The interesting thing here is the fundamental ambiguity and plurality of meaning of filmic images. Within the aesthetic regime, as we have seen, images and signs are always more and less than simple representations of a pre-existing reality; they are more because they harbour the unfulfilles promise of a deeper meaning and they are less because they forever hide this meaning from us, remaining mute. Like all films - documentary or otherwise - le teem d’alexander derives its aesthetic force from its use of fabulation. The fable, as understood by ranciere, is a specific way of organizing and reorganizing reality, or representing it and presenting it.
Rancher argues that fabulation is common to all film. The fable, however, consists of the creation of a gap within this narrative that ensures that the narratives becomes unhinged, opens up for multiple meaning. ?even the most classical of cenematohraphic forms, the ones most faithful to the representative tradition of carefully arranged accidents, clearly defines characters, and neatly composed images, are affected by this gap, evidence enough that the film fable belongs to the aesthetic regime of art (1006a:15). The fable consists of a series of discrepancies: discrepancies between what is said and what is seen, between what i s seen and what can be seen. Modernism in Film is merely an extreme, purified form of this procedure of fabulation. More precisely, modernism is a radicalized version of what is even more interesting in its more balanced form: the deregulated and deregulating fable of film. It tries to isolate ine aspect of the fable while obfuscating or filtering out the other aspects.
The fable, Ranciere explains, is concerned with the ‚mise-enscène of a mise-en-scène‘ and with a ‚counter-movements that affects the arrangement of incidents and shots, automatism separating the image from movements, voicee hollowing to the visible’ (2006a:15). Still the documentary differs in its use of fabulation in that it is not bound to producing a reality effect by presenting its viewers with recognizable stereotypes and predictable plotlessness: because it does not have convince people that its story is real, the documentary has the unique opportunity not just to male its viewers feel that it is dealing with history, but to question history, rework it, and ask how history becomes what it is for us. This is the value of le tombeau d’alexander for Rancièere. The documentary not only presents the lifee and work of Alexander Medvedkin, it presents the essence of the film fable and its relation to history. in accordance with a modernistic logic, Marker isolates images in order to give them a specific discursive force: the become pure historical referents or pure spectacle. We can see this principle at work in his use of found footage of the stars, the Russian Revolutionand so on. And yet these images are no longer used as immediate historical referents. Instead they are used to question the very idea of images as historical referents. Medvedkin and his time thus become an enigma. The documentary’s function is not simply to represent Mededkin in his time but also to question the enigmatic history of the twentieth century and the role of images in it. This is what the film fable is all about in the case of documentary
Ranciere and Filmvon Paul Bowman
Rancher argues that fabulation is common to all film. The fable, however, consists of the creation of a gap within this narrative that ensures that the narratives becomes unhinged, opens up for multiple meaning. ?even the most classical of cenematohraphic forms, the ones most faithful to the representative tradition of carefully arranged accidents, clearly defines characters, and neatly composed images, are affected by this gap, evidence enough that the film fable belongs to the aesthetic regime of art (1006a:15). The fable consists of a series of discrepancies: discrepancies between what is said and what is seen, between what i s seen and what can be seen. Modernism in Film is merely an extreme, purified form of this procedure of fabulation. More precisely, modernism is a radicalized version of what is even more interesting in its more balanced form: the deregulated and deregulating fable of film. It tries to isolate ine aspect of the fable while obfuscating or filtering out the other aspects.
The fable, Ranciere explains, is concerned with the ‚mise-enscène of a mise-en-scène‘ and with a ‚counter-movements that affects the arrangement of incidents and shots, automatism separating the image from movements, voicee hollowing to the visible’ (2006a:15). Still the documentary differs in its use of fabulation in that it is not bound to producing a reality effect by presenting its viewers with recognizable stereotypes and predictable plotlessness: because it does not have convince people that its story is real, the documentary has the unique opportunity not just to male its viewers feel that it is dealing with history, but to question history, rework it, and ask how history becomes what it is for us. This is the value of le tombeau d’alexander for Rancièere. The documentary not only presents the lifee and work of Alexander Medvedkin, it presents the essence of the film fable and its relation to history. in accordance with a modernistic logic, Marker isolates images in order to give them a specific discursive force: the become pure historical referents or pure spectacle. We can see this principle at work in his use of found footage of the stars, the Russian Revolutionand so on. And yet these images are no longer used as immediate historical referents. Instead they are used to question the very idea of images as historical referents. Medvedkin and his time thus become an enigma. The documentary’s function is not simply to represent Mededkin in his time but also to question the enigmatic history of the twentieth century and the role of images in it. This is what the film fable is all about in the case of documentary
Ranciere and Filmvon Paul Bowman
