Brechtian Cinemas: Montage and Theatricality in Jean-Marie Straub and Danièle Huillet, Peter Watkins and Lars Von Trier
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Brechtian Cinemas: Montage and Theatricality in Jean-Marie Straub and Danièle Huillet, Peter Watkins and Lars von Trier by Nenad Jovanovic A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Centre for Study of Drama University of Toronto © Copyright by Nenad Jovanovic 2011 Abstract Brechtian Cinemas: Montage and Theatricality in Jean-Marie Straub and Danièle Huillet, Peter Watkins and Lars von Trier Nenad Jovanovic, Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (2011) Graduate Centre for Study of Drama, University of Toronto In this dissertation I investigate the stylistic shift in the cinema of selected filmmakers whose work is rooted in Bertolt Brecht’s dramatic theory: Jean-Marie Straub and Danièle Huillet, Peter Watkins, and Lars von Trier. Through the work of these filmmakers, I trace the ongoing change in the cinematic applications of the theory. By and large, the change consists of a lessening of the role of montage – a technique that occupies a paramount place in Brecht’s theatrical and filmic practice – in favour of the objects within the camera’s field of view and the sounds within the microphone’s range. Since the ultimate effect for which the Brechtian filmmaker aims is that of Verfremdung , theatrical stylisation – itself estranging within the context of cinema – appears as a natural corollary of the described shift in emphasis. I also suggest a causal connection between the aforementioned shift and the growing self-consciousness of the style employed by meainstream cinemas (of which Hollywood is the foremost representative), which often manifests itself in the use of unorthodox editing patterns. Accordingly, I propose that we can attribute the contemporary Brechtian filmmaker’s growing reliance on mise-en-scène elements 1 as a source of Verfremdung largely to the major film industries’ adoption of montage and other specifically cinematic codes 2 that make a film’s style overt. Not surprisingly, 1 Performance style, set design, lighting, costume, properties, and make-up. ii perhaps, the Brechtian filmmaker – whose political stance is inherently antagonistic to that exemplified by most mainstream cinema, reacts to the normalisation of foregrounded film style by employing the opposite strategy. 2 The term is borrowed from Christian Metz. For classification and discussion of specifically cinematic and non-specific (cinematic) codes, see Metz’s Langage et cinéma (1971). iii Acknowledgments My debt of gratitude is due first to my thesis committee: Veronika Ambros, who in the inception phase of this project encouraged me to study German, and whose seminars have informed more than one of its ideas; Stefan Soldovieri, who alerted me to pertinent sources and managed to find merit in even the roughest drafts of my chapters; Charlie Keil, who has guided for years my development as an academic, always maintaining a balance between criticism and support. Charlie’s help in the conceptualisation of this dissertation and dealing with the difficulties I encountered during the writing process was critical; I am thankful to him and the other committee members more than I can express. The staff of the Graduate Centre for the Study of Drama - Luella Massey, Robert Moses, Deborah Loughlin, Marc Goodman and Jean Glasgow (a figure often more motherly to me than my own mother) – prevented me from losing my way in the university’s administrative maze. Professor John Astington, the centre’s graduate director at the time of my arrival there, has unwaveringly believed in me since day one. Financial support of different institutions also helped bring this project to completion: the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities of Ontario granted me the Ontario Graduate Scholarship in 2007; the School of Graduate Studies at the University of Toronto and the Joint Initiative in German and European Studies financed my research trips to Berlin in 2009 and 2010, respectively. In Berlin’s Brecht Archiv , Ute Kohl and Helga Streidt patiently provided me with all the materials I requested. Last but not least, I am thankful to my friends Lazar Rajic, Ljiljana Radenovic and Slobodan Perovic for providing advice and encouragement. Above all, my warmest iv gratitude goes to Ivana Nesovic, for being by my side for most of the writing process, soothing my despair about words. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Revisiting Brecht and Cinema ………………………………….………...……...…………..1 Brecht, Theatricality, Montage …………………………………………..…..………………7 Goals and Structure of the Dissertation …………………………………...………………...25 Chapter 1: The Key Notions of Brecht’s Dramatic Theory ……………..........………….27 The Epic…………………………………………………………………..………..………...29 Verfremdung ……………………………...……………………………..…………..…….....41 Gestus …………………………………………………………………..…….……....…..….51 Dialectics………………………………………………………………..………...…………55 Brecht’s Dramatic Theory and Film Studies: The Key Texts……..……..………...….....….65 Conclusion…………………………………………………………….…………..………....79 Chapter 2: Brecht and Cinema: the “Great Method” Adjusted .......................................81 Brecht the Filmmaker: Towards Kuhle Wampe ………………….………………..………..101 Kuhle Wampe : a Montage Film?............................................................................................110 Conclusion…………………………………......………………………….……..……..…..125 Chapter 3: Jean-Marie Straub and Danièle Huillet: the Caveman’s Avant-Garde…..128 General Characteristics of Straub and Huillet’s Cinema…………………………..……….133 Machorka-Muff : Challenging the Language / Film Analogy……………………...……….138 History Lessons : The Dialectics of Image and Sound……………………..……...…....….147 Antigone : The Aristotelian Unities Put to a Brechtian End………………..…...……….…155 Sicily! : Rebellion as a Conspicuous Non-Event…………………………..………………..170 Conclusion………………………………………………………………..………………...182 Chapter 4: Peter Watkins: Intuitive Brechtianism …………………….………….……184 Watkins’ Media Critique…………………………………………………….………...…..188 Editing Patterns in Watkins’ Biographical Films………………………...…….…….……201 The Paris Commune as a Brechtian Lehrstück ……………………………….……………223 vi Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………243 Chapter 5: Lars von Trier: Brechtian Cinema in the Postmodern Era ……...……….246 Dogme 95 : Feigning Radicalism…………………………………………………………..249 The Idiots : Feigning Realism………………………………………………………………258 Dogville : The Techniques of Brechtian Theatre in Film…………………………………..272 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….…………291 Chapter 6: Conclusion ………………..……………………………………..……………297 WORKS CITED …………………………………………………………………………..305 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 ……………………………………………………………………………………108 Figure 2……………………………………………………………………………………120 Figure 3 ……………………………………………………………………………………120 Figure 4 ……………………………………………………………………………………139 Figure 5 ……………………………………………………………………………………150 Figure 6 ……………………………………………………………………………………163 Figure 7 ……………………………………………………………………………………166 Figure 8 ……………………………………………………………………………………168 Figure 9 ……………………………………………………………………………………169 Figure 10 …………………………………………………………………..………………178 Figure 11 …………………………………………………………………………………..179 Figure 12 ………………………………………………………..…………………………180 Figure 13 ………………………………………………………………………………..…206 Figure 14 ………………………………………………………………………………..…212 Figure 15 ……………………………………………………………………………..……216 Figure 16………………………………………………………………………………..…216 Figure 17 ………………………………………………..…………………………………217 Figure 18 ………………………………………………..…………………………………237 Figure 19 ………………………………………………..…………………………………238 Figure 20 ………………………………………………..…………………………………240 Figure 21 ………………………………………………..…………………………………255 Figure 22 ………………………………………………..…………………………………255 Figure 23 ………………………………………………..…………………………………256 Figure 24 ………………………………………………..…………………………………266 Figure 25 ………………………………………………..…………………………………268 Figure 26 ………………………………………………..…………………………………285 Figure 27 ………………………………………………..…………………………………287 Figure 28 ………………………………………………..…………………………………287 viii Introduction Revisiting Brecht and Cinema Although Brecht’s interest in cinema was only intermittent, resulting in comparatively few films and critical writings on the medium, he seems to be referenced with nearly equal frequency in the literatures on theatre and film. The vast range of filmmakers with whom Brecht has been associated includes figures as diverse as the Brothers Taviani (Turovskaia 224-233), whose eclectic style evokes Italian Neorealism, and – somewhat outrageously – the American sexploitation filmmaker Russ Meyer. (Greene 217) The mutual disparity between some of the connotations that Brecht’s name has acquired in film studies led the critic Jonathan Rosenbaum to remark that “One of the most abused critical terms we have is ‘Brechtian.’” (Rosenbaum) Brecht was a modernist who refused the idea of medium specificity, which underlay the artistic practices of some of the major representatives of the cultural trend. It was only logical, then, that Brecht tried his hand at a wide array of literary genres and representational media (including, respectively, the novel and radio). The “abuse” that Rosenbaum refers to can be accounted for at least partly by Brecht’s output itself, with its extraordinarily extensive nature. For this among other reasons, there are at least three broad meanings the term “Brechtian” can possess in the context of theatre and film studies. The most obvious of these is historical: a play by Brecht is Brechtian as King Lear is a Shakespearean play. This sense of the term is the least ambiguous, but also the least common of the three. One is more likely to run across the term “Brechtian” in a commentary of a play by Peter Weiss or Naomi Wallace,