Briefly, yesterday Benjamin, Romana and I went to the "7 Secrets of Highly Successful Research Students" talk and he discussed 2 Golden Hours of writing everyday. No distractions. My phone is on do not disturb and I've blocked access to all possible online distractions. 2 hours, no distraction, just writing. Sitting at my new desk in the Design Hub, pretty swanky.
Ok, so the second half of Corrigan's The Essay Film is on the different forms of the essay film, starting with the portrait and self-portrait film.
In About Portraying Expression Corrigan's discussion is, for the most part, about distinguishing the subjective expressionism of the essay film from other subjectivities present in other forms of film. In conjunction how the subjectivity within the portrait/self-portrait essay film distinguishes itself from other essay film forms. He uses three filmic texts to unpack this; Trinh T. Minh-ha's Surname Viet Given Name Nam (1989), Errol Morris's Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter Jr. (1999) and Derek Jarman's Blue (1993).
Corrigan begins his discussion by saying that not all portrait/self-portrait films are essay films and neither are all essay films biographical/autobiographical. From this, he suggests that it is how the portrait/self-portrait is treated which determines whether it is essayistic- "an essayistic way of seeing that subject" (80). What Corrigan considers to be an essayistic film subject is a
representation of a destabilized self as a central focus, topic, and, sometimes, crisis, a self whose place in a public history is at best on its margins or in some cases in an excluded or inverted position. (80)
In terms of the modes of the essay film and the representation of the subject it is where this "destabilized self" directs that "subjectivity, the public arenas in which they discover or place it" (80) which differentiates the modes.
It is at this point which Corrigan opens his discussion of the characteristics that are specific to the portrait/self-portrait essay film, in terms of distinguishing it from other essayistic form. In the case of the portrait/self-portrait essay film Corrigan suggests that the "destabilized subject" is emphasised through inter-view where different views of that self are pronounced to highlight the "forgotten image between two shots" in other words emphasising the gap between shots; what lies in between these different representations.
From this Corrigan unpacks Trinh's Surname Viet Given Name Nam as an exemplary example of how the use of close-ups emphasises this gap between shots, referring to Deleuze's discussion of the close-up in Cinema One. He considers Minh-ha's film as an exemplary portrait (not self-portrait) essay film because the film focuses on "numerous individuals who make up an entire nation and who collectively become one multiple subject" (81). This ability for the individuals to become one subjects is in the way they are treated through the use of fragmented close-ups (which seems similar to how Dreyer uses fragmented close-ups in The Passion of Joan of Arc). Corrigan here quotes Trinh in terms of her use of the close-up "to shift a center, to lighten the burden of representation, to displace a form from its settled location, and to create new passages through the coexistence of moments" (82). Hence, Corrigan contends that in the portrait essay film it is a "way of seeing that subject as much as it is about that subject" (85), and it is this which differentiates the portrait essay film, from say a biopic.
Of particular interest here in terms of the parallels between the portrait essayistic and online interactivity is again this space/gap between frames, referring back to Deleuze and the fragmentation of close-ups. In conjunction with Trinh's analysis of his film as "to create new passages through the coexistence of moments" (82). Somewhat obviously the ability to create new and also changing passages through moments is a characteristic of the Korsakow system, and the gaps are extended through user indetermination.
To clarify (more for myself than anyone else), Corrigan's definition of the portrait essay film thus far is a "destabilized self," topic or crisis which is treated in a way which empasises different views of that self to highlight what is missing/the gaps between each of those represented selves.
Corrigan backtracks (historically) to Hiroshima Mon Amour (1959), suggesting that it is this essayistic narrative which marks this "crisis of self-representation and expressivity in history" (87). Further discussing Johan van der Keuken's Face Value as a continuation of this crisis. Hence, it is at the juncture that Corrigan begins his discussion of the self-portrait essay film. He discusses these films from a postwar context as the differentiate themselves from the "more stable and coherent models of self shaped and sustained by traditional biopics" further suggesting that
what best defines the postwar essayistic subject and its unique potentials--at least I believe in the strongest essays--becomes its capacity to unravel, deflect, and undermine, through the grid of an experiential reality, the surfaces of the selves it presents. (87)
In other words the portrait essay film complicates the representation of the self because it shows a multiplicity of selves which are not whole views. Again, this is the emphasis on what is not revealed about the selves as much as it is about what is revealed in terms of revealing "that normally invisible ellipses between film frames" (96).
Corrigan discusses a few other things within this chapter that I think went over my head a bit as I am glued to the bits which connect to what I learnt through my honours year and therefore I have definitely focused on those fragments more than others. For instance, I don't think I have quite grasped some of Corrigan's discussion of the self-portrait essay film, and believe that this book will need a re-reading (I've got three years so I'm not too concerned about grasping every idea yet). At this point I'm working on connecting a few dots in terms of noticing, the essayistic and the materiality of online interactive video. In conjunction with having a more informed understanding of the characteristics of the essay film as this is a relatively new area for me as I move my practice within the context of nonfiction film studies. I am also writing this to start to collate writing which will become a lit review of sorts. Hence, this is rather drafty writing (realising that I've probably used the word suggesting an obscene amount of times). I'm also using this reading/writing time to formulate ideas in terms of filming and what would it mean to make an essayistic interactive online video. Reading Corrigan is definitely settling some ground in terms of films, other writings and theorising the essay film which I can spring from.
I'm slowly but surely making my way through Corrigan's The Essay Film and perhaps everything is making a tad more sense. I have finished the first part of the book which is more or less a history of the essay film. The first chapter highlighting the form of the essay, before film, and the second chapter discussing the early film essays, especially the 1940s as the watermark years of the essay film. Corrigan structures his discussions around filmic discussions at the beginning and end of each chapter, where for instance in chapter 2 the chapter begins with a discussion of Dziga Vertov and ends with a discussion of Agnes Varda (the chapter entitled "Of the History of the Essay Film: Vertov to Varda). Hence, the chapters are structured chronologically looking at the development of the essay and the essay film through time, whilst discussing the key elements which make up the essay film through these discussions.
Corrigan describes the essay film as
(1) a testing of expressive subjectivity through (2) experiential encounters in a public arena, (3) the product of which becomes the figuration of thinking or thought as a cinematic address and a spectatorial response (30)
What this basically amounts to is an active subject who has some form of experience/encounter with the world which makes them question their own place within the world, and in turn makes the viewer question the subject and their position to the world. This is not necessarily the all encompassing world, but generally a certain situation/problem within the world. Corrigan describes this as
not simply...the emplacement or positioning of an individual consciousness before and in experience but to an active and assertive consciousness that tests, undoes, or re-creates itself through experience, including the experiences of memory, argument, active desire, and reflective thinking. (31)
What I found most relevant within the first chapter of The Essay Film was his discussion of gaps which make the essay film and brought me back to thinking about this conversation between the essayistic and network materiality, and also back to Deleuze. This is especially discussed in Corrigan's discussion of Chris Marker's photo-essay "Koreans." This discussion also brings up lists and inventories as a means to construct the essayistic, which Corrigan suggests is what "Koreans" is mostly about.
In terms of space and gaps Corrigan discusses the space between images in "Koreans" and also the gap between image and text, which Corrigan describes as a "barely visible conjunctive place where the "and" opens potentially as the space of intelligence" (38). It is at this point where Corrigan refers to Deleuze (and I'm having some form of mental breakdown because I'm going to have to read Cinema 2, however I think it's more or less affect) where it is through this conjunctive "and" that "categories are 'redistributed, reshaped and reinvented' and so become 'problems which introduce reflection on the image itself'" (38).
So what is happening in my brain right now is this...and this is going to be a very unstructured thought process. I ended my honours on this note:
Through this process I have found a methodology of creating small descriptive interactive online video works made possible through a methodology I can apply to further research projects within an online and cinematic disciple. (60)
Apart from the rather odd double use of methodology I think that what I want to bring into my PhD is how to move my methodology and practice and thinking into a non-fiction framework, and hence the introduction of the essayistic. In Corrigan's discussion of the essayistic he constantly describes it as this form that thinks or as a form of ideas which I think has definite connections to the ways in which we were talking about Korsakow films as films about ideas. So in my honours I used Deleuze's ideas about affect to think about interactivity how within Korsakow films this in-between is extended and allows for greater affect. However, what I think also needs to be thought about is what makes a successful K-film/online interactive film, etc. ie. what can the essay film as a cinematic form bring to interactive online video? and more or less how can we theorise this? I guess basically theorising an essayistic interactive online video practice. So I was kind of thinking about this in two ways in terms of is say Matt's Ceci N’est Pas Embres (which he describes as a 'database diary') essaystic? and thinking about how the essayistic qualities of his film make it work as an affective interactive online video, and yet on the other end say repurposing Chris Marker's Sunless into Korsakow in and analysing it as an affective interactive online video, similarly as I did last year...
I don't think I've quite made it there yet with thinking about this...keep thinking...
