The Film Is the Museum: Ken Jacobs, Gus Van Sant, Mark Lewis, and Pierre Perrault
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Repositorium für die Medienwissenschaft Barbara Le Maître The film is the museum: Ken Jacobs, Gus Van Sant, Mark Lewis, and Pierre Perrault 2019 https://doi.org/10.25969/mediarep/4182 Veröffentlichungsversion / published version Zeitschriftenartikel / journal article Empfohlene Zitierung / Suggested Citation: Le Maître, Barbara: The film is the museum: Ken Jacobs, Gus Van Sant, Mark Lewis, and Pierre Perrault. In: NECSUS. European Journal of Media Studies, Jg. 8 (2019), Nr. 1, S. 15–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25969/mediarep/4182. Erstmalig hier erschienen / Initial publication here: https://necsus-ejms.org/the-film-is-the-museum-ken-jacobs-gus-van-sant-mark-lewis-and-pierre-perrault/ Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Dieser Text wird unter einer Creative Commons - This document is made available under a creative commons - Namensnennung - Nicht kommerziell - Keine Bearbeitungen 4.0/ Attribution - Non Commercial - No Derivatives 4.0/ License. For Lizenz zur Verfügung gestellt. Nähere Auskünfte zu dieser Lizenz more information see: finden Sie hier: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MEDIA STUDIES www.necsus-ejms.org The film is the museum: Ken Jacobs, Gus Van Sant, Mark Lewis, and Pierre Perrault Barbara Le Maître, translated from the French by Claire Labarbe[1] NECSUS 8 (1), Spring 2019: 15–30 URL: https://necsus-ejms.org/the-film-is-the-museum-ken-jacobs- gus-van-sant-mark-lewis-and-pierre-perrault/ Keywords: cultural heritage, curatorial gesture, film, museum In the last twenty years, the question of the relationship between cinema and the museum has been raised in multiple theoretical and practical contexts, giving rise to a number of discussions about the exhibition of moving images, the use of the medium of film or of specific works as part of installations, as well as the ways in which the cinematographic set-up informs works which are not strictly speaking filmic.[2] The purpose of this text is in a sense to reverse the way in which the question has been posed by shifting the conver- sation from the film as object for the museum to that of the film as museum. More specifically, far from focusing on didactic productions which form an important part of contemporary museology, our present purpose is rather to speculate on a few aspects of a hitherto unconsidered ‘curatorial project’.[3] The latter can be traced amongst a series of filmic objects underpinned by a variety of intentions:none of the films chosen for this study were explicitely conceived with the curatorial intention evidenced in the analysis. The very idea of a curatorial project is open to discussion and can be seen to include a variety of aspects since, to quote François Mairesse, there is in fact no defining centre to the curatorial project. The idea that collecting, assembling, managing or curating objects constitute the linchpin of curatorial activ- ities has been refuted by history. […] It follows that no endeavours can be historically identified as the sine qua non conditions sufficient to define a curatorial project. [4] NECSUS – EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MEDIA STUDIES Taking as my starting point the diversity inherent in institutional muse- ums as well as the constant redefinition of the project which those institutions nonetheless have in common, I will present the hypothesis of a delocalisation (accompanied by a transformation) of most of the functions traditionally as- sociated with the museum. Those functions can now happen elsewhere, as for instance in (and via) certain films. Ultimately, that which I refer to as ‘cu- ratorial gesture’ encompasses the entirety or part of a necessarily polymor- phous curatorial project which is essentially redefined through film. This text is an invitation to consider cinema (and its films) in a new light, a light which, without obscuring the double capacity of the medium to rep- resent and fictionalise, also reveals its curatorial powers. So what is at stake exactly? First the ways in which, at times, a film identifies and highlights spe- cific heritage – be it a paper print, a tableau or any other features of primitive cinema, as is the case with Ken Jacobs and Mark Lewis, who share a taste for the origins of cinema (as will be shown). Besides retrieving imaging acts which are more or less remote in the aesthetic past –and consequently wid- ening the concept of legacy –the examples studied here will also give us an opportunity to define the idea of ‘curatorial powers’ in the sense of a film which can be transformed into an exhibition site (Ken Jacobs) or an act of restoration (Gus Van Sant) of a past whose transmission is always accompa- nied with a reformulation –an aspect which is given precedence in Dominique Poulot’s definition of heritage.[5] Alternating between the analy- sis of different curatorial functions, I will insist on the ways in which, in each instance, the film allows for a reconsideration of the curatorial gesture. In a final section devoted to Pierre Perrault and the cultural (rather than æsthetic) heritage recorded in his works, I will go as far as suggesting that cinema may have contributed to the invention of a new form of curating. Ken Jacobs: The film as means of preservation and exhibition site As the first and probably the most explicit example of a film which is also a curatorial gesture, I will turn to a film by Ken Jacobs made around 1969-1971 which uses as its source a 1905 film produced by the Biograph Company and attributed to Billy Bitzer. Both films are titled Tom Tom the Piper’s Son. Jacobs’ film has received much critical attention in recent years, notably in a special issue of the journal Exploding, in which Emeric de Lastens wrote: 16 VOL 8 (1), 2019 THE FILM IS THE MUSEUM Jacobs’s film is part of a long process of conservation, duplication and restoration of a reel constantly threatened with disintegration, obliteration and oblivion […]. It is surely not far-fetched to imagine that Jacobs may have envisaged his project in line with that of a curator.[6] In practice, the cinematographer got hold of a paper print of the 1905 film[7] and then decided to direct his own film based on an exhaustive (re)filming of the primitive film. The focus of my attention here is not so much Jacobs’ formal exploration of the original Tom Tom –that is to say eve- rything that goes beyond the filming itself, including flicker, freeze-frames, variations in projection speed, selection, repetition and enlargement of de- tails –as much as Jacobs’ curatorial gesture. Quite literally, indeed, Jacobs transferred a filmic object which only survived in a fragmentary and deteri- orated form onto a slightly more durable format. In doing so, Jacobs simul- taneously renewed the distribution of the original film. I will argue that, to a certain extent, the first film is exhibited inside Jacobs’ film –the film is presented twice in its entirety, from start to end, so as to be appreciated as an object in its own right rather than one underpinning a nar- rative it would be subservient to – thus transforming what we commonly call a film into a ‘museum for (primitive) cinema’. The museum contains only one work. In that sense, we are confronted with a museum without a collec- tion. What is more, this is probably the first museum to be spread across as many original sites as there are copies of Jacobs’ film –including all the reels, as well as, since the 2000s, video copies and the DVD release. Mechanical reproduction, which is a defining characteristic of filmic works, here charac- terises the very location of the museum. Thus years before the internet and digital museums, Jacobs invented the ‘portable-reproductible’ museum.[8] The example of Jacobs’ film should not however suggest that reappropri- ation cinema generally speaking (filmic quotations, found footage, and tutti quanti) necessarily implies that cinema has become its own museum. One can only speak of a curatorial purpose when the reworking encapsulates the orig- inal work in its entirety and gives it priority, meaning that, more than any- thing else, the new film must endeavour to showcase and foreground the original work. LE MAÎTRE 17 NECSUS – EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF MEDIA STUDIES Gus Van Sant: Restoration through imitation The second example of a film as curatorial gesture – the contentious remake of Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho (1960) by Gus Van Sant (1998) – is more prob- lematic. Van Sant’s film is generally understood as an imitation of Hitch- cock’s original work. But it must straight away be pointed out that this imita- tion does not pretend to be the original. In other words, it is not a fake. Be- cause of the fact that it is an imitation, one could not argue that Van Sant preserves Hitchcock’s film, although the second Psycho reproduces the diegetic referent of the first (the script is the same and the sequential assembly is prac- tically identical) as well as its actual referent (the same city, Phoenix, has been transposed from 1960 to 1998). At a stretch, one could say that Gus Van Sant preserves ‘something’ of Hitchcock’s film (by using ‘vintage’ staging and ed- iting). But it seems to me that in this instance, the idea of a filmic museum has relevance less in terms of conservation than in terms of restoration. Restoring a painting or any other work of art is a complex operation, es- pecially if one is to rely on Cesare Brandi’s definition of the main principles of the process: Restoration consists of the methodological moment in which the work of art is recognised, in its physical being, and in its dual aesthetic and historical nature, in view of its transmission to the future.