The Man with the Movie Camera

Watching the movie, The Man with the Movie Camera, was interesting from various angles. It was a movie that interacted at different levels and in different tiers. While watching it, I was reminded of the Burkeian Parlor. For most part the narration of The Man with the Movie Camera was linear, rendering it multiple entry points for the viewing audience. The effect of the Parlor could be evidenced from the multi-layered function such as a contrast between social classes (class struggle) by using Eisenstein technique of €˜dialectical montage,' that reflects the human society as a struggle between the classes; the beginning, the middle, and the end of a daily life cycle or life at a larger context (through the cross cuts of the lady giving birth, the quotidian occurrences, and the funeral procession); the synchronized pattern of action and sound; action and inaction.At all these levels we are simple engaging ourselves in the use of the terministic screens, where the shots/screens are directing the attention to one field rather than another€. And again, €œWithin that field there can be different screens, each with its ways of directing the attention and shaping the range of observations implicit in the given terminology.€It is in this range of observations that Vertov achieves the universal narrative of the genre of cinema. He uses the camera as the main protagonist along side the human as a walk-on player in the movie. As such, he uses the camera movements like panning, close-up, long shots, cross-cuts, eye-level, high angle, aerial view extensively to define outlines of the characters, which are both anthropomorphic as well as mechanomorphic. Vertov uses the technique of reflexivity by showing the image of eye on the camera lens, as tough to critique its own perceptions. The ubiquitous camera also transfers the sense of Foucaudian gaze to its audience€” the sense of perpetual observation.The Man with the Movie Camera is very thought-provoking, especially in face of our discussion about New Media and its idea freedom.

Reality Alibis

Buadrillard spews volcano of theories at us which erupt from disparate intellectual craters—Classical Marxism, Frankfurt School, Semeiology, Anthropology, Neo-Marxism? so on and so forth. But all his theories boil down to one main idea: is reality still with us, or are we immersed in fantasia of signs.He answers this doubt himself by foregrounding his abstruse theory of “simulacra.” Baudrillard theorizes that the society is not just buying into signs, but at the same time is busy controlling this code of signification. He upholds a new form class differentiation. The elite are not separated from the mass by purchasing power alone, but by their sole and privileged access to signs. I think this angle of class differentiation can be a useful tool of studying the modern cyber culture. We may here equate sign of power with information in its totality—accumulation, transfer, and distribution. The more information we enjoy or have the better situated we are, or so we think. As a result the modern distinction of power lies with the manipulation of information alone. But as we deal with this question of power and information does it matter what medium is at our disposal? Can we conform that “medium is indeed the message?” Is the World Wide Web exacerbating the social divide or is it the “final solution?”Baudrillard’s claims may sometimes look idiosyncratic, but putting them in a certain historical perspective might force us to rethink our notion of power, class, and above all information. As a privileged community who has considerable access to information, does it entail some degree of responsibility on our part?