Certain Semi-Oblivion - Matěj Strand
Film both is and is not a part of material culture. The film strip itself can certainly be considered a physical artefact; however, all that derives and stems from it should rather be regarded as performative or ritual acts. This is naturally the case of all cultural phenomena; hence, we often refer to the so-called “social life of things”. Therefore, it is necessary to reinvent museums as each thing requires a certain context. Unfortunately, in cinematography, this fact is often overlooked. A classic photographic or cinematographic recording serves as a material gravity centre in relation to the almost perfect technological transformation of these artistic fields. It gives the impression of permanence in the sense of tangible time, or it rather saturates the desires for something of that sort, something that in itself survives. The need of an ideal “Original Film” that will last and serve repeatedly as a reference point allows us to forget the rest which has to be discussed, that is, unless we want to degrade films to mere material objects of our interest. This desire that can be attributed to the above-mentioned technological transformation and the overuse of terms such as “audio-visual content” is one of the most tempting mistakes that can be made when searching for the connection with our past.
Films by Čaroděj OZ and his company very well demonstrate certain film-object and film-event ambivalence. The material of the film strip itself is necessarily reflected in the film-event relation or this event reflects light passing through the material of the film reel. In itself, an event comprises all that does not cling to the original matter. Some of these circumstances can at least be reconstructed, others can be simulated. Such an attempt for restoration or simulation is finally even one of the goals of this academic edition which does not limit itself to merely using the film-object (i.e. the digital representation of the images preserved in the matter of Čaroděj’s films).
As mentioned above, the film-event is based on the screening of the film-object and this screening features many variables in purely technical terms which can only be simulated or reconstructed with much difficulty. Thanks to digitisation, the physiological aspect of the film event – the response of the sensory and nervous system to the discontinuous light perception on a certain frequency – does not need to be dealt with.1 – and even in the case of maintaining the technological principle of film screening there would be a large number of other factors (lamps used at that particular time, the characteristics of the projection screens, etc.). However, Čaroděj’s films were enacted in a unique way; they had their intros and endings, a variable screening speed and, most of all, a music soundtrack reproduced on the spot. The fact that the production of a combined sound copy together with the possibilities opened by magnetic tape technology was practically unavailable led to the creation of the specific sound component of Čaroděj’s films.
1 Unlike video screenings, film screenings are based on a real alternation of periods of light and darkness, when the light beam from the projector is obstructed by a rotating shutter, which enables the advancement of the film strip as well as the placement of a new frame into the film gate, and which increases the screening frequency (thus enhancing the credibility of the illusion of movement on which cinematography is based). In other words, during a traditional film screening, the screening room is completely dark half of the time.
I remember that at the first screening the guy who operated the projector asked: “What do I play to fill the silence?” He put on some record and the audience took it as it went. And I did not think this was right. I made it more difficult because I started using music not only as a simple background. Unfortunately, I had to use two tracks to be able to work with various moods. In the end, there was a rather simple film with a complicated soundtrack on a tape and I was the only one who knew how to play it. This is also one of the reasons why the film fell into certain semi-oblivion.
MORALESOVÁ, Alexandra: Interview with Lubomír Drožď (Prague, 7 August 2012), available on-line at <www.mediabaze.cz>.
Sound was added to the digitised films in the majority of cases using the original magnetic tapes in the editing room in the attic at the Film and TV School of Academy of Performing Arts. However, these again “could only be played by Čaroděj”. When giving out instructions as to where to speed up or slow down the digitised soundtrack, Čaroděj repeatedly recalled the hectic feeling when manually coordinating the running magnetic reels together with the film projector. The unusual liveliness and hectic character of this screening is independently mentioned also by other respondents, co-authors or participants at Čaroděj’s screenings (Vladimír Gaar, Pavel Veselý).
The technological and, in a certain sense, also political limitations thus resulted not only in the special mode of “underground” filmmaking, but also film watching. Not only thanks to the entire context of the screenings, but also to the each unique and more or less improvised screening event, Čaroděj’s films defy the above-mentioned degradation of films to mere material objects. It cannot be sufficiently emphasised that, to a considerable extent, these conclusions hold for each of the films and that each screening really is an event (and the film has to be enacted, implemented through and thanks to the screening).
The act of “authentic synchronisation”, that is the application of the soundtrack according to the author’s instructions, naturally deprives future viewers of Čaroděj’s films of the quality of uniqueness, however, this is not a reason for its rejection. It is perhaps mainly a study session where the careful manipulation with the original recordings provided all the involved parties with a detailed insight into a specific, historically rooted, filmmaking practice. If, at the same time, this historical practice is sufficiently clarified and viewers watch the digitised versions of Čaroděj’s films knowing that the experience is different from the illusion of watching the “authentic” screening, there is not much to criticise. It is naturally possible to imagine a sophisticated technical solution which would, in a way, simulate the original screening action, and to hope for an opportunity to reconstruct this event.2. To a large extent, this application is a side effect of the experienced luck which is rather contradictory to the opening quotation saying that “the medium of film is so unlucky that, unlike music, it cannot be recorded from one tape to another so that everyone can play it at home, and it cannot be distributed among people.” To put it briefly, the application takes place because the films cannot be “recorded from one tape to another”, which is also the last fact worth pointing out.
When speaking about the historical context and political circumstances, it is also necessary to take into
2 The outcome of such performative reconstruction could, for example, provide an alternative version of the current fixed soundtrack, which is a common practice in the case of the so-called silent films (where there are many alternative scores; their digital edition includes one or another recording, etc.).
consideration the question of the legal climate of the time. The two presented quotations lead to an absurd conclusion that although the digitised films of Čaroděj’s are much more available (“can be recorded from one tape to another”, or copied), they still face the risk of a “certain semi-oblivion”. However, this is not due to their “forced” exclusivity and unavailability but because of the newly developed multiplication potential – some of the original magnetic tapes which were “authentically synchronised”, as mentioned above, with the digital films contain copyrighted music. A certain understanding can be made in the case of Czech recordings; however, foreign works would require costly and time-consuming expenditure. However, the fact that Čaroděj’s films originated in a completely different legal environment (when the entire Eastern block was rather reticent in respecting the copyright regulations valid in the West) is only one of the remarkable circumstances of the present case.
The “reproducibility” and unprecedented availability of a copyrighted content on the Internet made any such violation of the licence rules visible, creating grey zones of tolerated and financially exploited minor offences (YouTube) and more importantly also idealistic pirate grounds (Karagarga, Ubuweb). In technological terms, traditional films in the form of a samizdat were difficult to make, however, the term film underground is applicable not only to a certain period of American avant-garde cinematography but it also in many respects describes the works of Čaroděj and the like. Similarly to Čaroděj, many authors of the American film underground ignored the copyright legislation (more relevant in the case of the USA) and their works – like Čaroděj’s works – were walking the fine line of illegality at the time of their historic reflection. It is necessary to justify these works with reference to study purposes or let them float on pirate seas (and it should be noted that the academic context and the world of piracy – frequently blend together.3). Not even the material of the preserved films has another possibility, despite today’s technical possibilities (or perhaps because of them?), than to remain in certain underground oblivion. And it might stay there until a new intersection point is defined between the protection of the original authors and public interest with respect to creativity and – not only in the case of film heritage – memory.
If we identify with the opening premise that we are more interested in this aspect than in the original material, we can acknowledge with a bitter smile that Čaroděj’s digitised films will retain the quality of special events also in the future. It would be entirely inappropriate to attempt to simulate or reconstruct the social context of the time and the home and semi- public screenings for people in the present. However, the very principle of the screening event – even in the presence of the author-projector operator-presenter – can be reconstructed. And even if the film reel is replaced by a disc with digital images, each apparent materialisation on the screen or monitor can be – for the above-stated reasons – a unique study session. In spite of certain semi-oblivion.
3 Nevertheless, this amicable connection between the academic and pirate scene brings about one substantial risk, which is especially imminent now, that piracy is a common practice although principally not acknowledged or discussed. I believe that academic and memory institutions should guarantee correct and adequate, and perhaps also, the authentic provision preservation of cultural works from the past. Piracy, however, still emphasises accessible content thus often compromising higher informativeness or critical approach for example when assessing qualitatively (and genealogically) different versions of one work, etc. In other words, collective distribution is difficult to “curate”. In the case of Čaroděj’s films, this concerns, for example, key information regarding the soundtrack or other contextual facts that could – in the case of pirate distribution – be omitted.