Dominant Cinema and the Stereotypical Image

“The stereotype is the word repeated without any magic, any enthusiasm, as though it were natural, as though by some miracle this recurring word were adequate on each occasion for different reasons, as though to imitate could no longer be sensed as an imitation: an unconstrained word that claims consistency and is unaware of its own insistence.  Nietzsche has observed that ‘truth’ is only the solidification of old metaphors.  So in this regard the stereotype is the present path of “truth,” the palpable feature which shifts the invented ornament to the canonical, constraining form of the signified” (Roland Barthes – The Pleasure of the Text)

Ultimately, I’m drawn back to Francois Truffaut’s Day for Night because, in my estimation, the film is utterly more complicated than we give credit.  Taking a cue from Roland Barthes, one might imagine that Truffaut is interested in gesturing towards the “stereotype”; the stereotypical and canonical image; the dominant Hollywood image – and, even, the forces that affect its production (i.e., the “contemptible, pampered, [and] unreasonable class of people” to which DeGregoris alludes in his response).  Arguably, although the film is largely about this group of “people,” it is also, as I assume DeGregoris would agree, necessarily concerned with the type of production processes and decisions that occur with regard for the conventional Hollywood film; the sets of practices and understandings (perhaps even ideologies) that inevitably shape dominant cinematic forms.  In reference to DeGregoris’ post, it seems apropriate that he precludes his scathing criticism with an allusion to Marlon Brando, perhaps one of the most recognizably mainstream actors of all time.  This is not to say that the production problems that Truffaut documents are necessarily limited to the mainstays of Hollywood cinema (i.e., studio sets).  Although I’m sure French New Wave directors spared themselves some discomfort, at least initially, by casting less “pampered” actors and actresses, one can be assurred that certain problems arose (I’m thinking specifically of Godard’s difficulties with Anna Karina). 

As a brief aside, following on this lead, there might be room to read the black and white dream sequences, to which DeGregoris alludes, as being indicative of something other than Truffaut’s childhood affinity for cinema.  Perhaps, considering that Day for Night is largely in color, Truffaut is alluding to the greater ease with which he was able to produce films before big budgets and producer oversight; when the French New Wave was really just in its very infancy.  If one wants to read the film as being representative of the complications that are beginning to arise for New Wave directors, a move that Seewood dramatizes in his post, the dream sequences remain just that; representative of earlier and less problematic times.  Or, in Seewood’s terms, these sequences seem reminiscent of something before the “pathetic” sell-out. 

“But back to the lecture at hand…”

Ultimately, whatever the severity of the gesture might be, I refuse to read this film as anything other than a criticism of dominant Hollywood cinema.  Unlike Seewood, I’m not particularly fond of reading Day for Night as Truffaut’s admission of guilt.  When Seewood argues, “that Truffaut had become what he so despised in his article, “A Certain Tendency in French Cinema,” he takes the self-reflexive gesture in the wrong direction.  Though Truffaut is, without a doubt, incredibly self-aware, the film is perhaps only concerned with the potentiality of selling out.  As I argued previously, Truffaut is enabled the opportunity to make a film that he never would have only because he is able to maintain his distance.  Truffaut places the film in quotations allowing an interesting and critical void to emerge.  Day for Night is less of a “what have I done?” realization than a “I hope this isn’t where all cinema is headed” observation on Truffaut’s behalf.  With regard to the aforementioned response, it almost seems as if Seewood forgets exactly how aware Truffaut is.  It isn’t as though Truffaut began making the film only to realize that he had sold out.  The mise-en-scene is so purposefully theatrical that one must ultimately applaud Trufaut’s rendering of Hollywood cinema. 

Returning to Barthes’ theory with regard for the stereotypical, one can see that Truffaut repeats the image purposefully.  Perhaps, in a rather simplistic sense, Truffaut realizes that he can employ the stereotypical for critical purposes.

Hopefully, I’ll have more on this a little later.

~ by 1jargoncomputer on November 16, 2008.