Solidarity Not Identification

Solidarity Not Identification: Straub-Huillet's Radical Cinema Author(s): Mark Fisher Source: Film Quarterly , Vol. 64, No. 1 (Fall 2010), pp. 46-52 Published by: University of California Press Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/fq.2010.64.1.46 JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms University of California Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Film Quarterly This content downloaded from 132.174.250.143 on Thu, 15 Sep 2022 21:45:41 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

SOLIDARITY NOT IDENTIFICATION : STR AUB – HUILLET’S R ADICAL CINEMA MARK FISHER reviews NEW DVD RELEASES OF FILMS BY JEAN-MARIE STRAUB AND DANIÈLE HUILLET “To love a painting you need first to have drunk it in like this, in long draughts. You must lose consciousness. Go down with the painter to the dark, tangled roots of things and rise up again from them with the colours, open up with them in the light. Learn how to see. To feel . . .” These words attributed to Cézanne, from Jean-Marie Straub and Danièle Huillet’s A Visit to the Louvre (2004), might serve as a statement of ­intent for the two filmmakers. The film distils many of the signature ­features of their craft: the use of an already existing text (it is said that their films use only a few lines of original dialogue, and in this case the text is the poet Joachim Gasquet’s book, Cézanne), the static camera shots, the lingering and ap­parently unmotivated pans across unpopulated landscapes. But here the filmmakers’ desire “to teach us how to see” comes without even the minimal sugarcoating of a plot: A Visit to the Louvre places us in front of paintings from the museum, with only Cézanne’s commentary for company. It ends with a 360-degree pan of a Tuscan hillside, whose re­ lationship to what has preceded it—long shots of fifteen works of art on display in the Louvre—is left oblique. Here we have a classic example of the so-called “Straubian shot.” Suddenly and seemingly inexplicably, the camera turns away to the landscape, remaining focused on empty space for a number of minutes, almost as if it has forgotten the film’s ­“official” narrative. This elliptical methodology means that, for Straub and Huillet, teaching how to see does not amount to telling the audience what they are seeing. Nothing could be more alien to the populist discourse that neoliberalism has naturalized than the idea that culture should demand something of the audience. “I don’t think much of democracy,” Straub says in an interview with Manfred Blank included in the new ­edition of Class Relations (1984), “because it’s always the lowest common denominator. We want the opposite of that— Film Quarterly, Vol. 64, No. 1, pps 46–52, ISSN 0015-1386, electronic ISSN 1533-8630. © 2010 by the Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Please direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through the University of California Press’s Rights and Permissions website, http://www.ucpressjournals.com/reprintinfo.asp. DOI: 10.1525/FQ.2010.64.1.06 46 the highest common denominator, the broadest common denom­inator.” Although there is definitely a pedagogic dimension to Straub–Huillet’s work, they do not instruct the audience so much as they demand a certain kind of partici­ pation—a participation that is far from Web 2.0’s twitchy inter­activity as it is from traditional cinema’s supine spectatorship. In her Democracy and Other Neoliberal Fantasies: Communicative Capitalism and Left Politics, Jodi Dean has argued that Web 2.0’s rhetoric of involvement is a cover for a “communicative capitalism,” and it’s tempting to see Straub– Huillet’s work as a kind of noncommunicative anti­capitalism. It neither prepackages a subjectivity for its spectators, nor does it force them to consume a message. The directors’ refusal to “communicate” means that the audience are never allowed to passively absorb the films. We must engage. Straub–Huillet’s work can be visually ravishing, but it never allows us to melt into the screen, either via absorption into a plot or by identification with characters (see also mubi.com/ notebook/posts/245). This Brechtian requirement that the viewer retain a critical distance is one reason that Straub–Huillet have a reputation for being forbidding. Their work has been inaccessible on a more banal level—few of their films have been released on DVD, and they remain largely unavailable in the U.S. It is difficult to know how to even refer to the pair. Up until Huillet’s death in 2006, Straub directed and Huillet edited, but they were effectively co-directors, and the convention has been to refer to them as “Straub–Huillet,” a designation that suggests an entity, tellingly, that is both single and collective. (Now, to add a further complication, it is becoming increasingly common to put Huillet’s name first.) Their work is evidently born of a sensibility formed in a different era. In his Cinema 2: The Time-Image (Athlone, 1989), Gilles Deleuze claims that, along with Resnais, Straub–Huillet are “probably the greatest political film-­ makers in the West, in modern cinema” (215). Both Deleuze and Straub–Huillet belong to the generation that emerged in fall 2010 This content downloaded from 132.174.250.143 on Thu, 15 Sep 2022 21:45:41 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Top left: Work on “Class Relations” by Danièle Huillet and Jean-Marie Straub (Harun Farocki, 1983). Top right: How Merrily I Shall Laugh: Danièle Huillet and Jean-Marie Straub and Their Film “Class Relations” (Manfred Blank, 1984). DVD: Edition Filmmuseum (Austria). Bottom two: A Visit to the Louvre. Fonds Images de France du Ministère des Affaires Etrangères. DVD: New Wave Films (U.K.). the moment after the repudiation of Stalinism but before capitalism had become the only game in town—a moment still characterized by the conviction that political art would have to be as experimental as the new social arrangements it hoped to engineer. It isn’t only the political context that has changed since (in a supposedly post-ideological era, Straub– Huillet remained avowed Marxists); nor can the difference between then and now be registered solely in the receding confidence of the avant-garde. In a moment dominated by what the writer Linda Stone calls “continuous partial attention” (see lindastone.net), Straub–Huillet’s work finds itself further than ever from the mainstream. What their films need is precisely the audience’s undivided attention, something that it is increasingly difficult for viewers to muster. Hollywood neurotically chases after attention as it flees and fragments; but Straub–Huillet’s films imperiously refuse to give any ground at all. Reduced to bullet-point summaries or watched with one eye on the laptop and one hand hovering above the fast-forward button, they yield nothing: these films belong in the cinema, with its darkness and its ritual separation from the rhythms of everyday life. What, then, are we to make of the release of four of Straub–Huillet’s films on DVD—Class Relations and Three Films: Jean-Marie Straub and Danièle Huillet, a set which comprises Chronicle of Anna Magdalena Bach (1968), Sicily! (1999), and A Visit to the Louvre? And how are we to watch them? On the one hand, it needs to be said that watching Straub–Huillet’s work on a television at home is unusually problematic. The domestic environment, with its multiple pos­sibilities for distraction, inevitably dissipates the concentration that the work requires. On the other hand, though, given that the films are so rarely screened in cinemas, these editions provide an invaluable opportunity—and perhaps even the only opportunity—to get at least an initial sense of the work. It has to be stressed that Straub–Huillet did not want their films to be watched only by film buffs and intellectuals; but perhaps FI L M Q UARTERLY This content downloaded from 132.174.250.143 on Thu, 15 Sep 2022 21:45:41 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 47

the audience that they did seek—the masses who would appreciate their brand of Brechtian modernism—has not yet come into being. Or—to be more gloomy—perhaps the moment when it might have come into being has been and gone. Deleuze writes in Cinema 2 that Straub–Huillet “know how to show how the people are what is missing” (215). After Hitler, after Stalin, Deleuze argues, it was no longer possible to believe that the masses were a readymade political subject that were about to take the reins of world history. The urgent task was not to organize the masses into a party, but to point to the absence of any viable revolutionary political subject—in the hope of bringing a new kind of subject into being. Revo­ lutionaries in the west, Deleuze claims, found themselves plunged into the situation of the third world, “where oppressed and exploited nations remained in a state of perpetual minorities, in a collective identity crisis” (217). Straub–Huillet indicated their solidarity with such minorities many times: take for instance Straub’s dedication of Chronicle of Anna Magdalena Bach to the Viet Cong, or his more recent decla­ ration that “as long as American imperialistic capitalism exists, there won’t be enough terrorists in the world” (2006 message to the Venice International Film Festival, www. mastersofcinema.org/straub.html). Straub took the side of the minorities (and himself entered into a kind of minority) when he fled from France in 1958, in order to avoid being conscripted into the Algerian war. :: Chronicle of Anna Magdalena Bach was supposed to have been Straub and Huillet’s first project together. The aim was to tell the story of Bach’s life from 1721, when he married Anna Magdalena, his second wife, up until his death in 1750. Straub and Huillet began work on it in 1954, but it was only realized fourteen years later, when it became their “first feature.” The inverted commas are necessary here because, like much of Straub–Huillet’s work, the film defies easy categorization. As Barton Byg relates in Landscapes of Resistance: The German Films of Danièle Huillet and Jean-Marie Straub (University of California Presss, 1995), Straub joked exasperatedly that the project was refused funding both on the grounds that it was a fiction film and that it was a documentary. Although the chronicle of the title was not a real historical document—Anna Magdalena did not keep a diary—this is practically Straub– Huillet’s only fictional contrivance. (The English author Esther Meynell wrote a sentimental book called The Little Chronicle of Anna Magdalena Bach in 1925, but the only thing that Straub–Huillet borrowed from this novel is its title.) Straub–Huillet synthesized Anna Magdalena’s so-called chronicle from historical sources, including Bach’s correspondence. 48 When one compares Chronicle of Anna Magdalena Bach with a conventional biopic, one is struck by two things: the centrality of music and the absence of any psychological interiority. Straub wanted the music not to be simply the background to the film, but the raw material from which it was made. Accordingly, the film consists for the most part of performances of works composed by Bach, presented in chronological sequence, and stitched together by a first-­ person narration by Anna Magdalena (played by Christiane Lang). Straub–Huillet were deeply sensitive to sound, and they insisted on the use of direct as opposed to dubbed sound. This film is at least as much about learning to hear as it is about learning to see. All of the music in Chronicle of Anna Magdalena Bach was performed and recorded on set—hiring the musicians was the main reason that the film turned out to be unexpectedly expensive. The performances are filmed with a near-immobile camera which stays trained on the musicians throughout; there are no audience reaction shots, indeed no sign of any audience at all. It is as if Straub– Huillet were counterposing the “real” of the musical performance—the music is recorded as it was performed, which was almost exactly the way that audiences in Bach’s own time would have heard it—to the supposed “realism” of mainstream cinema. Straub–Huillet make few concessions to the demands of this realism. Bach, for instance, played by the Dutch harpsichordist Gustav Leonhardt, shows no signs of aging throughout. But the filmmakers’ greatest deviation from biopic convention comes with their refusal to constitute Bach as a “well-rounded character.” Their Bach is a Brechtian cipher whose personality never comes into focus. The viewer is given no emotional hooks to latch onto. The fact that Bach and Anna Magdalena had seven children who died before the age of five is downplayed rather than exploited for emotional leverage. We learn of some of Bach’s disappointments with one of his adult children, but mostly Anna Magdalena’s narrative focuses on the quotidian details of Bach’s struggles with his employers, his commissions, and his money problems. Bach, then, appears as a worker. The film is thus a demystification but not a desublimation: Bach is not figured as a “great man,” but it is difficult to imagine a film that would showcase his music more reverently. In the interview that is one of the ­extras with Class Relations, Straub disdains the view that he identified with Bach, but it is impossible to ignore the parallels between Bach’s struggles and the difficulties Straub–Huillet had in bringing their film to the screen. Yet ultimately these parallels are not a question of identification but of solidarity. fall 2010 This content downloaded from 132.174.250.143 on Thu, 15 Sep 2022 21:45:41 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

sicily! Pierre Grise Productions, Centre National de la Cinématographie, Alia Film, Istituto Luce. DVD: New Wave Films. FI L M Q UARTERLY This content downloaded from 132.174.250.143 on Thu, 15 Sep 2022 21:45:41 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 49

The other two films in the set come from much later in Straub–Huillet’s career. Sicily! is based on the novel Conversations in Sicily by Elio Vittorini. Here we see an unnamed traveler (Gianni Buscarino) returning to Sicily after time away. “One of the main reasons Sicilia! worked,” according to Straub in Jean-Charles Fitoussi’s 2001 documentary, Sicilia! Si gira, “is that the bourgeoisie likes to have a protagonist with an initatic [sic] journey, and preferably to find back his/her mother, etc. That’s why Bach worked. One can’t change the vices of the bourgeoisie.” In fact, Sicily!’s traveler is a protagonist only in a very weak sense. He functions more like an interviewer, a slate as blank as Straub–Huillet’s largely static camera, speaking in turn to others with whom he is waiting at a port (they discuss the declining market for oranges), a group of men in a railway carriage, his mother (Angela Nugara), and a knife-sharpener. Perhaps the minimal concession to “bourgeois” narrative structure here allows some of their techniques to be more easily appreciated. There is another example of a Straubian shot: at one point during the railway carriage scene, the camera leaves the characters on the train to show instead the ap­ parently empty landscape outside for several minutes. I say “apparently” because it is important to question our unreflective assumption that such spaces are indeed empty. Deleuze maintains in Cinema 2 that, in Straub–Huillet’s films, an “empty space, without characters . . . has a fullness in which there is nothing missing” (245). One has to learn to see such “fullness,” which is not likely to be perceived by the casual viewer, who is more likely to find the Straubian shots frus­ trating and boring. How is Deleuze’s idea of fullness to be understood in this context? It is worth noting that Deleuze sees geology as continuous with politics. The idea of social “stratification” is not just a vague metaphor in Deleuze’s work, but rather an expression of the way in which both human populations and the earth are shaped by vast impersonal processes. The unpeopled is therefore not the same as the empty. In Sicily!, a (lost) relationship between politics and landscape is invoked when the traveler speaks to his mother, in a scene in which William Lubtchansky’s high-contrast blackand-white cinematog­raphy is shown off to magnificent effect. She recalls the old peasant culture, rooted both in a relationship to the earth and in politics. The scene turns on her contemptuous comparison of her husband—seemingly an effete sort of man who writes poetry for his lovers but who was too weak to help her when she was giving birth—with her own father, “a great ­socialist.” Sicily! ends on an unexpectedly joyous note, with the traveler and the knife-sharpener making a 50 list of all the things that make the world a “wonderful place.” Yet this feels like a comic-choric epilogue; it is the difficult exchange between the traveler and his mother that leaves the strongest impression. :: Class Relations is an adaptation of the Kafka novella that came to be called Amerika. (Kafka had originally preferred the title The Man Who Disappeared; it was eventually retitled Amerika by Kafka’s literary executor Max Brod.) Karl Ross­ man’s journey is the opposite of that of the traveler in Sicily! —away from home not toward it—but he is equally blank. Straub–Huillet’s strategy here is to make Rossmann sym­ pathetic but not someone the audience identifies with. Learning to see here means not replicating Rossmann’s self-understandings—or self-misunderstandings—but apprehending the class structures which he grasps only dimly. In the intriguing interview with Manfred Blank that is included on the Class Relations extras disc, Straub refuses to see Rossmann (Christian Heinisch) as a “protagonist,” referring to him instead as a “recurring character.” Rossmann does not have enough agency to be a protagonist. He is instead a victim of circumstance, sent to America because he was seduced by an older woman whom he impregnated. Projected out of his former position of class privilege, he finds himself among the dispossessed and the precarious, making temporary friendships and alliances with a stoker on the ship, a hotel cook, a couple of drifters, and a singer. In the notes he wrote for the DVD, Barton Byg, who worked with Huillet on providing the English subtitles, observes that “Karl Rossmann is not only looking for a ‘job’ as he wanders America but for a place in the world. For that reason, Danièle urged me to be very careful with the words relating to ‘Stelle’—which means more than a job. We considered the resonances among all the worlds relating to jobs, unemployment, and work which also connect to place and position.” The quest for a place in the world haunts Kafka’s characters: for K in The Castle, the position of land surveyor is also more than just a job, while, after his arrest, Joseph K in The Trial feels that his place has been lost and struggles in vain to regain it. Byg refers to a scene on the ship when, after Ross­ mann has interceded on behalf of the stoker, Rossmann’s wealthy and successful uncle tells him: “don’t push too far, if only out of love for me, and learn to comprehend your place.” Yet the overwhelming message of Class Relations is that it is not possible for Rossmann to “comprehend his place,” because he no longer has an assigned position. Cast out from his standing in the rigid hierarchical class structure of Old Europe, Rossmmann finds himself not so much in a land of fall 2010 This content downloaded from 132.174.250.143 on Thu, 15 Sep 2022 21:45:41 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

CHRONICLE OF ANNA MAGDALENA BACH AND CLASS RELATIONS Top two: Chronicle of Anna Magdalena Bach. Franz Seitz Filmproduktion, Gianvittorio Baldi IDI Cinematografica, Straub-Huillet, Kuratorium Junger Deutscher Film, Hessischer Rundfunk, Filmfonds e.V., Telepool. DVD: New Wave Films. Others: Class Relations. Janus, Hessischen Rundfunk, NEF Diffusion. DVD: Edition Filmmuseum (Austria). FI L M Q UARTERLY This content downloaded from 132.174.250.143 on Thu, 15 Sep 2022 21:45:41 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 51

opportunity where all are free to make their own destiny as in a world of perpetual anxiety—a world in which, as Straub points out in the interview with Blank, everyone fears losing their job. Class Relations is a film about the condition of ­precarity (short-term jobs and no long-term security) that ­increasing numbers of Europeans have been thrown into since Straub–Huillet made the film in 1984: we are all Amer­ ikans now. In the same interview, Straub also notes Richard Roud’s observation that the title Class Relations could have been given to ninety percent of all films—but here the title is deliberately ironic, and in a sense misleading, for the classes do not “relate” at all. Daniel Fairfax writes in “Jean-Marie Straub and Danièle Huillet” (Senses of Cinema no. 52) of the way that members “of different social classes inhabit ‘scenographic islands’ in the film, which are only crossed by violent gestures shown in elliptical fashion: a random hand grabs a throat, arms shove a torso out of frame.” Straub–Huillet underscore this nonrelationship between classes by the way that they use professional and nonprofessional actors. “Just as in Kafka characters in a position of power use a highly technocratic, verbose language to dominate their subordinates,” Fairfax explains, “so too do the professional actors playing them impart their charisma and ‘screen presence’ to manipulate the spectator, while the non-professionals playing the more lowly characters speak in mechanical phrases chopped up by drawn out syncopations.” Instead of relations between classes, there is only a “system of dependence,” as Kafka called capitalism (Straub tells Blank that this remark of Kafka’s was one of the starting points for the project)—but, evidently, the way that the rich depend on the poor is very different from the way the poor depend on the rich. Also in black-and-white, Class Relations’ America is fantasmatic without being oneiric—perhaps one of the reasons that Straub–Huillet chose to film this novella was that it meant they could avoid the dreamlike transitions and topographies which dominate Kafka’s better-known novels. But this is still a fantasy America, in that it is deeply European. What we at first think is the Statue of Liberty turns out to be the replica in the Seine, and the film was mostly shot in Hamburg. Partly this reflects a certain kind of immigrant ­experience—in the interview with Blank, the filmmakers note that Rossmann moves from German-speaking group to German-speaking group. But it also accurately captures the “America” that Kafka—who of course never visited the U.S. —described. Straub–Huillet’s America is as anachronistic as it is displaced—helicopters circle the Statue of Liberty, but when Rossmmann encounters a policeman towards the end of the film, the cop looks like a British bobby from the 1920s. 52 There are persistent echoes of silent-era comedies—appropriate, perhaps, since Kafka’s own fictions, with their mood of quiet panic, their pratfalls and the leering omnipresence of a pitiless Law, feel as if they could be grim versions of a Chaplin or Keaton film. The extras DVD that comes with Class Relations also includes Harun Farocki’s Work on “Class Relations” by Danièle Huillet and Jean-Marie Straub from 1983, which shows the filmmakers on set working with the actors, and Klaus Kanzog and Klaus Volmer’s 2007 Work in Progress: Genetic Analysis of the Sign Structure and Rhetoric in the Opening Sequences of the Film “Class Relations” on the Basis of Unused Texts, which is comprised of alternate takes. These two contextualizing films give an invaluable insight into Straub–Huillet’s working methods and into their very acute, minutely focused attention to detail: Farocki’s documentary, for instance, makes it clear that Straub–Huillet were at least as interested in the way that dialogue functioned as rhythmic blocks of sound as they were in its meaning. On set and in the interview with Blank, Straub and Huillet are a study in contrasts: he, sitting in a chair, a cigarette permanently clamped in his jaws, both garrulous and wary; she, sitting on the floor, her back to the wall, occasionally interrupting him—but more often being interrupted by him, yet always maintaining a quiet authority. In the interview with Blank, Straub and Huillet discuss the placing of the camera in Class Relations. They wanted the camera to have a point of view that was not “objective” but also that was not Karl’s. Creating this point of view was a technical feat that, Straub says, was akin to a chess puzzle. Again, the issue is not one of identification—the refusal to align the camera’s point of view with that of the Rossmann character denies the viewers that option—but one of soli­ darity. What could sum up their Brechtian Marxism better than the invention of what Huillet calls this “brotherly” point of view? MARK FISHER is the author of Capitalist Realism: Is There No Alternative? (Zero Books, 2009). DVD DATA Klassenverhhältnisse [Class Relations]. Directors: Danièle Huillet, Jean-Marie Straub, 1984. Publisher: Edition Filmmuseum. € 31.99, 2 discs. Three Films: Danièle Huillet and Jean-Marie Straub—Chronicle of Anna Magdalena Bach, Sicilia!, Une Visite à Louvre. Directors: Danièle Huillet, Jean-Marie Straub, 1967, 1998, 2004. Publisher: New Wave Films. £19.99, 2 discs. ABSTRACT A review of work by Danièle Huillet and Jean-Marie Straub—Chronicle of Anna Magdalena Bach (1967), Class Relations (1984), Sicily! (1998), and A Visit to the Louvre (2004)—which discusses the “Straubian shot,” use of sound and music, and the films’ demand for a fully attentive and “fraternal” form of spectatorship. KEYWORDS Danièle Huillet, Jean-Marie Straub, Class Relations, Sicily!, Deleuze and cinema fall 2010 This content downloaded from 132.174.250.143 on Thu, 15 Sep 2022 21:45:41 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms