Abstracts
Abstract
This article explores two recent documentary films, one of which may not be a documentary, the other of which may not be a film. Although starkly different in their subject matter and political stakes, both Catfish (Ariel Schulman and Henry Joost, 2010) and This Is Not a Film (Jafar Panahi and Mojtaba Mirtahmasb, 2011) point to underappreciated dimensions of filmic realism, in particular its propensity to evoke what I will call Real-ism—i.e. hints of the Real that emerge precisely when the symbolic framework governing reality becomes imperiled. Drawing upon Jacques Lacan’s notion of the Real and Jacques Rancière’s concept of the “aesthetic regime,” I will suggest that elements of conventional filmic realism have the potential to produce a politically destabilizing Real-ism which, rather than involving the representation of reality in any recognizable form, calls forth that which is necessarily excluded/repressed from the symbolic framework.
Résumé
Cet article porte sur deux films documentaires récents, dont l’un n’est peut-être pas un documentaire, tandis que l’autre affirme ne pas être un film. Bien qu’ils diffèrent grandement quant à leur sujet et à leurs enjeux politiques, Catfish (Ariel Schulman et Henry Joost, 2010) et Ceci n’est pas un film (In film nist, Jafar Panahi et Mojtaba Mirtahmasb, 2011) font tous deux ressortir une dimension méconnue du réalisme cinématographique, à savoir sa propension à faire surgir ces fragments de réel qui font irruption précisément lorsque le cadre symbolique qui gouverne la réalité est mis en péril. En s’appuyant sur les concepts de « Réel » (Jacques Lacan) et de « régime esthétique » (Jacques Rancière), l’auteure suggère que les éléments constitutifs du réalisme traditionnel peuvent produire un « Réelisme » politiquement déstabilisant qui, plutôt que de représenter la réalité de manière reconnaissable, fait émerger ce qui est nécessairement rejeté ou exclu du cadre symbolique.
Appendices
Bibliography
- Baumbach 2010: Nico Baumbach, “Jacques Rancière and the Capacity of Documentary.” New Review of Film & Television Studies, vol. 8, no. 1, March 2010, pp. 57-72.
- Bazin 1960: André Bazin, “The Ontology of the Photograph,” trans. Hugh Gray. Film Quarterly, Volume 13, Number 4 (Summer 1960), pp. 4-9.
- Bazin 2002: André Bazin, “Death Every Afternoon.” Rites of Realism, ed. Ivone Margulies, Duke University Press, 2002, pp. 27-31.
- Clarke 2012: Cath Clarke, “Review of This Is Not a Film.” Time Out London, no. 2171, March 29-April 4, 2012, http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/90841/this-is-not-a-film.html.
- Conley 2005: Tom Conley, “Cinema and its Discontents: Jacques Rancière and Film Theory.” SubStance, vol. 34, no. 3 (2005), pp. 96-106.
- Daney 2002: Serge Daney, “The Screen of Fantasy (Bazin and Animals),” trans. Mark A. Cohen. Rites of Realism, ed. Ivone Margulies, Durham, Duke University Press, 2002, pp. 32-41.
- Frosch 2011: Jon Frosch, “Banned Iranian Director Jafar Panahi Makes a Movie, and a Statement.” France 24, 2011, http://www.france24.com/en/20110926-banned-iranian-director-jafar-panahi-makes-movie-statement-this-is-not-a-film-mirtahmasb/.
- Hansen 1997: Miriam B. Hansen, “Introduction,” Sigfried Kracauer, Theory of Film: The Redemption of Physical Reality, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1997, pp. vii-xlvii.
- Hudson 2011: David Hudson, “Cannes 2011: Jafar Panahi’s ‘This Is Not a Film.’” MUBI, May 21, 2011, http://mubi.com/notebook/posts/cannes-2011-jafar-panahis-this-is-not-a-film.
- Hutcheson 2010: Scott Hutcheson, “CATFISH: Real or Fake? It’s a fake . . . sort of.” Very Aware, 17 September 2010, http://veryaware.com/2010/09/catfish-real-or-fake-its-a-fake-sort-of/.
- Kasman 2012: Daniel Kasman, “Notebook review: Jafar Panahi and Mojtaba Mirtahmasb’s ‘this is Not a Film.’” MUBI, 29 February 2012. https://mubi.com/notebook/posts/notebook-reviews-jafar-panahi-and-mojtaba-mirtahmasbs-this-is-not-a-film.
- Kouvaros 2008: George Kouvaros, “‘We Do Not Die Twice’: Realism and Cinema.” The SAGE Handbook of Film Studies, eds. James Donals and Michael Renov, London, SAGE Publications, 2008, pp. 376-90.
- Margulies 2003: Ivone Margulies, “Bodies Too Much.” Rites of Realism, ed. Ivone Margulies, Durham, Duke University Press, 2003, pp. 1-25.
- Milzoff 2010: Rebecca Milzoff, “Can You Believe This?” NY Magazine, 12 September 2010, http://nymag.com/movies/features/68100/.
- Panahi and Mirtahmasb 2011: Jafar Panahi and Mojtaba Mirtahmasb, directors, This Is Not a Film, 2011.
- Rancière 2006: Jacques Rancière, Politics of Aesthetics. London, Continuum, 2006.
- Rancière 2007a: Jacques Rancière, The Future of the Image, trans. Gregory Elliott. London, Verso, 2007.
- Rancière 2007b: Jacques Rancière, “Jacques-Rancière Interview 2007”, Void Manufacturing, 2007, http://voidmanufacturing.wordpress.com/2008/10/15/jacques-Rancière-interview-2007.
- Rancière 2009a: Jacques Rancière, Aesthetics and its Discontents, trans. Steven Corcoran. London, Polity Press, 2009.
- Rancière 2009b: Jacques Rancière, The Emancipated Spectator, trans. Gregory Elliott. London, Verso, 2009.
- Rosen 2002: Philip Rosen, “History of Image, Image of History: Subject and Ontology in Bazin.” Rites of Realism, ed. Ivone Margulies. Durham, Duke University Press, 2002.
- Schulman and Joost 2010: Ariel Schulman and Henry Joost, directors, Catfish, 2010.
- Solon 2010: Olivia Solon, “Catfish review and interview with Nev Schulman.” Wired, 10 December 2010, http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-12/10/catfish-review-and-interview?page=all.
- Vancheri 2012: Barbara Vancheri, “‘Catfish’ swears it’s all true.” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 3 July 2012, http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10274/1091655-60.stm.
- Žižek 2001: Slavoj Žižek, The Fright of Real Tears. London, BFI, 2001.
- Žižek 2008: Slavoj Žižek, Der Ärger mit dem Realen. Troubles with the Real, Wien, Sonderzahl, 2008.