the parameters of the occur sit behind the during shooting. They camera, scene. Crew hierarchy determined who got to take a like the at engineer his throttle, ever watching for peek. Yet the static image one could witness when the 17 camera was at rest had finally little to do with what tions many times repeated, an epiphany punctuated happened during the real shooting, when the operator only by "eternal poses," to use Gilles Deleuze's de- alone received the full force of the system. Then the scriptive words."1Because it stands outside mechani- impact was truly stirring; due to the saccadic nature of cal time and physical space, the experience recalls the the shutter's rotation, the effect on the eye was nothing "oceanic" early moments of life. During that moment, less than phantasmagoric. Because the other eye of the the operator, neither here nor there, stands liminally operator remained closed during the filming, the flick- between two worlds. As he or she merges, to some ering light on the ground glass became thoroughly extent, with the phantom action on the little screen, a hypnotic, even addictive.8 For the time of the shot, communion takes place that integrates the self within with only one eye opened onto the phantastic spec- an ideal reality. Not surprisingly a certain ekstase can tacle on the little screen, the operator was very much be reached. The effect then is not unlike that of a lost in another world, a demimonde, a netherworld not trance in a ritual, an experience that also momentarily unlike a dream screen for the wakened.