堤

贯穿始终的旁白起到了解释剧情和表达感受与思绪的作用，与文本同步的是一幅幅如幻灯片般的剧照或图片的衔接来进行视觉叙事。电影作为一个年轻的艺术始终处于一种敞开的状态，它可以接纳各种新兴的手法和表现方式，而这种不断接纳的态度也是实验电影的最大意义。克里斯.马克用图片加旁白的形式来讲述一个科幻外衣下的爱情故事很有创造性，即使拿掉图片，光是旁白就已经可以构建起一个独立的故事。这一点与德里克.贾曼的《蓝》有着相似之处，只不过《蓝》是一个跟私人化的喃喃自语状态。本片故事设定在第三次世界大战后，巴黎一片废墟，人们移居地下，男主作为俘虏被掌权者们拿去做时空穿越的实验，过去和未来都可以去到。而在战争之前的年幼时代，男主在一次与家人一起在机场看飞机起飞的休闲娱乐活动间隙看到了一个女人，还看到了一个被枪杀的男人。这个女人的模样深深刻在他的记忆里。如今的时空实验，男主得以以现在的面貌回到过去见到了那个魂牵梦绕的女人，并展开了交流。他们在放满动物标本的博物馆里游荡观摩，女人已经渐渐习惯了这个随时出现、随时消失的男人。回到过去的实验成功了，实验科学家们便将他送到未来。未来建立在一个全新的星球上，人类重建了巴黎，新的秩序正在建立。未来的实验也成功了，男人没有了利用价值，于是掌权者打算杀死男人，未来的人类穿越到现在试图游说男人跟他们一起去到未来，但男人选择了回到过去，回到童年，回到第一次看到女人的机场，回到爱情诞生的时刻。而跟踪他一同回到过去的杀手在他奔向女人的那一刻杀死了他，这正是男人童年时代在机场看见女人的同时看见的那个被杀死的男人的时刻，原来他童年时看见的死去的男人正是未来的自己。这样一个时空穿越、寻找爱情、过去与未来存在于同一时空下却不自知，直到最后才揭晓谜底的概念在后来的不少主打惊悚、科幻的电影里都被不断重复使用。而本片用图片幻灯片式的影像来表现故事的方式在具有实验性的同时也加强了关于碎片式记忆的质感。一张一张并不连贯的记忆图片（碎片）相互拼接，这也更符合我们对遥远记忆的唤起方式。

谁愿看到自己的死亡过程？抛开感性的想像，理性的科学若能令你完成这项任务，不知道有多少人愿意尝试？答案低于50%则说明人还是感性的！但我没有统计过。 ―――韩兮 在写这篇影评前有必要将故事讲述一遍，不过确切地说，本片虽然不足三十分钟，但笔者却有种精神崩溃的感觉，我想大多数观众都会有这种感觉的，这与影片的表现风格是密切相关的，而影片所表现的故事及主题更是令人必须静下心来细心琢磨。 故事假定了一个重大的背景，那就是第三次世界大战，也就是所谓的核战争，此片拍摄于1962年，世界正处于一种极度的冷战状态，所以关于第三次世界大战的传闻经常会出现在媒体报端或一些政客的口中，以这个为背景是极具时代意义的。后来《十二只猴子》虽然借鉴了此片的创意，但背景则是一场灾难性的病毒。但此片中借用了大量二战后废墟的画面，虽然形式上是黑白的静止的图案，但更能给人一种沉甸甸的历史感觉，那种破败后的城市感则极度的震撼每一位观众的心灵。 回到故事本身，大战之后，幸存者显然并没有团结到一起，于是就有了掌权者与俘虏之分，但他们只能生活在地下，世界笼罩在核放射之中，他们过着老鼠一样的生活。于是，俘虏便名正言顺地成了实验鼠，掌权者要通过实验者的记忆看是否能够回到过去，这只是一个实验，没有阻止战争的意思。而这个被选中的俘虏名叫奥利。 奥利的记忆被清洗了，他需要一个新的记忆来完成对过去的回忆，其实这个过程无疑就是改变过去的过程，而那些掌权者的目的也是在于此，他们需要能够改变过去的记忆，当然暂时只处于实验阶段，于是就任由奥利所创造的记忆驰骋了。对于一个人来说，尤其是一个经过了战争后身为俘虏的人来说，创造的记忆都一定是美好的，于是，他想起了童年时在巴黎机场见到的那个风姿诱人的美女。这是一段关于爱情的记忆，其实并不存在，只是奥利创造出来的，但却令他感到了人生的美妙。 掌权者的实验获得了成功，他们让奥利继续着下一步的实验，而对奥利新产生的记忆根本不在意，无论美好与否，与这些疯狂的战争贩子这些疯狂的科学家们并没有关系，而下一步的实验是将奥利送到未来。实验在继续着，未来的人们却并不接受这个俘虏，未来的世界里没有俘虏，当然不允许奥利带着现代人的狂热而进入他们的世界，奥利失败了，于是再一次被关押了起来。但就在他沮丧的时候，未来的人们承认了奥利的情感，决定将他接受，可奥利却打算回到自己新创造的记忆中去，那里有一个美女正在等着他。 故事似乎无法圆满，未来的人虽然令奥利回到了战前，但战后的那些掌权者却绝不允许俘虏逃离，就在奥利奔向那个美女的时候，掌权者也出现在旁边，奥利死在奔向美好的路上，而此时，旁边站着一个孩子，孩子的名字叫奥利，他看到了美女，也看到了死亡，以致于这个孩子在战争后经受掌权者实验的时候创造了一段美好的记忆。 三十分钟的镜像讲述了一个离奇的时空转换的与人类记忆相关的故事，很有趣也很生涩。而影片最重要的创意并不是真人在时空中穿梭，而是记忆。这绝不是《终结者》式的科幻理念，而是一种形而上的思维方式。当新的记忆被创造出来的时候，那么过去自然而然地便改变了，记忆变得是如此强大，甚至有些可怕。但我们注意到，奥利所有记忆的源动力却是少年时在巴黎机场所看到的那一幕，阳光，美女还有死人。其中阳光与美女是他真实的记忆，而死人则是奥利后来创造记忆中的影像，只不过返回到战前而影响了少年奥利的记忆。于是，记忆变成了两种形式，一是强大的来源是由于童年的记忆，这种表述是符合现代心理学的，记忆即便可以被创造，但其根据必须来自于童年。另一种形式是关于记忆的轮回，也是一种丧失，奥利创造出来的记忆都由于美女的形象，这是儿时的记忆，而创造出来的记忆终点在于奥利的死，这同样是儿时的记忆。于是，记忆虽然强大，虽然可以改变许多希望改变的事情，但最终还是回到了原点，一个圆形的记忆，无论如何创造，始终不会脱离这个圆形的。 记忆到底是一个什么东西呢？影片用其形式来表述了关于记忆的概念，当然，这种形式也是造成观影者神经近似于崩溃的原因所在。记忆就是一个个的瞬间，失去了时间观念的瞬间，并且没有任何色彩。全片近三十多分钟，几乎全部都是由静止的画面构成的，而唯一动态的画面不足十秒钟，即是那名美女卧在床上眨了几下眼，如若不仔细看，恐怕这个动态的画面都会错过的。记忆是抽掉时间的，只是一副副黑白的画面，这是导演对记忆的阐释，而那个游离出来的动态画面却与整部影片所阐述的记忆无关，而是一种爱情的象征。在奥利创造的记忆中，每一次他与美女的相遇都是间断性的，这一方面是由于记忆本身只是一些画面，另一方面却是实验的原因，但我们作为观众可以理解到，奥利已经无可救药地爱上了这名女子，但这名女子呢？影片讲述者的线索全部都集中在奥利的身上，没有丝毫对这名女子的讲述，于是，女子的心理活动几乎根本不存在，这时便需要一种手段来体显，便是这仅仅几秒钟的动态画面，眼睛，眨动的柔情，于是，美好的爱情便全部阐释了出来，虽然简单，但却是极度清晰。 影片有两处组合的静态画面十分精彩，不但起到了叙事的功能更传达出导演的一种悲悯之心，第一处组合是借用了二战后的废墟，其含义恐怕不用多说了，这是一种反战的思维，一种对战争造成灾难的感叹。而另一处组合画面则出现在博物馆里，奥利与美女参观着那些比人类更原始的地球的生灵们，虽然它们都已经是标本了，但它们却可以冷静地关注着人类的所有行为，结合剧情中被人类毁灭的地球，可见这些最早的地球的主人们是多么地痛心。而奥利与美女的爱情在博物馆里升温无疑是对曾经的美好的怀念。 除此之外，影片大多以冷色调，高光来拍摄，在实验中，人物都处于一种狭窄而又阴霾的背景中。这种压抑感与奥利创造的美好，尤其那名女子的风姿形象形成最鲜明的对比。 影片的声音也是极具特色的，没有对白，只有一个男人冷静的画外音，在对这个故事进行着似乎有些漠不关心的讲述，在他讲述的过程中，音乐以及根本听不清楚的喃喃自语的声音时而响起，更主要的是在实验进行中那心跳式的音效。这些声音的运用对影片起到了强化的作用，尤其是喃喃私语的声音以及心跳声，都处于监狱的环境中，很明显地表明了人类生存的窘境以及奥利处境，而外界那种高调的音乐则在对比中多少令人怀念了。 整部影片其实是绝望的，甚至是相当悲观的。首先便是结尾处的点题，奥利向未来人提出请求，去追索自己的幸福，也是追求自由的过程，但监狱中的那个人却阻止了这一切。奥利并没有因为战争而死，却由于监狱中的人而死去。这无疑表明了两种可能，第一是战后的人们仍然没有丝毫的反省，这从地下监狱的存在便可以看得出来，他们掌握记忆技术的用途并不是去阻止那场毁灭地球的核战争，而是继续进行着杀戮，杀掉那些奔向自由与美好的人。而第二种可能则在于奥利，如果说记忆是他创造的，那么他便有了选择权，选择记忆中的美女，他创造了爱情也创造了美好，但他最终却选择了死亡，于是，奥利死于监狱头子的枪下。奥利的心中仍然摆脱不了死亡的阴影，他依然生活在死亡之中，于是他的所有选择与创造都只是奔向死亡。杀人者依旧是杀人者，而被杀者依旧是被杀者，世界根本没有任何变化。所以未来的人会拒绝这些战后的余生。 前面说过，影片拍摄于冷战期间，战争的阴影并没有挥去，都存在于每一个人的记忆中，即便可以放松心态，但这记忆却无法抹去。影片虽然用运了一个非常规的时空交措的故事，但事实上却讲述了战争对人类的伤害，这种伤害是极其巨大的，根本无法令人逃避，任何的美好只能存在于想象之中，那却并不是真正的记忆，而想象的最终结果还是美好的毁灭，这比那些记忆本身更为残酷。未来能够接受这些战争扭曲或被战争伤害的人们吗？这是一个疑问，也许是一个永远的命题！ 韩兮 2007于通州

Memory and photographic image :

Revisiting Siegfried Kracauer’s essay Photography with La Jetee

In this paper, I will focus on the distinctions and relations Siegfried Kracauer draws between memory, memory image and photography in his essay Photography, and show why, for him, it is important to maintain such distinctions and remain critical to photography. Then, by using Chris Marker’s short film La Jeteeas a typical experimental practice that integrates fragmented images to create new memory, I will show how Kracauer’s idea can be embodied in media objects, and reconcile Kracauer’s seeming self-paradoxical claims on photography and visual culture.

In photography, Kracauer emphasizes the differences between the nature of memory and that of photography, as “memories are retained because of their significance for that person”and “photography grasps what is given as a spatial and temporal continuum.” Comparing to photography’s record, “memory’s record is full of gaps” spatial-temporally: memory is not a spatial continuum because its “image” is fragmented and re-constructed based on the object’s significance to the person; memory is not a temporal continuum since “memory does not pay much attention to dates” that it skips time and place objects from different linear points of time on a same “surface” based on their importance to consciousness. However, from the point of view of memory, photography is partly consists of “garbage” irrelevant to the representation of consciousness. Memory-image can be understood as the visual component of memory; one shouldn’t confuse memory-image with memory itself, since memory is the multi-sensorialtotality that consists of visual data and that of other senses.

How does photography separate from memory-image, thus with memory in general? Does it prevent memory-image from functioning, or does it serve as a gateway to enter the dimmed areas of human remembrance? For Kracauer, in short, the liveliness of photography is determined by the consciousness that recognizes it, and “the more consciousness withdraws from natural-bonds, the more nature diminishes.”By “nature,” Kracauer is referring to the irreducible actual experience or history that the photography represents, as exemplified in the example of the grandma, in which the strength of the bond between grandma’s photography and children is determined by their actual memory of her. Photography, though itself merely a visual representation functions according to spatial-temporal relations, has the potential to evoke one’s memory of an object. However, photography can also be the death of memory, as “the flood of photos sweeps away the dams of memory.”In circumstances when memory precedes photography, photography acts like a reminder, a gateway toward the relating piece of memory across time and space; in situations when photography precedes memory, or there is no accessible previous memory that consciousness can relate photography to, photography acts like a strict manifestation of the real that the spatial-temporal relations it depicts dominate one’s imagination of history. Even in the first circumstance, photography has, to a certain extent, a destructive potential of memory since photography might replace memory’s integrity, turning it into a deviant of itself. To conclude, photography for Kracauer, in general, is the death of memory and its memory image, though it has a little potential to evoke the actual memory.

Comparing to photography, Kracauer seemed to believe in the potential of film, as he says “the capacity to stir up the elements of nature is one of the possibility of film.”Now, I will turn to Chris Marker’s short film La Jetee to analyse how this potential is realized. La Jetee, with its use of moving image in contrast to still image(photography), disjunctive editing and seemingly paradoxical narrative, blurs the line between memory and imagination, breaks the linear way of seeing history and offers a rich understanding on the intertwining relations between photographic image and memory.

La Jeteeis an experimental short film by French new wave director Chris Marker. It is a 30 minutes long “narrative slide show” consists mostly of still images, or photography, with an exceptional 8 seconds moving image. The story is set over the ruins of the third world war in Paris. The fascist regime won the war and reigns Paris with terror. The protagonist, a imprisoned man, is selected for a time travel experiment to obtain precious resources for the regime from past and future. The experiment operates on specimen’s bonds toward their memories and abilities to imagine----the reason that the man is selected since he has incredibly strong attachment to his childhood memory of a woman’s face and a man’s death at the airport. The film’s narrative time focuses on the course of the man’s investigationinto his memory, or perhaps imagination, under heavy surveillance of theexperimenters. The man revisits his childhood memories and relives his life with the woman of his dream. As he dives deeper into his memory-dream with her, the experimenter increases the dosage of shots. After the man is sent back and forth into the future and finally has the chance to be with the woman, he witnesses, or experiences, his own death.

The moment I want to focus on lasts from 18’50’’ to 19’50’’. The first 40 seconds of this moment is an assemblage of ten different photographs of the woman lying on her side in sleep. The camera takes the point of view of the man, as if he is lying before her and looking at her closely. These photographs’ varied camera distances and different duration times suggest the camera, and so the man, sees her in a intimate motion as he himself is lying on their shared soft bed. The fade-in and fade-outs between the photographs also contribute to the feeling of motion, though we know clearly that this is merely an assemblage of still images. When we reach to 19’34’’, the one and only 8 seconds moving image in the entire film appears--the documentation of the moment the woman opens her eyes. This is a crucial moment. If all the still images(photographs) before this point represent the man’s memory-images, this piece of moving image is trying to suggest that memory itself bursts out from this singular moment, breaking the shackle of any representation and shows its pure and clear form.

However, if we take a step back, reflect on how we arrived at this thought and think of the question “does photography generate memory, or does memory generate its photography,” we will see the underlying gap within this claim. From the base level, we are looking at nothing else but a sequence of photographs taken by Chris Marker. When Marker was interviewed by Libérationon the production of La Jetee, he said “It was made like a piece of automatic writing. I was filming Le Joli mai, completely immersed in the reality of Paris 1962, and the euphoric discovery of “direct cinema” (you will never make me say “cinema verité”) and on the crew’s day off, I photographed a story I didn’t completely understand. It was in the editing that the pieces of the puzzle came together, and it wasn’t me who designed the puzzle. I’d have a hard time taking credit for it. It just happened, that’s all.” Marker’s response suggests without doubt that for him the photographs precede his own memory in La Jetee, as the narrative was “pieced together” after the photographs were taken. However, once the narrative is established, it gains a life of its own. The man in the film generates the memory-images from his own memory, and the photographs that the viewers see are direct representations of his memory-images created by the film maker. In this sense, the originality of the man’s memory is desired by both the viewers and the film maker, as the film maker creates the montage of still images for the man’s memory to dwell on and reveal itself. The man’s memory structurally exists at the crossroad of this “co-desire” and reaches its extreme clearing when the moving image occurs, as if the man’s memory of the woman is so strong that it pierces through the photographic surface and illuminates itself. Thus, the relationship between memory and image(photography) is not a simple causation; instead, as exemplified by La Jetee, they are closely intertwined as the desires of the film maker, the viewers and the man unite to nurture the liveliness of the man’s memory towards to woman of his dreams through images’ mediation.

How is a sequence of photographic montage different from a singular photograph in terms of memory? For Kracauer, the singular photograph prevents memory from functioning because it is impenetrable by the actually history that it dominates what is understood as real, and it “attempts to banish the recollection of death”to grant eternity to the object. Photographic montage, with its motion and fleeting nature, is beyond one’s grasp and desire to possess the object. Photographic montage also has the potential to embody what the object feels like for one. For example, one can tell the “the significance in memory” emphasized by Kracauer based on each photographs’ duration times. In this moment of La Jetee, the duration times for each photographs are clearly disproportionate that it shows how the woman appears within the man’s memory as time lapses. The woman appears through the mediating effect of photographic montage can never be grasped to its totality, just as memory is a intimate connection to an object instead of eternal possession and banishment of death.

Kracauer is against historicism that seeks “complete mirroring of the temporal sequence”to recreate all meaning of history. La Jetee’s use of disjunctive editing style juxtaposes different time and space to create abrupt viewing experience, breaking the linear progression of time and history. At 19’40’’ of the film, right after the moving image of the woman opening her eyes, the image suddenly cuts to the cold and horrifying face of the officer. The contrast is so intense that the viewers might even experience a few seconds of disorientation, just like the man closes his eyes in disbelief right after that shot. A second ago the man, as well as the viewers, was spending sweet time with the lover of dream decades before; a few seconds later the man, as well as the viewers, is sent back in this cold and damp underground cell, being tortured like a dog. The juxtaposition of images in contrast here is also a juxtaposition of different time and space. Similar editing strategies are used throughout the film to create a non-linear temporal space, just as memory functions on its significance to consciousness instead of spatial-temporal relations. In this sense, La Jetee stands with Kracauer and provides an alternative practice against historicism.

In the last section of photography, Kracauer overturns his argument on photography to its Hegelian synthesis by saying that “the warehousing of nature promotes of confrontation of consciousness with nature,”and photography provides “the reflection of reality that has slipped from it.” Paradoxically, yet convincingly, the apocalyptic scenario generates its own immanent redemption. La Jetee, is the one of the astonishing outcomes of that reflective tradition Kracauer foresaw. La Jetee recreates human memory poetically on top of the spatial-temporal logic of photography. By using disjunctive editing and mixing the moving images together with still images(photography), Chris Marker revives the man’s memory image and memory, offering an striking anti-historicism practice. The fact that La Jeteeis set in a post war apocalypse is worth noticing. Under this imaginative apocalypse, memory, together with the human body it is bound to, is exploited as a resource. However, the man’s, the film maker’s and the viewers’ bond and desires towards the fading memory, mediated by creative use of images, penetrate through the iron shell of surveillance and control. Perhaps in apocalyptic scenarios, the bond to memory is our only connection to history and the oppressed dream. La Jetee, with its excellent use of experimental techniques, elevates photography to a height to contain memory under its static surface, whether from the imaginative future or reminiscent past, living up to Kracauer’s prophecy.