(In terms of audience response, the reverse seems true. Elizabeth Alione and Alissa by their fears and fascinations, prepare the viewer for the intrusion of the forest at the end. More to the point, isn't there a concrete feminist statement involved? Max Thor and Stein go in the forest but do not suggest its power or meaning. Specifically, you state that only members of the bourgeoisie are uncomfortable with the image of the forest in DESTROY. Feminism, of itself, involves radical politics so effectively that it seems to me unnecessarily dealing with too much to speak in terms of the bourgeoisie and social class structure. Conversely, I'm put off when you speak of the film in terms of radical politics. I'm turned on when you speak of the film in terms of feminism. Does that make sense?įinally, the point of view. You've got to make them SEE that film through your writing. Assume that most of your readers will never have seen a Duras film, never have read a Duras novel. Your ideas are very perceptive, but your language isn't very perceptual. to you?īarbara, I find your language very poetic, in fact, in places very much like Duras’ language. Do you think you could integrate the two more? Perhaps by concentrating our focus on a few particular scenes in which the counterpoint appears to be most effective. Your quotes deal with the film of the voices. Your text deals with the film of the images. Not until the end, however, do you really come back to that contrapuntal relationship. Some discussion of that point would further justify your using the novels to explain the film.Įarly in the discussion you mention the film of the voices and the film of the images. That is, DESTROY, SHE SAID is simultaneously a novel, a play, a poem, a film, a musical piece. I think it’s crucial to note Duras’ radical conception of multiple forms for the same art work. The reader loses track of the point and even starts wondering which are novels and which are films. The problem with doing them sequentially is that it’s too dry and in a vacuum. That way, you're not forced to do all three novels sequentially. In other words, at the appropriate moment, while discussing WOMAN OF THE GANGES, cut away momentarily to talk about The Ravishing of Lol. Stein, The Vice-Consul, and Love ultimately means a great deal in terms of WOMAN OF THE GANGES, but how many readers do you think will bear with you until that understanding comes? My suggestion would be that you constantly make WOMAN OF THE GANGES your focal point. For example, I wish you could integrate the quotes, especially those from Les Parleuses better into your text. Perhaps that feeling of too much is a problem of assimilation. It’s not clear exactly what your point of view is: aesthetic, feminist, political, all three. I think that perhaps you try to do too much: you summarize three novels, you allude to others, and you deal with the film(s). I was bothered (which means bogged down) by how you said it. More specifically, I liked everything you had to say. I really liked it and I didn't like it at all at the same time. Sartre said, “To see is to immediately recognize.” If true, then Duras’ films are doubly difficult in the sense that recognition demands a new kind of film-viewing mind-set: deliberately long takes, freeze frames, little or no movement within the frame, dialogues in monotone, mixed objective/ subjective camera, and symbolism, which, like the Surrealists’ involves a poetic lack of concrete referents (the forest, the fire, etc.).Īnyway-the article itself. Two years later, I saw it again, knew why and loved it. I remember seeing JULIET OF THE SPIRITS when it first came out and hating it because it affected me and I didn't know why. With much discussion, I finally convinced them that their hatred was a positive reaction and that, because of it, they would never forget it. All but ten of my students hated me for it. I even used it for a beginning film course. I've been dragging people to DESTROY, SHE SAID for a couple of years now. Needless to say, I was very happy to see something on Duras. For the context of this discussion see the editorial in this issue. John Hess’s reply to the present article follows, and is followed in turn by Martineau’s reply to Van Wert and Hess.
Martineau suggested printing his remarks with her reply. William Van Wert’s comments below were originally part of a letter to Barbara Martineau when the first manuscript of her article on WOMAN OF THE GANGES was being considered by the JUMP CUT editorial board. Duras dialogue by William VanWert, John Hess, and Barbara Martineau JUMP CUTĬopyright Jump Cut: A Review of Contemporary Media, 1975, 2004
0 kommentar(er)
