• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

47 NOTEBOOK · EXPERIMENTATION, AVANT-GARDE, AND DEVIATION FROM THE NORM A MARGIN OF PLAYFUL AMBIGUITY: OFF-SCREEN SPACE IN THE STUDENT PRINCE IN OLD HEIDELBERG (ERNST LUBITSCH, 1927) ASIER ARANZUBIA COB A DOUBLE MOVEMENT As is well known, by 1923 the mode of produc- tion and basic norms of the Hollywood film style Of the large number of European filmmakers who were already fully established. As Kristin Thomp- went to Hollywood in the 1920s, Ernst Lubitsch was son (2005) has explained in great detail, Lubitsch probably the one who adapted best to the style and would soon claim as his own a style of storytelling mode of production of the studio system. Although whose basic premises were not all that different what had attracted the attention of American crit- from the ones he had been using previously in ics and producers were his historical films (with German films. But although his films may be eas- sumptuous sets and frames replete with extras), the ily classified within a mainstream style, a closer German director was relatively quick to find the look at them reveals that those same films, in a genre and style that would bring him success on the kind of double movement, offer enough devia- other side of the Atlantic (at least in terms of criti- tions from the norm to be considered atypical of cal acclaim and professional prestige, as none of his Hollywood production in the 1920s. silent films were big box office hits1): sophisticated The most significant deviation is ontological, comedy. The fact that Paramount would make him as it directly targets the weak point of the style their production manager in the following decade which, since Noël Burch (1978-1979), has come is perhaps the most definitive proof of his rapid ac- to be known as the Institutional Mode of Repre- ceptance in Hollywood. However, this love at first sentation (IMR) (of which, perhaps a little rashly, sight between a European artist and the Hollywood classical American cinema is an updated catego- studio machinery is, as will be revealed in this arti- ry related to a specific place and time: Hollywood cle, only part of the story. from 1917 to 1960). While it would be fair to say L’ATALANTE 27 january - june 2019 47 NOTEBOOK · EXPERIMENTATION, AVANT-GARDE, AND DEVIATION FROM THE NORM “Lubitsch was the only one who fully appreciated WHILE THE POSITION THE IMR RESERVES the ellipsis lesson of A Woman from Paris. In fact, FOR THE SPECTATOR IS ALWAYS THE BEST the famous “Lubitsch touch”, which was in full OF ALL POSSIBLE POSITIONS (IN OTHER gestation in those years of the early 1920s, real- WORDS, THE POSITION FROM WHICH THE ly came into operation when he made Chaplin’s SPECTATOR CAN EASILY SEE EVERYTHING aesthetic experimentations his own, as evidenced CLEARLY), FOR LUBITSCH THIS PRINCIPLE by the practically identical style of the four films WAS FAR FROM PARAMOUNT he released in quick succession in the year and a half leading up to Lady Windermere’s Fan (1925), a monumental work in which the systematic use of that the position the IMR reserves for the specta- elusive tactics ambitiously proposed by Chaplin to tor is always the best of all possible positions (in distract the spectator’s attention from the frame other words, the position from which the specta- by dramatically activating the off-screen space3 tor can easily see everything clearly), for Lubitsch come into perfect harmony with the key theme in this principle was far from paramount. Indeed, Lubitsch’s filmography: the deceptiveness of ap- the quintessence of his style, which was basical- pearances”. ly defined by around 1925, reflects his desire to constantly challenge the spectator’s expectations THE OFF-SCREEN SPACE (Zumalde, 2002: 43), for example, by relegating what the spectator wants so much to see (motivat- The cinematographic frame is inextricably linked ed both by the forewarnings in the story itself and to the space that extends beyond its boundaries by the habits acquired through frequent visits to (Aumont et al., 1993: 24). For the IMR in the si- the cinema) to the off-screen space. lent era, this space lying outside the spectator’s At this point, it is important to acknowledge range of vision—especially in those cases where that the director of The Marriage Circle (Ernst the space will not be recovered later (and has not Lubitsch, 1924) was not the first to challenge been earlier) by the story, i.e. what can be defined the “phenomenology of the explicit” which, to as the permanent off-screen space as opposed to quote Imanol Zumalde (2013: 39), had become the the momentary off-screen space—must be, inso- “watchword of movies made in Hollywood in the far as possible, ignored. The realistic reconstruc- 1920s.” That honour of course belongs to Char- tion of the space on which the IMR is based would lie Chaplin, who directed a film in 1923 that was not be possible if this vaguely defined off-screen original mainly for its insistence on “suggesting space were constantly being evoked. The specta- rather than showing”, leaving it to “the imagina- tor must ignore this space, or better still, activate tion and intelligence of the spectator to draw the only that part of the space outside the frame that right conclusion” (Bourget & O’Neill, 2006: 91). supports the reconstruction of what Burch (1990) Nevertheless, it is worth adding that the vindica- calls an inhabitable space. Thus, as Gómez Tarín tion of the indirect style and the off-screen space (2006: 71) astutely points out, “in reality, the off- found in A Woman from Paris (Charles Chaplin, screen space is a contradiction for the IMR, which, 1923), ahead of its time and probably for that being unable to dismiss it completely due to the reason unprofitable (in commercial terms,2 that nature of the cinematographic image itself, does is), would not be repeated in Chaplin’s work. It everything possible not to expose it.” would, however, appear often in the work of Lu- For her inventory of the different forms of ex- bitsch. Indeed, as Zumalde (2013: 24) points out, perimentation in the classical style of the 1920s, L’ATALANTE 27 january - june 2019 48 NOTEBOOK · EXPERIMENTATION, AVANT-GARDE, AND DEVIATION FROM THE NORM Thompson (1993: 187-188) adopts a taxonomy pro- era; for example, in the exact identification of the posed by Bordwell (Bordwell, Staiger & Thompson, spatial relationships between on-screen and off- 1985: 5-6) to distinguish between films that break screen spaces. Obviously, this is a long way from with convention through their use of innovative the spatial ambiguity inherent in modernist cine- devices (techniques), films that do so by giving ma; nevertheless, compared to other films of the those devices different functions from the ones period, Lubitsch’s pictures relate to the spectator they normally perform within their system, and in a very different way. films that deviate from the norm by violating the In view of the above, it is important to clarify logic that determines the relationships between how this difference represented by Lubitsch’s work the three systems operating in narrative fiction became integrated into the studio system. As noted films: temporal, spatial and narrative. According above, although they did not create a big stir with to Bordwell, this logic is founded on the subordi- the general public (perhaps because the average nation of the spatial and temporal systems to the spectator of the period was not yet ready for the narrative system. German filmmaker’s oblique tales4), his silent films were well received by critics, professionals and ex- ecutives in the film industry. As Thompson (1993: BY ACTIVATING THIS SPACE BEYOND THE 188) explains, innovation was accepted and even BOUNDARIES OF THE FRAME REPEATEDLY promoted by the studio system, mainly because it AND IN DIFFERENT WAYS, LUBITSCH’S served as an effective differentiating mechanism. FILMS INTRODUCE A CERTAIN DEGREE OF Hollywood producers were interested in introduc- SPATIAL AMBIGUITY ing innovations into their films to facilitate differ- entiation (especially for the purposes of promotion and marketing of their products) of films from one Lubitsch’s use of off-screen space in his Amer- another in a highly standardised industry. In this ican silent films thus not only exposes the onto- respect, the films of the man who at the time was logical contradiction posited by Gómez Tarín, but known as the “Griffith of Europe” (Eyman, 1999: also to some extent violates the logic of subordi- 113) were quickly and unequivocally singled out. nation of systems described by Bordwell, Staiger Definitive proof of this could be found in the con- and Thompson. By activating this space beyond stant references (always vague and ambiguous) to the boundaries of the frame repeatedly and in dif- that very personal “Lubitsch touch” found in many ferent ways, Lubitsch’s films introduce a certain of the reviews of his films that were published in degree of spatial ambiguity, which sometimes (es- the 1920s (Thompson, 2005: 129). pecially in those cases where the off-screen space is permanent) has the effect of disorienting the THE PRINCE AND THE BARMAID spectator. In other words, in these films, mise-en- scene and editing decisions related to the manage- There seems to be a general consensus among crit- ment of space are not only aimed at reconstruct- ics as to the most substantial of Lubitsch’s silent ing a realistic space (Bazin, 1999: 91) that will allow films. Although in recent years there has been the spectator to follow the story being told as sim- increasing (and, incidentally, totally justified) in- ply and comfortably as possible.

Load more

  14

Copy Link